Evidence-Based Sex Offense Classification and Community Safety Act (ESCCSA)

Liberty Justice
1

SECTION 1. TITLE

This Act shall be known as the Evidence-Based Sex Offense Classification and Community Safety Act (ESCCSA).

SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE

(a) Legislative Findings:

  1. Scientific research shows that not all sex offenses carry equal recidivism risks.
  2. The majority of individuals convicted of sexual offenses do not reoffend, especially when risk-based treatment is provided.
  3. Broad, lifetime public registration fails to enhance safety and wastes resources.
  4. Juvenile offenders and low-risk adults require different approaches from violent serial predators.

(b) Purpose:
This Act establishes a tiered system for sex offense classification based on scientifically validated risk assessments, enabling more effective public protection, rehabilitation, and use of resources.

SECTION 3. TIER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Tier 1 – Low Risk / Non-violent First-Time Offenses

  • Examples:
    • Consensual sexual activity between minors with small age gap (Romeo-Juliet cases)
    • First-time indecent exposure
  • Registry Duration: 10 years
  • Access: Law enforcement only
  • Petition for Early Removal: After 5 years, with no reoffense and treatment compliance

Tier 2 – Moderate Risk / Non-violent Repeat or Exploitation Offenses

  • Examples:
    • Non-contact exploitation (e.g., possession of child sexual abuse material)
    • Online solicitation without meeting the victim
    • Multiple low-severity offenses
  • Registry Duration: 20 years
  • Access: Community notification at local level
  • Petition for Removal: After 10 years, with evaluation and compliance

Tier 3 – High Risk / Violent or Contact Offenses

  • Examples:
    • Forcible rape
    • Sexual abuse of minors
    • Violent predatory behavior or serial offenses
  • Registry Duration: Lifetime (reviewable after 25 years)
  • Access: Full public website and law enforcement notification
  • Petition for Review: After 25 years, upon demonstrated rehabilitation

SECTION 4. RISK ASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS

  • All individuals are assessed using validated tools, such as:
    • Static-99R
    • Stable-2007
    • Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II) for youth
  • Assessment must be conducted by certified, independent forensic evaluators
  • Results determine eligibility for tier assignment, treatment path, and removal

SECTION 5. JUVENILE OFFENDERS

  • Juvenile offenders are not automatically registered
  • Court may order registration only for violent or high-risk cases
  • Mandates individualized assessment and access to youth rehabilitation
  • Automatic expungement upon completion of treatment and reaching age 21 if no reoffense

SECTION 6. COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION AND PRIVACY

  • Public notification limited to Tier 3 only
  • Tier 1 and Tier 2 offenders are monitored by law enforcement but are not publicly listed
  • Prevents community harassment, vigilantism, or housing/job discrimination based on low-risk registration

SECTION 7. RESIDENCY & OCCUPATIONAL RESTRICTIONS

  • No blanket 1,000- or 2,000-foot bans
  • Residency restrictions only apply to Tier 3 offenders if the offense involved child victims
  • Employment restrictions tied to risk level and supervision context – not based on offense label alone

SECTION 8. TREATMENT, REHABILITATION & REENTRY

  • Mandatory access to:
    • Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT)
    • Polygraph-informed treatment (when appropriate)
    • Family reunification programs
    • Employment and housing support
  • Progress reports sent to supervising officers and courts

SECTION 9. REGISTRY REMOVAL PETITION PROCESS

  • Any registrant may petition for removal based on:
    • Years offense-free in the community
    • Successful completion of treatment
    • Favorable forensic psychological evaluation
  • A 3-member independent review board (psychologist, victim advocate, legal officer) determines eligibility

SECTION 10. DATA COLLECTION AND PUBLIC REPORTING

  • State Justice Department will publish annual transparency reports showing:
    • Recidivism rates by tier
    • Successful treatment completions
    • Registry impact on reoffense prevention
  • Use findings to adjust policies based on data, not politics

SECTION 11. SEVERABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION

  • If any provision is found unconstitutional, remaining sections shall remain in effect
  • All current registrants will be re-evaluated under the new system within 2 years of enactment

SUMMARY: What This Law Does

:white_check_mark: Focuses on science, not stigma
:white_check_mark: Distinguishes between predators and poor judgment
:white_check_mark: Increases safety through smart resource allocation
:white_check_mark: Prevents permanent branding of low-risk individuals
:white_check_mark: Creates a pathway for rehabilitation while still protecting victims and communities

1 Like
3

Agree with all of this, but I would add one more category that needs carving out: men arrested in online stings that start on adult sex websites then at some point decoy switches to minor. Men show up to see who they’re talking to and get arrested for attempted child sex abuse. Men never seeking minor, and law enforcement are very good at luring them to show up to see.

2 Likes
4

Entrapment is a legitimate concern when law enforcement crosses the line from investigation into manipulation. But let’s be clear: adults engaging on adult sites should still recognize when the conversation shifts to an illegal context. If someone continues communication after being told the other party is underage, the danger isn’t just legal—it’s moral. “Curiosity” or wanting to “see who they’re talking to” isn’t a defense when the context has clearly turned illicit. Yes, stings should be transparent and fair, but protecting minors takes precedence. The solution isn’t to carve out exceptions—it’s to ensure law enforcement acts ethically and suspects stop when the line is crossed.

5

I disagree. Law enforcement are making these stings ambiguous and confusing. They operate in a 100% adult environment, using adult pics, age and language, then switch to an unbelievable minor. These guys go to see, in hopes it’s the adult they were seeking. They never get a chance to observe anything but an adult. If you want to be fair about it, then arrest them for not believing an unbelievable text about minor status, but naivete or stupidity are not crimes of child sex abuse. Law enforcement manipulates these men into just showing up to arrest them, often without proof that the men believe it’s a minor. Then law enforcement often hides evidence such as the real ads and communication, and even alters digital evidence to make their case stronger. They create child sex crimes where none existed and leave 99% of Cybertips with real victims and real predators not investigated due to “lack of resources.” There absolutely needs to be a carve out here, until the cops stop these unethical stings. They should do their stings where children are because that’s where predators are.

2 Likes
6

This argument drastically misrepresents how law enforcement stings work and ignores both legal standards and public safety concerns. Let’s be clear:

  1. Intent Matters, and It’s Provable: In these sting operations, suspects engage in explicit conversations, acknowledge the minor’s stated age, and often initiate sexual dialogue or make plans to meet. Courts don’t convict people for “naivete” — they convict based on documented intent, which is usually laid out in extensive digital transcripts. If someone truly believed the person was an adult, they wouldn’t need to discuss sex with someone who explicitly says, “I’m 13.”
  2. The “Adult Bait” Claim Is Misleading: Law enforcement doesn’t advertise as a generic adult and suddenly switch to saying, “Surprise! I’m 14.” The age is typically disclosed early in the chat. If the suspect continues the conversation anyway, it’s a conscious choice. Claiming they were hoping it was all fake is not a legal defense—it’s willful recklessness at best.
  3. Law Enforcement Fabricating Evidence? That’s a serious accusation—and an extremely rare one. Defense attorneys have every opportunity to review communications and challenge their authenticity in court. Most of these cases survive scrutiny because the digital trail is clear, preserved, and consistent with law.
  4. “There Are Real Victims Elsewhere” Isn’t a Defense: Yes, more resources are needed to investigate all cyber tips—but arguing that one crime shouldn’t be pursued because others exist is not logical or ethical. Catching someone before they harm a real child is prevention, not injustice.
  5. Predators Don’t Just Lurk on Playground Swings: Child predators often look online because that’s where kids are. Teens use dating apps, gaming platforms, and social media—all places predators exploit. These stings reflect that reality. Waiting for a child to be hurt before taking action is not justice—it’s failure.

Bottom line: If someone sets out to meet a child for sex, despite being told they’re underage, that’s not confusion—that’s criminal intent. We can demand transparency and ethical procedures from law enforcement, but we cannot excuse dangerous behavior by pretending predators are just misunderstood.

7

You are so misguided. Role play is common on many ADULT dating apps. It is natural for someone to be curious about what is going on and yet not be interested in a minor.

1 Like
8

Speaking of morality - That’s exactly the problem with these proactive sting operations. They sexualize children by creating wild sexual fantasies about them, and they use those wild fantasies to promote and encourage the sexual abuse of minors. These sting operations use wild fantasies about minors so far disconnected from reality that they’ve never happened in real life. So, of course that’s going to cause confusion in any normal minds!

Those wild fantasies have clearly been created by adult men who project their own fantasies about this onto imaginary minors. It has absolutely nothing to do with trying to save or protect real kids.

So, that’s the first major moral problem with these sting operations. The second moral problem is that using public funds and donor money to conduct these is FRAUD - because they don’t save or protect real minors from real online threats or abuse. I’ve never seen any of you state publicly that you are soliciting the men for s**, and that is exactly what is done in these sting operations. You have a fantasy about minors doing this - soliciting random adult male strangers online for this. - children as young as 12 and 11.

Nobody wants our tax dollars or donated money used by anybody who is promoting and encouraging the sexual abuse of children.

That’s the problem we have with this. It’s not realistic, and the fact that you want for those men to believe it is a real minor (not just role play) shows that your intention is to promote & encourage the sexual abuse of minors. That’s an admission of that.
And this is what needs to be presented to the public and to the courts about these proactive sting operations.
And show the online forums the sting operations were conducted on!

We believe that those who conduct and passionately defend these sting operations that promote and encourage the sexual abuse of minors are the ones who pose a real threat to the real children.

1 Like
9

I understand that roleplay exists on many adult dating apps, and curiosity about what others are doing online can be natural. However, when that curiosity involves interactions with scenarios that explicitly involve minors — even in a roleplay context — it crosses a serious ethical and legal boundary.

Roleplay between consenting adults is one thing. But content or behavior that simulates interactions with minors, even hypothetically, raises red flags because:

  1. Intent matters less than impact. Whether or not someone claims to be “curious” or “not interested in minors,” engaging with such content can still normalize or enable harmful behavior.
  2. Platform context is key. Adult platforms are for adults — yes. But if someone is seeking out roleplay scenarios involving minors on those platforms, it’s not a defense. It’s a warning sign.
  3. Boundaries protect everyone. Drawing a hard line around anything involving minors — real or fictional — is essential. It protects real people, prevents grooming behaviors, and helps keep online spaces safer.

So no — being “curious” about what others are doing in such roleplays doesn’t justify engaging with or supporting content involving minors in any context. That’s not misguided — it’s responsible.

10

The assertion that proactive sting operations “promote and encourage the sexual abuse of minors” is both factually inaccurate and ethically misguided. These operations serve a critical protective function, and while they may employ undercover techniques and hypothetical scenarios, they are rooted in a well-established legal framework designed to deter and prosecute those who actively seek to harm children.

1. Intent and Purpose of Sting Operations

Sting operations targeting potential child predators are not designed to sexualize minors or indulge in fantasies — they are structured law enforcement techniques with the explicit purpose of identifying individuals who are willing to engage in illegal sexual activity with a minor. These decoys do not invent “wild fantasies”; rather, they respond to adult behavior that initiates or pursues illegal contact with someone believed to be a minor.

  • The decoys pose as minors online.
  • The adult suspect initiates or escalates sexual conversations.
  • Law enforcement documents the evidence of criminal intent and action.

To claim this is “promoting abuse” is to confuse the tool with the behavior it is used to expose.

2. Legality and Ethics

Courts have consistently upheld the legality of these operations. Law enforcement is careful to avoid entrapment, which is defined as inducing someone to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed. The targets of sting operations are not tricked into criminal behavior — they freely choose to pursue what they believe is an illegal relationship with a minor.

The argument that “normal minds” are confused by such stings assumes that normal adults are somehow unable to distinguish between lawful and unlawful behavior — a claim that is unsupported by any credible legal or psychological research.

3. Use of Public Funds and Donor Money

The suggestion that sting operations are “fraudulent” because they do not always involve real children misunderstands their preventive value. Just as decoys are used to catch would-be robbers or drug dealers, these operations prevent potential abuse before a real child is victimized. Protecting children from exploitation is a legitimate — and essential — use of public and private resources.

4. Accountability and Transparency

The call to “show the online forums” where stings are conducted is itself ironic. Law enforcement agencies often conduct these operations on open platforms where predators look for minors — not obscure or fabricated places. Furthermore, the processes involved are typically documented, reviewed, and open to judicial scrutiny, ensuring accountability.

5. Final Clarification

To argue that these operations are admissions of projecting fantasy onto children is a dangerous distortion. The true danger lies not in the decoy, but in the adult who is willing to engage with a person they believe to be a child. These stings reveal real intent — not fiction.

Conclusion:
Proactive sting operations are not fantasy-driven tools for abuse — they are law enforcement mechanisms to identify, deter, and prosecute individuals who present a credible threat to children. Suggesting otherwise only serves to shift blame away from predators and undermine efforts to keep children safe.

11

Do you hear your own words? Who is actively seeking to harm children on an ADULT platform??!!

12

To claim that sting operations on adult platforms are “rooted in a well-established legal framework” and are aimed at “deterring those who actively seek to harm children” is to conflate intent with invention, and law with pretense. The premise collapses under scrutiny.

1. Platform Context Matters

Adult platforms are not frequented by minors—explicitly and by design. To suggest that a person interacting on such a platform is “seeking children” is an inversion of logic. If a person is present on a site labeled, regulated, and marketed as adult-only, then there is no reasonable assumption that they are searching for minors. Any interaction suggesting the presence of minors in such a space is an artificial fabrication—not evidence of pre-existing criminal intent.

Question: Who is “actively seeking to harm children” on a platform explicitly restricted to adults?
Answer: By default, no one. To assert otherwise is to presuppose guilt and manufacture criminality through deception.

2. Entrapment by Design, Not Deterrence by Detection

Let us be clear: investigative necessity ends where pretense begins. There is a critical legal and ethical line between:

  • Monitoring spaces where minors are actually present, and
  • Creating a false narrative in an adult-only environment to induce illegal behavior.

The latter slides quickly into entrapment—a violation of due process and a miscarriage of justice. The goal of law enforcement should be to intercept active threats, not to engineer crimes to justify prosecution.

3. The Legal Framework Isn’t Infallible—It’s Often Misused

You cite a “well-established legal framework.” Let us not confuse “established” with “just.” Many laws once “well-established” were later overturned for being unconstitutional, discriminatory, or overly broad.

The Communications Decency Act, various online sting precedents, and parts of FOSTA-SESTA have all come under fire precisely because they conflate moral panic with legal precision.

What good is a legal framework if it’s applied indiscriminately and without context?

4. Thought Crime is Not Criminal Intent

A person responding to a sudden shift in narrative—“I’m not really 22, I’m actually 15”—after entering a chat marketed as adult, is not the same as someone seeking minors. Intent matters. Constructed scenarios are not proof of premeditation. They are provocations, often baiting the confused, the curious, the reckless—not predators in the true sense.

If an undercover agent misrepresents a minor’s age after engagement has begun, and the other party hesitates, withdraws, or expresses uncertainty, the operation should be invalidated—not treated as evidence of a crime.

5. The Shield of “Protection” Does Not Justify the Sword of Abuse

The invocation of “protecting children” has become a rhetorical shield behind which constitutional rights are trampled, due process ignored, and lives destroyed—not for acts committed, but for scenarios conjured. The state does not have unlimited moral license simply because it claims to act in the name of child safety.

Conclusion: Manufacturing Criminality is Not Justice

To claim that people on adult platforms are “actively seeking to harm children” is an assertion that does not survive logical, legal, or ethical scrutiny. It is manufactured criminality, masked as proactive law enforcement. If we allow ourselves to label hypothetical misconduct as criminal without clear, pre-existing intent, we erode the very foundations of justice.

We must remain vigilant not only against those who might harm children, but also against institutions that overreach under the guise of protection. The former is predation; the latter is tyranny.

13

Sorry for the delay in responding. Had to attend a wedding. I can show you evidence that all I wrote is true. Some stings operate ethically; some do not. If stings begin on sites where children are, and decoys start out as children, then of course, that is an ethically operated sting. The ones I can share start on Megapersonals, and use adult pics, legal age and highly sexual prostitute language. Then they switch. Guys just wants it to be the adult he clicked on, so he shows up in hopes it is. Guy was NEVER seeking a minor. Textbook entrapment. But not entrapment of luring someone into seeking a minor–Entrapment to get the guy to show up, so he can be charged with attempt. Crime totally fabricated and led by law enforcement. Yes, using adult photos on escort or hookup sites requiring 18+ verification. Case law is like, “We told you it was a minor, and you came anyway,” when in reality the guy never believed it was a minor. Felony attempted child sex abuse or trafficking for not believing the government’s texts after seeing the photos, etc. And the kicker? The guys are right…pictures are adults and legally aged.