By Florida Action Committee… NARSOL Florida State Affiliate the Florida Action Committee (FAC) is outraged by the recent actions of the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office, which has forcibly displaced individuals attempting to rebuild their lives after serving their sentences. By clearing out a trailer park he described as a “cesspool of sex offenders” and calling its residents “perverts,” the sheriff’s office has not only dehumanized these individuals but also undermined their efforts to reintegrate into society as law-abiding, productive citizens.

“These people are not clustered in the trailer park because they want to be there,” said the president of FAC. Residence restrictions leave them nowhere else to go. Municipalities pass these misguided ordinances and then complain about the unintended consequences they created themselves.”

Stable housing is a cornerstone of successful rehabilitation. For many of these individuals, the trailer park provided a rare opportunity to establish a home, maintain employment, and access support systems. He might not care about these individuals, but the Sheriff should care about the safety of the community. By displacing them, the sheriff’s office has created a crisis of homelessness and instability, increasing the likelihood of recidivism and endangering public safety. “How can we expect individuals to rehabilitate when they are denied the basic dignity of a place to live and are subjected to public shaming?” asked FAC’s President.

The use of derogatory language like “perverts” is not only unprofessional but also counterproductive. Such rhetoric perpetuates stigma and fear, making it even harder for individuals to find acceptance and support in their communities. Rehabilitation requires a level of compassion, not condemnation. It requires opportunities, not obstacles. The sheriff’s actions demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what it takes to create safer communities.

The FAC calls on the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office to reconsider its approach. Instead of displacing and demonizing individuals, we urge law enforcement to work collaboratively with community organizations, social services, and policymakers to develop solutions that prioritize both public safety and rehabilitation. Stable housing, access to social services, and employment opportunities are not privileges—they are necessities for reducing recidivism and fostering safer communities.

The Florida Action Committee stands ready to work with all stakeholders to ensure that individuals seeking to rebuild their lives are given the support they need to succeed. Public safety and rehabilitation are not mutually exclusive—they are two sides of the same coin.

The post Florida Action Committee Condemns Sheriff’s Office for Evicting Registrants as “Perverts” first appeared on NARSOL.

By Josiah and Randall . . . We are writing on behalf of the statewide Pennsylvania Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws to express our deep concern over State Representative Ryan Warner’s proposal to allow the death penalty for individuals convicted of child sexual offenses. While protecting children is a cause we all share, this proposal is fraught with ethical, legal, and practical problems that demand our attention.

The problem with capital punishment

First, capital punishment is irreversible, and the criminal legal system is not infallible. Numerous cases have shown that innocent people can and do face wrongful convictions, particularly in highly emotional cases like sexual offenses. A single mistake under such legislation would have catastrophic and irrevocable consequences.

Moreover, harsher penalties can have unintended effects on victims themselves. Studies indicate that extreme punishments, such as the death penalty, may discourage victims who oppose capital punishment from coming forward. This is especially true when the perpetrator is someone they know — as is true with 93% of sexual harm cases. Instead of supporting victims, this policy risks silencing them and compounding their trauma.

Beyond these ethical concerns, Rep. Warner’s proposal directly conflicts with established legal precedent. In Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty for crimes where the victim does not die is unconstitutional. Attempting to circumvent this binding precedent would embroil Pennsylvania in costly legal battles while offering no real benefit to public safety.

Additionally, the death penalty is a punishment that disproportionately affects marginalized communities. Economic and racial inequities plague its application, ensuring that the wealthy and privileged are better able to escape its consequences while vulnerable populations bear the brunt of this ultimate sanction.

Even law enforcement officials have raised red flags about this proposal. Beaver County District Attorney Nate Bible has warned that imposing the death penalty for child rape might incentivize perpetrators to kill their victims to avoid detection. This tragic consequence would only heighten the danger to children rather than protect them.

A Better Way

PARSOL believes there is a better way. By expanding prevention programs, increasing support for survivors, and ensuring fair sentencing that balances accountability with the possibility of rehabilitation, we can address the root causes of sexual abuse while upholding justice and human dignity.

Protecting children is too important to be undermined by measures that defy constitutional principles, ethical norms, and practical realities. We urge lawmakers to reject this dangerous proposal and to pursue evidence-based reforms that safeguard our communities.

A call to Pennsylvanians to Act

We encourage all Pennsylvanians to contact their legislators to oppose proposal.

Josiah Krammes and Randall Hayes are co-chairs of Pennsylvania RSOL. NARSOL’s Affiliate in Pennsylvania and can be found at @PARSOLOfficial

Published first in the Scranton Times Tribune and several other publications.

The post The case against capital punishment for child sex abuse first appeared on NARSOL.

By Bruce, a.k.a. Atwo Zee, Registered Traveler. . . A recent NARSOL Digest (Oct/Nov 2024) “Legal Corner” article (Page 5) discussed the case of a man who successfully had himself removed from Michigan’s registry, then moved to Alabama.  Three years later he was arrested in Alabama on a failure to register felony. Now he asks from his prison cell, how can this be? “I should not be in prison for failure to register because I have no registration obligation.”

The Digest’s answer is on point: “Unfortunately, when you left Michigan, that state no longer controls your plight …”  Since many former registrants mistakenly believe there will be no consequences from moving to a new state, this example should be an object lesson that this really can happen to you.

The problem is that state registry laws contain language saying one of two things. Either:

(A) (paraphrasing) If you are required to register in the state where you offended, then you have to register with us if you move to our state, or

(B) (paraphrasing) If you were EVER CONVICTED of a registrable offense in another state, then you have to register with us if you move to our state.

The bad news is option B is by far the larger group–38 states and all five territories.  Option A includes only 12 states.  Even here there’s no way of knowing how much mischief state and local law enforcement can do to throw roadblocks in the way of exercising your right to travel.  You should consult an attorney specializing in registry issues in your destination state.

Within the larger group of 38 states and five territories, it turns out there are subgroups.  The two largest are: (a) states which have a stated time period after which a registrant is (supposedly according to statute) AUTOMATICALLY removed, AND this includes out-of-state offenders (16-19 states depending on how you count them), and (b) states which have a stated time period after which a registrant is (supposedly according to statute) allowed to PETITION for removal, AND this includes out-of-state offenders (15-17 states).

In an ideal world, a person who has served the requisite amount of registry time in the state of conviction should be eligible to petition a court in the destination state that he/she has fulfilled the registration period and that there would be no registration obligation. The reality is that this option is not likely to be successful because courts generally do not render advisory opinions. They view such endeavors as a waste of judicial resources when there is no actual ongoing controversy to be resolved. In Option B you have the right to petition after the stated time period, but there’s usually no guarantee.  I can only imagine that few of these states would allow you to swoop in at the airport and head for the nearest courthouse to get off their registry.  Some laws state a time period for out-of-staters to establish residency before you can apply.  Again, consult an attorney specializing in registry issues in your destination state.

If you have been removed from the registry in the state where you offended, you are “free to go”–but ONLY in that state.  If you travel out of your state for business or pleasure, you still have to conduct yourself as if you were still on the registry, because unfortunately most states will view you that way.

If you have been removed from the registry in the state where you offended and you choose to move to another state, you will immediately become subject to the registry laws of your destination state, which in most cases means all your previous hard work getting yourself off your home state’s registry will be lost and you’ll be back to square one.  Your best option is to stay put, no matter how disgusted you may be with the state where you suffered on the registry for so long.

More information about state SOR laws applying to out of state former and long-term registrants can be found at my website, Atwo Zee, Registered Traveler, https://a2twozee.blogspot.com/  However, for anyone considering a permanent move to another state, any information you find online–including at my site–should only be the starting point for further research in consultation with an attorney specializing in registry issues in your destination state.

The post The perils of moving to another state – even after you’re removed from your own state’s registry first appeared on NARSOL.

AZRSOL . . . The inaugural public policy conference “New Directions in Sexual Offense Policy,” hosted by Arizonans for Rational Sex Offense Laws (AZRSOL), brought together a diverse group of experts, policymakers, and justice professionals to explore evidence-based approaches to sexual offense policy. Held in an academic setting, the conference aimed to challenge the status quo and propose alternatives to current practices. The event featured an impressive lineup of speakers, including Emily Horowitz, Dr. Kristen Zgoba, and Judge Frederic Block, who presented decades of research demonstrating the inefficacy of sexual offense registries in enhancing public safety.

The conference’s evidence-based focus was complemented by powerful personal stories from AZRSOL founders Terry and Patricia Borden and communications director Vicky Campo, who shared their experiences of how current policies impact families and communities. This blend of data-driven analysis and personal narratives provided a comprehensive examination of the issues at hand.

Guy Hamilton-Smith’s presentation stood out for its focus on innovative, cost-effective re-entry models and emphasis on factors associated with desistance from crime. A panel discussion moderated by Hamilton-Smith further explored new directions in sexual offense policy, featuring diverse perspectives from public defenders, restorative justice advocates, and sexual violence prevention experts. Legal expertise was provided by Paul Dubbeling, who shared insights from his successful challenges to sexual offense laws, while Judge Frederic Block offered a valuable judicial perspective on the need for objective approaches in sexual crime cases and potential state-level adoption of legislation similar to the federal First Step Act.

The conference concluded with a networking reception, allowing attendees to connect with speakers, authors, and advocates. Overall, the AZRSOL conference took an important step towards fostering more rational and effective sexual offense policies in Arizona and beyond. By bringing together diverse stakeholders and emphasizing evidence-based approaches, the event provided a well-rounded perspective on the challenges and potential solutions in this complex and often emotionally-charged field.

The post AZRSOL’s first conference a success first appeared on NARSOL.

By Larry . . . Many of us facing draconian laws frequently bemoan the harshness of the punishment and registration requirements that flow from being convicted of a sexual offense. While the laws can be too harsh and disproportionate considering the underlying conduct, the laws originate from “we the people” and how we the people choose to cast our votes. In addition, those we elect tend to vote consistently with the views of their constituents.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 44 states will be holding legislative elections this year. This means that the voters will be choosing their senators and representatives for a total of 4,712 legislative seats. (NCSL Legislative Races)  Since the United States is actually 50 separate sovereign jurisdictions, each state decides what the appropriate amount of punishment should be as well as their registration requirements.

This means everyone should listen very carefully to those on the campaign trail who wish to represent you in your state capitol. When candidates campaign on a law-and-order platform and promise that they will be tough on crime, it should not surprise us when they vote to make penalties more extreme. Examples would be surgical castration and imposition of the death penalty for those who commit certain sexual offenses. A few states have already enacted such harsh laws, and more are likely to do so in 2025 unless we choose not to elect them.

Some key points to understand when you cast your votes in November are that those who espouse extreme views on the campaign trail are exceedingly difficult to compromise with once they have won their election. Our two-party system needs balance rather than lopsided control by a single party. The party that holds the majority in each legislative chamber is the party that largely controls the legislative process. The majority party names the committee chairs and controls the legislative calendar. In addition, committee membership is awarded based on the makeup of the overall membership of the body.

As a hypothetical example, a state that has a senate with 50 total members would be organized under the control of whichever party has 26 or more members in that chamber. The next important factor is the ratio of members in each party. If one party controls 40 of those 50 senate seats, that party will have the same ratio on the legislative committees as well. For example, in the hypothetical example, 80% of the committee seats would be awarded to the majority party. A committee of ten would be comprised of eight members of the majority party and two members of the minority party. Committees are of major importance because that is where the public is permitted to have the most input. Most states accept public comment at committee hearings.

Legislatures that are extremely lopsided are very difficult to work with because super majorities feel no need to compromise with the minority because they don’t really need to. Keep this in mind when you vote in the upcoming election in your state.

The post The importance of legislative elections first appeared on NARSOL.

By Mark R . . . The topic of death may unfortunately bring up some unpleasant emotions. While causing consternation is not the intention, bringing awareness to those feelings is–because those same feelings often unwittingly influence conversations about “sex offenders.”

Disagreement is common among people, but there is one thing on which rational persons can always agree: Both you and I will someday die. It is undeniable and unavoidable.

Yet most people spend their entire lives trying not to think about death. One could argue that much of human behavior has evolved to help us achieve just that–or to try to avoid it altogether. Otherwise, our lives might only consist of cowering in the corner, waiting for death to come for us.

Instead, we spend our lives trying to fill it with meaningful people, experiences, and things to help us forget that fate. Our culture is often the source of those meanings. It continually gives us something to occupy ourselves in the time between birth and death. Cultural meanings last longer than personal ones. Their power is that they give people a sense of immortality through participating in something that remains after they are gone.

For some of us, the fight for rational sexual offense laws serves that purpose. Death anxiety is important in that struggle because it gives us insight into what really motivates those we oppose and what we might be able to do about it.

Much research has demonstrated that reminders of death cause people to defend their beliefs and strive for self-esteem. Then, when beliefs or self-esteem themselves are threatened, people respond by having unconscious thoughts of death. Continuing the cycle, they will then defend their beliefs and boost their self-esteem more intensely to push the thoughts back down. This process happens without awareness; it is unconscious and automatic.

For almost forty years, researchers in Terror Management Theory (TMT) have repeatedly shown evidence for these behaviors in many different situations.

In an early experiment, a group of court judges suggested more severe penalties for a fictional prostitute after first being caused to consider their own deaths. In another experiment, Protestant Christians started by reading an article that claimed Jesus’ life was plagiarized from other religions. This triggered unconscious thoughts of death in the subjects’ minds, and then, they suggested severe penalties for a fictional prostitute as well. Furthermore, the effect of death anxiety on racism has also been tested. When reading expressions of pride, white persons reminded of death beforehand criticized black persons as racist, more than they did white ones.

TMT research on the public perception of the sex offender has only recently begun. Last year (2023) researchers performed a study to understand how non-offending, clinically-defined pedophiles are viewed compared to those who do actually offend. One conclusion they reached was that fictional, offending pedophiles were given harsher sentences than fictional schizophrenics who had committed various crimes and even harsher than fictional persons with antisocial personality disorder who committed murder. While the difference was not significant, new experiments with improved design may show a more marked difference.

Regardless, the reality remains that registries for schizophrenics and sociopaths do not (yet) exist. People are simply more afraid of “sex offenders.” “The Sex Offender” is a social construct that is continually built with words and deeds. It is the meaning that is created in response to the fear of those who commit sexual offenses, ignorance as to the cause of the offending, and feelings of helplessness about what can be done. Eventually, the idea becomes embedded in the prevailing worldview and subsequently informs responses on the subject.

Moral panic is the usual response to “sex offenders” because they threaten a person’s worldview. People are often triggered when just talking about sexual offenders just as people are triggered when talking about death.

When most people hear the term “sex offender,” their unacknowledged death anxiety usually causes them to think “infant rape homicide.” TMT has already demonstrated that children represent a type of immortality. Physically, they pass the parents’ genetics on to the next generation. Symbolically, they represent our hope for a better world in the future.

As a result, many people most likely perceive the commission of a sex offense as “the killing of hope”—their hope. They respond in kind by killing hope for the sex offender, too. However, confronting their beliefs may only put them more on the defensive.

This irrationality can be overcome, though. Some TMT experiments have shown that death anxiety can be buffered by reinforcing a person’s worldview and self-esteem first. Those persons then often show more compassion in their acts of justice.

For NARSOL and its audience, a mindfulness of these insights when discussing sexual offense laws could actually someday restore hope for good.

Mark R, a new addition to the NARSOL family, is NARSOL’s representative in the state of Utah.

The post Killing Hope: Death Anxiety, Moral Panic, and the “Sex Offender” first appeared on NARSOL.

An exception has been made to the length limit for this piece.

By Atwo Zee, Registered Traveler . . . Not long after I returned to Iowa after the 2024 NARSOL conference in Atlanta, I received an email forwarded by the national NARSOL office.  This message came to them on their main “Contact Us” email address, and whoever sent it was looking specifically for me, “whose story “Unwanted Images” hit home when I was suicidal and wracked with fear …”  The sender also complimented my travel blog and expressed a desire to have me participate in a podcast of some kind.

This message was a little odd because of the reference to “Unwelcome Images,” the actual name of my prison story which I never even talk to anybody in our movement about (because I won’t bore you with my prison story if you won’t bore me with yours).  Nevertheless, seeing nothing suspicious, I contacted the sender with an “Okay, how can I help you?” reply.

I received a reply within a couple of days.  I was sitting at the public computer at my local senior center (because, as some of you know, I don’t have home internet service).  The sender said glowing things about me, re-stated his desire to have me participate in a podcast, and included a link to a “recent podcast” so I could see what it was all about.

I need to point out here that, like most senior center public computers, this one has only the most rudimentary software and certainly not much video software, so when I clicked on the link, I could hear the sound but the video only displayed some kind of error message.  Knowing trying to fix the video was useless, I leaned in to see what I could hear–which was a man welcoming everyone to the podcast, “We’re here in beautiful Hawaii today, which is such a great place for …”

… and then he used an expression which I recognized all too well from my bad old days online.  I won’t repeat that expression here except to say it’s an abbreviation, the letters of which refer favorably to a type of child pornography.

As soon as I heard this abbreviation, I immediately blurted out, “WTF!?” and clicked the video away.  Then I replied to the message, telling the sender that if that’s what they are about, I wanted no part of it, and that they obviously have not learned the true lessons of my story (which of course is that no one should ever yield to the temptations of online CP).  Good bye!

The next time I was at the senior center, I found a reply in my inbox.  The sender apologized profusely, saying the beginning of the video was meant to be a parody, and it’s too bad I didn’t get the joke, and wouldn’t I please watch more of it before I made any decision …

Well, I couldn’t have done that anyway because of the software shortcomings of the computer, but also, now that this reply was trying to goad me into watching more of something I didn’t want in the first place, I started to become suspicious.  I forwarded the entire email exchange back to the NARSOL person who’d originally sent it to me, expressed my growing suspicions and asked, “For one thing, how did this person know to contact you asking for me specifically by name?  Nobody outside our group is supposed to know my real name – only Atwo Zee, Registered Traveler.  And now they’re trying to get me to watch more of this video?”

As my brother later said, “Cops know that sh*t.”  Exactly.  The NARSOL contact person replied, expressing shared suspicion, and promised to scrub whoever it was from their contact list.  Later I replied to the sender saying simply, “Go away.  You’re a cop doing a sting,” and I have not heard anything back since.

What lessons can be learned from this experience?  Well, the first lesson is that if you don’t want to get caught in a sting, be your genuine self when communicating with anyone online.  If there’s one thing I’m sure of, it’s that anyone active enough in our movement to be reading this right now is part of the 95% of registrants who will never reoffend.  Therefore, acting like your genuine self is always best.

I’m sure that every cop–and every Florida state legislator who voted this year to give every Florida sheriff’s department grant funding to carry out these disgusting stings–will laugh and say, “Yes that’s exactly how the system is supposed to work.  You responded correctly, and you didn’t get arrested [well not yet anyway].  What are you bitching about?”

The answer, as all of us know, is that there were any number of places along the way where, if I had acted perfectly innocently but only a little differently than I did, I could have unknowingly put myself in legal jeopardy.  As I thought about it, I realized that the cop’s first test had actually been to see what email account I might reply from.  Would I reply from some secret, unregistered email account?  If so, they could’ve arrested me on the spot for “failure to register an email account.”  But hey cops – guess what?  Nope!  I really don’t have any secret email account!  Just the one you already have in your records.

Then they must have been kind of confused about where my reply originated.  Why some random public computer instead of my secret home account?  But hey, cops–guess what?  Nope!  I really don’t have any secret home internet account!  That’s why you don’t have one in your records.

But the part that could have gone differently that I can’t get out of my mind is– there I was, sitting at a public computer with other people around.  What if, just as I was leaning in to hear what was on the video, another senior had stopped to talk about something and I just muted the video but left it running while we talked?  What if it had run for enough time to get to the illegal part without my being aware of it?  What if the video suddenly began to work, showing illegal images while that senior was standing there?  Does anyone here believe that senior would not have immediately concluded they’d caught me searching the internet for those images?

Or what if I had been just a little bit less attentive to the sound track that day and not noticed that first ugly reference to a type of child pornography?  What if I had been distracted by the video problems and had persisted in trying to get the video to work long enough for it to suddenly pop on at the point where illegal images were on screen?  For me these are truly frightening counter narratives.

Or what if they had targeted this sting on someone else–and for that matter, what if they already HAVE targeted this sting on someone else–someone less active in our movement, someone less suspicious about the messages they’re receiving in their email account every day, someone who wasn’t listening carefully when the video came up, someone more naïve or just unlucky on that day.  This may have already happened–arrests may have already been made and we won’t even know about it until the county sheriff makes his big announcement about how great he is for “cracking down on sex offenders.”  By that time facts no longer matter.

I fear that law enforcement will draw the wrong conclusion from this attempt to sting me.  The right conclusion of course would be that there’s nothing nefarious to find here, just me and my one email account and no home internet service to investigate; the wi-fi card has been removed from my home laptop; I have no data plan on my phone, and that wi-fi is permanently turned off.  But I fear they will instead conclude that they’ll have to be sneakier about it if they want to catch me doing these things I’m not doing.  If they do decide to get sneakier, I fear that I could get tripped up in any one of a thousand innocent scenarios like the examples above that could get me falsely arrested.  And I hate law enforcement for forcing me to live in this paranoid state.

I also keep asking myself, why me specifically?  Why did someone contact NARSOL looking for me by name?  The only answer I can come up with is that this person thinks I’m some big deal activist, and it could discredit our movement to lure me onto a CP site.  Of course I’m not some big deal activist; I’m just the travel guy.  But it occurs to me that if they’re looking for me, they could be looking for other “big deal activists” too, especially those associated with Orange County or other Florida counties receiving sting grant money.  So actual big deal activists should be extra careful.

Lastly, what if this incident has made me completely paranoid and it’s not a police sting?  Who else could it have been?  It has to be someone who (a) knows me by name and by my two online outlets and (b) thinks NARSOL is a good place to look for me.  Could it be a vigilante or a scam artist?  If so, they must have access to information about me only the cops should have.  Or could this be a real online minor-attracted person delusional enough to think I want to be part of a CP-adjacent podcast?  It’s hard for me to believe, but I’d be interested if someone can come up with a believable innocent explanation.

Meanwhile I’m trying to get this story posted on as many sites as possible, both as a warning to others and as a way of getting my side of this incident–which is to say the truth–out there before somebody else tries to twist this truth into a lie and an arrestable offense.

The post Lessons learned? I believe I was the target of a police sting first appeared on NARSOL.

Originally prublished in the Arizona Capitol Times

By John Covert . . . Among all the policy experiments in this country that have thoroughly missed the mark, sex offense registries have surely earned their own special niche.

Registries have been examined in numerous academic studies over the past several decades, and virtually all of them have found that registries do not accomplish what they were intended to do. They do not reduce recidivism.

They do not prevent sex offenses. They do not protect children. They do not make communities safer.

These findings certainly run counter to the beliefs of some policy makers seemingly more interested in inflicting additional punishment on past crimes or enhancing their “tough on crime” personas. New directions must be taken—employing evidence-based reforms focused on intervention and treatment methods that have been shown to reduce sexual violence.

Sex offense registries in this country go back to the mid- 20th century, when they had the limited aim of providing law ennforcement (and only law enforcement) with contact information on those who had committed specific types of offenses.

Then, in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Alaska’s relatively lean registry, using the now debunked premise that people convicted of a sex offense have an exceptionally high recidivism rate. Policy makers around the country took it as an invitation to pile on new regulations and requirements, vastly expanding registries that had once focused on a narrow spectrum of serious crimes to include an ever- growing list of offenses, even including such things as public urination and sex among underage teenagers.

Those who seek to maintain, and even expand, sex offense registries make the claim that those convicted of a sex offense cannot be rehabilitated and need to be under constant surveillance. However, study after study has shown that therapeutic interventions largely lead to success. In fact, those convicted of sex offenses have essentially the lowest recidivism rate among all classes of offenders; a study done by the U.S. Department of Justice found a reconviction rate of 3.5% among individuals in 15 states released over a three- year period.

So, if registries do not work as intended, what can be done?

The American Law Institute (ALI) provided recommendations on where states might go when it adopted extensive model penal code revisions regarding sex offense registries in 2021. ALI’s model codes are enormously influential in the courts and legislatures, and in legal scholarship and education.

ALI’s proposed changes match the recommendations of academic literature, which shows that people convicted of sexual offenses have low reoffense rates and that registration hinders rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Specifically, it recommends restricting the information on registries to be available to law enforcement only, limiting those registered to only the most dangerous, and shortening the length of time individuals must remain on the registry.

The first is important because publicly listing those convicted of a sex offense on the internet exposes them to a variety of negative consequences, ranging from public shaming, physical intimidation and violence, and difficulties in finding employment and a place to live.

The requirement of lifetime registration that many states, including Arizona, impose carries burdens for many convicted of a sex offense, often preventing them from ever being able to fully reintegrate into their communities even many years after the offense.

In her dissent in the Alaska Supreme Court case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that many registries, including Arizona’s, make no provision at all for the possibility of rehabilitation. “However plain it may be that a former sex offender currently poses no threat of recidivism,” she wrote, “he will remain subject to long term monitoring and inescapable humiliation.”

At a time when the American Law Institute, virtually all available research, and a growing body of public and professional opinion reflect the reality that our current sexual offense policies do not work, it is important for Arizona to take a new direction.

John Covert is a member of the Arizonans for Rational Sex Offense Laws Executive Committee.

The post AZ RSOL says, “It’s time for a new direction in sexual offense policy” first appeared on NARSOL.

“In this era of mass incarceration, in which we already lock up more of our population than any other nation on Earth, it is especially curious that the government feels compelled to invent fake crimes and imprison people for long periods of time for agreeing to participate in them–people who, but for the government’s scheme, might not have ever entered the world of major felonies”.  Judge Stephen Reinhardt, U.S. vs Black

By Kathleen . . . At the time of my son Jace’s arrest in a police proactive sex sting, the use of entrapment as a defense in the state of Washington was all but non-existent. I remember, later in my advocacy work, being in a legislative research subcommittee and discussing how entrapment was not allowed. A judge on the committee informed us that entrapment had always been available. While that was technically true, the reality was much more complex.

Entrapment as a defense is not in the constitution or the bill of rights. It came up in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s as a defense against overzealous government agencies and was inoculated through precedence. Some states have codified these ideals into state laws, but the rules and focus of perspective are decided by each jurisdiction.

At its heart, entrapment, as all affirmative defenses, affords defendants a way to argue against culpability for that of which they are accused. Other defenses that fall into this category are temporary insanity, self-defense, and mental incapacity. Early cases, such as Blake and Sorrells, established the basis for entrapment which rely on two facts: a government agent originated the crime and enticed a person to commit said crime AND the person enticed was not predisposed to commit such a crime.

Seems clear and straightforward, but that’s not the hard part.

Before using entrapment, the defense has to convince the presiding judge, at the start of the trial, to be allowed to use the entrapment defense! Without that single judge’s approval, even if the trial is to be decided by jury, a defendant is not allowed to argue entrapment.

When a defense argues for the use of entrapment to the presiding judge, the following caveats apply:

• Evidence is pondered in the light most favorable to the state.
• “Predisposed” to a crime could be construed as taking a substantial step toward committing a crime.

Thus, the bar to clear is exceedingly high to get the presiding judge to allow the entrapment defense.

This practice arguably infringes upon and alters the constitution’s sixth amendment, the right to a trial by a jury of your peers. You can choose to go to trial, but you won’t know if you can even argue a guilty by entrapment defense in front of the jury until the beginning of the trial when the judge decides whether or not you meet the necessary criteria, which is clearly biased toward the state.

Going back to my initial conversation with the judge on the subcommittee–we were both right. The defense could argue for entrapment before the presiding judge but with little possibility of the request being granted. Thus, using the entrapment defense limits the intent of the sixth amendment, which was to allow a citizen to present and defend their truth in front of their peers.

Defense attorneys in Washington State had learned not to even try entrapment. If the entrapment instruction to the jury was not granted, they had to be already prepared with a separate defense! This is a major reason for the prevalence of attorneys pushing pleas in these cases.

Fortunately, in 2022, the Washington Supreme Court lowered the bar for the use of entrapment defenses. In a case similar to Jace’s, Douglas Arbogast’s conviction from a proactive sting was overturned due to being denied the use of entrapment by the ruling judge. The defense had shown a prima facie case of a lack of predisposition–that is, to show that there is even minimal evidence that the defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime charged.

It was this change in the Washington legal system that allowed us to argue entrapment at our second trial, affording Jace his “Not guilty” ruling by a jury of his peers. There are signs that other states and districts are reworking their entrapment requirements across the country, but it will be a slow procedure.

Proactive stings are blatant law enforcement money grabs and a way for prosecutors and judges to climb the professional and political ladder. The hope is that someday soon proactive stings, which harm real children and dismember families, will be exposed to the public as frauds.

The post Entitled to a jury of your peers–maybe not first appeared on NARSOL.

By Kyle . . . We are witnessing a disturbing trend in America of punishing people after they have completed their official court-imposed sentence for an offense or even before any criminal charges have been filed and a person has been convicted of a crime.

In the arena of sex offenses, this manifests in several ways. Indefinite civil commitment-habeas corpus anyone? Registration beyond the term of the sentence. Registration results in numerous harms which clearly constitute “punishment”: serious housing restrictions; movement restrictions; domestic travel restrictions, making travel for business and pleasure a nightmare; employment challenges; and now, passport markings (A Scarlet Letter) because of the International Megan’s Law in conjunction with Angel Watch. This is not only “compelled speech” (as it is for registration in general) but restricts one’s ability to travel freely internationally for business or pleasure.

All of this is based upon a perceived, theoretical (and very inaccurate, skewed) risk of POTENTIAL FUTURE sexual criminal offending, a la the pre-crime of the movie Minority Report.

Additionally, the U.S. Federal Government refuses to issue a passport to anyone with an outstanding federal tax debt of at least $50,000.00, this before any criminal charges have been filed or a person has been convicted of a tax crime. Again, potential future crimes. Of course, they fear the person may flee the country and never return to settle the tax debt. Fair enough, but if that is the case, then charge them, arrest them, and try them; else, leave them alone.

Innocent until proven guilty? Not any longer in America apparently.

What this really comes down to are understandings of just what constitutes unconstitutional, compelled speech and whether domestic and international travel restrictions, housing restrictions, movement restrictions, etc., aren’t actually criminal punishment rather than just civil administrative, public safety policies.

You could even throw in the restrictions of a former felon with no violent weapon offense being forever banned from owning guns for personal protection, in violation of the Second Amendment. We know from 35 years of data that the argument of public safety holds no water. Given that, these can be seen as nothing less than intentional, vindictive criminal punishment (restrictions of constitutional rights) beyond the terms of the sentence without due process?

Does placing these types of restrictions on people past the terms of their original sentence or without any legal proceedings or due process constitute “punishment” rather than just “inconvenience”? I believe it clearly does. These types of extra-legal punishments need to be litigated out of existence or legislatively abolished. Failing that, it is a sad joke to call America a free country where all citizens enjoy protected, constitutional rights.

Kyle is a person required to register on the sex offender registry in Colorado.

The post Due Process: Another one bites the dust first appeared on NARSOL.