|
|
|
|
Site Best Viewed FULL SCREEN with Firefox or Internet Explorer at 800X600 or better Resolution!
|
|
In his This I Believe commentary, aired in 1951, Edward R. Murrow said; “We hardly need to be reminded that we are living in an age of confusion—a lot of us have traded in our beliefs for bitterness and cynicism or for a heavy package of despair, or even a quivering portion of hysteria… There is a mental fear, which provokes others of us to see the images of witches in a neighbor’s yard and stampedes us to burn down their house.” SOSNet is a resource for all activists wanting to see real solutions to the sex offender problem. This is a very complex issue and casting a broad net is detrimental to our society. Rational actions need to replace inaction and lethargy. Courageous citizens, responsible leaders, and ethical journalist can make a difference. Our mission is to dispel the myths, lies and misconceptions about sex offenders with facts and truth, making all families safer.
Some of the areas you will definitely want to view on your first visit here are:
We do not condone,
in any way, abuse, especially the sexual abuse of women and children. We do not,
and will never make excuses for former offenders or their offenses. We believe
that repeat offenders need to be separated from society, and released
conditionally on proof of reform. We do acknowledge the fact that false
accusations are made, people make mistakes (even stupid ones) and believe each
case should be judged on its own merits, using empirical evidence and not
hearsay. We know that people can change, improve themselves, and accomplish
their own human revolution. We encourage you to approach this issue with an open
mind and value the essence of every person’s humanity.
The CDC (Center for Disease Control)
has stated that sexual abuse is first and foremost a PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE before
it becomes a Criminal Justice issue. Therefore, two steps must be taken right
away; (1) we need to restore the sex offender registries to their original
intent, that is to track ONLY the most dangerous or high-risk offenders and
absconders, removing lower risk offenders. Medium risk offenders would move on
or off the registry according to their Risk Assessment by therapist, and
probation professionals. This WILL MAKE monitoring more efficient for law
enforcement and effective for communities.
President John F. Kennedy once said: “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
We must have more faith in ourselves than in government to solve this problem. In lieu of fostering a fearful witch-hunt mentality for advertising dollars and higher ratings, the media needs to step up to this societal challenge. They should strive to end the myths and create an environment for intelligent solutions. Lawmakers should immediately end the pandering of panic for votes, take the lead in finding real solutions, and pass laws that not only create real safety for all citizens but also protect constitutional rights and are cost effective.
Note: The information on this web site based on hundreds of hours of research, however is NOT intended to be used as legal advice. If you are being investigated, or accused of crime against a child, seek the help of a licensed attorney, who specializes in child abuse cases, from your State Bar Association today. General practice attorneys do not have the skills to represent you in these types of cases and by delaying contacting a competent attorney; you will be placing yourself and your family in jeopardy. Click the button below to read an article by a practicing attorney.
Why should I be concerned? Our current laws, consisting of the registries and proximity (safety zones or banishment) are actually working against the desired results. A newly released book by Eric S. Janus, Vice Dean, William Mitchell College of Law speaks to this and offers suggestions. A recent report in California showed the dangerous ground and slippery slope we are on as long as we continue to allow our politicians to pander myths for votes and allow our media to sensationalize the news for ratings and dollars.
The California report states: "Advocates believe that residency restrictions diminish the likelihood that sex offenders will come in contact with children whom they might victimize. However, there is little research-based evidence that residency restrictions actually reduce recidivistic sexual violence. Some research suggests that residency restrictions may lead to serious unintended collateral consequences for offenders, such as limiting their opportunities for employment, treatment services, pro-social support systems, and most importantly, housing." The California report included this statement: "An Arkansas study found that 48 percent of child molesters lived in close proximity to schools, daycare centers, or parks. However, the authors could not establish an empirical relationship between sex offender housing and recidivism. They speculate that molesters who are motivated to re offend might be more likely to live in close access to potential child victims." Included in the California report is this telling statement: "According to John Gruber, executive director of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA), the organization is generally opposed to residency restrictions: “What you’re doing is pushing people more underground, pushing them away from treatment and pushing them away from monitoring,” he said. “You’re really not improving the safety, but you’re giving people a false sense of safety." Finally, lets look at two telling statements from an expert and a law enforcement official which appear in the California report: "According to Ronald K. Chen, a Rutgers University Law School dean and authority on Megan’s Law, each town is trying to make sex offender residency someone else’s problem. More often than not, said Chen, “the exclusion is so comprehensive that if it doesn’t prevent offenders from having any meaningful existence in the town, it comes pretty close.” "Linn County, Iowa, Sheriff Don Zeller reports that his county had 435 sex offenders registered in 2002, when the state residency restriction law first went into effect. Of those, 114 moved, 74 were charged with violating the ordinance, and others just disappeared; “We went from knowing where about 90 percent of them were. We’re lucky if we know where 50 to 55 percent of them are now...the law created an atmosphere that these individuals can’t find a place to live.” The Impact of Residency Restrictions on Sex Offenders and Correctional Management Practices: A Literature Review By Marcus Nieto, Senior Research Specialist and Professor David Jung, Public Law Research Institute, Hastings Law School © Aug. 2006 California Research Bureau (CRB 06-008) Click button above to read the Review. You must have a PDF reader installed on your system.
Think about this:
They who do not learn from the past ..... A pictorial look at what happens when we disenfranchise our fellow human beings, when we feel that in the interest of public safety it is OK to make them and their families second class citizens, when we give into the FEAR LOBBY: Click on thumbnail to see a larger picture, hover over picture to read caption. Use back arrow to return to this page. ..... are doomed to repeat it!
|
|
Want more information? Send an E-Mail Click button above if you are using Outlook or Outlook Express otherwise cut and paste the address below.
Copyright © 2006 SOSNet Legal Notice: The information on this web site based on hundreds of hours of research, however is NOT intended to be used as legal advice. If you are being investigated, or accused of crime against a child, seek the help of a licensed attorney, who specializes in child abuse cases, from your State Bar Association today. General practice attorneys do not have the skills to represent you in these types of cases and by delaying contacting a competent attorney; you will be placing yourself and your family in jeopardy.
Fair Use Statement: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of medical/scientific, economic, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
bravenet.com
