Thursday, March 21, 2013


Hosted by: RealityUSA (Website)

Title: SPECIAL GUEST Vicki Henry with W.A.R.

Time: 03/20/2013 08:00 PM EDT

Episode Notes: Vicki Henry accepted the position of President of Women Against Registry in August, 2011 after learning her family would be placed on the public sex offender registry. She states the offense nor the offender is important as this organization advocates for EVERYONE having a second chance. Vicki challenges those who cling to the offense based theory as a defining characteristic for the future. Prior to her current position Vicki was a manager at Southwestern Bell Telephone Company's Corporate Headquarters and retired after 25 years. She has used her organization skills for the last 40 years in the corporate arena, church and most recently in the movement to regain the civil and human rights of registrant families.


Bill said...

A sex offender who violates his or hers civil requirement to register has by definition not committed a crime! It is an infraction of civil law. This definition has been supported by the supreme court who has ruled that the registry is a tort requirement and not punishment. Non registration causes no physical harm to any party nor does it result in the damage or loss of property. These facts are not in dispute by the supreme court. Punishment for a civil infraction of law should never include incarceration, imprisonment or the loss of personal liberties or freedoms. These penalties have historically and exclusively been reserved for crimes where the actions of an individual have caused loss of life, wellness, or property of another. The requirement for registration is based solely on the criminal history of the registrant. Incarceration and loss of liberty for non-registration is nothing less than double jeopardy for one crime committed some time in the past. In order to argue differently one would half to commit several thinking errors and break foundational rules of debate. The registry is a smoke screen to justify double jeopardy and re-punishment for time served.

kikipt said...

I completely agree with this.

And I would also like to comment on the above statement:

"These penalties have historically and exclusively been reserved for crimes where the actions of an individual have caused loss of life, wellness, or property of another."

This goes along with Jefferson's famous criteria as to whether something "picks my pocket or breaks my leg."

While this certainly would be logical, it is not the practice any longer in the United States, especially with respect to CP. While the person who molests a child, the person who films it, and the person who sells the product could clearly be seen as causing harm and damage, someone who merely views the material, for whatever reason, cannot. The absurd argument that someone viewing it is re-victimizing is a canard. If that were the case we could not allow attorneys, judges or anyone else to view the material, because ostensibly the outcome would also be further damage. The argument only holds up because the public, and especially the prison industry, finds a financial and political gain to be made in perpetuating victimization. And why is psychology supposedly usable for treating other situations, but the victim of child molestation will suffer "the rest of his/her life?"

Yet the sympathy of the public for victims has serious limitations. The children of the woman who wrote in recently about her husband's understandable difficulties passing a polygraph (possibly the most unscientific and useless instrument available) is a case in point. The test is being administered presumably to protect the children of this man in case he might have a proclivity to molest them.

But is it any less abusive for the government itself to deprive these children of one or both parents. As someone whose father was taken from him at the age of three, I can tell you the hurt doesn't dissipate from that either. But no one was standing around caring in the least how it might have impacted me. Why is the emotional and psychological abuse of these children tolerable to the government while the potential physical abuse of hypothetical children is not?