Google map of sex offenders

[extarbags]

http://www.mapsexoffenders.com/

Somehow they managed to leave Pennsylvania off the list, but this might be useful for some of you.

[Anders Hallin]

I think lists/maps like these are bullshit, and morally reprehensible, and I doubt their effectiveness in decreasing recidivist behaviour. They pander to a culture of fear that is more of a threat to a decent society than the "deviants" will ever be.

And before you ask, yes, I do hate children.

[XPav]

A friend of ours (with small kids) looked in the sex offender and found a neighbor on the list. I think she talked to the guy about it. He was honest about it and said on the list because he had sex with an underage teen when he was yound, and claimed that she lied about her age.

Now, if it was "sexually abused toddlers", my friend (with a toddler) would probably be worried, but because she spent the time to look up what it was and talk to the person, I don't think she's that worried.

I myself find it hard to balance between "you've paid your time" and "I'm scared for my (hypothetical children)", and hope that in a case like this, I'd have the restraint to figure out what this person did before getting the pitchforks out.

[extarbags]

I think lists/maps like these are bullshit, and morally reprehensible, and I doubt their effectiveness in decreasing recidivist behaviour. They pander to a culture of fear that is more of a threat to a decent society than the "deviants" will ever be.

And before you ask, yes, I do hate children.

Oh, I agree, on all counts.

[Jazar]

There's some creepy ass dudes living in my hood.

[Marcus]

haha thats awesome there are 2 dudes living in my area and both live less then a block from the elementary school. Thats ++

[fuzzyslug]

On the default zoom level, I count 13 from my home of just three months ago. Somehow, I'm glad I moved.

[Kalle]

I think lists/maps like these are bullshit, and morally reprehensible, and I doubt their effectiveness in decreasing recidivist behaviour. They pander to a culture of fear that is more of a threat to a decent society than the "deviants" will ever be.

And before you ask, yes, I do hate children.

Oh, I agree, on all counts.


Me too, especially on Anders hating children. I've seen him kick preschoolers and steal their toys.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

That might not be conclusive because THOSE TOYS WERE AWESOME.

[Rob Beschizza]

It's my understanding sex-offender registries are pretty messed up in general now, as there is a lot of judicial discretion on who gets on it. For example, I've read plenty of stories about people being forced to register for urinating in public, for physically assaulting kids, or other non-sexual crimes that somehow connect to sex crime in some judge's depraved subconscious.

Examining sex offender registries is like taking sandpaper with you to the toilet. It gets the excreta, but it also gets skin, hair and other superfluous matter, negating the purported utility of wiping your ass.

[JMR]

Damn Rob you're just egging for another "quote of the week" win aren't ya?

[Rob Beschizza]

Damn Rob you're just egging for another "quote of the week" win aren't ya?

Better, I think would be a WTF? award, where the most stunning non-sequitor is recognized and the author lauded and encouraged to continue experimenting with paintstripper or something.

[Bill Dungsroman]

It's my understanding sex-offender registries are pretty messed up in general now, as there is a lot of judicial discretion on who gets on it. For example, I've read plenty of stories about people being forced to register for urinating in public, for physically assaulting kids, or other non-sexual crimes that somehow connect to sex crime in some judge's depraved subconscious.

But you'll notice in either case, the accused is ugly, and usually fat and greasy. To Hell with them anyway. Go pee in your decrepit mobile home, Fatty! Punch an eight-grader an your way (he probably deserves it).

No, actually. But, why is everyone up in arms about this? I mean, yeah, I get that if every person guilty of a potentially antisocial/harmful crime were to be put on The List and you could check 'em out on a map, you'd be tempted to pack your bags for Jupiter with all the crazies chilling on your block. Like, can't you get access to what crimes the individual in question actually was charged with and/or convicted of? That'd help. I mean, it's sad some dumb college boy got snagged for taking a squirt and being too tossed to notice he wasn't in front of the Student Union but a kindergarten and that bush was actually Sally Peckerspoon he was watering, and got put on the list. But he lives in Pawtucket, what about the fruit who lives two blocks from me and drives a rickety ice cream truck that never seems to have ice cream? Can I find out what he went down for?


Examining sex offender registries is like taking sandpaper with you to the toilet. It gets the excreta, but it also gets skin, hair and other superfluous matter, negating the purported utility of wiping your ass.

Speak for yourself Rob, you ain't got my hemorrhoids.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

The law itself is bad enough. What's scary is the degree and manner of popular support.

Lots of Americans think vigilantism is sexy. And the mention of children short-circuits the brain in about 65% of the population.

[Joel]

He's inside the house!

[Midnight Son]

I see depraved people!

[Ryan A]

What's the basis for the gripe with this sort of thing? Just for the sake of clarity, this is an actual question rather than a P&R cross examination-hoping you'll say the answer I have in mind based on my [insert talk show host here] script for dealing with people who disagree with me.

I figure if we just execute every single one of them we wouldn't need registries.

[Jason McMaster]

doesnt leave a lot of room for error.

We probably need to redefine sex offender for the purpose of these maps.

[Guido Jones]

What's the basis for the gripe with this sort of thing? Just for the sake of clarity, this is an actual question rather than a P&R cross examination-hoping you'll say the answer I have in mind based on my [insert talk show host here] script for dealing with people who disagree with me.

I figure if we just execute every single one of them we wouldn't need registries.

Funny "LET"S KILL'EM!" joke aside, having their information out in the public like this can be dangerous for them - as it was recently for two men in Bellingham, WA (http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=7&id=25807)

[Ryan A]

Right, but I doubt the Bellingham killer found his victims through this website. So I guess I'm wondering if the gripe is with the information being easily searchable online or with sex offenders being required to register...

I know that when we were house shopping six years ago, it was impossible to check up on which bastards lived in every neighborhood we were looking at. There just wasn't a centralized source of the registrants. I would have loved to have this website back then... I can see it being used in much the same way as Realtors use local school information for prospective buyers.

[Anders Hallin]

What's the basis for the gripe with this sort of thing? Just for the sake of clarity, this is an actual question rather than a P&R cross examination-hoping you'll say the answer I have in mind based on my [insert talk show host here] script for dealing with people who disagree with me.

I figure if we just execute every single one of them we wouldn't need registries.
Because they are now sex offenders in the view of the public, quite possibly for the rest of their lives. Is this really a class of citizens we want? What possibility do these people have to reform or be someone else?
When I said that I hated children earlier, I was joking. I actually hate your children (whoever reads this), Since I think the policy of these lists causes more misery and increases the likelihood of recidivism among the group as a whole (by condemning them to the status of deviant the rest of their lives), removing them would quite likely be a net good for potential victims of sex crimes. However, by not allowing you to know who to watch out for in your neighbourhood, it might actually INCREASE the chances of YOUR CHILD BEING SEXUALLY ASSAULTED from 0.1% to 0.13% percent (numbers pulled out of ass, they are merely there to illustrate my point).

[Tim]

I am a parent and think it's silly information. I think it's part of the general (and apparently historically universal) belief that "things these days are worse than ever". Which, as a rule, I think is wrong.

What am I going to do if there's a convicted offender nearby? Not let my sons go on overnight field trips with the creepy bachelor neighbor? The only cases where the info would presumably be useful are cases where I think I'd be expected to be careful anyway.

Worse, what if I find no offenders nearby. Does that mean I pay no attention to the creepy neighbors?

The fact is I don't believe children are in any more danger today than I was when I was a kid. My state has a mediawide firedrill when a child is reported abducted. I have yet to hear one case where the abductor was not an estranged parent. This doesn't mean the program isn't useful, but it does mean that children are not particularly prone to random crimes.

I take offense to safety programs that fingerprint & photograph kids for their inevitable abduction too. That's no way to live, for parent or child, if you ask me.

But then I live on the edge - two sons and a Catholic Church right across the street for almost 10 years now.

[Flowers]

Hmm, that's convenient. Instead of sending people to Yahoo maps for driving directions to my house, I can just point them to registry!

The registry does have a lot of guys who have no business being on the registry, but the point of the registry is not really to alert the neighbors anyways. The point of the registry is control of the offender. Alerting the neighbors for the sake of the neighbors isn't what is done. It is done so that the offender cannot succumb to temptation and lie and sleaze his way into neighborhood activities where he would have unsupervised access to children. Sex offenders don't reoffend any more often than common criminals, but the prospect of reoffense is more horrifying due to the increased severity of a sexual assault versus a common theft. So, we want to give the offender every opportunity not to break the law again, and the registry, when it works, let's the offender know that we know, and that he shouldn't even try to become assistant scoutmaster. This is nice, because a lot of child molestors are actually fooling themselves about what their goals are when they try to get into positions where they have access to children without supervision. (They think they can handle it, they can't.)

[Midnight Son]

When I was 18, my girlfriend was 17. Should I be on the list?

[Ryan A]

When I was 18, my girlfriend was 17. Should I be on the list?

That's not against the law in, I'm pretty sure, all 50 states. But then I suspect you knew that.

[Ben]

If they are still dangerous, why aren't they in jail?

Releasing someone from jail is defacto admission by the state that they are no longer dangerous. These lists ruin the lives of people who made one indiscretion while at the same time reminding us that the justice system exists mostly to randomly punish black people rather than, you know, doing anything. Lists like this are an absolute outrage, the whole sex-offender hysteria is a horrific example of American victim worship and sensationalist media working together to make the world a worse place.

[Guido Jones]

Right, but I doubt the Bellingham killer found his victims through this website.

Read the article I linked to next time.

Since that's to hard for you - it was a Police run website he got the information from to go kill these two men. Whether it was a police run website or this one is beside the point. The information being public domain is (at least imo) terrible.

[Flowers]

If they are still dangerous, why aren't they in jail?

Releasing someone from jail is defacto admission by the state that they are no longer dangerous. These lists ruin the lives of people who made one indiscretion while at the same time reminding us that the justice system exists mostly to randomly punish black people rather than, you know, doing anything. Lists like this are an absolute outrage, the whole sex-offender hysteria is a horrific example of American victim worship and sensationalist media working together to make the world a worse place.


As for Midnight Son, yes, that is against the law in most states, but, no, you should not be on the list. Many states exempt that behavior, still others do not.

As for whether they are still dangerous. A release from prison does not mean you are no longer dangerous, it means you have served your time. The sex offender knows he is on the list, and that prevents him from placing himself in certain situations.

Interestingly, many states are creating laws to avoid ever releasing certain types of sex offenders. By labelling sexual offenses a form of mental illness, lifetime civil confinements become an option for many states. You would be better to become outraged about that. Civil confinement means you don't have to have done anything, you just have to be a danger, and then you will never get out. Many significant criminal protections also do not apply to that type of case.
Any which way but loose, legislatures are altering the penalties for offenses after the fact, based on society's evaluation of the heirarchy of offensive behavior. That's a bit naughty.

[Rob Beschizza]

What's the basis for the gripe with this sort of thing? Just for the sake of clarity, this is an actual question rather than a P&R cross examination-hoping you'll say the answer I have in mind based on my [insert talk show host here] script for dealing with people who disagree with me.

I figure if we just execute every single one of them we wouldn't need registries.

That's true.

1) In principle, it implies sex crimes are the only ones bad enough to justify a registry. Why no murderer registry? No violent crime registry?

2) In practice, it redefines "Sex" to include anything any judge thinks might be a threat to children. Other criminals *do* get on registries, even if their crimes had no sexual component.

3) If they're a threat to children, they should not be free. If sex offender registries were needed for the reason they supposedly are (to protect children), it's a weak alternative to keeping them in jail. This is ironic, because prosecutors insist on sending offenders to"real jail" for 10 years because sending them to mental hospitals, forever, doesn't get them reelected.

I'm happy with a public registry of criminal convictions. The focus on sex is prurient given the existence of equally dangerous offenses. Worse, the redefiniton of "sex offender" to include everything that involves genitals coming into contact with fresh air seats us firmly at the breakfast table of absurdity.

The result of this, I think, will be a slow memetic bowel movement: The Sex Registry starts life as puritanical Charles Bronson vigilante porn. Then it becomes unreliable as rank lunacy sets in like rising damp. And finally, we will realize it is all up when teenagers start wearing T-Shirts that say "I went to my girlfriend and all I got was on this lousy registry."

[Rywill]

1) In principle, it implies sex crimes are the only ones bad enough to justify a registry. Why no murderer registry? No violent crime registry?
The justification I've always heard is that sex offenders are more likely to commit another sex offense than murderers or violent criminals are to commit another murder / crime of violence. The theory is that sexual attraction to children is essentially a lifelong defect or illness, which can potentially be controlled but can't really be eliminated (in other words, the person will always be attracted to children, but can try to overcome / not act on those urges). Whereas many murders, for example, are one-time crimes of passion or mistake, unlikely to be repeated. I realize this is contrary to what Flowers asserts the facts are, and I don't know the truth of the matter (i.e., whether child molesters are actually more inclined to repeat than other criminals). I'm just saying that's the theory that I've always heard.

2) In practice, it redefines "Sex" to include anything any judge thinks might be a threat to children. Other criminals *do* get on registries, even if their crimes had no sexual component.
I don't know that that's true. Here in California, my understanding is that whether you get on the list or not depends on what crime you're convicted of. The judge's decision has nothing to do with it. Of course, a prosecutor could decide to charge or not charge a registry offense, and a judge can lean on a prosecutor to stick by or drop a registry offense. But as I understand it (and I haven't done one of these cases myself), once you're convicted of X or Y offense there's no discretion about whether you go on the list or not.

3) If they're a threat to children, they should not be free. If sex offender registries were needed for the reason they supposedly are (to protect children), it's a weak alternative to keeping them in jail.
The problem is that it's not all black and white. Lots of people are some threat to children. I can see people arguing that if you, say, watch anime you're some threat. If you look at "barely legal" porn you're more of a threat. Look at kiddie porn, even more of a threat. And actually molest a kid, yet more. So which people belong in jail? All of them? Or is it reasonable to say that certain people go to jail, but certain others who are less of a threat escape jail but land on the list? That's how we see the prior sex offender: not enough of a threat to lock up for the rest of their lives (the way you might a multiple murderer or multiple rapist), but enough of a threat that we don't want to just let them wander around anonymously -- we want to keep our eye on them and let parents know about the potential threat that we're not really sure about.

I'm generally against these lists and think they should be done away with, but it's a close call. On the one hand, I really think you're just sabotaging the convict's ability to ever address the problem and start anew. If it's possible for someone to recover from that addiction / illness / whatever it is, I'd like to see them get that chance (I'm not informed enough to know how likely that is, but my sense of things is that some people really do recover). On the other hand, I can see the parents' side. If I had a kid, I would want to know about potential sexual predators in my area (also about other potential harms, of course).

In the end, I tend to agree that this is something that is overhyped by the media and sets off a primal, likely irrational, alarm bell deep in a parent's mind. The whole point of rule of law is to have disinterested, neutral decisions about how to handle crimes and criminals, and I think this is one area where we've allowed our fears to run wild (same deal with those Megan's Law systems -- kidnapped adults are for some reason excluded, and even murderers or terrorists on the lam don't get caught). But child molesters are the lowest of the low in society's eyes, and are already not even allowed the same legal protections that Osama bin Laden would get or Charles Manson got. Society has made its judgment.

[SpoofyChop]

Hey! We should overlap the sex offender map with the QT3 frapper and see what we get.

:twisted:

[Rob Beschizza]

It differs from state to state. In Illinois, any violent act against a child under 18 requires registry as a sex offender regardless of the nature of the crime. So in one state, at least, the term "sex offender" is an empty legalism that will eventually make someone a libel-suit millionaire on the public dollar.

In Texas, it appears that you can be forced to register as a sex offender after being paroled for non-sexual crimes! As in, it's an extrajudicial process, and failure to comply might send you back to jail.


"By THOM MARSHALL
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle

Texas parolees who have never been convicted of sex crimes are being forced to undergo testing and treatment as sex offenders and could wind up back in prison if they fail to comply with rigid sex-offender parole restrictions that include holiday lockdowns.

In many cases, the testing is done by the same therapist who does the treatment and who profits to the tune of $20 to $35 per week, paid by each parolee in group sex-offender sessions."[/quote]

[Squirrel Killer]

One thing that all of this "let's get the sex offender" meme that has me wondering has to do with various efforts to further restrict registered sex offenders. I assume Iowa isn't alone in scrambling over itself to pass restrictive ordinances such that sex offeders can't live within x feet of places where children congregate. It's getting ridiculous enough here that whole cities are essentially off-limits for sex offenders.

What about the guy who took a plea bargin pleading guilty to a sex offense that would place them on the registry just to avoid a trial on a larger offense? Is "Look, plead to attempted rape, even though you might be able to prove your innocence, we won't charge you on the attempted murder, you'll only have probation for 3 years, and you won't have pay your lawyer for court appearances," a possible scenario? Even those who were legitimately found guilty, is it right to add more punishment onto someone long after they served their time and is trying to get on with their life? Should we round up all the drunk drivers from the past and tack on whatever punishments we've passed since then?

[Nick Walter]

One thing that all of this "let's get the sex offender" meme that has me wondering has to do with various efforts to further restrict registered sex offenders. I assume Iowa isn't alone in scrambling over itself to pass restrictive ordinances such that sex offeders can't live within x feet of places where children congregate. It's getting ridiculous enough here that whole cities are essentially off-limits for sex offenders.

What about the guy who took a plea bargin pleading guilty to a sex offense that would place them on the registry just to avoid a trial on a larger offense? Is "Look, plead to attempted rape, even though you might be able to prove your innocence, we won't charge you on the attempted murder, you'll only have probation for 3 years, and you won't have pay your lawyer for court appearances," a possible scenario? Even those who were legitimately found guilty, is it right to add more punishment onto someone long after they served their time and is trying to get on with their life? Should we round up all the drunk drivers from the past and tack on whatever punishments we've passed since then?

Nebraska is going nuts right now because the public is deathly afraid the Iowa law is going to cause a wave of child predator immigration across the Iowa-Nebraska border. Omaha and Lincoln are both scramling to get city ordinances preventing sex offenders from legally being able to look at schools, or breathe within city limits, or other silly restrictive nonsense. Fear based politics at its worst.

If we make it impossible for these people to live their lives while abiding by the law then they will cease trying to obey the law.

[Guido Jones]

Issaquah and Monroe, WA both recently passed laws like you describe SK - making it more or less illegal to live in city limits because registered sex offenders couldn't live within 750 ft of schools, city-licensed day care, public trails, or parks.

[Ryan A]

I'm thinking people should know when this guy (http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/05/11/08/100loc_bbail001.cfm) moves into their neighborhood whenever he gets out of prison, but that's just me.

Then again, based on the details of the crime, maybe the teenaged victims should have thought twice before partying and 'sleeping' at the home where the host's older brother-with-a-history-of-violent-crime lives.

[Flowers]

Issaquah and Monroe, WA both recently passed laws like you describe SK - making it more or less illegal to live in city limits because registered sex offenders couldn't live within 750 ft of schools, city-licensed day care, public trails, or parks.

Yeah, school zones have gotten out of hand. There are lots of towns in Wisconsin where the entire town is a drug free school zone. They count the craziest things as school zones nowadays.

As for Squirrels question on can we up the penalties on old drunk drivers now that we have passed new laws? Yes and no. The Supreme Court doesn't much care about ex post facto modifications of the implications of a criminal conviction other than periods of confinement. (They should, it does fundamentally modify the penalty of an offense to retroactively deem it a three strike offense, for example.)

Part of the reason some of the sex offenders have not reoffended is because society is breathing down their necks. A Parole officer all up in a parolees business about where he lives helps the parolee not reoffend. Big Brother does remove a good chunk of the temptation to offend, and what's more, it forces individuals to check themselves and avoid "innocent" behaviors that many sex offenders before the advent of the registry would engage in. And by "innocent," I mean behaviors that start out or seem innocent, but end up as just kiddie diddling opportunties in disguise. (My favorite example is the guy who opened a children's glamour photo business.)

Anyways, like I always say, if you can do the time, do the crime.

[Anders Hallin]

I'm thinking people should know when this guy (http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/05/11/08/100loc_bbail001.cfm) moves into their neighborhood whenever he gets out of prison, but that's just me.
Would you rather see ten guilty people walk free than an innocent person imprisoned?

[Ben]

Ryan A- But not, say, this guy (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/14/parents.slain/index.html)? That's just the first crime story on CNN front page.

[Rob Beschizza]

kiddie diddling

Shouldn't be funny, but it is.

[Ryan A]

Unlike most examples of mass hysteria, I think the public sentiment towards sex-offender registrations and draconian 'three strikes yer out' type laws is fairly justified. Justified in that it stems from a basic distrust of the justice system: a perception that Bad Guys get off the hook way too easily.

Sure, bring up the possibility of a wrongful conviction or a mislabeled crime (like being labelled a sex offender for streaking your high school's homecoming game your senior year) and most thinking people will at least pause in their shouting for ever harsher punishments, but I've got to admit -- When I watched Denny Crane pull out his Glock and kneecap the child murdering rapist in last week's episode of Boston Legal, I found myself -- much to my chagrin since he's hardly a sympathetic character -- cheering the bastard on.

So, are my yearnings for frontier-style justice simply the outgrowth of a malformed, intellectually-starved mind? Mob mentality? Or the result of a perfectly reasonable sense of moral outrage that violent criminals are allowed back out on the streets to reoffend?

Seriously, where's a good penal colony when you need one? (let the Elhajification of this thread now begin) :wink:

[edit] I guess we should be in for a dime in for a dollar with regards to criminal registrations. If we think it's a good idea, all violent criminals should be required to register, not just sex offenders. If we think it's a bad idea, clearly the sex offender registry would be... a bad idea.

[Ben]

Ryan A- That perception that Bad Guys get off too easily is entirely created so politicians can run on a 'tough on crime' platform. So justified isn't the word I'd use. Understandable, yes, but absolutely not justified.

[MikeSofaer]

Ryan A- That perception that Bad Guys get off too easily is entirely created so politicians can run on a 'tough on crime' platform. So justified isn't the word I'd use. Understandable, yes, but absolutely not justified.
And by the entirely justified perception that it was true in the eighties, or at least that is the impression I got from Freakonomics (that increased sentences reduced crime in the nineties)

[fire]

Wow, now I know just where to look if I need a date. Thanks, Google!

[Ben]

Mike- Increased sentences can't help but reduce crime. People in jail have little opportunity to commit crimes.

But anyway, I don't really care stuff like 3 strikes laws and assorted sentencing issues. 8 years, 10 years... What's the difference?

Sex offender lists and Amber alerts are wastes of taxpayer money, barely provide any benefit, and most importantly show fundamental problems in our system of government.

Edit: No idea what I was doing there.

[Matthew Gallant]

Gallant- Increased sentences can't help but reduce crime. People in jail have little opportunity to commit crimes.
People who haven't posted in a thread yet have little opportunity to present points of debate to be refuted by Ben, either.

[Moore]

speaking of schools though, isnt it a bit odd for them to live like RIGHT at an elementary school? I checked my neighborhood on this thing (type in 820 lucile ave, LA,CA 90026) and we have one right at the damn school? wouldnt he WANT to live away from kids? I think I know people in that building, though they dont have kids.

just kinda freaky..

[Bill Dungsroman]

I'm thinking people should know when this guy (http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/05/11/08/100loc_bbail001.cfm) moves into their neighborhood whenever he gets out of prison, but that's just me.
Would you rather see ten guilty people walk free than an innocent person imprisoned?

Seriously? Both those options suck.

[Flowers]

10 guilty to 1 innocent? Hmm, that's difficult...
http://www.truthinjustice.org/avery.htm

This should make it easier.
http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/news/5305492/detail.html

[BaconTastesGood]

10 guilty to 1 innocent? Hmm, that's difficult...
http://www.truthinjustice.org/avery.htm

This should make it easier.
http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/news/5305492/detail.html

What exactly is your point here?

[Bill Dungsroman]

10 guilty to 1 innocent? Hmm, that's difficult...
http://www.truthinjustice.org/avery.htm

This should make it easier.
http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/news/5305492/detail.html

What exactly is your point here?

Even when the guilty are found guilty and then innocent, they'll be found guilty at some point!

Man, that would look great on a Paranoia! Computer screen.

[Flowers]

10 guilty to 1 innocent? Hmm, that's difficult...
http://www.truthinjustice.org/avery.htm

This should make it easier.
http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/news/5305492/detail.html

What exactly is your point here?

Even when the guilty are found guilty and then innocent, they'll be found guilty at some point!

Man, that would look great on a Paranoia! Computer screen.

Exactly.