Thanks, Again, for Your Votes

Once again, thanks to every registered citizen and their family members and friends who exercised their right to vote in the May 13 primary election. You showed the impact we can have by helping to send Jon Bruning and Pete Pirsch to the loser’s corner.

Bruning and Pirsch are the chief architects of the laws that place you and your family on the Nebraska State Patrol’s public hit-list website, and if you voted, you played a role in putting these two out of office. Good for you!

Now, please help spread the word for the general election and every election after: Felons in Nebraska are eligible to vote if they completed their sentences two or more years ago and have not reoffended. For your review, here is additional information.

We will be interviewing candidates for various offices and we will keep you informed of their views on whether you, your spouses, your children, etc., should be exposed to state-sanctioned vigilante violence.

And just why are you exposed to this violence?

It’s because of the huge and profitable sex-offender industry. Law enforcement agencies get millions of your tax dollars for fattening the registries. They are paid with your tax dollars for the home-invasion stunts that they pull.

Take a look at some of the metrics for the federal grant dollars (pork — your tax dollars) that are handed to law enforcement agencies (these are pulled directly from the document outlining expenditures of funds in the discredited Adam Walsh Act):

  • “Percentage of records/data made electronically accessible for inclusion in SORNA jurisdiction sex offender registries . . . “
  • “Percentage of registered sex offenders in compliance with jurisdiction registry requirements.”
  • “Number of sex offenders newly registered . . . “

It is an evil, ingenious method: Whip up public fear of sex offenders (by ignoring research proving their low reoffense rates); use that fear to pass outrageous laws that do not enhance public safety but pack more and more families onto sex-offender registries; channel tax dollars into grants that support additional registry-packing activities . . .

It’s just a huge numbers game that has nothing to do with public safety, because the research shows that the Adam Walsh Act does not enhance public safety and probably erodes it.

To repeat:

 It is a numbers game designed  to fatten former sex-offender registries and siphon off your tax dollars.

‘An Electorate That Subsists on a Steady Diet of Fear’

In March 2011, Professor Catherine L. Carpenter of the Southwestern Law School published The Evolution of Unconstitutionality in Sex Offender Registration Laws.

Published here is the abstract from that article. At the end of the post, you will find a link to an online source for the entire article. NU / FACTS recommends this article to anyone in Nebraska who has a sincere interest in public safety. We urge politicians and certain segments of law enforcement to read it, too.

The Evolution of Unconstitutionality in Sex Offender Registration Laws


Catherine L. Carpenter 


Southwestern Law School
March 13, 2011

Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 63, p. 101, 2012 

ABSTRACT

More is not always better. Consider sex offender registration laws. Initially anchored by rational basis, registration schemes have spiraled out of control because legislators, eager to please a fearful public, have been given unfettered freedom by a deferential judiciary. 

This particular article does not challenge the state’s legislative power to enact sex offender registration laws. Instead, this piece posits that, even if sex offender registration schemes were initially constitutional, serially amended sex offender registration schemes – what this piece dubs super-registration schemes – are not. Their emergence over the last several years demands reexamination of traditionally held assumptions that shaped the original legislation. 

Two intertwined causes are responsible for the schemes’ constitutional downfall. The first is a legislative body eager to draft increasingly harsh registration and notification schemes to please an electorate that subsists on a steady diet of fear. When combined with the second cause, a Supreme Court that has yet to signal much needed boundaries, the ensuing consequence is runaway legislation that is no longer rationally connected to its regulatory purpose. Ultimately, this article is a cautionary tale of legislation that has unmoored from its constitutional grounding because of its punitive effect and excessive reach.

Click here to find a downloadable PDF of the entire 63-page paper.