1. You see something new
2. You learn to trust it and accept it.
3. You speak about it, passing on the information you were given to others.
4, You act upon the information given.
In this case the public
1. Public was told there was a need for the registry.
2. They accepted the false statistics perpetuated by political leaders, law enforcement, the media and vigilante groups.
3. The public began to spread the false information.
4. The public acted upon the false information by harassing, threatening, beating and on the extreme end, killing those in this newly created group.
Murder, Acceptable? Really?
Many people are calling these latest murders acceptable. Remember this is the United States, not some middle-eastern country where extremists rule the day. Or perhaps extremism does hold sway in the U.S. as well.
Dr. Peter T. Dickman and Dr. Andrea Bartoli, commenting on extremism noted; Ultimately, the core problem that extremism presents in situations of protracted conflict is less the severity of the activities (although violence, trauma, and escalation are obvious concerns) but more so the closed, fixed, and intolerant nature of extremist attitudes, and their subsequent imperviousness to change.
This describes the situation with current registry laws. True, extremism is usually a problem within small groups, while the mainstream is considered normal; when it comes to sex offender laws however, the extreme attitudes of people in general fits the definition of extremism, including its violence and escalation.
However, do current sex offender laws and specifically the public Sex Offender Registry rise to the definition of Terrorism?
The word, “Terrorism” comes from the French word terrorisme, and originally referred specifically to state terrorism as practiced by the French government during the Reign of terror. The French word terrorisme in turn derives from the Latin verb terre meaning “I frighten”.
The public registry, sponsored by both States and the Federal Government has led to violence, trauma and murder of members of this newly created class known as Registered Sex Offenders and in many cases their innocent family members. According to the definition above, the registry rises to the standards required to meet state sponsored terrorism.
What is more, is that the
public is permitted to, even encouraged to, harass, threaten,
traumatize and inflict any kind of demeaning ‘punishment’ to
those on the registry. This is proven true by reading comments
posted on the articles about the two recent murders in
Washington. The commenter’s have no fear of stating that killing
all registered offenders is a good thing. If this same standard
were applied to other groups, such as Blacks or Jews, these same
people would be facing charges for racism and terroristic
threats. The latter could bring them a prison term. However as
long as the person being threatened, even with murder is a
registrant, nothing will happen to the person spreading the hate
speech or terroristic threats.
It is interesting that our government will pass hate crime legislation, but on the flip side will also sponsor legislation aimed at allowing and even encouraging hate.
The verdict then is conclusive, from the above definitions and the evidence, the Government, at both state and federal levels are sponsoring terrorism in the form of a public registry, a hit list, where rules of conduct do not apply. Where verbal threats are accepted as proper and never prosecuted. This leads to escalation, such as vandalism, beatings and murder. Online stalking of registrants or anyone who becomes involved in reform activism is state approved and is encouraged by federal authorities. Murders of registrants have escalated over the past ten years and at the same time federal and state governments are unable and unwilling to show that the registry has not saved even one child.
This article has only taken into account the terrorism of registrants. It does not go into detail about the terrorism directed to their spouses and children. But these situations do exist and the government is turning a blind eye to them because, after all, the Government is sponsoring the registry and in doing so encouraging the mistreatment of registrants and their families and their friends.