Response to Posting #1

From:  Our district’s only U.S. Congressman
Date: 10/10/2008, received on 10/24/08

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to the International Megan's Law of 2008 (H.R. 5722). I appreciate hearing from you and having the benefit of your views.
This legislation would require the reporting of convicted sex offenders and sex traffickers before they engage in international travel. H.R. 5722 has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. To date, no further action has been taken on the measure. You may be assured that I will continue to support legislation that protects the sanctity of human life.

Again, thank you for contacting me. For your convenience, you may receive further information from me on issues important to the 7th District at http://________.house.gov. Your thoughts and comments are always welcome.

With kind regards, I am

                                 __________________
Member of Congress

Response to Posting #1

From:  Me
Date: 10/26/2008

Dear Congressman _______,

I received your letter dated October 10 on October 24; please feel free to refer to me as Mrs. _______ as opposed to Ms. _________. I have been married for almost seventeen years to a wonderful man. Your letter was in response to my September 7 letter regarding the International Megan Law (HR5722).

I appreciate your response and I am trying to understand it. Your statement in question is this: “you may be assured that I will continue to support legislation that protects the sanctity of human life.”

My husband and I obviously support such a statement, but in the matter of registered sex offender laws this is a bit vague at best. The problem is that being sentenced to be listed as a Sex Offender sounds quite innocuous at first. One quickly realizes it to be what it is, a truly oppressive and life changing sentence. My husbands’ life, my life and all of our family members’ lives have been crushed and tainted by the registry.

My husband’s brother asked early on “so what’s different on a day to day basis.” The truth is that nothing one can see has changed, the things that have changed is that one never knows when this will come up and in what context. You begin to fear answering questions, like where do you live, answering the phone, answering the door or even stepping outside because you just don’t know what you’ll be walking into. It’s not a day to day problem but a minute to minute elevation of stress that one must experience to have even the slightest amount of appreciation for. The cloud of shame that the state has placed above our heads, so to speak.

Your statement could be interpreted as either sympathetic or dismissive. I would like to understand, but the phrase “protect the sanctity of life” is just so vague. Do you mean that you will help preserve our sanctity of life including our quality of life, or do you mean that you would disregard our lives in order to protect people from what you think that someday my husband might do? Despite the fact that there was no evidence against him, the entire neighborhood knows the girl was lying and all studies on recidivism demonstrate there is little if nothing to fear.

Our requests are quite simple, the AWA and Megan’s Law allow states some latitude on whom and what information will be posted on the Sex Offender Registries site. Studies have actually shown that sentencing someone to be listed on theses web-site’s indefinitely is more harmful to society than helpful. It leaves the sentenced person to limited possibilities for housing, employment and social interaction. We feel that to hope for one to rehabilitate themselves there must be a system of positive reinforcement.

You must give these people a light at the end of the tunnel. You could help to lead America with a productive system of reintegration; you could institute a system where as time passed without the registered finding himself at odds with society that his restrictions would become progressively less. For instance, if a non-violent offender went 5 years with no legal issues he would remain registered with the State but his information would be dropped from the public registry, a violent offender could expect the same after 10 years. There would maintain the requirement to register, but would allow them to resume a productive life in society. It would also ensure the registry only showed the people who are currently considered a risk.

Personally I believe the non-violent offenders should be removed from public display immediately as they’ve already been evaluated and are considered to be no threat to the public by the courts.

Please think long and hard about these issues, because if you do truly consider the sanctity of life important, you must then consider that the lives being destroyed are not just the registered, but their spouse, their children and every family member sharing their name.

Thank you.

                Mrs._____________