A study by a California newspaper of nearly five hundred released sex offenders who legally resided near schools and day care facilities found that only one was rearrested during the one year period of the study, and that was on a charge of parole violation and not for another sexual assault.10 A Minnesota Department of Corrections study found that only two recidivist acts of child sexual assault were committed in parks on unknown victims and in those two instances the assaults occurred several miles away from the offenders’ homes. This fact resulted in the Department concluding that residency restrictions would not be effective in deterring the offender who wanted to harm again.

Time to stop wasting millions in money and resources on the non dangerous and focus on those that really deserve it.

Is that also not tragic? Certainly not murderous child molesting rapist tragic but tragic none the less. If you think it isnt tragic take the time to talk to one of their kids. There is tens of thousands of them to choose from all over this country.

The fact is that kids are more often hurt by people they know and not strangers. The media reports and hypes the “stranger danger” cases because they are sensational compared to uncle Chester touching little Sally. There is no sensationalism in that. So chew on these facts…

A 2003 Department of Justice study found that only 7% of incarcerated child sex offenders in prison in 1997 were there for crimes where the victim and assailant were strangers.
Another study found that no more than 10% of child molestations are committed by strangers to the victims.
Additionally as defendants point out, a 1997 report from the Department of Justice indicated that only 3% of sexual assaults against children under 12 years old were perpetrated by strangers as were only 11% of sexual assaults against children 13 to 17 years old. Likewise a 2000 report from the same agency indicated that as to victims 5 years old or younger, only 3.1% of the crimes were committed by strangers and as to children age 6-11, only 4.7%.
The implication of these and countless other studies is that laws designed to protect our children, to be effective, should focus on preventing sex offenders from harming children whom they know, not fixated on preventing the rare attacks by strangers.

Those words come straight from a Kentucky district court judge. The numbers straight fomr our own gevernments DOJ.
If you want to go look it up.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
KENTON DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH DIVISION
CASE Numbers, 07-M-00604, 06-M-5879
06-M-5885, 06-M-5932, 06-M-5915, 06-M-5920,
06-M-6814, 06-M-6031, 06-M-5834,
06-M-5930, and 06-M-5866

It was done in the Salem which trials and later for persons that were accused of being mentally retarded by someone else, without basis in fact.

Africans were given a status that didn’t allow them any rights because of skin color.

Japanese Americans were interred during WWII just because someone’s sense said that they were high risk to the country.

Somewhere near 90% of sex crimes never get convictions or are never even reported. So many of your neighbors may have at some point commited a sex crime and just were never reported or never convicted.

If the sex offender registry was narrowed to only a few dangerous individuals
then these dangerous persons would be much easier to keep track of and much less likely to be hidden in a registry that is too broad.

* Everyone who is labeled a sex offender has NOT committed the most Heinous crimes people are capable of. A sex offender is a person who has committed any sex offense. Sadly the legislators quest to capture as many sex offenders as they could was definitely was the wrong path. Public notification of everyone listed is the problem here. It was never the intention of the courts! Placing any restrictions on past offenders who do not pose a threat is troublesome.
The legislators are not being honest or fair. They chose not to follow the laws intent, reasoning or actual purpose. Their “INTENT” is to act as vigilante and appear tough on sex offenders for personal popularity. Their interest is not in protecting their constituents who are unfairly harmed by misguided laws.
I have listed a few cases and the opinions are noted. I’ve NEVER heard a legislator express these opinions and you never will.
See E.B. v. Verniero, supra at 1089; Doe v. Attorney Gen. (No. 2), 425 Mass. 217, 222 (1997). Cf. Opinion of the Justices, supra at 1226 (noting severe consequences that community notification may have). If public availability of information about the plaintiff serves no remedial purpose, that availability is unnecessary to provide protection for those whom the act was designed to protect. See State v. Ward, 123 Wash. 2d 488, 503 (1994) (“Absent evidence [that the offender poses a threat to the community], disclosure would serve no legitimate purpose.
The New Jersey Supreme Court, in John Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 662 A.2d 367 (1995), upheld the New Jersey statute, although it imposed certain procedural protections under federal and state law.
My question is, if NJ tier system was devised for protecting tier 1 offenders from any open notification, as they are considered to be free to reestablish their good standing in the community. Why do NJ legislators include ALL sex offenders listed, even tier 1 offenders when crafting their additional restrictions? Isn’t this in violation of the NJ law? Why would any, NJ tier 1 offender be subject to restrictions in other states?