Putting IML into perspective

By Sandy . . . International Megan’s Law is without a doubt a waste of time and money and will cause harm in lives. Just as with regular Megan’s Law, research shows that its ability to offer any actual protection to children at risk of sexual harm is a few fractions of a percent above zero. The concerns are real, and attempts to address those concerns are legitimate, but all available evidence suggests that IML leaves the vast majority of the problem ignored, misdirected, and unaddressed. Furthermore, the threatened presence of a “unique identifier” placed on passports is an abomination, one never before seen in America to this extent.

In spite of that, relegating the concern over other horrendous, burdensome, life destroying restrictions placed on citizens on a sex offender registry to the back in favor of the major outcry against IML is puzzling and disturbing.

Residency and presence restrictions are by far more pervasive and destructive to the ability of registrants to establish stable life styles, support themselves and their families, and promote their safety and well-being.

39 of our 50 states have statewide laws in place — and allow them to be enacted by their counties and municipalities — that restrict to varying degrees where those on a registry may live, work, drive, and be. Some of these are written so that just being in the wrong place, even for an innocent or legitimate reason, may trigger a new sex crime charge and/or may send a registrant to prison.

Some restrictions are so onerous that, for all practical purposes, entire cities are off-limits. In worse-case scenarios, huge homeless populations form their own towns, creating groups of registrants living in the woods, in parking lots, and under bridges.

Laws that allow a seriously ill registered citizen to be kicked out of the home that had just been approved because of a neighbor’s complaint and banishes him to a tent in the woods without the oxygen he critically needs are more urgent than not being able to go to France.

Laws that define all state parks and waterways as off-limits and prohibit registered parents from taking their children camping or to lakes and beaches or to visit their state’s historical sites are more serious than those that interfere with a vacation in Mexico.

Laws that create hordes of desperate people living on the streets and then allow shelters to refuse them entry in frigid weather need addressing before those that prevent a trip to England.

Today’s sex offender industry has created little to nothing good. But laws that deny basic rights and constitutional protection to hundreds of thousands of citizens and their families living in America should be given priority over laws that affect the limited number who are able to travel abroad.




someone outside of NARSOL

Written by 

Occasionally we will share articles that have been published elsewhere. This is a common practice as long as only a portion of the piece is shared; a full piece is very occasionally shared with permission. In either case, the author's name and the place of original publication are displayed prominently and with links.

23 Thoughts to “Putting IML into perspective”

  1. FredFred

    I said it first when IML passed. They were already notifying foreign countries when we traveled. We were already required to notify law enforcement within I think 20 days before leaving the U.S. The only difference now is that our passports have a mark on them. Lets not loose focus on what is happening right here.

    1. AvatarLovecraft

      If we attack the main pillars (awa, sorna, Megan’s law, etc) it will have a trickle down effect anyway. After watching some things on Martin Luther King yesterday, I learned that he was not a black civil rights activist, but a civil rights activist for everyone. We need to use his message to show people/courts/government all the civil rights violations the registry creates and causes. No free person off of supervision should have restrictions like us. I have a feeling this year there will be some landmark cases in our favor with some new suits coming into play down the road.

    2. AvatarH n H

      Well, something needs to be addressed here. What exactly constitutes a “sex crime”? I’ve brought this up time and time again, and no one seems to pay any heed to it. The scope of what the lawmakers have defined as “sexually offensive” is now so broad, with no regard to the life of the person being accused. Destroy their family, their reputation, their career, put them on the registry and ostracize them from even feeling that they belong in society… basically, DESTROY them in every manner possible without outright killing them, push them to the brink of suicide and vigilantism by the public against those on the registry! And be sly enough by using the power of the courts to mask it all as “protecting a child”. Meanwhile the teen “victims” and the DA laugh!

      I really don’t know how to get this through to you people anymore. More often than not, the damage done to the individual cast by the DA as a “victim” in a trial is vastly FAR FAR! more traumatizing than what happened to begin with! What is lacking here is actual harm! The only harm caused out of the entire event was the involvement of the court system! And NO ONE will address this point!

      How, in this country (Idaho) can someone shove a wire hanger up another persons rectum, causing great bodily harm and NOT be put on the registry? Yet something far less trivial happens between a seductive teenager and an older person the teen refuses to stop pursuing, and the courts go ape sh*t crazy for something the teen outright caused!?!? Or the internet sex stings… there are an awful lot of amorous police out there who seem to know what young teenage girls attract in men and are willing to flaunt it, not to protect a girl, but to destroy a mans life. Who gains out of this? The girl? The man whose life they destroy? No.. the system, the courts. Their precious power!

      Picture this country where sex crimes (Violent rapes excepted) were labeled as a civil law infraction with stiff fines towards the “victims” rather than an offense against the state which gains in more incarcerated individuals. Does anyone think things would be different? Oh you bet! When was the last time anyone was tried in court for adultery or fornication? The police don’t care, and don’t have time to deal with that crap. But borderline underage teens are a perfect niche in society for them to pursue their lust of power. And their power (NOT the public) is what this entire thing is about. You have teen girls and their families begging to not take a young man into court, destroying his life, yet the DA is just so greedy and lustful for his “felony” record count that he can’t sleep at night if he doesn’t charge this man with the absolute worst charges possible!

      I do support standardized education in school for ALL girls, and boys to know that what they do COULD and WILL have serious legal implications if the person they are with is older. But we don’t want to go there either! The powers to be just want the crimes to keep happening! Just what is going on here?

    3. AvatarMaestro

      I agree with you 100% H n H. The problem is that we all (attorneys included) have to put on an “act” in the court rooms. Court rooms are NOT for arguing cases, they are for the DA to make HIS point to the judge and the judge gets to shut everyone else up when you try to raise good points.
      It’s not “politically correct” to say that teenagers seduce older people. We KNOW it happens. THEY know it happens. But we have to PRETEND it DOESN’T happen and that the teenager is a victim of someone else’s seduction.
      So let’s pretend Amy Fisher wasn’t so obsessed with Joey Buttafuoco and it was really Joey who shot his own wife in the face. A teenager would NEVER do such a thing due to sexual feelings and emotions for another human being…well…not an OLDER human being, right? SMH. I’m sick to death of teens being referred to as “victims” in consensual relationships.
      Sure, it can be an ILLEGAL relationship, but don’t refer to someone as a “victim”.
      I’m still waiting for someone to ask Priscilla Presley how “victimized” she felt when she was 14 and being courted by 24 yr old Elvis. No one wants to go there, eh? I damn sure would. I’d have that woman on the phone for an interview ASAP. Ask her what she thinks of what happens to people today who do what her former (deceased) husband did with her.

    4. AvatarCivil Rights for ALL

      I agree 100%…. Why isn’t more being done to attack the foundations of all this crap. Attack Megan’s law, AWA, IML on the unconstitutional “BILL OF ATTAINDER”. I’M SORRY BUT I’M HIGHLY OFFENDED BY THIS ARTICLE. I’m sorry for all the RSO’S that are affected by these residency restrictions. I live in Washington state and we don’t have many of the restrictions that other states have fortunately. Also after I got out of prison in 2003 I went back to school and got my Bachelor of science degree and have got a great paying job with a company that knows all about my past. The company I work for has partners and offices in other countries but now due to IML I can no longer travel to do my duties. Is this jeopardizing my job…. No they can simply send someone else…… But now I can’t even travel for vacation. I’m truly sorry for all the RSO’s that are homeless I truly am. However, when I got out of prison I didn’t have anyone to help me and I worked my ass off to overcome and not let the BS KEEP ME FROM succeeding. You want Reform… Stop pissing up a rope and attack the pillars the government’s build all this off of and do some serious research and use the Bill of Attainder. Sorry this article really stuck a nerve. But if the Pillars fall it will all fall.

    5. AvatarRon

      Hello Civil rights for All, Washington state is indeed a state of secretive based policies to offenders off probation, in part, I believe
      It is due to the liabilities it suffered from vigilante angst committed against exposed registrants addresses some years back whom were either maimed or killed by self-justice seeking criminals. It has evolved into democratic policies that remotely protect registrants to a minor degree even though individual police officers meant to check on residency either further expose or make obvious a residence status. To a degree
      These states skirt the law and carefully catwalk across the constitution to circumvent bill of attainder standards. By no means are you precluded from travel to every single country, but in light of Trump’s ban on visitors
      We are likely as citizens to suffer some to of retaliation or reciprocity in “some” countries. Not all is lost or in the lamb. Research! Retort and Reorganize! You can still travel to many available locations.

    6. AvatarBruce

      I think what some people are not realizing is that international travel is just about basically impossible for registered citizens. Name the countries that they can actually travel to now? Any country worth traveling to has entry restrictions for sex offenders, they basically put you on the next plane out. So will people really be needing passports?

    7. Avatargreg Brock

      Bruce, that is a really great point… I thought we had a ‘sister”(RTAG) organization that was going to address this point. However, I can get nothing from that site anymore as its last update was in October 2016.
      Does anyone have a clue on the RTAG site??? I can get NO response with emails.

    8. Hello Greg

      I have been swamped helping a startup with a business plan last 2 weeks

      The Matrix is up to date as of 16 Jan
      We meant with RSOL and working an affiliation agreement

      We have much planned Getting organized in the next 2 weeks

  2. AvatarClerance Darrow (Pen Name for protection)

    The Patriot act (The Id Law) coming finial in 2018, requires all citizens to have a passport to fly in the US, State to State and to enter any federal facility. Wake up America. Guess what Democrats? Obama signed the unique identifier on passports into law, Slavery. He is Uncle Tom with no regard to civil rights. I voted for him the first term, I will always regret. We need to appeal to President elect Trump.

    1. AvatarState your source

      Please provide your source where passports will be required to enter federal facilities and fly from state to state. Common Access Cards (CACs) are given to all gov’t employees and contractors with regular business there once they have been cleared. Are you referring to those who don’t have regular business in the federal facility?

      If what you say is true, then, for example, you can’t enter a post office (PO), a federal facility, to conduct business which would be illegal since it is against the commerce clause of the Constitution. Just because you have UPS and FedEx to ship packages, mailing letters, cards, etc is only done through the PO and cannot be prohibited (which I will caveat with I am not sure about postal crimes, but that is not the point here).

      Since when is traveling from state to state via an airplane going to require a passport? You already have the federal ID law that you must have a certain type of ID as required by DHS requirements (and some states have received waivers on).

      Again, please state your source, chapter and verse specifically if you don’t mind.

    2. AvatarDavid Kennerly

      State driver’s licenses or I.D. cards not conforming the Real ID act will not be accepted for air travel. Here’s the quote from the U.S. D.H.S.: “Starting January 22, 2018, passengers with a driver’s license issued by a state that is still not compliant with the REAL ID Act (and has not been granted an extension) will need to show an alternative form of acceptable identification for domestic air travel to board their flight. To check whether your state is compliant or has an extension, click here. Passengers with driver’s licenses issued by a state that is compliant with REAL ID (or a state that has been issued an extension) will still be able to use their driver’s licenses or identification cards.”

      You can find it here: https://www.dhs.gov/real-id-public-faqs

    3. sandysandy

      Thank you, David. I would venture to guess that very few citizens are informed about this Act. I just did a little research. All but eight states are either in full or partial compliance and will be able to use their state licenses or IDs for the purposes of flying within the borders of the U.S.–unless furher requirements are added before a state is considered compliant or granted an extension. If it is not delayed or repealed, and there is little reason to think it will be although serious attempts have been made, this will take place in one year. With our president-elect’s stance on terrorists and protecting our borders, it seems to me highly unlikely he would favor repealing the act. No mention is made, in the sources I consulted, about ID needing to be produced for entering post office buildings.

    4. AvatarFurther details on REAL ID law

      Thank you David for that. People need to know the difference and understand, especially those who may not have access to computers due to their registrant situation.

      For more understanding, here is recent article that will help folks understand: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article122743264.html

      Still sounds like something you would see in a movie from days of old…..

    5. FredFred

      I suppose the fact that IML passed in the republican controlled congress unopposed before going to the President is irrelevant.

  3. AvatarRajendra

    Make their life a living hell in this country and do not let them get out either.
    this sounds like a perfect vengeance. but then they say the registry is not a punishment. This whole thing is a bunch of lies. More actions need to be taken if this house of cards need to fall.

  4. AvatarJS

    First thing my probation officer told me when I got on probation was that I should pay off fees, find a therapist that I can Skype with, then leave the country for the next ten years.

    So much for that.

  5. AvatarRon

    IML is a serious smokescreen over the underlying and ulterior motives the state and federal governments have
    In exacting cumbersome and inconvenient policies over registered citizens. I was in the military and driving multiple passengers around a military base on buses or sometimes vans, students and VIP’s alike and was subsequently denied entry as registrant in my personal vehicle and told he military police officer I was active duty and entry was absolutely necessary and his untrained ass brought me to His civilian supervisor to get a flimsy pass that was imprinted (“RSO good to go!”), which did not sit well with me, no matter how cute-sounding the paraphrased rhyme. It got old really quick due to being delayed from performing my official duties. I then reported to the provost marshal office to address the issue and the civilian technician discovered I was a level one and removed me from having a unique identifier printed-out pass to access base. These things are a mirroring example of the trickle effect mimicking
    policies akin to emulate the IML. The Obama administration has been most mute, as to carefully not bring any notoriety or attention to these enacted policies. If you noticed the media has notably been silent on the same issue to effectively prevent a slant in future or substantive litigation in regard
    To these unconstitutional disparities. This is deliberate and intended under certain terms and practices.
    I ironically,a few years earlier worked the same position as the police officer who scanned my ID and discovered
    I was a RSO. At the time of my duties I was in fact a RSO, a convicted felon and officially carrying a firearm with the federal governments knowledge , even after being reported on by subordinate staff that I was a RSO.
    I was simply brought into the office by senior staff and was told I would stay on the job with staff because of
    My dedication and commitment regardless of my past. To hell with naysayers and Joe do-gooders I stood up against the status quo and we all should when given the arising chance. I’m out now and have a military ID to
    Enter base where is the threat? Lawmakers need to lay down their lies and protect the protectors instead of themselves and careers. Most offenders are sorry for their crimes more than ever getting caught , and intend
    To move themselves from any further transgressions. I am off registry in my state of conviction and NEVER want to be branded with anyone’s brush ever again in my life. President Trump should take caution in enacting in such similarly situated laws and correctly follow the constitution.

  6. AvatarJewelbeach

    Does anyone know if new President Elect has prison reform on his agenda? He is a professing Evangelical and as such knows must have compassion and forgiveness for prisoners. However putting religious beliefs aside, will he and his staff have a pkan? Will RSOL request to meet with him and staff on behalf of of SO’s?

    1. AvatarH n H

      We can only hope and pray for a return to a free country. I’m not one to condone abusing a child, however, enslaving an individual in the government system is NOT the solution. If we’re going to go back in time to throw people on the registry, then let’s ban Elvis Presley from the R&R Hall of Fame, and destroy all his records. No? Then perhaps we need to bring up his relationship with Priscilla to those who deem everyone on the registry as being monsters. I wonder how much talent our nation has lost as a result of the over exaggeration of sex “crimes”. Give it a few years people, if we don’t tone things back, then just glancing at an underage girl will be a felony. Think not? Just give it time. We’re already prosecuting teenagers as adults for sexual exploitation of a minor when they take pictures of themselves, the laws being twisted into making them an adult, and then perverted further by making themselves be their own victim. How insane do you want to go here? Is it going to get so bad that a young teenager masturbating can be arrested? What are we going to do then? Restrain them until they hit 18 for pleasuring themselves? Give me a break…

  7. AvatarD D

    I want a place, or a country were people on the registry can go and not be punished anymore for wrongful conviction, or mistakes made in the past. A small island would do. I do not want this society to benefit from my ideas and hard work anymore they do not deserve it. I am a creator and it makes me unhappy to think anyone in this garbage Salem witch hunting society will benefit from anything I create. In fact they deserve my rage and hatred something I have manage to keep contained for now but it is getting so hard to keep inside. I will not be punished anymore for something I did not do. I gonna lose it!

  8. Avatarles

    I’m not sure why this article was felt needed to draft. I guess people were pushing for prioritizing IML over other areas? Even if this was the case, I think a simple “its on our list of to-dos but we want to prioritize these other areas first would suffice.”

    Reading through this article simply made me feel like it was an attempt to guilt trip or make me feel bad because I’d like to see IML dealt with. And i shouldn’t feel that way about this, particularly from NARSOL who above all understands the amount of guilt and shame tactics thrown at registrants. I want IML dealt with. I also want all the other stuff that cause registrants to go homeless, not get jobs, not be able to get an education, not be able to kids to parks etc dealt with to. It all needs dealt with.I’d like to take my kids to a park. Guess what? i’d also like to take them on a trip to mexico, or to Canada, or on a cruise. Are those things splurges? Sure. They are also part of the American dream, which I may never get to do if stuff like IML goes unchecked. I’m not one that is currently facing homelessness, i do have a good job, so i recognize i’m one of the luckier ones. Absolutely prioritize the areas that are necessity, but lets not guilt and shame people for wanting IML attacked as well. I remember in some of our talks on the matter that IML didn’t just hurt vacationers, but people that have International travel as part or the main aspect of their work too.

    That was a whole lot to say ‘i didn’t appreciate the guilt/shame nature of the article’, sorry bout that. I do appreciate what NARSOL is doing.

    1. rwvnralrwvnral

      Les, we appreciate your candor and honesty. It certainly was never NARSOL’s intent to contribute to anyone’s pain over the passage of IML or to desensitize the shame people may face in their attempts to travel internationally. Instead, we felt it was important to point out that, for a great many people of the registry, the last thing on their minds is an inability to travel internationally. Instead, they simply want to recover their ability to travel and live where they choose in their own communities. We hear from a wide variety of people who suffer daily as a consequence of the registry and the many restrictions that go along with it. Some of those people have expressed despair that the IML issue seems more important than anything else. And they feel as though the fight to fix the more immediate issues of their lives has been overshadowed by a fight that will never do them any practical good. In sum, they don’t have the ability to travel internationally to begin with. But they would very much like to go to the movies, or to the mall, or to their church, or to a swimming pool. –Admin

Comments are closed.