Saturday, February 9, 2013

WI - Sex Offender Ordinance Impact - Council

And here is another expert who claims the recidivism rate of ex-sex offenders is low, less than 2%, but the media, politicians and organizations continue to spread the lie about high recidivism rates.

See Also:




3 comments :

Brian said...

Well holy shit

Loneranger said...

Well good. At least for now they say this is counter productive. the big fear was that if they didn't have this law they would attract more offenders. As it has shown having it or not has made no difference. So they really don't need the law. Let take this one step farther. To a place they didn't go but maybe should. If they looked at the entire registry process and the number of people that re-offend and how long the people had been on the registry prior to the new offence I think they will find it was in the first three years from release from jail. After that the time served on the registry is all for nothing. Time wasted tracking people for life for no reason. they will always find someone that offends someplace past the three years but they are few. So do we track everyone for life or just the few that need it? One has to wonder why this has never come up for discussion. If the law isn't needed as far as life for all then maybe they need to make some changes in how they do this. Show me where it has made a difference. Have they had more or less people that re-offend having it compared to when they didn't have it. Instead of saying this has an effect prove it does. Your taking someones life so you had better be able to prove it's worth the effort. If it has no proven results as far as reducing offences then where is the reasoning to keep doing this? Well like i said they never go down that road.

Disqusted_1 said...

There are a lot of things that I could comment on about this video but I'd like to point out one of them that isn't related to the main debate here but still highly relevant. Fast forward to 26:18 and listen as this guy is speaking and pay close attention between 27:00 and 27:12. Not his words exactly but He is saying that the second big reason they had for enacting the ordinance was to 'RESTRICT' the number of registrants 'MOVING' into the community. So one of the intentions of the bill was to restrict movement. What was it that smith v. doe said about restricting movement???