Manipulating Minds with Terms and Phrases

Manipulating Minds with Terms and Phrases Here we address all sorts of terms and phrases used by Lawmakers and other Public Speakers to manipulate the minds of listeners, to foster hysteria, to further damage those they speak about. Their intent, without actually saying it, is to implant a fear of those they speak about, and generally for some hidden political type gain. Lawmakers to get bills enacted and keep constituents in the fold to support them. Other Public speakers have all sorts of personal reasons for doing this, frequently a prejudice or bias knowing they cannot be convicted of a hate crime because the folks they speak about have no protections based on their criminal record. And sometimes just a personal hatred of the person who has committed a sex crime. The intent here is to shed a light on these terms and phrases we see being used when speaking or writing about sex offenses and offenders. Some of these terms and phrases may just send a subtle message but still promote fears and hysteria. Lawmakers who want to promote new laws will often foster hysteria to accomplish their goal. The media uses them to generate sales. Their purpose is to manipulate the public mind, plain and simple. These terms and phrases rarely tell the truth about the subject, they speak in the gray areas to tingle the mind to think the worst. So it is important that we know more about these terms and phrases, and ways to circumvent the inherent untruthfulness found in them. It is important that, we as writers choose our words carefully, so that we do not foster the hysteria, that the opposition does. Our words need to explain and convey truths without minimizing what is horrible. Think about it... Phrases Included: Click to Jump to Phrase Explanation Debunking Political and Law Enforcement Terms "Original SMART Office Mission Statement" "The Purpose of SORNA Cannot be Achieved! Want to Know WHY?" "Sex Offender" "There is no question that sex offenses are horrible crimes" "There is no cure for sex offenders" "Sex offenders have a high rate of recidivism" "Sex offenders commit 4 times the number of sex offenses than do other types of offenders" "When Someone says, Recidivism Rates Are Low: Then someone else responds: But, that doesn't count those who haven't been caught.." "There are 100,000 missing sex offenders" "Holding sex offenders accountable" "Police Are Monitoring Sex Offenders" "Higher Level Sex Offenders are Closely Monitored" "Loopholes Allow Sex Offenders to Fly Under the Radar" "Flying Under the Radar" We invite anyone to suggest other terms and phrases that we may have missed and we will do our best to incorporate a better understanding of them and/or suggest a more correct way of saying whatever they elude to incorrectly. "Original SMART Office Mission Statement:" When the SMART Office first began, 2007, this was their Mission Statement: To assure that convicted sex offenders are prohibited from preying on citizens through a system of appropriate restrictions, regulations and internment. Take note of the word "Internment" because that is exactly what the U.S. did to the Japanese when World War II broke out; interned them into camps. Today, July 2011, their Mission statement is: To protect the public by supporting the national implementation of a comprehensive sex offender registration and notification system. Now that the U.S. Supreme court has validated "Federal Civil Commitment" it appears the footing for "Interning" of sex offenders is firmly in place. "Sex Offender:" Sex Offender: This term now generates fear to all that hear it, the opposition has done a great job of making (brainwashing) the public so that they cringe when they hear Sex Offender. Quoting Mayor Dan Sullivan who is trying to get an ordinance passed to ban homeless from sitting on sidewalks, here it turns out the homeless person was a sex offender: "I really try to limit my discussions with first degree sex offenders," Sullivan said. "I really don't know what the discussion would be ... I just don't look at him as a sympathetic character. I think he's probably a dangerous character." It is very likely that some very high percentage of folks in society really are sex offenders, if you consider what folks did when they were young, and were never caught. And, much of what we call sex offenses today were not sex offenses years ago, so if you judge people by today's laws you will find many sex offenders. Are lawmakers guilty of these offenses too, likely yes, but you will never get them to admit it, they act like they were never young. The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) a study by the Center for Disease Control regularly reports that somewhere around 50% of minors in high school have had, or, are having sex. Yes, sex between minors is illegal. If you were to stand in the school yard, the CDC tells us that, 50% of the kids you see are sex offenders, by today's laws. Can you imagine what sex offender registries would be like if it included these high school kids, and those adults who will never admit what they did when they were young? Would there be any left fit for military or public service? "There is no question that sex offenses are horrible crimes:" There is no question that sex offenses are horrible crimes: Have you ever heard that comment? Sure you have it is a common one, but what message does it send. It sends, all sex crimes are horrible, that is exactly what speakers are thinking when they make the comment. It is true that many sex crimes are horrible, but all sex crimes are not necessarily horrible. Consider that lawmakers consider a sex crime when someone is caught urinating in public and someone sees them, is that really a horrible crime. Earlier I mentioned that high school kids are having sex and some of them get caught, but is experimenting a horrible sex crime. No its part of growing up and unfortunately some get caught doing things many parents did when they were young. Just so I'm properly understood, the John Couey type of sex crime is without a doubt a horrible crime, as are other similar types of crimes. It is important that, we as writers choose our words carefully, so that we do not foster the hysteria that the opposition does. Our words need to convey the truth without minimizing what is horrible. Think about it... "There is no cure for sex offenders:" There is no cure for sex offenders. This is one that is used to make folks think, whatever it is that caused the person to commit a sex offense is caused by something in the realm of something for which you would take a pill to get rid of. i.e., a magical pill to cure something in such a way that it will never ever return again. Time to face reality, when dealing with human beings, there is no cure for any malady a human being may be afflicted with, at least not in the sense that whatever it is will never ever return again. Take a headache, a aspirin may relieve it, but not in the sense that it will never ever return again in that person's lifetime. Cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure, overweight, etc etc etc. The human being may be temporarily cured (fixed) by some pill or change in lifestyle, but again, not so that it can never ever return again. Society holds ONLY sex crimes to a standard that can never be achieved, because it is an impossible standard when dealing with the human being! Its like saying, go take a walk to the moon. Can you do it? No its impossible. And finally, there is no "cure" for anything declared a crime, because crime is not something that is cured. Instead it is something society punishes, and teaches the offender self-control ways to stop reoffense should they get the urge to do it again. The very fact that, there is recidivism for all types of crimes, proves all types of offenders have the same makeup and whatever it is within the human being that drives them to reoffense, is in all human beings. "Sex offenders have a high rate of recidivism:" Sex offenders have a high rate of recidivism I love this one because there are times when it is absolutely TRUE! When? When you only look at a subset of offenders and ignore all other subsets. Yes speakers love to do this, they find an OLD study, likely pre-1980 when there was no recognized therapy, and try to apply that study results to today's offenders. These speakers ignore that states have provided various programs (in-prisons and after prison) to offenders to reduce the possibility of recidivism. Examples of folks who apparently have not read, or do not accept, the DOJ study below, or have -not read- or misread recidivism studies: "One fear among residents living with sexual offenders nearby is that they tend to have high recidivism rates. This is confirmed by law enforcement. "It's very high, and some of them will tell you that they are going to recidivate," said Defiance County Sheriff David Westrick." Can Defiance limit where sex offenders may reside? 4-20-2008 "According to the legislators, sex offenders have a very high recidivism rate for recommitting sexually violent crimes. They said many high-risk sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated and are extremely likely to strike again – even after their prison sentences are served. Website of New York Assemblyman James Tedisco 5-24-2005" "Over the years several studies have yielded results that convicted sex offenders have an extremely high recidivism rate. Platt and Town Council took that information under advisement when the ordinance was passed in 2005 and continue to support it." Mayor's Office Cherry Hill New Jersey, 1-26-2009 "The only study to follow sex offenders for 25 years after release finds that 52% are caught re-offending (“Recidivism Rates Among Child Molesters and Rapists: A Methodological Analysis”, Law and Human Behavior, Volume 21, Number 6, December 1997 , pp. 635-659(25) .)" Heather Steele, President & CEO, The Innocent Justice Foundation (eAdvocate note about this study: Here we see another person who has NOT READ what the author of that study WARNED folks about "We would like to conclude with two important caveats. The obvious, marked heterogeneity of sexual offenders precludes automatic generalization of the rates reported here to other samples." In other words, this was a subset of offenders and their recidivism rate should NOT BE APPLIED to other sex offender groups. See HERE. These were civilly committed offenders who were KNOWN RECIDIVISTS, a subset of former offenders.) Although hard to believe, even the Center for Sex Offender Management cites the above study incorrectly: "Conversely, Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce (1997) found that over a 25-year period, child molesters had higher rates of reoffense than rapists. In this study, recidivism was operationalized as a failure rate and calculated as the proportion of individuals who were rearrested using survival analysis (which takes into account the amount of time each offender has been at risk in the community). Results show that over longer periods of time, child molesters have a higher failure rate—thus, a higher rate of rearrest—than rapists (52 percent versus 39 percent over 25 years)." CSOM Recidivism of Sex Offenders 2001. Speakers, and dozens of others, fail or refuse to recognize what the Department of Justice found in their study published in 2003. The second lowest recidivism rate of all offender types: Click on Pic for Details Source: Bureau of Justice: Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 by by Patrick A. Langan, Ph.D. -and- Erica L. Schmitt -and- Matthew R. Durose, Statisticians, Bureau of Justice Statistics Here is the reason that this study is MORE IMPORTANT than other studies: It excludes no one, it includes everyone released, no other study does this. It includes from the lowest type of sex to the highest type which laws allow offenders to be released back into the community. Now, opinion of a Law Enforcement officer who knows the truth: Cop debunks sex offender myths 5-13-2011 SAN MATEO -- States have come up with all sorts of ways to deal with residents convicted of a sex crime: Ohio proposed putting pink license plates on their cars, California spends $65 million a year for GPS monitoring and many others have housing restrictions that force sex offenders into homelessness. But these are bad ideas, Seattle police Detective Bob Shilling said Thursday. All these approaches spring from fear and misinformation, and they exacerbate efforts to keep convicted offenders from hurting more victims, he said. Shilling, the keynote speaker at a training conference in San Mateo held by the California Coalition on Sexual Offending, worked for 21 years as a sex crimes detective. He was also part of Washington state's pioneering, but initially messy, effort to notify residents of sex offenders in their midst. His experience left him with the conviction that educating the public is the surest way to avoid bad laws, a terrified populous and more victims. During his address to the law enforcement and mental health professionals in the crowd, Shilling pointed to some startling evidence. A 2007 study of Florida residents found that 74 percent believed convicted rapists would strike again once of out prison, and 76 percent thought the same of child molesters. But a 2004 study that followed 4,724 sex offenders over a period of 15 years found only 24 percent were charged with OR convicted of a new sexual offense, he said. "Is that good? No," he said. "But this type of thing makes a difference." The 31-year veteran of law enforcement said high recidivism numbers have been used to make the argument for harsher laws. But he said this kind of legislation -- such as the Adam Walsh Act, signed into law in 2006 by President George W. Bush -- does nothing to keep convicted offenders from abusing more victims. The law, among other things, mandated the creation of a national sex-offender registry. "We use the fear of sex offenders to pass legislation, to get legislators elected because they talk tough, to get legislators unelected if they don't and perpetuate the public hysteria about sex offenders," he said. Shilling, who is himself a victim of childhood sexual abuse, went on to say he is not an advocate of letting offenders off with a slap on the wrist. Rather, he is concerned with keeping them from doing it again. He said treatment works, but so does creating an environment where offenders can get back on their feet. "Offenders need stability," he added. "If you see something that is a concern, call (police)." Much of his experience comes from Washington state's rollout of the nation's first law on sex-offender notification. He said police would drop fliers on the doorsteps of homes or stick them in door handles. ..... In the State of Maine, they have in-prison and after prison treatment programs, their recent study of recidivism of folks released from prison and those on probation showed a 4% recidivism rate. see After release from prison, Maine sex offenders rarely commit another sex crime, study reports quote from article: Although these findings are similar to other studies around the country that have found relatively low recidivism rates for sex offenders, they still fly in the face of public perception, which suggests sex offenders go on to commit more sex crimes at stunningly high rates. Mark Rubin, the study's co-author, said the findings didn't surprise him. "There's a perception that sex offenders recidivate at a higher rate than other criminals, but there's really no data to support that theory," said Rubin, a research associate at the University of Southern Maine's Muskie School of Public Service. "Sex offenders commit 4 times the number of sex offenses than do other types of offenders:" Sex offenders commit 4 times the number of sex offenses than do other types of offenders Have you ever heard of this "Tricky Dick," well this is that type of statement, speakers say it to make sex offenders SOUND WORSE than other types of offenders. However, when you analyze the statement using the figures provided by the study it came from, you are shocked to find that non sex offenders actually commit 6 (six) sex offenses to every 1 (one) committed by a released sex offender; 6 to 1. What you say? Its a numbers game, trickery with numbers, but here is the truth! Here are the numbers from the study page 24 (also see pic above): Sex offenders compared to non-sex offenders The 15 States in this study released a total of 272,111 prisoners in 1994. The 9,691 released sex offenders made up less than 4% of that total. Of the remaining 262,420 non-sex offenders, 3,328 (1.3%) were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years (not shown in table). By comparison, the 5.3% rearrest rate for the 9,691 released sex offenders was 4 times higher. Assuming that the 517 sex offenders who were rearrested for another sex crime each victimized no more than one victim, the number of sex crimes they committed after their prison release totaled 517. Assuming that the 3,328 non-sex offenders rearrested for a sex crime after their release also victimized one victim each, the number of sex crimes they committed was 3,328. The combined total number of sex crimes is 3,845 (517 plus 3,328 = 3,845). Released sex offenders accounted for 13% and released non-sex offenders accounted for 87% of the 3,845 sex crimes committed by all the prisoners released in 1994 (517 / 3,845 = 13% and 3,328 / 3,845 = 87%). Its all in the highlighted portion, these are not our numbers, these are FACTS proven by the Bureau of Justice statisticians. The reason why speakers OMIT the actual numbers from the study is, it would prove that non sex offenders are more dangerous to the community than are sex offenders following their release from prisons. Speakers want you to follow what SOUNDS GOOD not the real FACTS! We merely put the numbers into the chart above to make it easier to see and understand. Now consider this, NONE of the offenders released who do not have a previous sex offense in their background, none of these folks have any restrictions placed on them that are placed on released sex offenders. WHY? Stats prove many of them will commit sex offenses and lawmakers IGNORE this fact! There are 100,000 missing sex offenders: Lets begin our discussion by citing two recent studies by Dr. Jill Levenson, about the alleged 100,000 missing sex offenders: 100,000 Sex Offenders Missing . . . or Are They? Deconstruction of an Urban Legend Dr Levenson concluded: "we find little evidence to support that 100,000 sex offenders are “missing,” using even the most inclusive definitions." Who are the people in your neighborhood? A descriptive analysis of individuals on public sex offender registries. Dr Levenson concluded: ""We found no evidence to support the frequently repeated statistic that 100,000 (or about 14%) of the nation's sex offenders are missing or unaccounted for."" Lawmakers trying to get new laws passed: "Mr. Chairman, there are over 550,000 sex offenders in the country; and it is conservatively estimated that at least 100,000 of them are lost in the system, meaning that nonregistered sex offenders are living in our communities and working at locations where they can, and likely will, come into contact with our children." Rep. Sensenbrenner U.S. House Introductory Speech H.R. 3132, the Children's Safety Act of 2005, 9-14-2005 "There are over a half million sex offenders in the United States and up to 100,000 offenders are unregistered and their locations unknown to the public and law enforcement. H.R. 4472 contains strict national offender registration and data sharing requirements to ensure that law enforcement agencies and America's communities know where sex offenders live and work." Rep. Sensenbrenner U.S. House Introductory Speech H.R. 4472, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, 7-25-2006 "According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, more than 500,000 sex offenders are registered in the United States and as many as 100,000 sex offenders cannot be located by law enforcement" Rep MALONEY, U.S. House, 9-15-2005 "Last year, we passed the Adam Walsh Act to protect our children from sexual predators. Over 100,000 sex offenders were lost or unaccounted for by the States. The Adam Walsh Act will fix that problem and make sure that sex offenders are registered, that the public is aware of sex offenders in their communities, and help parents protect their children." Rep. CAPITO, U.S. House, 4-23-2007 "There are currently more than 100,000 missing sex offenders who have failed to register as required under current law. These predators are working, attending school, and living in close proximity to our children unbeknownst to parents and law enforcement officials." Rep. Smith, U.S. House, 3-10-2009 "There are 704,000 registered sex offenders currently living in our communities, and experts estimate as many as 100,000 convicted sex offenders are lost in the system. Recent research has shown that there is a high repeat rate for sexual crimes, and even higher amongst those who commit these crimes against children. As a result, in the past 2 years, Congress has passed a series of laws adopting the use of sex offender registries and community notification systems for sexually violent offenders and those committing offenses against children. While we cannot prevent registered child sex offenders from moving into our communities, we do not need to provide them the additional benefits offered by an FHA home loan if they try to do so. With an FHA home loan, taxpayers are liable if the loan defaults. I do not believe, I don't think most Members of this House believe, and I know most Americans do not believe that taxpayers should be on the hook for a home loan of someone who has committed a sex offense against a minor. A quarter of a million children are sexually assaulted every year in my home State of Texas, according to the National Crime Victims Research and Treatment report. There are still private market alternatives to FHA loans, and we want to continue to discourage any kind of federally financed reward or taxpayer-backed benefit to sex offenders reentering our communities. For example, sex offenders are already banned from residing in section 8 public housing. My amendment continues that pro-family stance." Rep Edwards, U.S. House 6-10-2010 [This passed and denied certain sex offenders FHA Loans for the rest of their lives, nothing but hatred] From the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), and still professed today in 2011: Alexandria, VA - February 28, 2007 - According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), there are an estimated 603,000 registered sex offenders in the U.S. today. However, of that number, at least 100,000 sex offenders are noncompliant and no one knows where they are. A new Special Analysis Unit has been created by NCMEC to search databases, analyze information, and help identify and locate these fugitives, to enable the U.S. Marshal's Service to arrest them and bring them to justice. To date, the Marshals have located more than 850 of the fugitive sex offenders. This "100,00 Missing Sex Offenders" statement has been a political cry, likened to Paul Reveres "The British are coming." But, how did that number come to be, that story along with the news reports, is here "The Saga of 100,000 Missing Sex Offenders: Now the truth. Its time to put this to bed and move on to debunk other falsehoods used for political gain. Holding Sex Offenders Accountable: I guess I must ask: "Accountable for what?" Now before jumping on me for that statement consider this, if the person has been convicted, and either, served their sentence set by the court, or is currently serving the sentence, then it appears they are being held accountable. So, to those who keep saying this, maybe you ought to explain exactly what you are talking about, because simply blowing steam in the wind makes you look silly. Folks can reach me at: eAdvocate@gmail.com if you want to explain in private. Police Are Monitoring Sex Offenders: Giving the impression that sex offenders, of any tier level, are monitored is the Lawmakers way of making the public think they are safer as the result of the police monitoring sex offenders. Lawmakers and others saying that are playing a very cruel joke on the public by using the word "Monitor / Monitoring" when the police do not do that at all. What the police do, is, "Check On" registered sex offenders from time to time, maybe 2-3-4 times a year by stopping at their registered address and making face-to-face contact. But, that is not monitoring in any sense of the word! MONITOR -v- CHECK ON There is a very distinctive difference The public is being duped, it is a political illusion, which results in a false sense of security. Lawmakers are crafty at wording of their laws, they walk the line between being absolutely truthful and whatever you want to call this result; ???? See this article: RI authorities check up on sex offenders, arrest 8 (7-30-2011) THIS COMMENT: "The task force includes state, local and federal law enforcement officials. Since 2007 the task force has checked up on the whereabouts of 700 sex offenders in Rhode Island. " Since 2007 they have checked on 700 registrants. Without knowing how many are on that state registry, that comment means, in four years time (1460 days), roughly -on average- one registrant is checked every two days, and that is called monitoring; its a big joke being played on the public. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's map of registered sex offender (on 7-30-2011) shows Rhode Island has 1,539 registered offenders. Even recognizing that the number of registrants grow every year, it still shows what a joke is being played on society through the word "Monitoring." Costs of Checking on (Monitoring): Did you notice this: "The task force includes state, local and federal law enforcement officials." Can you fathom what their salaries are? True they are not doing this every day, but lets just assume they do it once a year, which means the errrr monitored 175 registrants each year, when they assemble the Task Force. Worse yet, federal Marshals are not allowed to do home checks, except for folks under federal supervision. Their jurisdiction only comes into play when a state registrant cannot be found, so for the most part they sit around until state officials find someone missing then they turn that case over to those federal marshals likely sitting in the car. This country is going to hell in a hand-basket because of waste like this. Loopholes Allow Sex Offenders to Fly Under the Radar: Flying under the radar: We start with this article: US Marshals: More sex offender arrests can be made with loophole closures (7-27-2011) Loopholes in our state's sex offender laws make it easy for convicted offenders to fly under the radar and this year, law enforcement leaders are demanding changes from lawmakers. In a four moth long sweep there were about five times where forty arrests were made. US Marshals tell CBS 21 News that they could have arrested even more sex offenders if the loopholes were closed. ...... ......... The US Marshals are the agency to carry the act out. The latest efforts, operations ‘safe summer’ and ‘grand slam’, spanned four months in every PA district. The Adam Walsh Act gains strength every year. “There have been many years in PA where people haven't continuously been checked,” said Mike Regan. “We've knocked on doors three times this year and that will have a profound affect.” In other words, when they checked on some sex offenders they found they were in compliance with the law -as worded- but the U.S. Marshals disagreed with the law, so if it was worded differently then they could have arrested those sex offenders. Well folks, if it was worded differently, those sex offenders would more than likely be following that wording, and could not be arrested. As I read the Marshals comments, they are looking for more arrests because they are not finding enough offenders -out of compliance-! Also notice, the Marshals use the term "Fly under the Radar" to imply something illegal, when at least in this story, offenders were "Flying under the Radar LEGALLY," and its a matter of the Marshals do not like the laws. It looks like Journalists should be seeing this, but if they did then sales may not be what they are when the hysteria is HIGH! Reality, loopholes are the result of lawmakers rushing to pass a law to get credit for passing something, they rarely take the time to study a bill and look at the consequences of the wording. Loopholes will exist forever, as long as there are Politicians, they only want the limelight. The Purpose of SORNA CANNOT be Achieved: Want to Know WHY? According to the SMART Office: SORNA refers to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act which is Title I of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-248). SORNA provides a comprehensive set of minimum standards for sex offender registration and notification in the United States. SORNA aims to close potential gaps and loopholes that existed under prior law and generally strengthens the nationwide network of sex offender registration and notification programs. In other words, SORNA is to make all state sex offender registry programs the same. Loopholes, as SMART Office refers to them, are differences in opinions of state lawmakers (resulting from years of handling registrants), SORNA's purpose is to override the historical thinking of state lawmakers who have decided what is proper for their state. i.e., that alone is a violation of the 10th Amendment. However, in a minute we will see why that CANNOT be achieved, but reviewing that statement and learning why it CANNOT be accomplished folks will realize what a cruel joke is being played on the Public by folks in Washington DC (Specifically those who crafted SORNA and pushed it through Congress using a procedure known as "Under suspension of the rules (see detail in Footnote below)" which is not supposed to be used for legislation like SORNA, but no lawmaker objected so it slipped through and became law). Within SORNA is the following: 42 USC 16912 SEC. 112. REGISTRY REQUIREMENTS FOR JURISDICTIONS. (b) GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS.—The Attorney General shall issue guidelines and regulations to interpret and implement this title. 42 USC 16913 SEC. 113. REGISTRY REQUIREMENTS FOR SEX OFFENDERS. (b) INITIAL REGISTRATION.—The sex offender shall initially register— (1) before completing a sentence of imprisonment with respect to the offense giving rise to the registration requirement; or (2) not later than 3 business days after being sentenced for that offense, if the sex offender is not sentenced to a term of imprisonment. (d) INITIAL REGISTRATION OF SEX OFFENDERS UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH SUBSECTION (b).—The Attorney General shall have the authority to specify the applicability of the requirements of this title to sex offenders convicted before the enactment of this Act or its implementation in a particular jurisdiction, and to prescribe rules for the registration of any such sex offenders and for other categories of sex offenders who are unable to comply with subsection (b). In the above (from SORNA) there are three words used: Rules, Guidelines and Regulations, and each has a very specific meaning in law: 1) Rules: Must be followed because they are law; 2) Guidelines: Are suggestions, and do not have to be followed; 3) Regulations: Govern the procedure to follow. Now, look closely at WHAT covers WHO: Guidelines and Regulations only apply to "JURISDICTIONS" (State legislatures), and Rules apply directly to "SEX OFFENDERS." It is this way so that "SEX OFFENDERS" can be punished for not following the RULE, but "JURISDICTIONS" will not be punished for not following the Guidelines and Regulations. Congress TOLD the USAG to use a Rule when deciding "retroactivity" (as to sex offenders) and to use Guidelines and Regulations when speaking to state legislatures (Jurisdictions). Hidden in this mess is this, Congress told State Lawmakers, -in a very convoluted way, or should I say, very crafty way, when you change your state laws YOU MUST MAKE THEM RETROACTIVE for all sex offenders. Is it any wonder why states are fighting enacting SORNA? So why have any states enacted SORNA, especially since they know it violates the 10th Amendment? Thats a even longer story which has its roots in money and shame a state lawmaker could face costing him/her their job as a lawmaker, and thats for another day. We need to get back to, why SORNA cannot make all state sex offender registration systems, exactly the same, hence cannot meet its stated goal. GUIDELINES and REGULATIONS Since these do not have to be followed, using them allowed state lawmakers (Jurisdictions) to pick and chose what they wanted to follow in the Guidelines and Regulations. That allows states to be different from each other, and because this was done in this crafty way, the SMART Office stated GOAL for SORNA is nothing but a ruse, a cruel joke on the public, it SOUNDS GOOD and will get public support while not doing what it says! Wake up America! Can folks now see why the SMART Office only expects "Substantial Compliance" and not "Full Compliance" its a way that circumvents the original goal. Anyone who doesn't think this is a cruel joke on society, please, please stand up! And to those remember this, today its sex offenders who are disfavored, tomorrow it may be the group you belong to, your door may knock and the police ask ... ... ... FOOTNOTES: Why and how this rule was used improperly: Motion To Suspend the Rules On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of each week and during the last six days of a session, the Speaker may entertain a motion to suspend the rules of the House and pass a public bill or resolution. Sometimes the motion is allowed on other days by unanimous consent or a rule from the Committee on Rules. For example, the House by rule from the Committee on Rules provided for the motion on a Sunday when the House was in session. Members need to arrange in advance with the Speaker to be recognized to offer such a motion. The Speaker usually recognizes only a majority member of the committee that has reported or has primary jurisdiction over the bill. The motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill is debatable for 40 minutes, half of the time in favor of the proposition and half in opposition. The motion may not be separately amended but may be amended in the form of a manager's amendment included in the motion when it is offered. Because the rules may be suspended and the bill passed only by affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being present, this procedure is usually used only for expedited consideration of relatively noncontroversial measures. Recidivims Rates Are Low: But, that doesn't count those who haven't been caught.. This response develops when someone seems to be losing the first argument, here is an example from the news: Kendall said only 8 percent of sex offenders return to prison for new sex offenses. She said 14 percent return to prison for a non-sexual crime. "But that's based on ones who have gotten caught," said Connie Walls, records supervisor for the sheriff's office. "If you don't get caught, it's not going to be counted." ("Offender housing good news to 1 group" Ohio 8-12-2011) Kendall is citing statistics, proof supporting what she is saying. Now the other side of the argument (police) have no real response, so they create one to raise doubts in the minds of readers, but notice, they have no apparent support but maybe personal belief. I always find this argument interesting because, how many adults of today, based on today's standards of what is a sex crime, committed a sex crime in their younger years and never got caught. Is this what the police are talking about? No? OK, just making a point! Here the police should have cited a statistic, if there is one, instead of just blowing smoke to fuel hysteria. The real purpose of law enforcement is to promote peace in the community, not incite the masses or the media. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that law enforcement loses this argument, and does nothing to help the community support them. Not smart! 1 in 5 minors solicited for sex: Online Victimization: A Report on the Nation’s Youth by the Crimes Against Children Research Center, David Finkelhor, Kimberly J. Mitchell, Janis Wolak JUNE 2000 (Their Facebook page) Debunking the 1 in 5 figure Another 1 in 5 source Another study Another ..... MORE COMING .... Reserved for next issue: ..... MORE COMING .... Please e-mail eAdvocate@gmail.com For now, have a great day and a better tomorrow. eAdvocate (BACK to the Top Page)