I keep reminding people that Jethro Tull's "Aqualung" was a fictitious character in a song... They still aren't (or I guess even wanting to,) believing me.

I wonder who has bought stocks in the privatized prisons and Offender Watch LLC (the host for i-crime-watch-dot-com & the self-same software company that the Sheriffs use for the actual National Offender Registry and also the majority of the States use,) Software?
BTW: OW LLC took about 5 years (finally around 2/15/12) to correct their presentation (page 2) which used a 50% recidivism figure from what they "supposedly" quoted from, which they stated was the 1997 USDoJ report which clearly has has as the first two words: "FIVE PERCENT." (Emphasis: USDoJ) How may "Public opinions" were tainted by that erroneous number over the years?

The numbers ARE from Wiki. Remember, when you take a percentage OF a percentage that new percent number is quite higher, if you multiply them as you are supposed to do to get back to the totals, the actual numbers are STILL under 3% as in the USDoJ 1997 and the CT 2012 reports. Other reports/articles use this specific lack of information as "spin" all the time. They purposely lose/move the reference point to accept the larger numbers. Example from above using these two statements:
"Of the 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, 5.3% were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release. Of released sex offenders who allegedly committed another sex crime, 40% perpetrated the new offense within a year or less from their prison discharge."
The 40% is OF THE 5.3%. The math is figured as such: 5.3% of the total of 9691 offenders is 514 total offenders in three years. Forty percent of that number is 2.12% of the total offenders, or simply counted as 205. The forty percent figure "leads" you back to use the 9691 figure, which alludes to 3786 offenders erroneously, rather than the 205 which it actually is..

FYI: Their names are Frank Rodriquez, and Nikki Prescott and they were on the Today show on July 27, 2011. Go to the shows website and search Romeo and Juliet S*x offenders. They'll show up. Read some of the others STILL fighting AFTER their states have passed laws. Once an offender, ALWAYS an offender. Even if it was actually legal, or the laws were corrected.
I disagree with your 99%, it's more like 10%. Do some more research on your own. You may have a change of mind. Not many are violent, more than a lot are a 5 year difference. As I state all over, Ohio has adult with adult statutory charges that are legal everywhere else in the world. I know quite a few people who have been railroaded by these "codes" of law, ONLY IN OHIO, who are now Tier 3 with lifetime notifications for something the rest of the world only "frowns," if anything, upon their consensual actions. They are in process of getting the legislature to "correct" a vague wording that allows those prosecutions to happen with adult "victims" who consented. (The law was designed for minor victims, but OH's vagueness of the written law, allows it to apply to all ages, no matter what the circ*mstances, or even allow for any defense for that matter.)
I bet many more states have similar "off-the-wall" laws which have no defense and are only illegal in that state, reminds one of the Massachusetts "Blue Laws" still on the books. That's my point. I agree that a lifetime registry should only be for "civilly-commited" offenders who may be let "out" somehow. Everyone else should have a review after so much time. Not 15 or 25 years, a lot sooner. I understand that people "need" to feel safe, but as time goes on, day by day you hear more information to the opposite of the past 25 years of hype. There will never be a perfect solution to this issue, but there are many more ideas that are 100X better than what we already have. For ALL concerned, which I include Shana as a concerned. She should not be a target. If some of the cases were put on the registry with a "fair" amount of case information, as in stating the use of force, consent, being statutory-illegal in these states, a child victim, and actual AGE of offender on the date of the crime's actual commission, etc., we'd be much better informed. This is rather than lump all offenders into the (wrong) one "type."

Alana Goodman: Here's doing your job for you, readers shouldn't have to do this for you. We aren't paid.. The most recent recidivism report (from Connecticut) can be found here: http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/cjppd/cjresearch/re...
Please research before printing.

Look over at Ohio, they have THREE different laws that are purely statutory with 2 consenting adults!! Legal everywhere else in the world! Ohio then makes them Tier 3 (the worst of the worst) offenders with lifetime listings, and local notifications. Shouldn't have committed the crime? These "crimes" are not against the law anywhere else! There are many exceptions to your statement. (These Ohio people are then "branded" and wanted to have tattoos put on their foreheads, and strung up by their genitals by the masses.) All the registry will show on their crime is Sexual Battery, a Felony 3, and adult victim. Nothing else. It won't say anything of consent, or "just illegal in Ohio." The Registry is not a good catch-all. NY actually, in my mind has the right idea, only the dangerous are SUPPOSED to be on it. There are very many who shouldn't, especially children, who were/still are statutorily placed on it. Twelve year old children shouldn't. If Shana's fiancee was 18 years old at the time of the incident, and did what what happened completely on his own, then all of your statements would stand. In this instance, the complete story is being held back for what I believe are ratings. Harley, open your mind up just a little to see that the registry is no where near perfect. Let alone doing it's intended job. Everyone on it is not a child-molester or a violent-offender.

Alana Goodman: Here's doing your job for you, readers shouldn't have to do this for you. We aren't paid.. The most recent recidivism report (from Connecticut) can be found here: http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/cjppd/cjresearch/re...
The original that is quoted most places is the USDoJ report from 1994-1997 here: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp9...
It is a real note of interest that 15 years separate the two reports, and the numbers are pretty much exactly the same.
You're Welcome, Ms. Goodman.

BTW: When does "Commentary" send me YOUR free-lance check for doing your research work?

P.S. Re-edit: this particular post was delayed for an extra day I expect by its content. The CT report link was duplicated below, a day after when this one had not posted yet.

Repeating a previous posting here...
For statistics (I've tried to post these links before, but this site will not allow them apparently, edit: they now are letting them through)
1997: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp9...
2012: http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/cjppd/cjresearch/re...
These studies are 15 years apart and pretty much get to the same conclusions. Go figure. Independent AND years apart. Something must definitely be fishy here..

For statistics (I've tried to post these links before, but this site will not allow them apparently)
1997: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp9...
2012: http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/cjppd/cjresearch/re...
These studies are 15 years apart and pretty much get to the same conclusions. Go figure. Independent AND years apart. Something must definitely be fishy here..

You missed my point completely, and please do NOT put words in my mouth. No, it is not OK for ANYONE to be a target. I used the word "ALSO" above. The registry already "targets" him. From the article: "..and Rowan says it is impossible for them to move on" and "As long as the registry exists, I am always going to be living in fear," said Rowan. THOSE are blatant examples of collateral damage in my book.