TN: Law enforcement cannot keep children safe by focusing on the few sex offenders who warrant closer monitoring when the registry is so diluted.
Herbert Slatery III, the Attorney General of Tennessee, has signed a letter condemning recent revisions to the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code on sexual crimes. This is contrary to what evidence shows would make Tennessee safer.
Earlier in 2021, ALI, an influential body comprised of attorneys, judges and scholars in various fields of research (currently including seven members of U.S. Courts of Appeal and justices on the highest courts of several states), published its recommendations for revising laws dealing with sexual offenses. Being the first update to this section in 50 years, this is long overdue as the body of evidence and documented research around this topic has exploded in the past several decades.
Decades of research should lead to legislation update
READ MORE AND COMMENT (Thanks Sandy)
Things will change only when the pain of remaining the same is greater than the pain of change.
Obviously those that fear loosing their elected office over the truth are more willing to promote the well dressed lie over the shabby truth.
If you cannot trust them to legislate on data rather than emotional lies, it begs the question, what else are they lying about?
Somewhere, somehow, politicians need to be confronted in the presence of voters in such a manner as to make them squirm over their lies. Perhaps a question of why did you vote to do XYZ when it costs the state X$ and data clearly shows ABC. A question to the pol, Could this wasted $ be better used in another program?Of course all of this is predicated on the notion they have some sense of shame.
There needs to be more journalism calling out individals in these law groups coupled with empirical evidences, peer reviewed papers, and individual experts willing to be cited in articles. This whole registry scheme is a political tool to make money for donors and get reelected. It’s legal money laundering. At the expense of our freedom.
I think that’s just it, if they focused only on the major threat, and not so much on the vast majority, than they could actually accomplish it. Instead, they want it all, and cannot handle it all. The majority of registered folks are of little to no concern, and do not require probation style treatment, let alone draconian threat level treatment for which the majority face. The majority of concerned citizens, really only want to know if a registered person lives near by, and not so much about the other ridiculous sanctions that we must face. But, we also have your facist people who are going to want it all and more! Between the lawsuits and constant changes in the laws, and some judges finally taking a stand, it’s a slim chance that it will all run itself into the ground, and States will have to back down eventually! Time will tell.
Wow, thank you Sandy. For me, this article is very timely in that I’m composing a letter for the judiciary committees in my state legislature. Your article eloquently discusses some of the concepts I want to use, but have only developed in nascent form. Thanks for the intellectual booster shot.
Veritas.
One must remember, all these reactionary and fear-driven registry laws weren’t exactly created by the “best and brightest.” They were created by opportunistic politicians exploiting fear propaganda and child safety rhetoric for political furtherance.
.