If You Got One of Those Postcards From Tim Dunning, Remember to Vote This Year!

Still no response from the Douglas County sheriff regarding the bullying extra-legal postcard he sent to all former SOs (click here for details). (We also have yet to hear from the state attorney general regarding the Douglas County practice of refusing to provide you with documentation of your verification visit).

Many of us have already decided that we’re not going to vote for Tim Dunning this year.

Remember that in Nebraska, felons are eligible to vote automatically two years after they have completed their sentences. All former SOs who are eligible to vote need to become active in their local elections, ESPECIALLY THE SHERIFF ELECTIONS. The ballot box is where you express your opinion regarding the way your sheriff has been treating you.

The Douglas County sheriff’s term ends this year and he has to be re-elected to keep his job.

Click here for important dates.

Click here for information on your voting rights.

Nebraskans Unafraid will keep you updated on election races and provide you with information on each candidates’ beliefs and behavior regarding former SOs. We invite you to use the comments section on this website to share your opinions as well. Remember that under current Nebraska law, our numbers are growing fast and we can make a difference with our votes.

5 FACTS About Former SOs That Should Help Shape Corrections Fixes

The need to fix Nebraska’s broken corrections systems could not be more clear. This report is but the latest piece of information that thoughtful public policy makers should take into account.

Because former sex offenders are part of the equation, these facts borne out by research also need to be considered:

1. Research on Nebraska registrants shows that they are a much lower risk for reoffense than popularly thought. It is not true that Nebraska’s LB 285 of 2009 reduced offending. Even so, year-to-year reoffense rates for former sex offenders in Nebraska are at about 1 percent or less.

2. Qualitative research that is still under way is showing that neither corrections nor law enforcement are making a positive difference with former sex offenders in Nebraska.

3. Nebraska’s current LB 285 tiering system for registrants IS NOT  based on risk for reoffense. It is based on a system of categorizing an offender’s conviction — a system devised by politicians, some of whom later were themselves discovered to be sexual offenders. This system, put in place by LB 285 of 2009, resulted in some offenders who had been found to be low-risk under the old system being reclassified as tier III  — lifetime — registrants under Nebraska’s current system. Most states have rejected the type of tiering used in Nebraska because it does not take risk into account.

4. Nebraska’s LB 285 of 2009 creates a complicated web of new technical law violations (residency and travel requirements included) that can result in an offender being sent to prison as the result of a clerical error in a sheriff’s office. This is a needless “feeder system” that is bloating the Nebraska corrections system with people who are not dangerous.

5. Any talk of privatizing corrections should be avoided. When corrections becomes a for-profit industry, it creates a demand for inmates. If corrections is a for-profit industry, there is no compelling incentive to reduce crime because that would hurt business. The demand has to be fed by the creation of laws like LB 285 of 2009. (Simillarly, ankle bracelets have become widely used not because they are good law enforcement tools. They are used because the ankle-bracelet industry makes a lot of money and very effectively markets the technology to law enforcement).

OK, Help Us Understand: Who Do These Laws Protect?

Warn your kids that “sexting” can get them convicted and sentenced to years or a lifetime on a public shaming internet list just like the one used by the Nebraska State Patrol.

This case is from Canada — but it typifies what happens when crazy laws are enacted.

The people who create these laws say they’re protecting kids. They have no idea how many kids they are harming, all for the sake of a vote or two. We have come to this sad pass regarding sex-offender laws: When a politician says she or he wants to protect your kids, you better make sure you are protecting your kids from the law.