By Savannah . . . Question: During a polygraph, can I still avoid self-incrimination by saying, “I request that my attorney respond to that particular question”?

Answer: The instinct is correct, but those words ask for the wrong protection. Two different rights are involved. The Sixth Amendment right to have a lawyer present applies to police questioning while you are in custody. A polygraph taken as a condition of probation or supervised release is usually not custody, so that protection usually does not apply. No lawyer can answer for you, and asking for one will not stop the questions.

What you want is the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and it does not work on its own. The Supreme Court has held that a person on probation who answers without claiming the privilege cannot argue later that his answers were forced. If you say something unclear, including asking for your lawyer, a court may decide you never claimed the right at all. To claim it, say so plainly: “I invoke my Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and decline to answer that question.”

Before you use those words, though, be sure the question calls for them. The privilege covers only questions where a truthful answer could expose you to a new criminal charge, usually for an offense you were never charged with. It does not cover the offense you were already convicted of or questions that could only get you in trouble with your probation officer, such as missing curfew. Claiming it on a question it does not cover gains you nothing and marks you as uncooperative.

Remember, too, that invoking the privilege does not happen in isolation. Your refusal will be recorded and reported to your probation officer, who will want to know what it concerned. Refusing one question out of thirty tells everyone which subject you did not want to discuss; you may protect the answer and still give away the topic. Expect closer attention afterward: more testing, stricter conditions, a setback in your treatment program. Courts have held that your supervision cannot be revoked for the invocation itself, but that protection is narrower than it sounds. It does nothing for a revocation that grows out of the closer scrutiny your refusal invites, and in practice that is the more likely path.

Your state’s law also matters here. Some states protect these disclosures. In West Virginia, for example, what you say during a full disclosure or sexual history polygraph cannot be shared with law enforcement without your consent or used in the state’s courts, unless it concerns a plan to commit a future crime. W. Va. Code § 62-11D-2(e)(2). Many states have no such protection. If your answers already cannot be used to prosecute you, the Fifth Amendment may add nothing, and refusing may be treated as plain noncompliance. If there is no protection and a truthful answer could expose you to a new charge, that is when the privilege matters most.

In short, asking for your attorney is not claiming the Fifth Amendment. If you want the privilege, claim it in plain words. But whether you should claim it depends on your state’s law, your treatment program, and facts about your case that no article can know. Do not work it out in the polygraph room. Write to the public defender’s office in the county where you were sentenced, or to a criminal defense attorney licensed in your state, before your examination.

The post Legal Corner: Can I Ask for My Attorney During a Polygraph? first appeared on NARSOL.

By Larry . . . The Minnesota Supreme Court recently issued a decision in Siegel v. Evans. Chad Loran Siegel was charged with two counts of kidnapping, a predatory offense under the predatory-offender-registration statute, as well as attempted second-degree murder and first-degree assault related to an incident where Siegel and accomplices beat victim J.A.L. The case went to trial. The trial court entered a judgment of acquittal on the kidnapping charges. The jury found Siegel not guilty of attempted second-degree murder but guilty of assault.

Minnesota’s predatory-offender-registration statute, Minnesota Statutes section 243.166, subdivision 1b(a)(1), provides that a person who has been “charged with” one of the statute’s enumerated predatory offenses and “convicted of” that offense or another offense “arising out of the same set of circumstances” must register as a predatory offender. Minnesota is or is close to being unique in imposing predatory-offender registration on every person who has been charged with, but not convicted of, a statutorily enumerated predatory offense and who has been convicted of a non-predatory offense arising out of the same circumstances as the charged predatory offense.

In August 2022, Siegel sued Drew Evans in his official capacity as the superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA). Siegel argued that requiring him to register as a predatory offender based on the dismissed kidnapping charge was a violation of his procedural and substantive due process rights and that it violated the predatory-offender-registration statute. Siegel also argued that the predatory-offender-registration statute is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Siegel brought suit under the United States and Minnesota constitutions.

The question on which the court granted review is whether Siegel was required to register as a predatory offender under section 243.166. Siegel argued that section 243.166, subdivision 1b(a)(1), does not require a person to register under circumstances where the trial court entered a judgment of acquittal on the charged predatory offense. He contended that after the trial court entered the judgment of acquittal on the kidnapping charges, he was no longer charged with a predatory offense for purposes of section 243.166.

The BCA disagreed. The BCA argued that a person is charged with a predatory offense during the period it labels the time of charging, a period which includes pretrial proceedings, but which ends when trial begins. According to the BCA, a person who is initially charged with a predatory offense but later prevails on a pretrial motion to dismiss the charge for lack of probable cause is not subject to registration. But because a judgment of acquittal occurs after the trial starts and the “time of charging” ends, the BCA requires that a person who is acquitted of a predatory offense by judgment of the trial court register if the person is convicted of another crime arising out of the same set of circumstances.

The court did not find that argument persuasive. NARSOL agrees with this. The court stated, “Even if we accept the BCA’s interpretation that the statute requires Siegel to register, we hold that requiring Siegel to register after the trial court entered a judgment of acquittal at trial on the predicate predatory offense violates the Minnesota Constitution’s substantive due process protections.” Opinion, 8. Also, they stated, “Nothing suggests that the Legislature considered—or had any facts before it to support—whether expanding the statute’s requirement to register to persons acquitted of a predicate predatory offense at trial by entry of a judgment of acquittal would address the concerns underlying the law that we have identified. The BCA provided us with no such evidence.” Opinion, 18.

Although this decision is an “as applied” win for Siegel, it bodes well going forward for others who have charges dismissed at trial.

The post Dismissed Charges Do Not Trigger Predatory Offender Registration first appeared on NARSOL.

By Savannah . . . In May 2026, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an important decision in People v. Shaver, holding that its landmark 2021 decision in People v. Betts applies retroactively.

People who were convicted years ago for violating Michigan’s

unconstitutional registration law may now have an opportunity to have those convictions set aside.

The case arose from the experience of Gary Shaver, whose underlying offense occurred in 2004. At that time, Michigan’s Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA) required registrants to report address changes within ten days. But over the years, the legislature dramatically expanded the law. By 2011, registrants faced far more burdensome requirements, including shorter reporting deadlines, in-person reporting, internet identifier disclosure, a tier classification system, and numerous additional restrictions.

In 2015, Shaver updated his address before moving into a new home. When the move unexpectedly fell through, his registered address remained incorrect for nineteen days. Although he had tried to comply, he was prosecuted under the much harsher 2011 version of SORA and ultimately convicted of failing to register.

Everything changed in 2021, when the Michigan Supreme Court decided People v. Betts. After examining the 2011 version of SORA in its entirety, the Betts court concluded that SORA was no longer merely a civil regulatory system. Instead, the law had become so punitive in its effects that applying it to people whose offenses occurred before the 2011 amendments violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto punishment. In other words, the state could not retroactively impose these new, harsher registration requirements on people whose crimes had been committed years earlier.

But one major question remained unanswered: What about people whose failure to register or disclose information convictions had already become final before Betts was decided?

That was the question presented in Shaver.

The Michigan Supreme Court held that Betts announced a new substantive constitutional rule, not merely a procedural one. Because substantive constitutional rules apply retroactively, people who had already been convicted under the unconstitutional 2011 SORA may seek relief through post-conviction proceedings.

The distinction between “substantive” and “procedural” may sound like legal jargon, but it carries enormous consequences. Procedural rules generally affect how courts conduct trials. Substantive rules, by contrast, limit the government’s power to punish certain conduct or certain people. The Michigan Supreme Court explained that Betts falls into the second category because it removes the state’s authority to punish pre-2011 registrants under the unconstitutional 2011 version of SORA.

The decision is significant for reasons beyond Michigan. Across the country, legislatures have repeatedly expanded registration laws years after people completed their criminal sentences. Courts have often struggled with the question of when those changes become punishment rather than regulation. Shaver reinforces an important constitutional principle: when a law crosses the line into punishment, the government cannot retroactively impose it on people whose offenses occurred before the law existed. Just as importantly, the decision recognizes that constitutional rights are meaningful only if they can be enforced by people whose convictions are already final.

For registrants and advocates, Shaver is a reminder that major constitutional victories do not end with the first favorable decision. Sometimes a second case is needed to ensure those victories reach the people they were meant to protect. In Michigan, Shaver does exactly that, opening the door for individuals convicted under the unconstitutional 2011 SORA to seek the relief that Betts promised.

The post  People v. Shaver — A Victory for Those Convicted Under Michigan’s Unconstitutional Registry Law first appeared on NARSOL.

Defendant, believed to be a Proud Boys member, never responded to the lawsuit. 

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – A man who spent months posting false allegations about the National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL) on Facebook, including a fabricated claim that the organization is linked to groups advocating child sexual abuse, was ordered last week to pay NARSOL $18,458.56 in damages by North Carolina Superior Court Judge Clayton Somers.

Ronald Creighton Davis, of Pierce County, Georgia, never answered the lawsuit. He didn’t file paperwork and didn’t appear in court; he did not contest anything. 

Davis participated in multiple campaigns aimed at preventing NARSOL from holding its annual conference. The first succeeded. In June 2025, a Hilton property in Grand Rapids canceled NARSOL’s conference contract after a pressure campaign that included online threats, doxxing of NARSOL leadership, in-person hotel pamphleting, and calls to Hilton’s corporate offices. Davis bragged in his posts that he helped make that happen, affiliating his actions with the Proud Boys, a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group.

The second campaign targeted a Holiday Inn property in Atlanta that fall. The strategy was the same: flood the hotel with calls, manufacture a scandal, incite outrage by falsely associating NARSOL with child sexual abuse, dox hotel staff, and make it too costly for the venue to honor the contract. This campaign failed, and the conference was held as planned.

“We are an organization advocating for the modernization of obsolete laws that ‘sound tough’ but, in reality, have proven ineffective and often harmful,” said NARSOL Executive Director Brenda Jones. “We don’t advocate for harming children. We never have. And if you visit narsol.org, you can read exactly what we do and what we don’t do, in plain English.”

Davis’s false statements were not accidental. NARSOL counsel Paul Dubbeling, Esq. of P.M. Dubbeling PLLC in Chapel Hill, described it in court filings as a deliberate strategy to invoke public fear and disgust, to make ordinary people and hotel managers react emotionally before they had time to verify anything.

“This small group systematically lied about who we are and what we do. They used lies to drive a hotel out of a legal contract with us,” said Jones. “But then, they didn’t bother to respond to a lawsuit. We sued. We won.”

NARSOL filed the lawsuit on October 7, 2025. Davis was served but failed to respond within the required time. The court’s order was filed on May 18, 2026.

“With this ruling, the court sends a clear message,” added Jones. “You cannot harass a civil rights organization out of existence by loudly repeating lies.”

Case: NARSOL v. Ronald Creighton Davis et al., No. 25CV035559-910, Wake County Superior Court, North Carolina

Media contact: Brenda Jones, bjones@narsol.org | www.narsol.org

The post NEWS RELEASE: North Carolina Court Awards NARSOL $18,458 Against Man Who Spread False Claims first appeared on NARSOL.

By Calvin Till . . . Across the United States, one of the most significant barriers faced by people on the registry is not employment or supervision; it is housing. Without stable housing, successful reentry becomes exponentially more difficult, and individuals leaving incarceration often find themselves caught in a cycle of instability that increases the likelihood of failure. In North Dakota, a small but determined network of organizations and advocates are working to change that reality.

On May 1, 2025, the F5 Project opened the Restorative Paths program

in Fargo, a transitional housing residence designed specifically for individuals on the state sex offender registry who are returning to the community after incarceration. The program provides a structured, supportive, living environment where participants can focus on rebuilding their lives. As the live-in peer support specialist, care coordinator, and house manager for the program, I have had the privilege of helping guide that process. My role involves far more than simply managing a residence. Each day includes helping residents navigate reentry challenges—connecting them with employment opportunities, assisting with housing searches, coordinating with parole and probation officers, and supporting individuals as they adjust to life outside of prison or jail. For many participants, the transition back into society can be overwhelming, The stigma attached to registry status creates additional barriers that most returning citizens do not encounter.

What makes this work particularly meaningful for me is that I share lived experience with the individuals we serve. As a registrant myself, I understand firsthand the obstacles that accompany reentry: the closed doors, the skepticism, and the frustration of trying to rebuild while carrying a label that follows you everywhere. That shared experience often creates a level of trust that is difficult to replicate through more-traditional supervision models. When residents see someone who has navigated similar barriers and is now working in a role that supports others, it reinforces the idea that progress is possible.

Our work in Fargo is not happening in isolation; F5 will be opening another Restorative Paths house in Bismarck, North Dakota, around June of this year. These efforts are also supported by a broader network of organizations committed to helping people on the margins rebuild their lives. The F5 Project in North Dakota provides mentorship, recovery support, and reentry services for individuals transitioning out of incarceration. Through employment connections, peer support, and community engagement, F5 has become a critical resource for individuals seeking a second chance.

Faith-based and community organizations have also played an important role. Ministry on the Margins in Bismarck works directly with people experiencing homelessness, incarceration, and extreme poverty, offering outreach and support to those who often fall through the cracks of traditional systems. Similarly, AID, Inc. in Mandan, ND, provides services and assistance to individuals facing significant life challenges, helping bridge gaps in housing, resources, and community connections. Together, these organizations demonstrate an important truth: Successful reentry requires collaboration. Housing providers, advocacy groups, recovery programs, and community partners must work together to create pathways forward for individuals who are often written off by society.

Many individuals returning from incarceration are simultaneously navigating recovery from substance use disorders, making integrated support systems essential. To further strengthen my ability to contribute to this field, I am currently pursuing an associate degree in Human Services, with plans to continue toward a bachelor’s degree in the same discipline. This will provide a foundation with the hope of advocating more effectively for policies and programs that support successful reintegration.

The reality is that when individuals leaving incarceration have access to stable housing, employment opportunities, and supportive community networks, the outcomes improve dramatically. Reentry stops being a revolving door and begins to look like genuine restoration. Programs like the Restorative Paths residence in Fargo demonstrate what is possible when communities invest in solutions rather than stigma.

For those of us who have lived on the margins, the opportunity to help others navigate that path forward is more than a job; it is a commitment to ensuring that second chances are not just an idea but a reality.

Calvin is NARSOL’s representative in North Dakota.

The post From the Margins to the Work of Reentry:  Housing, Advocacy, and Second Chances in North Dakota first appeared on NARSOL.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
communications@narsol.org

Austin, TX – February 26, 2026 – The National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL) has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in the Western District of Texas challenging the current deregistration process in the state that arbitrarily bars those convicted in federal court from deregistration.

The proposed class action lawsuit Burton, et al. v Martin et al., submitted on behalf of the plaintiff and all similarly situated plaintiffs in Texas, contends that the state has arbitrarily denied individuals convicted in federal court access to the same deregistration process provided by law to state-convicted registrants with substantially similar offenses.  NARSOL’s staff attorney and Texas-based attorney Courtney Vincent jointly filed the action.

Under the state interpretation of current Article 62.404 law, only those convicted of a sexual offense in Texas state court can deregister. Those convicted in federal court cannot.

According to the complaint, the state has violated constitutional provisions of the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process. In addition, the statute in question places a venue bar for the deregistration process by requiring registrants to file the deregistration action “. . . with the trial court that sentenced the person.” While those convicted in state court can do this, those with federal convictions cannot. Citing the venue restriction, the state has denied all federally convicted registrants from the deregistration process. The lawsuit argues that a restriction on venue should not be construed as a jurisdictional limitation for deregistration in state court.

The class action suit, represented by the plaintiff and NARSOL, is partially funded by Texas Voices for Reason and Justice, NARSOL’s Texas state affiliate. The complaint requests that the Court:

• Permanently enjoin Defendants from treating Article 62.404’s filing directive as a jurisdictional bar to motions filed by federally convicted registrants;
• Declare that, to the extent Defendants continue to interpret or enforce Article 62.404 as categorically barring federally convicted registrants from accessing any judicial forum, such interpretation and enforcement violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment;
• Declare that Defendants’ interpretation and enforcement of Article 62.404 violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by creating a statutory remedy that is illusory and denying federally convicted registrants any meaningful opportunity to be heard;

The National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL) is a civil rights organization dedicated to promoting evidence-based policies and constitutional protections for individuals affected by sex offense laws.

They will provide updates as the case progresses.

Note to editors: Court documents and supporting materials available upon request.

The post NARSOL Files Federal Lawsuit Challenging Texas Deregistration for Federal Convictions first appeared on NARSOL.

On January 27, 2026, NARSOL, in collaboration with AZRSOL, filed a federal lawsuit in Arizona challenging the constitutionality of the Internet restrictions imposed by the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department on individuals convicted of sex offenses. Titled Kenneth Soule et al. v. Michael Cimino, in his official capacity as Chief Probation Officer of the Maricopa County Adult Probation

Department, Case No. 26-cv-00560, the case has four named Plaintiffs, all of whom are under the custody of Maricopa County Adult Probation Department and seek greater Internet access while on probation. Plaintiffs seek to have the case certified as a class action.

Plaintiffs claim that the current policy and practices of the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department unreasonably restrict Plaintiffs’ access to the Internet in violation the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. In particular, Plaintiffs allege that the Department’s policies violate the First Amendment because the restrictions imposed are “overly broad” in that they “impose categorical restrictions on Internet access for individuals on probation for sex offenses, regardless of offense conduct, supervision progress, or individualized risk assessment.” Plaintiffs’ Complaint at ¶ 71. Plaintiffs allege the Department’s policies violate the Fourteenth Amendment because the Department imposed its Internet restrictions “without individualized findings, written justifications, or any standardized review mechanism.” Id. at ¶ 81.

NARSOL-affiliated attorneys Mark Weinberg and Adele Nicholas have brought the case, along with local Arizona counsel Samantha K. DuMond of the Dumond Law Firm in Phoenix Arizona.

The post NARSOL files constitutional case in Arizona first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy and John . . . Portez Smith arrived outside Jesse Grover’s duplex early on Sunday, November 17, 2024, yelling through the closed door, “Grover, you’re a f—ing pedophile,” and when Grover opened the door, Smith pulled out a gun and shot him to death. Jesse Grover was registered on Pennsylvania’s sex offender registry as a Tier I offender. This holiday season, Grover leaves behind his wife, parents, four siblings, four stepchildren, and numerous other family members. He is remembered for his sweet smile and gentleness and as a beloved family member, a good friend, and a lover of reading, cooking, and music.

Grover’s murder is not the first registrant to face such a fate. Gary Blanton was a young married father of two infant sons living in Washington State when, in 2012, Patrick Drum shot him to death for being on the Washington registry for a consensual sexual act with another minor from twelve years prior. Drum then went to the home of registrant Jerry Ray and killed him. With the Washington sex offender registry in hand, he was on the way to shoot a third registrant in another county when apprehended (https://archive.is/T5Zc5).

Charles and Gretchen Parker were at their South Carolina home when Jeremy and Christine Moody stopped in front of their house and raised the hood of their car. Charles was a mechanic and went outside to help. The Moodys entered their home and slaughtered both Charles, a South Carolina registrant, and his wife Gretchen, with a gun and knife. Like Drum, they already had targeted their next victim, another person on the sex offender registry, when they were apprehended. In the wake of these murders, the National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws asked then-governor Nikki Haley to have the home addresses of registrants removed from the public view of the online registry; the request was disregarded.

Portez Smith’s rant at Jesse Grover reveals almost as much about his beliefs as his senseless act of violence does. It is commonly believed that everyone on a registry has a sexual offense against a child: This is a fallacy. In every state, virtually every crime that can have a sexual component carries with it an obligation to register. In many states, non-sexual crimes require registration. And in some states, many of those required to register are minors. Blanton was the same age as his teenage girlfriend when he was convicted for consensual sex with her; her parents pushed for an arrest when they learned of the relationship. Statistics suggest that a third of the offenders against minors are themselves minors. Children have been put on a registry as young as eight.

The most disturbing factor about these murders is that a segment of the community views these vigilantes as heroes. Social media and online articles about these incidents further this perception by allowing ten or even twenty comments praising the vigilante for each one condemning the act of violence. Recently, the glorification of “predator catchers” has driven groups of gangs and teenagers to show up at registrants’ homes to “carry out justice.”  Numerous studies document various degrees of violence and harassment registrants and their family members face daily. 

Blanton’s wife publicly asked that Drum’s supporters stop the harassment of her and her children. According to CBS News, the judge at Drum’s hearing admonished those who were in the courtroom in support of Drum to cease their activity. Leslie said she and her family had been spat upon, had things thrown at their car, had their house targeted, and more.

So what is the answer? The first, quickest, and most straightforward answer is a “band-aid” measure that NARSOL asked South Carolina to take: remove the home and business addresses from public view. This will at least require vigilantes to work a little harder to achieve their goals. Supporters of the registry argue that knowing where registrants live protects their communities, but the USDOJ reports that more than 93% of the cases of sexual harm are committed by someone known to the victim, and 95% are not registrants. Additionally research shows that sex crimes have the lowest recidivism rates of any crime class tracked except murder.

The long-term fix is not an easy one. It involves changing hearts and minds toward a willingness to put aside emotional responses and adopt rational and logical facts. Several decades of evidence-based data show us the sex offender registry is ineffective at every level. It does not make communities safer, protect children from sexual abuse, help those who have caused harm, nor heal those who have been harmed. Instead, it puts families of registrants in harm’s way, impedes rehabilitation, destroys the opportunity to rebuild damaged lives, and costs taxpayers an enormous and ever-burgeoning amount of resources.

One bright spot on the horizon is the increasing prevalence of restorative justice programs. These alternatives to harsh punishment for offenders and nothing for those offended bring the two sides together—for those who choose it—to dialogue, understand each other better, express remorse and forgiveness, and pave the road for future reconciliation. Because the majority of sexual harm happens within families, this is an excellent choice. 

Policymakers need to abolish the secondary punishments accompanying registration. Special restrictions such as residence, proximity, and Halloween restrictions are statistically useless in furthering public safety and child protection. Abolishing them would save significant public funds that could be better used for evidence-based prevention measures.

Most legislators claim to be fiscally responsible, data-informed, and against unfunded mandates. Yet they seem to forget those words when it comes to tightening the plethora of laws and restrictions (such as residence, proximity, and Halloween restrictions) that affect persons required to register. Politicians wanting to project a “tough on crime” platform turn to sex crimes because society’s taboo on anything sexual combined with the visceral nature of sex crimes causes electors and officials to abandon rationality for emotionalism. 

Meaningful reform will begin when enough citizens protest the waste of human lives and public monies and when decision-makers at all levels adopt evidence-based solutions to preventing sexual harm and rehabilitating those with past sexual offenses.

* A version of this article also appeared in the December 20, 2024 issue of Merion West.

The post Vigilantism & Death: A Harsh Reality for Citizens on the ‘Sex Offender’ Registry first appeared on NARSOL.

Stephen . . . NARSOL recently assisted two Texas registrants who reported that they were being improperly required to remain on the state’s sex‑offense registry despite having successfully completed deferred adjudication—a legal process in which a court

withdraws a permanent conviction upon the individual’s completion of probation without further incident. After review by NARSOL’s Legal Committee, the organization retained seasoned Texas attorney Scott Smith to present the matter to the Department of Public Safety. DPS agreed with the legal analysis and administratively removed both individuals from the registry. Following that determination, an additional six registrants were subsequently removed, with more cases currently under review. 

Individuals may qualify for removal if they entered deferred adjudication prior to September 1, 1999, and successfully completed the probationary period. NARSOL anticipates that additional Texas registrants may be eligible under the same legal framework. Those seeking guidance on the proper procedure for review and potential removal are encouraged to contact NARSOL’s Texas affiliate, Texas Voices for Reason and Justice, for detailed assistance at  info@texasvoices.org. 

The post NARSOL Secures Registry Removals for Texans Wrongly Listed After Deferred Adjudication  first appeared on NARSOL.

Portions of this are written based on conversations with several registrants. No one is identified, and any reference to them is stated in general terms.

By Sandy and John D . . . The latest figure for persons registered as sex offenders in the United States is over 795,000 as of August 2024. A very high percentage of offending behavior was

for what has come to be known as CSAM, child sexual abuse material. (In the federal system, it is often still called child pornography.) For the first time, the percentage of those charged within this category exceeded 50% of the total.  The latest available data from 2024 shows that the percentage of sexual abuse offenders sentenced for charges related to child pornography increased to 52.8%.​ This includes behaviors ranging from viewing something accidentally, to seeking it out, to downloading, to sharing, to collecting, to production and selling.

The problem

Regardless of where one’s behavior falls along that line, there is a criminal charge and a corresponding sentence meted out. Any behavior that molests a child is and should be a matter for the criminal justice system, but isn’t that the end of the chain? Doesn’t it start with viewing, progress to downloading, to sharing, to collecting, and then, like most addictions that need more and more to achieve the same high, move on to production? Certainly, most who view, download, even share, progress no further, but doesn’t everyone who continues start with just looking?

A solution

What if, in those early stages, we treated sex addiction as we do its peer compulsions, like alcoholism or substance use disorder, rather than a crime ? Accountability could still be satisfied with the threat of prosecution if the treatment program was not completed. Could that result in fewer progressions to the hands-on behaviors that wreak the most harm?

We cannot know for sure, but we do know this: What we do now does not stop it or help prevent it. It increases every year.

Other addictive behaviors—alcoholism, substance abuse, gambling—are known for their prominent treatment and support programs. Additionally, there are a number of sex addiction 12-step programs such as Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous and Sex Addicts Anonymous. The International Institute for Trauma and Addictions Professionals credentials a variety of addiction treatment providers, including Certified Sex Addiction Therapists, all who are trained in trauma-informed care, including the cycle of sexual abuse and effective ways of treatment that are not shame-based.

Think of it this way: What would happen if someone at age 13 turned to drugs and alcohol to cope with their trauma? They would become an addict, possibly land in prison, be released, receive compassionate treatment at a drug rehab, and be celebrated and even awarded for overcoming their obstacles. Now, what if that same person turned to pornography and sex at age 13 — just when youth are discovering their sexuality? What if their journey took them, not  from alcohol to party drugs to hard methamphetamines but rather to porn, more risque porn, and finally to illegal materials? Society treats them as monsters, restricts their movement and rights, and puts them on a public list where they will be targeted with vigilantism and shame.

Sadly, the criminal legal system has yet to embrace, or often even consider, taking a trauma-informed, addiction-recovery focused model of harm prevention.

“Safe” phones

A large percentage of those in the first stages of this progression are teenage boys. Some parents, for the purpose of limiting their children’s exposure to the internet, only allow them phones that cannot access online sites. Phones made by Gabb are a popular brand. Advertised as “kid-safe phones,” parents like them because they protect their children from what is “out there.”

Jennifer Weeks, Ph.D., LPC, CAADC, CMAT, CSAT-S, a certified sex addiction therapist based in Eastern Pennsylvania, writes, “You can have a phone that looks like your peers’ so you can avoid the inevitable questions that come when you pull out a flip phone.”

Ironically, the same sorts of phones, even some of the same brands, are given by probation officers to some of the registered sex offenders they monitor, and for the same reason: to prevent them from accessing the internet. Registrants with a first offense of CSAM who are on probation speak of being thankful for the restraints. Prison doesn’t treat their addictions or their compulsions. They aren’t sure they trust themselves. Putting barriers to access is one tool individuals with sex and pornography addiction can use to help prevent them from relapsing into their compulsive behaviors, but it must be accompanied by honesty, openness, and willingness to change.

Several registrants, however, familiar with the Gabb and other similar phones, have expressed a concern. It has been discovered that some of these “safe” phones allow apps to be installed that open a “keyhole” to the internet. In fact, one of the Gabb phone models includes a disclaimer and warning to parents that while their phone does not have an internet browser installed, “. . . some third-party apps contain backdoor internet access through in-app web browsers.” Probation officers handing these phones out to registrants would do well to heed the warning also.

The bigger problem

And what of the broader warning? Unless we start managing addiction to child pornography the same as other recognized addictions, with treatment and support, what do we risk?

We risk more offenders progressing through all the steps to hands-on production and significant harm. An overwhelming majority of those convicted for CSAM/child pornography are males—99.8 percent. We risk the futures of the boys and young men who will find themselves making that first illegal mouse click, making them criminals rather than addicts in treatment and recovery. We will make them registered sex offenders with all it entails: reduced expectation of meaningful employment, damaged community acceptance, destroyed social status and support, often destroyed family connections and support.

NARSOL believes that this risk is too great to take. For several decades, people with addiction problems have been living lives shaped by the criminal system. This has a negative impact not only on each individual but also on society as a whole.

We can stop that now. No; we must stop it now. Offer the option of entering a treatment program to all CSAM users who have not committed hands-on offenses. The reduction in prison costs will offset the cost of proven treatment programs.

The reduction in the number of lives lost and the benefit to society will be incalculable.

If you or someone you care about is misusing sex or pornography and you’re worried they might have a problem, you can refer them to the following resources:

• B4UACT
• StopItNow.org
• The Moore Center for Child Sexual Abuse Prevention’s Prevention.Global
• Fellow Travelers Sex Addiction Recovery for Minor Attracted Persons
• Sexual Life and Legal Consequences

The post Our addiction to criminalizing addicts first appeared on NARSOL.