03/03/2012 UPDATED: 129th General Assembly page.

Today in Ohio over 20,000 (or 99.9%) of registered sexual offenders DID NOT re-offend. 

Only .75 RSOs in Ohio recidivate sexually each day. 

 (.75/21511)*100 = 99.99%.

Even if you say for the whole year how many RSOs re-offend sexually?

239/21511 = 98.9% do not re-offend

Note: Re-offenses in one year. There are more RSO registered than shown above. This data is only for the last ten years (2000-2010). Ohio has had the registry since 1996. For those extra four to five years there is nearly an additional 5000 RSOs who have been on the registry from 10 to 15 years. They only add about 1 re-offense a year at the most. The re-offense rates for each year after released is based form the information found in ODRC Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up Of 1989 Sex Offenders Releases R4

Learn more about sexual offender recidivism. Click here

100,000 Sexual Offends are missing and not registering, not even close. Click here

        The ultimate goal is with the correct and current data that these laws will be abolished. At a minimum be replaced with fact based laws. Even then they are too dangerous and subject to abuse. Public education is difficult with the emotions involved. While it should not be abandoned, the fight needs to be aimed elsewhere. The legislator in creating more legislation that does not and can not fulfill its stated objectives. Mainly protecting anyone. Second place is the courts. Since the legislator does not have the courage make the hard decisions, the courts are the last resort. Hopefully the information listed here will assist you in your education and in improving your situation.  

         Ohio Bills section is a listing or all bills and their status for the current Ohio General Assembly. Once again that relate to sexual offender registration. Once again filtered out of the hundreds of other bills that are not relevant to this issue. These are updated monthly. 

        Ohio Statute list two versions of the current Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2950 and a few other relevant sections. First version id full text. The second version is an abridged version what is easier to read. This page is up to date and well as the history page. This page is updated as needed.

        Ohio Law Library is now open, but under construction. All Ohio court opinions that cite Chapter 2950 are listed. Many of these opinions are not on the Ohio Supreme Court site. Therefore you have to go to a physical Law Library to read them. The other option is pay for an expensive subscription for a online service. Now non-attorneys can now at least find the court opinions that effect so many lives and learn how these laws have been justified in the courts. This page is in process, and alot of work. It will be some time before it is completed. Once it is finished a federal version will completed focusing on the 6th Circuit. This will also list precedent setting federal cases from other districts and the US Supreme Court. Most importantly, keep in mind to fully research an issue. Specifically if you find an opinion that favors or rejects an argument your making. That opinion may have been reversed or affirmed by an higher court or another opinion. These pages are a very good starting point and educational tool. If you truly want to mount a legal fight you will need many more resources. 

    The Sexual Offender Hearing Hand-Book. A handbook for those who may be facing a Ohio Sexual Offender Classification hearing or a hearing to remove registration duties or community notification. It is intended to educate these involved in determining who is sexually dangerous in Ohio and guide them to making a fact based and accurate decision. 

"Although certainly even one sexual oriented offense is reprehensible and does great damage to the life of the victim, R.C. Chapter 2950 is not meant to punish a defendant, but instead, ‘to protect the safety and general welfare of the people of this state.’ R.C. 2950.02(B). Thus, if we were to adjudicate all sexual offenders as sexual predators, we run the risk of ‘being flooded with a number of persons who may or may not deserve to be classified as high-risk individuals, with the consequence of diluting both the purpose behind and the credibility of the law. This result would be tragic for many.’ " State v. Eppinger (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 158,165, 743 N.E.2d 881

 

Sexual recidivism 10 years after release.

* These percentages are the Total Recidivism (11%) broken down by why the offender returned to prison. (PDF)

Case of the month.

State v. Cowan (2004), 103 Ohio St.3d 144, 2004-ohio-4777, 814 N.E.2d 846 pdf

Dogs – R.C. 955.22 – Failure to confine or restrain vicious or dangerous dog -- Procedural due process – Statute unconstitutional insofar as it fails to provide dog owner with opportunity to be heard on question whether dog is “vicious” or “dangerous”—Convictions reversed.

In this case some dogs had attacked someone. Revised Code 955.11 defines a vicious or dangerous dog as a dog that has killed or caused serious injury to any person or has caused injury, other than killing or serious injury, to any person, or has killed another dog. This like Tier classifications looked to attach as an operation of law. Meaning no hearings are required. The statute does not define any process for this. Yet in the case above dog and their owners are to be given the opportunity to have hearing as to if the dog is dangerous or not. 

When someone is convinced of certain crimes, that are determined to be dangerous. This is based solely on the crime that has been committed. One is the assume as a result there are different  frequencies and lengths of registration along with the fact there are different tiers that some are more dangerous than others. The irony is dogs have more rights to have their dangerousness determined that former sexual offenders.

Regent Law Professor Explains Why You Should Never Talk to Police Officers

An interesting paper about terrorist and sexual offender registration titled "The Preventive State, Terrorists and Sexual Predators: Countering the Threat of a New Outsider Jurisprudence" by Eric S. Janus, Professor of Law. 40 Crim. L Bull 576

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

US: Sex Offender Laws May Do More Harm Than Good

    (New York, September 12, 2007) – Laws aimed at people convicted of sex offenses may not protect children from sex crimes but do lead to harassment, ostracism and even violence against former offenders, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Human Rights Watch urges the reform of state and federal registration and community notification laws, and the elimination of residency restrictions, because they violate basic rights of former offenders.

    The 146-page report, “No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the United States,” is the first comprehensive study of US sex offender policies, their public safety impact, and the effect they have on former offenders and their families. During two years of investigation for this report, Human Rights Watch researchers conducted over 200 interviews with victims of sexual violence and their relatives, former offenders, law enforcement and government officials, treatment providers, researchers, and child safety advocates