NPR Covers HRW Report

The HRW report seems to be getting a good amount of well-deserved positive attention.  Sentencing Law & Policy links to the NPR coverage of the report.  NPR also gave coverage to Familywatchdog.us to represent an opposition viewpoint (and one that comments here have serious problems with).  According to familywatchdog's website, there full response was due on Sept. 17, but I don't see it there (edit: it looks like it will be uploaded onto this page).  Right now, they seem to use a lot of angry, empty rhetoric, but I'm waiting to see if there is more substance to their criticisms.

Comments

[George]

I've posted 4 or 5 comments in argument against sections of the Familywatchdog "report" and none of them posted for some reason. Maybe they were surprised at the more balanced responses they got and discontinued allowing posts. Maybe they thought their paid members would overwhelm any criticism.

The tone of their rebuttal does seem over the top and meant to appeal to their "base."

[Ilah]

I'm rather surprised, actually, by the "layman" flavor of some of their research regarding the scope of the laws. It's not the fact that their answers are intended to be accessable to the layman (that should be the goal of all public policy debate, imo), but they sound as if the answers were _researched_ by those who had little more than a layman's knowledge.

For a group that maintains close ties with those at the forefront of drafting and promoting the laws that politicians end up passing, they sound downright ignorant about some of the legal aspects.

(Not that I, being a layperson myself, am some superior font of knowledge. But they seem to be missing some rather basic points.)

The bottom line is, HRW put forth an evidence-supported report demonstrating flaws inherent to the system--flaws that have been pointed out by individuals and organizations not only domestically, but internationally--that leave the majority of sex abuse victims vulnerable to new and ongoing abuse. In response, Family Watchdog attempts to discredit bits and pieces of the report (and mostly relies upon incorrect data to do so), yet never addresses the basic fact that no registry on earth can prevent the almost-90% of abuse that is committed by those not on a registry, nor has the registry prevented the over 10% of abuse that is committed by someone on the registry.

[Mark in Jersey]

Yesterday afternoon (09/18) Family Watchdog purged a vast number of comments that were critical of their response. During the morning, I had approximately five comments posted, but Family Watchdog deleted them from their comments section.

While they are a private organization, and can do whatever they want with their website, I find their lack of transparency, and the lack of explaining why comments were purged, dishonest.

Especially their posted statement "We are being inundated with feedback. We thank everyone for their participation, regardless of your position." is deceptive.

[Mark in Jersey]

Regarding the first poster (George), and my concern about the "disappearing", or "purged" comments on the Family Watchdog site:

I have emailed them, and the following is their response:

"Hello!

Due to the large number of feedback we have received, we are changing our
moderation process. We have removed all feedback from the bullet points.
We appreciate any suggestions.

Thank you
Customer Service"

So at least now Family Watchdog.us admits to "purging" comments, and changing their moderation process. Since critical analysis of Watchdog's attack on the Human Rights Watch report probably won't be "allowed" on Watchdog's website, and as I see many comments on the NPR blog covering this issue, I will try to post there.

[George]

Well, when the facts don't support you, 1984 them. It's the American way.

[eAdvocate]

Folks you are correct as to purging of comments on the Family Watchdog site. George said it best.

Well, I have copied all comments into a Word file, unfortunately I know I have missed some as I was busy yesterday and a few folks e-mailed me telling me their comments disappeared.

Today I started a new blog to address the claims made by Family Watchdog, you folks can find it here:
http://rebuttal-familywatchdog.blogspot.com/

I noted that I will moderate comments to the extent that they are not professional, to get rid of bad language which I do not want on my sites. The remainder will be posted.

Family Watchdog has presented apparently 8 issues so far, I have addressed 6 of them in detail, and the remaining two -dealing with certain facts about North Carolina- I'm not sure I'll be able to address as I don't have access to those facts. However I will broadly address the issues raised at a minimum.

So far, FW appears to have made a few slanderous comments in those accusations which I cannot find any substance to. But you can read my comments on the new blog.

[Mark in Jersey]

Since we are discussing and commenting on the HRW report, we all must remember that the sex offender registration laws are changing due to Title I of the Adam Walsh Act - SORNA (Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.)

Currently, the U.S. Attorney General has issued Proposed Guidelines, which appear in the Federal Register, May 30, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 103, starting at p. 30210. These guidelines require all of the States to revamp their sex offender registration laws, in order to continue receiving Federal funding.

Being that there was a Public Comment period that expired on August 31, 2007, I was interested in reading the Public Comments sent to the SMART (Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking) office.

I emailed Laura Rodgers, director of the SMART office, to see if the comments were available on the internet. She said she could send the comments to me via regular mail. But here is the shocker: I asked her approximately how many comments were received regarding SORNA. Her answer:

"The comments are available by mail. I would estimate there is approximately 500 pages. If you would like to receive a copy, please provide your mailing address so we can assist you."

500 Pages!!! I hope someone will be able to make these available electronically on the internet. Seems like the Proposed SORNA guidelines will be significantly modified if the SMART office takes all these comments into consideration...