Human Rights Watch Report:
"No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the United States."

Apparently Family Watchdog and the Human Rights Watch have met to discuss the claims made by FW against the HRW report. In essence, they agree on one point, that they both support preventing sexual violence, and that is where consensus ends. Their "Statement of Cooperation" is on the HRW site dated 10-3-2007, there has been no collaboration between these organizations since that date;nothing.

In addition, FW announces the most insane program I have ever heard of, they propose, anyone -including RSOs- may submit CERTIFIED COURT and OTHER DOCUMENTS realted to the RSOs' crime to FAMILY WATCHDOG, so they may make them available to the public. But, read carefully, FW would then be a Central Repository of criminal records, stored in Indiana.

Then if someone wants to assess the risk of a RSO, they would have to -fly, drive, take a train, etc.- to Indiana where the records are stored, and by some magical means, read the documents and be able to determine the risk the RSO presents to the community. FW will not be assessing RSOs.

Any reasonable person can see the falacy of such a risk determination, those documents would be at the point of the crime and will not reflect what the RSO is like in today's light. FW, like so many politicians, are stuck in history refusing to recognize the RSOs' accomplishments, changes and system reforms since the crime. FW proposes such a system because it fosters a need for their cottage industry.

Further, FW made claims -unsupported by evidence- of the HRW's report. And, FW promised a full report by 9-17-07, none has ever been published. Now FW expects to be entrusted with documents when there are no laws protecting those documents or governing Family Watchdog's use of them. I would never recommend such a system in the hands of an uncontrolled and unregulated private party.

Note: Look closely at the documents FW will accept, then look closer at the documents FW will reject. FW will reject anything not on a public registry. None of what they will accept is on any public registry. Should someone want to assess the risk of a RSO and not live in Indiana, will FW then charge a fee to copy the records and mail them? Another cottage industry, and hopefully not a source for the newspapers.

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Sex Offender Registry Mapping (SORM) Websites Research


Update: Due to our continuing research on this topic, and more recent developments, we have moved this research to our Research Blog on Mapping Websites. See updates there.
Posted by at 11:00 AM
Labels:

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)