<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Wyoming &#8220;haven&#8221; for sex offenders &#8211; but not for long</title>
	<atom:link href="http://apublicdefender.com/2007/02/11/wyoming-haven-for-sex-offenders-but-not-for-long/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://apublicdefender.com/2007/02/11/wyoming-haven-for-sex-offenders-but-not-for-long/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:29:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Keith Richard Radford Jr</title>
		<link>http://apublicdefender.com/2007/02/11/wyoming-haven-for-sex-offenders-but-not-for-long/comment-page-1/#comment-7262</link>
		<dc:creator>Keith Richard Radford Jr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:28:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://apublicdefender.com/2007/02/11/wyoming-haven-for-sex-offenders-but-not-for-long/#comment-7262</guid>
		<description>The 1,2,3&#039;s of sex offenders.
1. The recidivism rate of sex offenders is under 5%
2. 90% of all sex crimes are committed within the family.
3. 92% of all sex crimes are perpetrated by people not on the sex offender registry.
If the bulls eye is 5% of the target and the bulls eye scores no points, what justifies the billions of tax payer dollars for the project? 

Do you really think Laws like this are doing any good.
Keith Richard Radford Jr</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The 1,2,3&#8242;s of sex offenders.<br />
1. The recidivism rate of sex offenders is under 5%<br />
2. 90% of all sex crimes are committed within the family.<br />
3. 92% of all sex crimes are perpetrated by people not on the sex offender registry.<br />
If the bulls eye is 5% of the target and the bulls eye scores no points, what justifies the billions of tax payer dollars for the project? </p>
<p>Do you really think Laws like this are doing any good.<br />
Keith Richard Radford Jr</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SexCrimeDefender</title>
		<link>http://apublicdefender.com/2007/02/11/wyoming-haven-for-sex-offenders-but-not-for-long/comment-page-1/#comment-319</link>
		<dc:creator>SexCrimeDefender</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:47:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://apublicdefender.com/2007/02/11/wyoming-haven-for-sex-offenders-but-not-for-long/#comment-319</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Sex Offender &quot;Havens&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;

a Public Defender has an interesting post on the status of Wyoming as a sex offender registry haven. My recently convicted clients (and those caught up by our recently changed draconian retroactivity provision) often ask if there are state&#039;s with
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Sex Offender &#8220;Havens&#8221;</strong></p>
<p>a Public Defender has an interesting post on the status of Wyoming as a sex offender registry haven. My recently convicted clients (and those caught up by our recently changed draconian retroactivity provision) often ask if there are state&#8217;s with</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

