Sunday, September 9, 2007

The No More Victims Act Of 2007

September 5, 2007

No More Victims Act-2007- An Act of Prevention

Our nation has become one filled with fear and suspicion. We don’t know who to trust and our cries for prevention of child sexual abuse have gone unheeded. We have registration for after…. the fact. It continues to grow at an alarming rate…..after the fact. After the fact is not good enough. After the fact is too late. Prevention deals with before the fact and isn’t that what we want?

Registration has been tested in the highest courts in the land and still stands. It is not punishment. It is not for vigilantism. Its sole purpose is to keep people safe by keeping them informed. The reasoning may be good but those who are already registered do not create the rapid growth. These are the ones among us who we never suspected.

When it comes to sex crimes there is always the question of how many go unreported. Adopting the NO More Violence Act of 2007 can answer that question.

We can use FDA approved assessment tools and polygraphs that are already being used and screen the public at large. If a need for treatment is indicated, it should be provided. These are the weapons used to combat unhealthy urges in those who have been convicted of a sex crime. No child deserves to be hurt and no individual wants to be an offender so this is a win/win situation.

Those of us with nothing to hide would welcome the opportunity to put up or shut up.
This is the solution that has been so evasive. Now we have it clutched tightly in our fists and the time of grasping for straws is in the past. We have captured the beast
Leading politicians and high-profile activists have spent many desperate years advocating for solid solutions.

We ask those in the forefront to take our Act and push it through Congress and on the President’s office with record speed. We also ask that these individuals be first in line for the testing that will end the nightmare that has besieged us for so long.
This is important information that should be put in the hands of every American. Please show your support by posting it in as many places as possible.




Due to the high rate of sex crimes and the public’s demand that the government take whatever steps necessary to protect the children from adults who prey on them, I would like to introduce the “No More Victims” Act of 2007. The “No More Victims Act” of 2007 picks up where Megan’s Law and others like it left off. The common thread with all these laws is what to do after a crime has been committed and fails to address any preventative aspect. In order for there to be “No More Victims” our focus must now be on prevention of these crimes.

It has already been well established that the Federal Government and States have a “legitimate governmental interest” in protecting the public, especially the most vulnerable among us, America’s children. Additionally, the courts have ruled and the general public accepted that the rights of victims and/or would be victims, take precedent over the rights of those that “may” pose some future threat to society based solely upon empirical data and risk assessments, which are tools which “predict” future behavior.

It has also been well established - and upheld by numerous courts that what is currently known as the “Sex Offender Registry” is not a punitive scheme, but a regulatory one.
Designed to alert the community of those with a risk towards committing some future act.

Given that upwards of 90 percent of new sex crimes are committed by someone who is NOT currently on the sex offender registry, not known to law enforcement, and is not on community notification , and cloaked in anonymity, lawmakers have a duty to adopt the following measures to put an end to sex crimes for once and for all.

Since they have a stated “legitimate governmental interest” in protecting the public and since the techniques proposed herein would guarantee upwards of a 100%, if not a full 100% rate of success, it is incumbent upon lawmakers to adopt this act, so that there can be “No More Victims”

I introduce to you the following ACT, which shall be hereby known as the “No More Victims Act of 2007”.


All persons, both male and female, age 18 and over must submit to a plethysmograh and given a risk assessment while under polygraph. The plethysmograh purports to have a 100% effectiveness rate in predicting who will offend, is FDA approved, and already in use in the United States. Given the recent high rate of offenses among teachers, clergy, governmental and law enforcement officials, and any other person in a position of trust or authority I move to start with those individuals first, as well as with any other person that maintains a position where working among children whether paid or voluntary.

Based upon the results of the plethysmograph, polygraph and an empirical risk assessment, each individual who cannot “pass” shall be placed on a public “high risk” registry along with their assigned risk level.

The site must include the following:
1. a current photo
2. risk level
3. date of birth
4. living address
5. name of employer and work address
6. If attending and educational facility, the name and location of said facility
7. all e-mail addresses and online identifiers
8. list any/all known deviations from currently accepted societal norms.
9. Individuals who pose a risk must obtain a yearly driver’s license or state issued non-operating identification card. The image must, within 3 business days be submitted to the agency responsible for maintaining the sex offender website.

In order to withstand any constitutional challenges which may arise, any prior criminal act which is discovered to have occurred via the risk assessment and prior to the enactment of this act cannot be held criminally liable based solely upon the information derived from the assessment. However, such acts must be considered when designating the risk level said individual poses to society.

We foresee no challenges in respect to constitutional rights violations as the sex offender registry is merely a tool for the public, to warn them of those that “may” pose some future risk to society and the intent is to prevent sex crimes. This “Act” merely expands the public’s awareness and would be a vital tool in the prevention of crimes as well as having the potential to catch those who have already committed crimes but have not been caught or prosecuted. Additionally, the courts have already ruled that registration is regulatory and not punitive in design and therefore The “No More Victims Act” will easily withstand constitutional challenges on that ground.



Leviah said...

This should stop sex abusers in their tracks! Why aren't thay already doing this? My cousin was abused by her father. He had never been in any trouble of any kind. It shocked us to death. We didn't even believe it until he was convicted. Good work John Walsh!

Linda said...

Lawmakers across the board laud the act as the "Be All To End All' in sex crimes

Rod said...

You have to cut and past both links into your browser.


Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)

Rod said...

Senator John Kerry

Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA)

Senator John Cornyn (R-TX)

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)

Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI 5th)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT)

Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE)

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA)

JKess said...

For all you who think this is such a good idea...what part of the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty" do you have a problem with?

You, in your "holy crusade" would turn the United States into something akin to what was going on during the time of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

Leviah said...

There is no comparison. The government should take all measures in protecting our children.
Read it again, most of the sexual abuse is committed by family members and friends who have never been in trouble and are not in a registry. There is not a sure way to stop that unless EVERY adult is investigated and exposed if they are capable of harming a child. The government needs to take John Walsh’s lead in protecting children. If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about.

Ed Darrell said...

Polygraphs are not acceptable as evidence for such decisions, under current law.

Ed Darrell said...

The more I read, the more I think you're pulling our legs. Shame on whoever is perpetrating this hoax.

Here's my reaction:

1. Polygraphs are not accepted for making such judgments.

2. The "plethysmograph" is also not accepted for making such judgments -- it's part of a standard polygraph, the tube that goes around your chest to determine when you breathe. I suspect that they're talking about using a plethysmograph on men to determine whether and when erections occur. First, this misses all the women who are sex offenders (fewer, sure, but remember Mary Kay LeTourneau); second, the device can only measure the physical capability of getting an erection; third, the device cannot measure whether someone who gets an erection will act on a thought -- men frequently get erections when they are nervous, such as when they are given polygraph tests. Men get erections watching movies. Not all men who get erections watching movies go out and re-enact the movies. Our civilization depends on people not acting out every instinctual reaction their body presents.

3. Many sex offenders are impotent, unable to get an erection. They still molest. Such a test would miss perhaps 50% of the people who WILL molest, and perhaps as high as 80% of those who would kill.

4. I can't find any indication anywhere that John Walsh has anything to do with it. This has popped up in forums all over the 'net in the last day, usually from a woman named Linda Wagner. Nowhere does John Walsh endorse it that I have found.

5. I have staffed state and federal legislatures. I have seen a few bills written worse than this one, but none in the federal legislature, and none that ever got enacted. "As introduced?" Where? I call your bluff: Give us the bill number, tell us where it was introduced.

6. What a damnably stupid idea.

Ed Darrell said...

The government should take all measures in protecting our children.

Why not just castrate all family members of small children? That would get rid of 10% of the offenders who would offend, perhaps -- more than this act would.

Line up and show us: If you have small children, since that puts you in the top category of offenders, go get yourself castrated. Do your part to show us how it works.

Leviah said...

That's just twisted. Just because someone has "small children" doesn't mean they are capable of sexually abusing them. Something needs to be done to stop those who "would" abuse them. At least we would know who to watch out for. I think this is one of the best solutions I've heard of. Nothing else is working, the abuse cases are plastered all over the news more and more every day. Very depressing.

Ed Darrell said...

But leviah, this proposal is a hoax. Don't you see that?

Leviah said...

You might be right, I don't know. It just makes perfect sense to me for the government to do this for our children. To know that most sexual abuses come from family and friends, someone we would never expect, invades our lives with an invisible boogey man that we can't fight against. That's just wrong. If this is a hoax, then it's a hoax that slaps us in the face with reality. I still think this is a great idea to stop abuse. Like was said, it's a solid solution.

Rod said...

Well, there is a REAL solution to all of this. It is called the Human Rights Watch Report with Patty Wetterling weighing in. She makes a lot of sense. Listen to the audio, then read the report.

Sex Offender Laws May Do More Harm Than Good

The Adam Walsh Act

The federal Adam Walsh Act, passed in 2006, will exacerbate the problems with state sex offender laws. It forces states to either dramatically increase the scope and duration of registration and community notification restrictions – including requiring states to register youths as young as 14 – or lose some federal law enforcement grant money. Compliance with the Adam Walsh Act will preclude states from adopting more carefully calibrated and cost-effective registration and community notification policies. At least some states are debating whether the costs of complying with the law outweigh the benefits. Human Rights Watch urges reform of the Adam Walsh Act.

Listen to Patty Wetterling:

Rod said...

If you think you can laugh this act off as a joke go here and read this.

Leviah said...

Ed, is there some kind of documented research showing that those tests don't work properly? I'm interested in knowing when they are used and why they are used if they aren't fullproof. Thank you in advance for all the information you can provide.

Rod said...

They are developing test that can be used before a crime is commited

Scientists say distinct differences in the brain activity of paedophiles have been found using scanning technology.
A Yale University team found activity in parts of paedophiles' brains were lower than in other volunteers when shown adult, erotic material.
The journal Biological Psychiatry said this was the first real-time evidence of differences in thought patterns.
A forensic psychologist from the UK said drug treatments for paedophilia might be possible.
There is increasing evidence that problems in certain areas of the brain may contribute to feelings of sexual attraction towards children.
In a few cases, patients with a brain tumour in a particular part of the brain have developed such feelings, only for them to go away when the tumour was removed.
The Yale study used functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), a technique which allows the activity within the brain to be recorded as the patient is thinking.
They found that when known patients with paedophilic feelings were asked to look at adult pornography, a part of the brain called the hypothalamus, which is known to be involved in arousal and hormone release, was less active than in other volunteers.
More generally, the more extreme the paedophilic behaviour was rated, the lower the activation in a part of the brain called the "frontal cortex".
However, Dr John Krystal, the journal's editor, said he didn't know whether this particular pattern of brain activity could be used to predict someone's risk of paedophilia.
But he said: "The findings provide clues to the complexity of this disorder, and this deficit may predispose individuals who are vulnerable to paedophilia to seek other forms of stimulation."
Drug treatment
Lead researcher Dr Georg Northoff added: "Our results may thus be seen as the first step towards establishing a neurobiology of paedophilia which ultimately may contribute to the development of new and effective means of therapies for this debilitating disorder."
In the UK, many experts are looking to the biology of the brain to explain not just paedophilia, but other types of compulsive criminality.
Dr Keith Ashcroft, a forensic psychologist at the Centre for Forensic Neuroscience, in Lancashire, said that other evidence pointed to problems in the pre-frontal cortex of the brain being linked to paedophilic thoughts.
He said: "Sexual behaviour is very complex, especially as some people are not aroused by visual stimuli, but by touch instead.
"I am campaigning for the use of anti-schizophrenia drugs in paedophilia, as these act on a similar part of the brain and may be useful."


Has anyone REALLY paid ANY attention to what this act is REALLY saying?
This act has a misleading name, and some people may end up supporting it, not fully understanding WHAT they are really supporting.
And "ROD", I think it is pretty clear who you really are, and that is that you are also the creator of this blog!
I wouldn't doubt it for a second, "Rod" = Jan Kruska AKA Amanda Rogers...DUH!
Google those names and see what pops up...

Rod said...

HAHA! That's funny, No, I'm all male and I'm in my 60's. I never met Jan or Amanda. And as much as I would like to have a blog, I haven't the slightest idea how to start one.
I do think you're right, people do take this serious. And the constitution is being destroyed for ALL Americans.The way I see it, the rate of sex crimes is slightly down from what it was 20 years ago and there was no national hysteria then and there shouldn't be one now. But in my educated opinion, it all has to do with destroying the Constitution,(protecting children is but a popular ruse. Because if they wanted to protect children, then they WOULD DO JUST THAT with sane laws, not laws that make matters worse). and bill of rights for EVERYONE. The Patriot Act and AWA are all about doing just that. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are if fact the very thing that is standing in the way of corporate America and a one party system. What a better way than to get society to agree to denying the constitution to a group of people while they themselves will in effect be denied the same thing.
Legislation based on emotion, always make for very poor law.
People who's lives are based on emotion are generally, immature. We are emotional creatures. We have to be entertained at all time and the government knows how to control the emotions of it's population. They do it with TV commercials while we get our political education from 10 second sound bites. And therefore lead down the primrose path like the sheep that we are.

Yes, your absolutely right. The NMVA of 2007 is and has been implimented in incremental stages for several years now. The far right tried to start it under Reagan, but he wouldn't have anything to do with that. Now, under Bush, (I voted for him twice) forgive me, is part of that take over to a one party system,. It doesn't matter which party is in power. They all wish to maintain that power.

Rod said...

I have always been a right wing conservative. Like I said in another post, I voted for Bush twice. It took awhile for me to open my eyes to see what the issues REALLY are.

Check this out.

Rod said...

Parts of sex offender law unconstitutional

Reader Comments (below)By The Associated Press wire report September 25, 2007 03:07 PM
Maine's highest court says provisions of Maine's sex offender law are unconstitutional because they retroactively increase criminal punishments for people convicted of sex crimes.

The supreme court also says portions of the law take away a person's rights of "pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness" under the Maine Constitution.

In its decision, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court restored a Kennebec County lawsuit challenging the sex offender registry.

An anonymous John Doe argued that Maine's Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act violated his rights. The man was convicted in the mid-1980s of a sex offense on a family member when he was 19 and sentenced to fewer than 70 days in jail.

Phoenix said...

Amazing stuff this 'proposal'... I agree with Ed it doesn't appear to have been introduced formally, but it does appear that there are some in Congress that have at least taken a shine to it, or just liked the title for they really didn't read it, obviously. For we all know that politicians don't really want to be the first to register all their personal information online like it states...

Not only that, it would appear that it is just an extension of the Patriot Act, where our rights have already been violated. I think that this is just the caulk in the coffin of human and civil rights sealing up the holes that the legislature has ALREADY passed left behind.

What are they going to want next? DNA and Finger prints? Don't shake your head, that is where all of this, is headed...

Rod said...

Phoenix, I agree 110%. What a better way to destroy the constitution for EVERY citizen, than to turn one group against another and demand that group loose their rights. Not knowing, and emotionally led down the path that in effect, they are giving up their constitutional rights at the same time.
I see nothing more dangerous in this country than regulatory legislation.
al-Qaida does not have the power to destroy the Constitution and Bill of Rights. BUT, G.W. Bush and we, the people allow him to do so through regulatory legislation..
By the way, parts of the Patriot Act was declared unconstitutional today. And those who are standing up for the constitution are having parts of the sex offender legislation declared unconstitutional declared unconstitutional. One case in Ohio and another in Maine.
I do not want a one party government controlled by the big corporations. We need to get back to basics or we the people will be nothing more than we the slaves.

Leviah said...

There you go if those other tests aren't accurate, like Ed said, then the brain wave tests will surely hit the target. When they finish perfecting that test, the government should line people up to weed out the child molesters and stamp a big mark on their foreheads that can't be hidden. We wouldn't even need a costly registry then, we'd KNOW who is capable of molesting children. The people need to quit worrying about their "rights" when it comes to protecting our children. Children have a right to be safe.

Rod said...

Sorry to disappoint you Leviah, but NONE of these laws work. They do nothing, Nada, zilch, zip to protect even one child. The only thing they do is scare the hell out of the entire population and and secure for the ho's for votes and ho's for ratings their positions as truthsayers. Bullshit. It is about big money and politics. PERIOD. They don't care about protecting children, they only purport to. This country is surrendering its constitution to the fear merchants, who would enslave the entire population. THAT I strongly believe.

Letsgetreal said...

It looks like Bush has endorsed the Act. Go here.

You may have to copy and paste each line into your browser seperately.

Letsgetreal said...

Sarah Tofte

Sex offender laws may be doing more harm than good. That is the conclusion Human Rights Watch came to after two years of intensive research into sex offender registration, community notification, and residency restriction laws in the United States. Our research convinced us that politicians failed to do their homework by enacting popular laws without seeking expert advice on how best to prevent sexual violence.

Instead of an informed debate about how sexual violence ravages this country, politicians and the media have largely focused on child victims of truly horrific crimes by previously convicted sex offenders -- like the murders of Megan Kanka, Polly Klaas, and Jessica Lunsford. Horrific yes, but uncommon, which means the laws are designed to tackle only a tiny minority and fail to address the full picture of sexual violence.

A growing number of child safety and rape prevention advocates agree that current laws are not working. For example, the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CALCASA), a state-wide coalition of 84 rape crisis centers and sexual assault prevention programs, had this to say about residency restriction laws: They "waste valuable resources on sex offenders who are unlikely to reoffend, while leaving a deficit of treatment, supervision, and focus on offenders who we know should be receiving more intense scrutiny."

Two popular myths about child abusers underlie many of our sex offender laws: first, that our children have most to fear from strangers, and second, that sex offenders will inevitably repeat their crimes. But the data tell a different story. More than 90 percent of child sexual abuse is committed by someone the child knows and trusts. And recidivism rates for sex offenders are far lower than most people believe -- authoritative studies show that three out of four do not re-offend within 15 years of release from prison.

Furthermore, focusing much of our public policy resources on restricting the rights of former sex offenders will do very little, if anything, to protect the 87 percent of victims of sexual violence who were abused by someone who had no previous sex crime conviction.

Residency restriction laws, in place in 20 states, are based on another popular belief about former offenders -- that keeping them away from places where children gather will reduce their risk of re-offending. But there is no evidence these laws diminish crimes against children and some to suggest the opposite.

A recent study by the Minnesota Department of Corrections analyzed 224 sex offender recidivists to see if where they lived had an effect on their crimes. The study found that residential proximity had very little impact on a recidivist's opportunity to re-offend. Many took pains to drive far from their neighborhoods in order to re-offend. More than half (113) came into contact with their victims through "social or relationship proximity" to the child. The most common example was that of a male offender who found his victim(s) while socializing with their mother.

The main impact of residency restrictions may be to drive former offenders underground, away from families, police supervision and the help that can stop them re-offending. As an Iowa sheriff pointed out, "We've taken stable people who have committed a sex crime and cast them out of their homes, away from their jobs, away from treatment, and away from public transportation. It's just absolutely absurd what these laws have done, and the communities are at greater risk because of it."

Law enforcement officials and sex offender treatment providers repeatedly told Human Rights Watch that isolating former offenders is counter-productive. Existing parole and probation laws already permit law enforcement agencies to place restrictions and conditions on former offenders when appropriate.

All registered sex offenders must provide a home address, but because of the restrictions, some do not have a home. Police in Iowa, which has seen residency restrictions backfire, have resolved this conundrum by allowing individuals to register as homeless, if they specify a location. So users who go to Iowa's online registry will find addresses listed as "on the Raccoon River between Des Moines and West Des Moines," "behind the Target on Euclid," and "underneath the I-80 bridge." I visited some of these "addresses." The areas are industrial, polluted, noisy, full of debris, and, in one case, right next to an active railroad track.

As a Des Moines police officer explained, "We don't expect that the registrants are actually living under the bridge, it's just one of the few places where they are legally allowed to admit they are living, and so they list that as their address, and go live someplace else."

Since the law took effect in Iowa, police have lost track of hundreds of former offenders.

Even online registries, where the personal details of offenders, but not necessarily the nature of their crime, are accessible to anyone with an Internet connection, may not be that useful. Some were convicted of non-violent offenses, others were children when they committed their crime. Police already have the duty to inform neighbors when an offender who might pose a threat moves in.

But it's one thing to say parents should be told there's a dangerous man living next door -- which they should -- and quite another to let anyone browse the registries to see who's listed, regardless of any need to know. Unfettered access to registry information can and does lead to harassment, ostracism and even violence against former offenders. That doesn't protect anyone. More effective would be to ensure that police actually pass on potential threats to the relevant community.

We deserve laws that protect everyone from sexual violence. Former offenders need laws that allow them to rebuild their lives -- because when they succeed in safely rejoining their communities, we are all made safer. State and federal legislators should end residency restrictions and reform online registry and community notification laws so they target high-risk offenders.

It's not surprising that those who know something about the nature of sexual violence in the United States have started to criticize the way the laws treat former sex offenders. But it's a shame that politicians don't seem to be listening to the experts who could help to craft laws that might actually prevent sexual violence.




Petra Luna would NEVER support this crappy law!

WM said...

Why stop at pre-SOs?

Brain Mapping (and even PP) could be used for all pre-crimes ...

Violent films for the pre-violent.

Cases of cash for the pre-fraudulent and pre-thieves etc etc.

Think outside the box.


charmeyn said...

Hi "Real" Petra Police,

Yes this blog is definitely not written by you; I know you would not advocate such a ludicrous proposal such as this.


Maybe I should make a blogspot and start promoting April's Law & Jessica's Law, then sign off as Jan Kruska LMAO! Then make another one In Amanda Rogers name too, & hey why stop ANY means necessary, right?
Oh wait, I am TOO GOOD FOR THAT!
I don't need to stoop to pigish levels to get attention.
I'm a sex offender WAAAAA, I have rights too WAAAAA, I want to not have to be punished for my dispicable sex crimes(s) against other people WAAAAA!!!!

tomebaden said...

I haven't read anything so utterly retarded in my life. Since somewhere in the 90% range of all child molestation cases come from parents, how do you suppose this will be a "be all to end all" in sex crimes? Who ever proposed this, is obviously challenged on many levels intellectually and socially. I followed one link here suggesting that the pedophiles brain is different than who? The hetero-sexual or the Gay or those that are just into sex with fat women? Or inter-racial? How about Anal? Oral?

Give me a break. These people had how many people who they assumed to be "normal" and how many they new for a fact were pedophiles?

Obviously only one conclusion can come from this study. The overwhelming majority of child molestation cases are commited by people who are not actually pedophiles.

The notion that because 90% of all new molestation cases come from first time offenders still does not make pedophilia a pressing problem in our society. We do not need a panacea that would deprive people of due process and their right to privacy and presumption of innocence as well as I suppose their own children who they have not harmed?

It's too bad insanity like this is on the internet because even though I know intellectaully that only psycopaths who are driven by their own pedophilic demons are driven to propose such draconian measures, but some of them actually suceed such as Senator mark Foley who is responsible for some of the most onerous measures in the Adam Walsh act and Neil Cohen who was responsible for legislation against the very internet porn crimes he was caught for.

The fact that I am responding to this so called Act does not mean that I am freigtened by it. It is just that it is exceptionally stupid. Just consider the notion that those who would refuse the test would only refuse out of fear of failure! Thats like a cop telling you if you don't let him search your vehicle that would constitute probable cause to search your vehicle because if you had nothing to hide you would waive your right to privacy and consent like a good camrad.

I also know that the person who wrote this is mentally ill because I saw her on 20/20. She thinks a 22 year old women who had sex with a 16 year old kid who thought she was HOT is a pedo phile and deserves to be harrassed and exposed to all her neighnors.

This weirdo thinks she is a "voice for the children"

But is is her ilk that has many many childrens lives ruined in their late teens due to the stupid laws passed that she supports against consentual teenage sex that puts kids on the hightst level of the sex offender scale.

For some reason she refers to herself as PetraLuna, its appropriate because she has a rock for a brain and she is definately a lunatic.