March 19, 2014
Should sex offenders be prohibited from winning lottery jackpots?
The question in the title of this post is prompted by this new FoxNews report headlined "Massachusetts official seeks to prevent sex offenders from collecting large lotto payouts." Here are excerpts:
A Massachusetts state senator is pushing to close a lottery loophole that allows sex offenders to pocket huge payouts and potentially use their winnings to buy their victims' silence.
"Should someone on the sex offender list purchase a ticket and win, I think we should find a way from preventing them from enjoying the proceeds," state Sen. Richard Moore told The Boston Herald. "This doesn't smell right to start with."
Moore's concern came as it was revealed that a Level 3 serial child predator walked away with a $10 million win in 2008 and used his winnings to buy gifts for a boy he was allegedly abusing. Daniel T. Snay, 62, was convicted four separate times of indecent assault and battery on a person 14 years or older from 1974 to 1987. He pleaded not guilty Monday at his arraignment on charges including indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of 14 and other charges....
"I guess he bought my silence by giving me gifts and stuff," the boy, now 16, told police, according to a transcript released in court, the paper reported. The alleged abuse occurred about the same time he won the lottery and it continued until March 1, 2012, the report said.
Police Chief Jeffrey Lourie said Snay's "windfall aided the commission of the crimes" by helping him gain favor with people. Sam Goldberg, Snay's attorney, told the paper the allegations are "very easy to bring ... especially when you know this is someone who’s already been a lightning rod ... because of the lottery winnings."
The director of the state's lottery told the paper that winnings can be intercepted by the IRS or Department of Revenue, but a payout cannot be withheld “based on someone’s character."
March 19, 2014 at 05:36 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Should sex offenders be prohibited from winning lottery jackpots?:
First...what horseshat and I second the director of the state lotteries opinion “a payout cannot be withheld based on someone’s character." String up that imbecile of a senator from Mass. while they're at it too.
Posted by: rankled | Mar 19, 2014 6:52:24 PM
The term "sex offender" is so overbroad that it has almost no meaning. On the one hand, it applies to men who commit violent, forcible rapes. On the other hand, it applies to a 19-year-old-girl who has consensual sex with a 17-year-old boy. (At least that is the way the term can be applied based on California statutes.)
So, while nobody is going to have much sympathy for rapist, why on earth should the 19-year-old-girl be denied of such an opportunity based on nothing more than an atrociously overbroad term?
Posted by: Jennifer | Mar 19, 2014 7:08:40 PM
Let's use some common sense here! If the sex offender has indeed used winnings or any other money source to "buy" a victim's silence, you already have laws for punishing individuals who use "hush" money to obstruct testimony. To pass a blanket law that prohibits ALL sex offenders including those who do NOT misuse money for that purpose from playing the lottery is assenine. Simply punish the individual who "buys" off witnesses with existing extortion and jury-tampering laws. What makes this politician think that all sex offenders or any other type of offender for that matter use their lottery winnings chiefly for criminal activities like witness intimidation? Gimme a break!
Posted by: william delzell | Mar 19, 2014 7:53:20 PM
Should sex offenders be prohibited from winning lottery jackpots?
Should politicians be prohibited from making laws?
There's more of "personal quest for votes" than creating meaningful law about this senator!
Posted by: Book38 | Mar 19, 2014 8:13:31 PM
These stupid politicians take everything else from sex offenders why not their freedom to win a payout that they have paid into. They take their freedom of where to sleep and where to walk such as parks even though these same politicians are very willing to take a sex offender's tax dollars if they are lucky enough to find a job with this label.
Posted by: JillSmith | Mar 19, 2014 8:19:51 PM
It might make sense to limit something like a certain breed of convicted felons (there isn't some constitutional barrier that comes to mind) from state run lotteries or such, though it would reasonably only apply if the winnings are particularly sizable. As noted, 'sex offender' is rather overbroad here. However, any sizable winnings can also at least often be targeted by compensation guidelines that provide awards that would attach to such winnings. As noted as well, if the winnings are used to further a crime, other laws can be used. Also, we are dealing with tiny statistical chances here. More like the sex offender will make money some other way. Will there now be an earning limit on sex offenders too?
Posted by: Joe | Mar 19, 2014 8:32:43 PM
You can't fix STUPID! I'd agree to this if we also bring back drawing and quartering of politicians who propose these types of laws. I am awaiting rodsmith's appropriate eloquence here.
As far as Constitutional Limits, how about someone trying to argue the 9th Amendment (the Dead Letter Amendment) the denial or disparagement of unenumerated rights. I mean, if they aren't granted by the government, they don't exist - right?
Posted by: albeed | Mar 19, 2014 9:28:54 PM
As Book already mentioned, this is pretty clearly a "personal quest to get votes". Politicians don't shy away from making broad and bad law from isolated cases to show they're "doing something". And if you're against voting for that something, you will be made to look like you're "protecting" the perpetrators of the crimes.
Are we doing morality tests on those that earn or possess a certain dollar amount?
Posted by: Skeptical | Mar 19, 2014 10:33:49 PM
well I think this Nazi asshole who calls himself a state senator needs to have a 9mm bullet through that empty spot that is supposed to hold a brain.
this illegal shit needs to end now or blood will run in the streets.
Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 20, 2014 12:03:36 AM
you do notice the two-faced little shit does not pass a law that prohibits them from PLAYING. They still want those millions just don't want to pay them out!
Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 20, 2014 12:04:36 AM
This nonsense was ACTUALLY ATTEMPTED in Missouri.
Posted by: Eric Knight | Mar 20, 2014 12:16:49 AM
Sen. Moore might need to take a remedial math class, unless he wants devote public resources to chasing down sex offenders who win $10 from a scratch-off ticket.
Posted by: C.E. | Mar 20, 2014 12:39:22 AM
// “The term "sex offender" is so overbroad that it has almost no meaning. … it applies to a 19-year-old-girl who has consensual sex with a 17-year-old boy.” – Jennifer //
-- Can’t we (you) first begin with the immediate context – which involves a Level 3 offender -- before considering outliers?
| “Moore's concern came as it was revealed that a Level 3 serial child predator ... used his winnings to buy gifts for a boy he was allegedly abusing.
Daniel T. Snay, 62, was convicted four separate times of indecent assault and battery on a person 14 years or older from 1974 to 1987. He pleaded not guilty Monday … charges including indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of 14 and other charges ...”
Posted by: Adamakis | Mar 20, 2014 8:26:12 AM
It's just standard fare for the pro-sex offense crowd to portray such offenses as consisting only or mostly of gross outliers, like public urination or the 19 year-old with the 17 year-old, and to simply treat as nonexistent the great bulk of sex offense cases -- men in their 30s, 40's, 50's or older preying on teenage girls 15 and below.
That's the kind of "honesty" we get here.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 20, 2014 9:29:54 AM
Adamakis | Mar 20, 2014 8:26:12 AM:
Well, it's just too bad that your big governments aren't very interested in actually preventing crimes such as this. That would take too much work and thought. They prefer to just mindlessly harass "sex offenders". And in doing so, they have create a very large group of people, some very influential, who are enemies of big government and who will help thwart anything they attempt, especially when it comes to anything having to do with sex crimes. They have proven that they cannot be trusted to do what is right. I don't care what your big governments do, I will be helping to keep them broke and ineffective.
I would like to point out that this was yet another great examples of Registries protecting no one. Good parents have no need for Registries. Bad parents will never be helped by the Registries.
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Mar 20, 2014 9:51:22 AM
Bill Otis | Mar 20, 2014 9:29:54 AM:
You guys want to talk about "honesty". That is really funny.
I think there are plenty of bad people listed on the Sex Offender Registries who have done really heinous things. But big governments have proven that they cannot be trusted to "manage" or "monitor" even those people and the SORs are an idiotic "tool". Big governments have acted like criminals and I'm not going to support them in their "wars". I don't care who the big governments are currently attacking and harassing, I'm not going to support them.
You've done a good job helping to create the kind of environment where the type of stupidity such as this "lottery law" thrives. Way to increase sex crimes!
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Mar 20, 2014 9:56:45 AM
Intelligent people who have put much thought into it, do not refer to the pariahs listed on the criminal governments' Sex Offender Registries as "sex offenders". The simple reason is that if a person is not committing sex offenses, then the person is not a "sex offender". It is exactly the same case that I can call many supporters of the Registries "liar" today. However, if they stop lying, then I should not call them "liar" any longer. And it would be beyond stupid to call them "liar" a decade after they have last lied.
The other reason that the term "sex offender" should not be used is because it is a weapon of hate used by the terrorists who support the Registries. They love that their criminal governments have given them a convenient label that they can stick on people and then apply all sorts of immoral, illegal, un-American actions against them. Intelligent people who have thought about it do not use the term.
I propose that we use the term “PRHRP” - Person Registered for Harassment, Restrictions, and Punishment.
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Mar 20, 2014 9:57:29 AM
FRegistry Terrorists --
What I said was that people generally on your side routinely portray sex offenses as consisting of outliers, such as public urination or the 19 year-old with the 17 year-old, while treating as nonexistent the great bulk of sex offense cases -- men in their 30s, 40's, 50's or older preying on teenage girls 15 and below.
Where am I wrong?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 20, 2014 10:26:30 AM
"the Dead Letter Amendment"
The 9A is there to remind us that the fact a right is not expressly enumerated doesn't mean the right isn't important or should be honored. This principle is repeatedly honored, including for such rights as travel, marriage, abortion, contraceptives, choice of employment (no one is forced, e.g., to be what their skill-set would warrant via some government run placement agency) and so forth.
So, "dead letter" is a tad bit exaggerated. The fact that substantive due process is a major way the principle is enforced does not change that. SDP could only apply to "liberty" expressly enumerated, like free speech, but it is not.
As to the comment about the specific person, a core problem with such laws is that outliers (which seriously applies here -- how many non-sex offenders win the lottery with a high enough windfall to care?) result in laws -- as laws of this sort tend to do, to avoid them being bills of attainder -- that are much more broadly applied than the worse case scenarios. The OP quoted a fear of "sex offenders."
If we are supposed to be only concerned here with a certain high level type, perhaps the person quoted should be the one who should be corrected. Same thing with "felonies" that result in denial of voting rights where murderers or such are brought up, when felonies include some fairly trivial crimes in comparison to that.
Posted by: Joe | Mar 20, 2014 12:18:45 PM
"Where am I wrong?
You and Adamakis Big Government Defenders (conservatives my butt) do not even consider the plight of the 19 year old girl and 17 year old boy to matter one iota, they're SOOL, (your tone and temperament speak volumes so don't ask for a direct quote) and your imaginary stereotyping is getting tiresome for someone who is supposed to be educated. Go back to Hawaii and retire already instead of spreading your Jim Crow ideas. Answer the question first, should SOs be denied their lottery winnings or is that too hard to comprehend? We know that $50 is a trifle, how about $5 million.
These are real cases and SO laws treat EVERYONE the same, rapist or teenage statutory.
Where am I wrong?
Posted by: albeed | Mar 20, 2014 12:23:31 PM
What an idiotic idea. What's next the family and loved ones or associates of a sex offender can't win a lottery because they might give the (ex) offender money and that (ex) offender might, might molest again (probably not statistically wise.)
Besides which, how often does anyone win the lottery let alone a registrant?
what a waste of taxpayer's time and money to even make such a proposal
Posted by: Arianna Wolfgang | Mar 20, 2014 12:43:42 PM
Bill Otis | Mar 20, 2014 10:26:30 AM:
For simplicity, let's call my side of the Sex Offender War the Moral Side and the other side the Immoral Side. You said that it is "standard fare" that people on the Moral Side portray sex offenses as the outliers. I was not saying whether or not you are wrong about that. I was addressing your "That's the kind of 'honesty' we get here" comment and saying I think it is unbelievable and outrageous that the Immoral Side would complain about honesty. The Immoral Side lives on lies, distortions, exploitation, and propaganda. They can't ever complain about anyone being dishonest.
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Mar 20, 2014 3:15:57 PM
FRegistry Terrorists --
"For simplicity, let's call my side of the Sex Offender War the Moral Side and the other side the Immoral Side."
For simplicity, let's say you committed a sexual offense you refuse to describe, then excuse yourself for it because You Are Superior.
"You said that it is 'standard fare' that people on the Moral Side portray sex offenses as the outliers. I was not saying whether or not you are wrong about that."
"I think it is unbelievable and outrageous that the Immoral Side would complain about honesty. The Immoral Side lives on lies, distortions, exploitation, and propaganda. They can't ever complain about anyone being dishonest."
Therefore you see no problem with your being dishonest. Is that correct?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 20, 2014 3:34:02 PM
"Go back to Hawaii..."
"...and retire already..."
Too boring. Teaching and speaking keep the blood moving.
"...instead of spreading your Jim Crow ideas."
I doubt that there is any racial disproportionality, much less intentional racial discrimination, among those convicted of sex offenses. If anything, I would guess that those convicted are disproportionately white. Got any statistics?
"Answer the question first, should SOs be denied their lottery winnings or is that too hard to comprehend?"
It's all true, albeed. I have a tough time comprehending geniuses like you.
"We know that $50 is a trifle, how about $5 million."
There are those to whom $5 million is, if not exactly a trifle, not soul-breaking either.
To answer your question directly: I don't care if SO's keep lottery winnings. Sorry. I have more important things to worry about. If I had to give an opinion, I'd say they should probably keep them, the better to pay restitution to the little girls they rape while you pretend it's never really about rape.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 20, 2014 3:46:56 PM
Empirical data from the DOJ and many other state studies show that registrants very rarely commit new sexual offenses. So again, another law to banish the 95% or more of registrants that do nothing but lead a law abiding life once released to society. If the person owes nothing for fines, restitution or anything related to their prior crime, then they should be allowed to take their winnings and do as they please. As was mentioned above, there are laws in place to take the money if it is used for further criminal activity.
Posted by: JillSmith | Mar 20, 2014 6:14:17 PM
"That's the kind of "honesty" we get here..."
Ok, then please remove that metal plate from your head and refrain from sitting to close to large magnetic fields while composing your comments.
Posted by: rankled | Mar 20, 2014 7:35:12 PM
actually bill your wrong here!
"For simplicity, let's call my side of the Sex Offender War the Moral Side and the other side the Immoral Side."
sorry but based on the USSC 2002 squeeker decision that made the registry legal. Your the EVIL side if you support the illegal registry we now have.
Yes I know that the USSC refuses to take new cases and confirm it. But sorry but I don't need them too. If a court says what your doing is legal BECASUE your NOT doing "x" "y" and "z" and then you walk out of the court and then pass laws that REQUIRE ON PAIN OF PRISON each of those things. YOUR NOW THE CRIMINAL.
Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 20, 2014 7:59:53 PM
"To answer your question directly: I don't care if SO's keep lottery winnings. Sorry. I have more important things to worry about. If I had to give an opinion, I'd say they should probably keep them, the better to pay restitution to the little girls they rape while you pretend it's never really about rape."
Bill: There, that wasn't so hard. I have always maintained that those who cause real harm should serve real punishment. But, it is also true that the laws are NOT sufficiently tailored to get the bad guys and let young people who react poorly and unwisely to normal human urges a chance to get their life back. That is my one and only beef. It is also those politicians who were trying to deflect attention away from their own gross shortcomings, Foley, Clinton, Vitter, Kennedy and even supporters Walsh and Lunsford, who are the main architects of these immoral laws. We also have the demonstrated cowardice of the Supreme Court to salute, with the correct finger. Truly human beings whose morals we should not emulate.
Posted by: albeed | Mar 20, 2014 8:57:03 PM
Bill Otis | Mar 20, 2014 3:34:02 PM:
I've never really considered you a liar but you are lying now. And you know that if you have ever lied, I can call you "liar" for the rest of your life.
Your lie is "then excuse yourself for it". I have never said that what I did was not wrong. But I will say that I am less and less remorseful about it every day. That is one of the main effects of the Registries. At this point I can't say that I really care about what I did and I certainly view it is not as bad as what the Sex Offender Registries, etc. have done to my family.
It's simple really. I did something and was told that I would be punished by A, B, and C. Now, coming up on 2 decades of harassment later, I have governments all over the world telling me that I must now do D, E, F, G, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. F them and the "people" who support them.
And the entire time that my family is being harassed, the criminals responsible for it just can't seem to get their acts together just the tiniest little bit to harass everyone else who "deserves" it. You people still don't Register people who shoot other people. It is unfathomable really.
So yeah, you said, "You Are Superior" and you are right. I am superior to the Immoral Side. By a lot.
You said, "Therefore you see no problem with your being dishonest. Is that correct?" So you are asking me if I see a problem with being dishonest to people who lie to my family, steal from them, and harass them. The Immoral Side does not deserve even the most basic of courtesies from my family. This is a war after all. Having said that, one of the things that makes them more moral than they are is that I don't lie like they do.
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Mar 21, 2014 9:07:36 AM
One more thing and I'll be quiet. It isn't what we don't know that makes us blind. It's what we KNOW that ISN'T SO.
Posted by: albeed | Mar 21, 2014 9:39:33 AM
FRegistry Terrorists --
When you make a tepid and grudging "admission" like, "I have never said that what I did was not wrong. But I will say that I am less and less remorseful about it every day," and then go on about how anyone who disagrees with you is the real problem -- as you do in this and about 50 other long, overheated posts -- you make it impossible to conclude anything OTHER than that you excuse yourself. Or if not that exactly, that you think the balance of blame in the Big Wide World tilts so far in the direction of your adversaries that any guilt you might otherwise think rests on your shoulders is abated to the point of nothingness.
The only thing I think I want to say about that is that human beings very often want to see the problem as being The Other rather than themselves. The complicating factor here is that The Other often does have significant failings, lending plausibility to this way of looking at the world. But I can tell you from long experience that the best of us, while not at all indulging the wrongheadedness (or worse) of others, are most demanding first and always of themselves.
I'm well aware of the unfortunate fact that there is nothing I can say to persuade you that this really is a better way to approach life.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 21, 2014 11:19:04 AM
Bill Otis | Mar 21, 2014 11:19:04 AM:
I'm really not sure exactly what you are suggesting I change. The only thing I can surmise is that you think that people who have done something wrong must submit to practically any repercussions for it for the rest of their lives. Or perhaps until at least politicians decide that they can't get much else out of harassing you (or the big government can't afford it, or whatever).
I accepted a plea deal under the expectation that I would be simply listed on the BS Registry for 10 years. And the BS Registry was not NEARLY even close to the huge harassment mechanism that it is today. It was there merely so people could be "informed".
What has happened since then is just simply unacceptable. And I am going to bring war to anyone who supports it.
I guess the way today that criminal regimes can avoid end up having huge problems like me that are harming them is that they have a law in place that says if you do something wrong, criminal regimes have the right to harass you for the rest of your life. They should just have mandatory lifetime probation/parole. Then they can do pretty much whatever they want. I think only a P.O.S. third-world country would even think of that but the U.S. has been devolving quickly. People may have to simply find a better country.
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Mar 21, 2014 12:20:17 PM
Do you see how your anger is consuming you?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 21, 2014 12:31:25 PM
think you hit it right on the head there FR. Sorry bill but in this area the state doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. they illegally tossed 100's of thousands on the registry that had a legal contract with the state that didn't require it. Those contracts were illegally changed without the approval of BOTH parties.
sorry even basic contract law would tell you that's illegal. when done by the gov it becomes TREASON at that point they have lost any right to tell those individuals anything and in fact those individuals now have the right to remove them from their lives even if it means they have to kill every damn one.
as for anger consuming him. it should he's being illegally persecuted by his own damn govt. using a never ending series of new laws that are illegal on their face.
Like a teamsters shop steward once said
"don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining"
Our former government has become a continuing criminal interprise and has no right to tell us a damn thing except "we are now ready to die to pay for our crimes" and then shoot there themselves.
Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 21, 2014 3:29:17 PM
Bill Otis | Mar 21, 2014 12:31:25 PM:
No, I don't. I have a great life and I am very successful. Anger enabled so much of that.
My goal is to ensure that the Sex Offender Registries (SORs) are as useless and counterproductive as possible, that I deliver the most legal retaliation that is possible, and that the SORs are as big a problem as possible. Anger helps accomplish that and is a great motivator.
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Mar 21, 2014 4:36:25 PM
The difference between you and FRT is that, while you're both angry at the government and what you view as its treachery, you don't let it dominate you.
Life offers all manner of unfair and burdensome -- sometimes dreadfully burdensome -- things. The question is not whether you're going to be victimized by some or maybe a lot of it. You are. The question instead is how you handle it.
Handling it without being perpetually furious -- which is the way you seem to me to handle it -- is a lot better than the alternative.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 21, 2014 4:41:52 PM
The notion of a homogeneous untouchable "caste" ignores the principles on which this nation was built, and ignores most moral authority that requires we offer a path to redemption. All stick and no carrot is for slave owners and those that believe that their status must be protected from untouchables. It's an old testament view of the world, ignoring that most Christians in America believe in redemption and love, a New Testament world view. A frightened group of people can lose our Republic's principles when another group is portrayed as a holistic danger to thier loved ones. The studies, particularly the major metastudies of sex offenders, have consistently shown they are not a homogeneous group, and even as a group have a low recidivism rate. I was reviewing one for a state sentencing packet maybe a month ago that showed that recidivism reduces with time offense free after incarceration. (http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2013/11/static-99-developers-embrace-redemption.html).
FR, Bill probably didn't understand why you were so angry because he is confused why you just don't let him tell why youre a bad person that deserves any and all punishment any politian can conceive of for as long as they deem necessary.
Posted by: Skeptical | Mar 21, 2014 5:03:04 PM
"FR, Bill probably didn't understand why you were so angry because he is confused why you just don't let him tell why youre a bad person that deserves any and all punishment any politian can conceive of for as long as they deem necessary."
I've read a number of your posts, and know that you're easily smart enough to do better than the ninth grade debate stunt of concocting a ridiculous position and stuffing it in your opponent's mouth.
I have no idea if FRT is a "bad person" and neither do you. I know human beings are better off if they don't let their lives be taken over by anger, and I suspect you do too.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 21, 2014 6:16:08 PM
thanks bill. your right I'm not perpetually furious. I've pretty much reached the point that our criminal govt has long went past the tipping point into the coming police state. Short of armed violence and blood in the street it's COMING and coming SOON. so all I am is sad to see what was once a beacon to the masses around the world darkened and turned into the hate filled freedom less state we used to talk about when talking about OTHER countries.
as for FR sorry but if you were illegally interfering in my life every time I turned around I'd be trying to find some way to get you out of it. even if that meant killing you. be it the assshole across the street or the govt in the capital.
as for this skeptical
"The studies, particularly the major metastudies of sex offenders, have consistently shown they are not a homogeneous group, and even as a group have a low recidivism rate. I was reviewing one for a state sentencing packet maybe a month ago that showed that recidivism reduces with time offense free after incarceration. (http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2013/11/static-99-developers-embrace-redemption.html)."
very very nice. so more prove the govt lied through it's teeth in 2002 when the registry was ruled legal by the USSC using the bogus 100% reoffence rate fraud.
darn isn't it federal law that a criminal is not allowed to profit from their crime. sorry crime was the fraud paid on the court. the profit the registry and over a decade of illegal laws. kiss both good bye. IF the courts were really unbiased and fair.
unfortunately it's pretty much going to take blood flowing in the streets and the execution of most of the govt to change it. Of course I'm sure the soon to come civil war will take care of most of that.
Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 22, 2014 12:20:07 AM
Anger is a good short term motivator, but a lousy long term worldview.
I don't know who you are, so I have no way of knowing whether your claims that you've been successful are true. Assuming that they are -- and I think they probably are -- more power to you.
People who violate the law but then go on to lead successful, prosperous and honest lives are to be congratulated. Beyond that, they disprove the baloney so frequently seen on this site that a felony conviction will ruin the convict's life.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 22, 2014 11:24:05 PM
try again bill. I'd think the what is it for general reoffence rates 60% or better the first 3 years is a damn good indication that something is wrong. yes I'm sure a big part of that 60% will never go straight but far far far too many can't thanks to asinine laws passed by our criminal govt.
Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 23, 2014 5:21:03 PM
Bill Otis | Mar 22, 2014 11:24:05 PM:
Well, I do feel that a felony conviction is a good-sized obstacle to a normal career and I feel that Registration increases that obstacle probably by 10 times or more. And if a person lives where the criminal regimes list their employers online then I expect the obstacle to a normal career is likely 100 times or more what a regular felony conviction adds.
I do think that for a Registered person to get very wealthy, then he (or she) will likely need to work for himself and will probably not have many other avenues to get there (like other people would). I also think that a Registered person should work for himself in order to neutralize most or all harassment that the Registries bring. A person can create a company that owns other companies and then work for the parent company. Then it is very easy to hide from the general public exactly where he/she is working. He/she can also keep employees of the criminal regimes, including law enforcement, away from the businesses as well.
I don't think that just because a few people who are Registered can become wealthy that it "disprove the baloney so frequently seen on this site that a felony conviction will ruin the convict's life." I think that Registration is a huge obstacle to normal employment and certainly a normal life. Maybe 5% of people will overcome it, maybe 30%, I don't know.
I have to add that I have also overcome being a child sex abuse victim as well. I was not a "victim for life". The people who abused me did not deserve 50 years in prison, as they would get today (which is ridiculous, btw). Nor would Registering them have prevented them from abusing others.
If anything has scarred me for life, it has been Registration. I am certain that it alone has severely and permanently altered my disposition. It certainly scarred my children and other members of my family.
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Mar 25, 2014 12:40:15 PM