Illinois Laws, Politicians and Re-Entry Information
| LOVE IS NOT A CRIME |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Although most of this page is for Illinois, there are some nationwide websites below |
| Who to write regarding our sex offender laws! |
The Illinois General Assembly
Managing Sex Offender Issues, Judiciary II -
Criminal Law Subcommittee - Members
96th General Assembly
Managing Sex Offender Issues, Judiciary II -
Criminal Law Subcommittee - Members
96th General Assembly
Illinois State Representatives
(All Districts)
(All Districts)
| (730 ILCS 150/) Sex Offender Registration Act |
| Re-Entry Information - Nationwide |
Missouri - Employment Services Directory
Organizations Focusing on Prisoner Reentry
Click on the link below to view a map containing various
state’s reentry-related activities and resources.
Information provided for each state includes the following:
state’s reentry-related activities and resources.
Information provided for each state includes the following:
- Descriptions of the grantees of OJP's Serious and
Violent Offender Reentry Initiative. - Other OJP activities and resources, including links to
grant activities and other resources from OJP’s
bureaus and offices. - State agency contacts, including the state’s
departments of corrections and education and a link
to the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) directory. - Descriptions of and links to local reentry-related
organizations and resources.
Connections to Success
Break the Cycle of Poverty - One Family at a
Time
Break the Cycle of Poverty - One Family at a
Time
Research and common sense tell us that if an individual
with a criminal record is going to remain "crime free" he
or she needs the self-sufficiency and stability provided
by regular employment.
with a criminal record is going to remain "crime free" he
or she needs the self-sufficiency and stability provided
by regular employment.
| A RIDICULOUS LAW SIGNED BY ILLINOIS GOVERNOR QUINN |
When will they realize what they are doing? How can the
public be protected by laws like this?
public be protected by laws like this?
Should sex offenders be allowed to use Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace
and other social networking sites? Illinois Governor Pat Quinn (pictured) thinks
not, and this week signed into law a bill that bans all registered sex offenders in
his state from using social networks.
This sounds satisfying on first listen – after all, why wouldn’t we want to take
every possible measure to prevent the horrendous crimes of sex offenders? But
many legal blogs are pointing out that the legislation is overzealous and possibly
unconstitutional.
Salon points out that in 13 states you’ll be added to the sex offenders register
for “urinating in public (in two of which, only if a child was present)”, while “29
states required registration for teenagers who had consensual sex with another
teenager”. In other words: it’s not just child molesters and rapists who would be
banned if such laws became accepted.
Then there’s the problem of implementation: who is going to keep an eye on
the thousands of registered sex offenders to see if they’re using Facebook and
Twitter? Surely there are better ways to spend police time than tracking the web
habits of someone who had sex in high school?
In short, punishing rapists and sex offenders may feel satisfying, but
this isn’t what the bill does: it’ll likely affect those who committed far
lesser crimes, prove unenforceable, and may even be unconstitutional.
and other social networking sites? Illinois Governor Pat Quinn (pictured) thinks
not, and this week signed into law a bill that bans all registered sex offenders in
his state from using social networks.
This sounds satisfying on first listen – after all, why wouldn’t we want to take
every possible measure to prevent the horrendous crimes of sex offenders? But
many legal blogs are pointing out that the legislation is overzealous and possibly
unconstitutional.
Salon points out that in 13 states you’ll be added to the sex offenders register
for “urinating in public (in two of which, only if a child was present)”, while “29
states required registration for teenagers who had consensual sex with another
teenager”. In other words: it’s not just child molesters and rapists who would be
banned if such laws became accepted.
Then there’s the problem of implementation: who is going to keep an eye on
the thousands of registered sex offenders to see if they’re using Facebook and
Twitter? Surely there are better ways to spend police time than tracking the web
habits of someone who had sex in high school?
In short, punishing rapists and sex offenders may feel satisfying, but
this isn’t what the bill does: it’ll likely affect those who committed far
lesser crimes, prove unenforceable, and may even be unconstitutional.
Write The Politicians - Stop This Before It's
Too Late!
Too Late!
| FOLLOW-UP ARTICLE TO THE ONE LISTED ABOVE August 13, 2009 |
Social-networking ban for sex offenders: Bad call?
The just-signed Illinois law banning sex offenders from social-networking sites
might seem like a good idea to protect children, but it will have virtually no
impact on their safety and could wind up making things worse.
But let's start with the problem the law is trying to solve. It's aimed at adults
who troll the Web in search of children to sexually exploit. While such people do
exist, they are rarely successful in harming youth whom they meet through the
Internet. Every peer-reviewed study conducted by the Crimes Against Children
Research Center and other scholarly organizations, as well as the report of
Internet Safety Technical Task Force, has concluded that the risk of online
predators is greatly exaggerated.
A January 2009 analysis of Pennsylvania cases by the Center for Safe and
Responsible Internet Use found, during a four-year period, that "only eight
incidents involved actual teen victims with whom the Internet was used to form
a relationship," compared to 9,934 children who were sexually abused in a single
year in that state.
If the law had no negative consequences, I would give it a pass. After all, who
cares about the rights of people who have been convicted of sex offenses? Well,
I do. Not because I think they're wonderful people but because it's in all of our
interest that, if they're not in prison, they be integrated into society to the
extent that they can function and be able to find and hold appropriate jobs.
Keeping these individuals away from the very types of sites that can help them
in their careers is counterproductive to the goal of rehabilitating them.
The other issue is how we classify sex offenders. Not everyone on every state
sex offender list is a danger to children. A recent article in The Economist,
entitled "Unjust and Ineffective, observes that "Many people assume that
anyone listed on a sex offender registry must be a rapist or a child molester. But
most states spread the net much more widely."
Citing a report from Human Rights Watch, the article says "at least five states
required men to register if they were caught visiting prostitutes. At least 13
required it for urinating in public (in two of those states, only if a child was
present). No fewer than 29 states required registration for teenagers who had
consensual sex with another teenager. And 32 states registered flashers and
streakers."
The article describes the plight of a young woman who, in 1996 at age 17, was
charged with having oral sex with a 16-year-old boy. She was given jail time and
probation, and wound up on a sex offender list. Should she be banned from
having a Facebook account or the ability to publicly comment on posts like this
one? I think not.
Another reason to question this law is that it can lead to more than one false
sense of security. To begin with, the most dangerous sex offenders aren't
necessarily the ones who are registered but the many who haven't yet been
caught and convicted. And if we focus exclusively on predation, we're likely to
lose track of the most dangerous aspects of youth online behavior, which are
mostly either kid on kid--such as bullying, harassment, and impersonation--or
self-imposed risks such as sexting or posting information that could be
embarrassing later in life.
[Click here for article]
might seem like a good idea to protect children, but it will have virtually no
impact on their safety and could wind up making things worse.
But let's start with the problem the law is trying to solve. It's aimed at adults
who troll the Web in search of children to sexually exploit. While such people do
exist, they are rarely successful in harming youth whom they meet through the
Internet. Every peer-reviewed study conducted by the Crimes Against Children
Research Center and other scholarly organizations, as well as the report of
Internet Safety Technical Task Force, has concluded that the risk of online
predators is greatly exaggerated.
A January 2009 analysis of Pennsylvania cases by the Center for Safe and
Responsible Internet Use found, during a four-year period, that "only eight
incidents involved actual teen victims with whom the Internet was used to form
a relationship," compared to 9,934 children who were sexually abused in a single
year in that state.
If the law had no negative consequences, I would give it a pass. After all, who
cares about the rights of people who have been convicted of sex offenses? Well,
I do. Not because I think they're wonderful people but because it's in all of our
interest that, if they're not in prison, they be integrated into society to the
extent that they can function and be able to find and hold appropriate jobs.
Keeping these individuals away from the very types of sites that can help them
in their careers is counterproductive to the goal of rehabilitating them.
The other issue is how we classify sex offenders. Not everyone on every state
sex offender list is a danger to children. A recent article in The Economist,
entitled "Unjust and Ineffective, observes that "Many people assume that
anyone listed on a sex offender registry must be a rapist or a child molester. But
most states spread the net much more widely."
Citing a report from Human Rights Watch, the article says "at least five states
required men to register if they were caught visiting prostitutes. At least 13
required it for urinating in public (in two of those states, only if a child was
present). No fewer than 29 states required registration for teenagers who had
consensual sex with another teenager. And 32 states registered flashers and
streakers."
The article describes the plight of a young woman who, in 1996 at age 17, was
charged with having oral sex with a 16-year-old boy. She was given jail time and
probation, and wound up on a sex offender list. Should she be banned from
having a Facebook account or the ability to publicly comment on posts like this
one? I think not.
Another reason to question this law is that it can lead to more than one false
sense of security. To begin with, the most dangerous sex offenders aren't
necessarily the ones who are registered but the many who haven't yet been
caught and convicted. And if we focus exclusively on predation, we're likely to
lose track of the most dangerous aspects of youth online behavior, which are
mostly either kid on kid--such as bullying, harassment, and impersonation--or
self-imposed risks such as sexting or posting information that could be
embarrassing later in life.
[Click here for article]
| Falsely Accused or Wrongfully Convicted F.A.S.T Can Help You [Click Here] |
| Illinois Re-Entry Information [Click Here] |