Raleigh, North Carolina . . . It’s time for the North Carolina State Fair, but thousands of North Carolina’s citizens are prohibited from attending it. Free citizens!

Some of these citizens are fathers and mothers with children who will likely miss out on the opportunity to visit livestock and poultry exhibitions with their parents—serving as a painful reminder that their dad or mom is still treated as second-class citizens even years after serving time in prison and/or being removed from probation.

After suffering a setback to its first effort at regulating where registered sex offenders are permitted to go (Does v. Cooper, 2016), the North Carolina General Assembly revised and enacted a new premises statute in 2017 that goes even further by resurrecting portions of the previous statute declared unconstitutional and adding a statewide ban on sex offenders attending agricultural fairs.

Consequently, registered people who have completed their criminal sentences and fulfilled all their probation or post-release supervision obligations—individuals whose civil rights are otherwise restored—are banned from being “on the State Fairgrounds during the period of time each year that the State Fair is conducted.” (N.C.G.S. § 14-208.18(a)(4)).

“The premises law simply goes too far. It’s egregious and outrageous. It’s overkill,” said Robin Vander Wall, president of North Carolina RSOL. “This is a matter of fundamental fairness and equal protection under both the state and federal constitutions.”

“And we’re not asking for anything crazy or out-of-the-ordinary. There are hundreds, possibly thousands, of North Carolinians with violent felony records who have been welcomed to attend the state fair for decades. They have a right to be there because they are citizens of North Carolina who have completely satisfied their criminal sentences,” said Vander Wall.

“Registered sex offenders (with lower repeat offense rates than any category of offender except murderers, see #1 below) who are no longer under any form of supervision and who have been released from probation should have the same right to attend the state fair as anybody else,” Vander Wall concluded.

# # #

North Carolina RSOL, an affiliate of NARSOL, was organized and incorporated in 2016 when several registrants and their supporters formed to create a more visible presence throughout the state after being urged on by reports of resurgent legislative efforts to enact tougher laws against North Carolina’s more than 22,000 registrants and their families.

1. North Carolina’s sex offender population has the lowest recidivism rate among all categories of offenders. (Source: https://ncrsol.org/2016/05/nc-recidivism-report-sex-offender-recidivism-lower-than-other-offenders/)
2. The most exhaustive law enforcement study existing cites a re-conviction rate of just 3.5% after three years. (Source: https://narsol.org/resources/s-o-myths/)
3. Nine-out-of-ten sexual assaults are committed by someone well known to the victim (Source: https://bjs.ojp.gov/nibrs/reports/sarble/sarble19)
4. More than 95% of new sex crimes are committed by people who are not listed on any sex offender registries. (Source: https://narsol.org/resources/s-o-myths/)

The post N.C. press release: “Outrageous” to ban state’s registered citizens from state fair first appeared on NARSOL.

By Robin . . . Out of an abundance of caution and consideration for your health and safety, the national conference has been rescheduled for October 8-10, 2021.

The theme and location for the conference will not change, and we are excited about the line-up of speakers and presenters who have already committed to be with us in Houston, Texas this fall. More detailed information about our speakers will be forthcoming and made available to you on the conference website.

The national conference was originally scheduled for June 18-20, 2021. Please keep these dates on your calendar because the conference planning committee is already hard at work pulling together another NARSOL Live! webcasting event to fill the June time slot.

If you previously signed up for the national conference in Raleigh (cancelled in 2020 due to COVID), you will be automatically signed up for the rescheduled conference in Houston, October 8-10, 2021, provided that you did not previously opt for a refund of your conference registration fees.

It was a challenging decision to move the national conference from June to October, but we relied upon the best information available and feel hopeful that the trying circumstances of these past months will have subsided substantially enough to hold a successful and well-attended conference in Houston.

Conference registration will open soon and will be available on the conference website. Please keep in mind that booking rooms for lodging is separate from signing up for the conference, but you will have the option to do both once the link to the Houston Marriott South at Hobby Airport is re-established (suggest checking the conference website periodically to see).

NARSOL’s national conferences are exciting and rewarding for all who attend. There is simply no substitute for the opportunity to come together in fellowship and unity as we seek to strengthen ourselves and each other in our commitment to a society free from public shaming, dehumanizing registries, discrimination, and unconstitutional laws.

The post NARSOL conference 2021 on the horizon first appeared on NARSOL.

By Robin . . . So, let me be sure I have this solid, Josh Salman of USAToday: IF anyone is EVER convicted of a sexual offense against a teenager, he or she is eternally unfit for janitorial work? Is this right? Is this your credal position as a journalist?

Or maybe what you’re really hoping to convey by your crusading journalistic pinache is that no one convicted of a sexual offense against what the state of Illinois calls a “child” should be allowed to own or operate a business? Is that right, Josh Salman of USAToday?

Perhaps you’re simply offended by the notion that a returning citizen who has fully satisfied a sentencing order and paid his debt to society should be allowed to benefit from government programs financed by American taxpayers? Am I getting warmer, Josh Salman of USAToday?

I scratch my head. Because, taking your logic to its furthest extreme—which is a very rational thing to do in this instance—Ezekiel Lopez shouldn’t be allowed to borrow federal money for education, should never be considered for nutrition assistance, should not be entitled to any social security benefits, should probably not even be allowed to vote in a federal election. Is that right, Josh Salman of USAToday?

Please forgive me. You’ve very likely already forgotten who Mr. Lopez is now that the ink has thoroughly dried on your hit piece financed by Gannett Co, Inc.

I’ll keep it simple. Mr. Lopez is—was—an enterprising 49-year-old Native-American who managed a thriving business last week that employed other Americans, paid corporate taxes, deducted payroll taxes, and provided our nation’s veterans with critical janitorial services at medical facilities in and around Chicago, Illinois.

Like many other enterprising Americans, Mr. Lopez (who is also a taxpaying American, in case that isn’t clear) applied for and received federal contracts to provide his services. Equal protection. Equal justice. Equal opportunity. Reasonable, right?

Yet, this week—and exclusively because of you, Josh Salman of USAToday—Mr. Lopez is all-of-a-sudden unemployed, out-of-business, and so universally maligned by your sanguine devotion to journalistic integrity that he may very likely never find another job for the remainder of his life.

The inference of your shoe leather reporting about Mr. Lopez’s scandalous use of taxpayer money is that anyone convicted of a sexual offense—no matter how long ago—should be permanently barred from applying for federal contracts.

This presumption is baseless and totally unfounded. It’s uninformed, even. It drinks from a poisoned pool of inaccurate statistics and outright lies regarding the recidivism of registered sex offenders. This is why you, Josh Salman of USAToday, were able to include statements of indignation and desperate alarm from professor Charles Tiefer and attorney Robert Burton. They drink from that same poisoned well.

Ahh, yes. Ignorance does indeed remain blissful . . . and extremely damaging to others when it curries the favor of “responsible” journalists such as you, Josh Salman of USAToday.

The truth is that the overwhelming majority of registered sexual offenders living in the community (or applying for federal contracts) will never commit another sexual crime. In fact, nearly 96% of all new sexual crime is committed by a person who has no previous conviction of a sexual crime and therefore is not on the registry.

That’s right. According to the best statistical data available (and also to you, Josh Salman of USAToday), the individual who is most likely to commit a sexual offense against a teenager is the person who has never been convicted of a sexually based offense in the first place, and, in most cases, has no felony record at all.

A person just like you, as it turns out!

To your credit, Josh Salman of USAToday, you did take time to reach out to Dr. Jill Levenson. Dr. Levenson is a professor of social work at Barry University who has researched and published extensively about the ineffectiveness of our nation’s labyrinthine sex offender registry laws. In a 2015 interview with NPR, Dr. Levenson stated, “. . . research does not point in the direction of registries reducing sexual crimes or sexual recidivism.”

The factor most closely related to the lack of re-offense among registered sex offenders is a stable lifestyle that includes a place to live and, amazingly enough, employment. By endangering the life and livelihood of this one person, you have systematically endangered dozens of additional lives as well as the public safety at-large.

Black Lives Matter is the mantra of our moment, and indeed they do. But one thing is abundantly clear: The lives of persons on sexual offense registries who have paid their debts to society and are doing their level best to reintegrate and become productive, law-abiding citizens . . . well, they don’t mean a damn thing to you, Josh Salman, or to USAToday, or to the owners and operators of Gannett Co, Inc.

The post USAToday favors restrictions on felons’ access to federal contracts first appeared on NARSOL.

By Richard . . . WHEW!  “It is done,” was my personal thought at 4:30 p.m. Saturday the 13th.  But the feeling was pure excitement and satisfaction.  The NARSOL LIVE Webcast has concluded, and the simple comment “Well received” is the clear result.  It is with some personal pride that I say the Conference Operations Committee did an outstanding job bringing the first NARSOL LIVE Webcast to an audience not just all over the country but to other continents.

Registrations totaled 330, representing 45 states and 2 foreign locations.  Not only did persons on the registry and their families attend, but also a significant number of attorneys, social service providers, and criminal justice personnel that have not attended previous conferences tuned in.

While we are still receiving surveys, the preliminary analysis is very encouraging. Statements included, “Well Done,” “Great Job,” “All presenters were excellent,” “I was highly motivated by the speakers,” “This…is exactly what I needed,” and some just “Thank You”s. Out of a 5 point scale, 96.6% said, “Likely to participate again.”  Participants rated speakers’ knowledge at 96%, and 67% of participants said they are likely to go to Houston for next year’s conference.

There will be a serious review of all surveys, and the CPC and COC will take a long hard look at the comments.  We do have some things to learn, and adjustments will be made for future events.  We could not have provided this event without the professional help of Beacon Live.  Their help in the planning and the delivery of the technology was essential and greatly appreciated.

Everyone understands that we had hoped to be in Raleigh, North Carolina, for our 12th Annual Conference.  And there will always be an asterisk on the year 2020.  When it was important to make a decision, the Conference Planning Committee did not hesitate to move to a webcast concept.  At the time we had no idea how to convert our work of ten months into an experience that would expand our mission work, have value, and be promoted to our membership.  Each day was a series of questions and each answer would bring us to the next question.  Every member of the COC was immediately on board, each taking on a task, all giving of their time and experience.

Everyone who was registered should have received links that will enable you to watch any section that you missed or to watch it again in part or in its entirety. If you missed out, never fear; the recordings will become available to everyone in mid-to-late July.

This is probably the single most successful event in our short history, but we have every confidence that our future events will be just as outstanding. A huge thank you to everyone who attended.

The post THANK YOU to everyone for a very successful NARSOL LIVE first appeared on NARSOL.

The post North Carolina ordered to remove more than 1,000 from registry first appeared on NARSOL.

A press release
By Robin

Expulsion of Ranchland Heights Baptist Church contrary to gospel

Raleigh, North Carolina—The National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL) strongly condemns the recent decision of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) to “disfellowship” a Midland, Texas church for having a registered sex offender as its pastor.

The SBC’s Executive Committee voted on Tuesday to expel Ranchland Heights Baptist Church of Midland for employing Rev. Phillip Rutledge as its pastor. Pastor Rutledge was convicted of aggravated sexual assault against two girls 17 years ago. In 2016, thirteen years after his conviction, he was called by the congregation to be its pastor even despite his criminal conviction from 2003.

In an interview by the local CBS affiliate in 2016, Deacon DJ Rambo said, “Our administration knew about Bro. Phillip’s history before the hiring, and the vast majority of the church knew about it as well. We believe that God can change people, and we believe that God has forgiven Bro. Phillip as well.”

The SBC has no power to control hiring decisions made by member churches because of its credal confession that believers in Jesus Christ are priests and that the “priesthood of believers” is sufficient ecclesiastical authority. SBC churches are “autonomous local congregation[s] of baptized believer[s]” and “each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes.” (The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message)

“By all accounts, Pastor Rutledge is a man who has acknowledged his sins of the past, repented of them, and has gone on to live an exemplary, law-abiding life as a model for others to follow. He is also privileged to lead a congregation of Christians who called him to its pulpit through a democratic process. It beggars the mind how the lofty prelates of the SBC can reconcile expelling a member church when it’s done nothing other than follow—to the letter—precisely what the SBC expects . . . to operate under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes,” stated Robin Vander Wall, a former registered citizen and vice chair of NARSOL.

“It seems reasonable to ponder whether the Lordship of Christ is operating through the Executive Committee of the SBC or through the congregation of Ranchland Heights Baptist Church. Surely it cannot be said that He is operating through both. Scripture clearly depicts Jesus Christ as a man who sought after sinners and was even called ‘a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ ” (Luke 7:34) Vander Wall continued.

“Can there really be any doubt about who Jesus would scold in this situation? The Southern Baptist Convention should be ashamed of its decision to expel Ranchland Heights Baptist Church from its association. This may be a great victory for victim rights attorneys prowling around like lions looking for something to devour, but this is a total abnegation of the gospel of Jesus Christ,” Vander Wall concluded.

The post NARSOL condemns Southern Baptist Convention as un-Christian first appeared on NARSOL.

By Robin . . . The combined boards of NARSOL and Vivante Espero gathered together in Houston, Texas, for their fifth annual board retreat planning session January 10-12, 2020. Unlike the previous two retreats, which were dominated by exercises intended to increase organizational awareness and cohesiveness, the 2020 retreat was all about business and budgetary planning.

All ten directors were actively engaged in the business meetings for the duration of the retreat with additional support and assistance provided by the current chair of the nominating committee who was invited to join the boards as recording secretary.

As a special treat on Saturday evening, the directors visited Sandy Rozek at her home in Houston for dinner and fellowship. Sandy has faithfully served as corporate secretary for NARSOL (intermittently) and Vivante Espero (continuously) for nearly nine years and continues to serve as director of communications.

Over the course of five retreats, NARSOL’s membership and annual budgets have consistently increased. Consequently, necessary measures have been put in place to sustain this growth and prepare NARSOL for the challenges it will face in the future.

With growth comes greater responsibility to manage resources wisely and efficiently in the best interest of NARSOL’s overall vision and mission which, lest anyone forget, is to eradicate dehumanizing registries and, in the meantime, fight for the constitutional rights of citizens affected by them.

NARSOL’s board retreats are anything BUT relaxing with sessions beginning at 8:30 each morning and lasting well into the night, taking only hour-long breaks for meals in between. The pace is grueling, exhausting, and sometimes intense as directors don’t always agree on important matters of discussion.

Still, as a national civil rights advocacy group lead by two boards of directors from eight different states, it’s vital to NARSOL’s long-term success that the directors meet face-to-face at least once a year in order to maintain the collegiality and professional cooperation that are hallmark principles of corporate governance.

From its inception as Reform Sex Offender Laws, NARSOL has maintained a culture of collegiality and diversity at its highest levels of governance. Before the adoption of corporate by-laws in 2011, important decisions were made by an administrative team that operated by consensus. This diffusion of power away from a single, dominant leader makes it possible to maintain a model of governance that allows for adaptation, resolution, and respectful compromise in the interest of everyone, not just a few.

At this year’s retreat, the combined boards enacted a new corporate policy enshrining 2-deep leadership as an operational goal for 2020 and beyond. In every area of critical operations—communications, marketing, volunteer management, technology, donor cultivation, membership growth, membership retention, legal projects, and affiliate development—the boards, in coordination with the director of volunteer management, will be actively seeking qualified individuals with the necessary skills and interest to begin shadowing current project leaders. Over time, this 2-deep policy will ensure a smooth transition of labor and responsibility to the next generation of NARSOL leadership.

None of NARSOL’s efforts would be possible without the sacrifice of time and financial resources from the people who have invested in NARSOL’s advocacy. Going forward, the boards of NARSOL and Vivante Espero will become more active in the areas of development, membership retention, and donor relations. If you are a member of NARSOL or a donor to either NARSOL or Vivante Espero, don’t be surprised to hear from one of the directors by email or by phone just to let you know how much you are appreciated for what you do to make it all possible.

If you are not a member or donor, your interest in NARSOL’s advocacy is greatly appreciated. Perhaps you will consider making 2020 a year of commitment and join NARSOL or make a generous contribution to Vivante Espero, NARSOL’s foundation and legal fund. You should definitely consider joining advocates and members from all over the country at the national conference in Raleigh, North Carolina, June 11-14. You won’t be disappointed if you do.

The post NARSOL, Vivante Espero directors gather for annual planning retreat first appeared on NARSOL.

By Robin . . . On January 23, 2017, the National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL) and its affiliate in North Carolina (NCRSOL), along with two John Doe plaintiffs, filed an 88-page complaint in the U.S. Federal Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint alleged various constitutional claims concerning Article 27A (sex offender registry scheme) of the N.C. General Statutes. The case (NARSOL v. Stein) was assigned to Judge Loretta Copeland Biggs, who presided at a hearing on April 16, 2018, to consider the state’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

On May 30, 2018, Judge Biggs ordered the plaintiffs to submit a more definite statement clearly identifying the factual allegations that support each claim for relief, the specific statutory provision(s) of which plaintiffs complain, and the specific claim(s) alleged against each defendant named in the complaint.

In response, on July 6, 2018, plaintiffs’ attorney removed certain allegations of constitutional harm contained in the original complaint and filed them as a new case in the Federal District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. That case (styled NCRSOL v. Stein) is currently before Judge William Lindsay Osteen, Jr.

On the same day, plaintiffs’ attorney filed an amended complaint that left in place all the underlying facts and legal arguments presented as Ex Post Facto claims in the original complaint.

Then we heard birds chirping by day and crickets chirping by night for more than a year. From time to time, someone would send an email or post a comment inquiring about the status of the North Carolina cases. The state got so bored it replaced its attorney. There was much wringing of hands and chattering of teeth.

Finally, on July 30, 2019, we got some long awaited and positively good news. The state’s motion to dismiss was denied. So now the hard work begins. The case moves into the discovery phase in preparation for trial.

The state’s motion to dismiss relied, as expected, primarily upon some important procedural rules included in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), specifically Rule 12(b)(1), Rule 12(b)(2), and Rule 12(b)(6). So what are these rules?

Yes, this is going to sound a lot like legal mumbo jumbo. If this frustrates you, then stop reading right here! You’ve been fairly warned.

Rule 12(b)(1) states that a defendant may move a federal court to dismiss a plaintiff’s claim on the basis that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. In other words, the court can’t really “hear” the claim because it doesn’t have any authority over the matter being presented for consideration. This is where you may have heard it said that a plaintiff lacks standing to sue.

It is under Rule 12(b)(1) where attorneys representing the state usually include an Eleventh Amendment defense, as well. It normally comes in several forms ranging from, “The federal courts should defer to the state’s understanding of its own regulatory laws,” to, “The federal courts should not intervene in a legal dispute where there has been no fair adjudication of the matter by state-level courts,” to “The state’s statute of limitations precludes a federal court from considering a legal challenge that exceeds the time bar imposed by state law.” In most of these cases, the federal courts will often agree. But, when it comes to claims against state laws that are alleged to be unconstitutional, federal courts are duty bound to consider a challenge which alleges an ongoing violation of federal law.

Rule 12(b)(2) states that a defendant may move a federal court to dismiss a plaintiff’s claim on the basis that the court lacks personal jurisdiction. In other words, no matter what the claim is and no matter whether the court could actually “hear” the claim, the court doesn’t have any authority to enforce a judgment against the people who are named as defendants in the lawsuit. Sometimes you will hear this spoken about as immunity.

Rule 12(b)(6) states that a defendant may move a federal court to dismiss a plaintiff’s claim on the basis that the plaintiff has not presented a claim upon which relief can be granted. This rule is the kitchen sink of federal procedural rules. There are really two practical parts to it. When using Rule 12(b)(6), a defendant is trying to say one of two things, and sometimes both. The defendant is either saying that the plaintiff has not made what’s called a “cognizable claim” or that the plaintiff has not articulated any facts that support the “cognizable claim.” But, most of the time, the defendant is saying both. It’s laws and facts. And both are necessary to withstand a motion to dismiss under this procedural rule.

So what is a “cognizable claim”? A cognizable claim is one that meets the basic criteria of viability for being tried or adjudicated before a federal court and is also within the power or jurisdiction of the court to adjudicate. Simply put, your complaint has to present a claim that the court has the constitutional authority to “hear.”

What are articulated facts? These are really the most important things to demonstrate, and they are also what are most lacking, many times, in efforts to bring serious constitutional claims on behalf of the registered population. Put simply, it is not enough to say, “This is unfair,” or, “I feel bad,” or, “I don’t understand how they could do this,” because these are not articulated facts of anything. They are merely conjectural statements about feelings.

An articulated (well stated) fact looks something like this:

Plaintiff, a registered sex offender, states that he had a well-paying job with full medical benefits while working for his former employer. The state then passed a law restricting anyone on the sex offender registry from working within 300 feet of any facility where children are schooled, instructed, or cared for. As a consequence, plaintiff lost his job and his medical insurance. He is now unemployed and recently discovered he suffers from hypertension. But for the effects caused by the state’s new law, plaintiff would still have lucrative employment and the necessary insurance to seek the medical care he needs.

There’s nothing there about feelings or fairness or conjectural harm. The harm is real, the causation is obvious, and the facts are “articulated.”

You probably expected that I might spend more time explaining the state’s motion to dismiss in the NARSOL v. Stein case and walk you through the reasons why the Court saw fit to deny it. But instead, I’ve decided to write something a bit more instructional as a guide to assist you in reading through the Court’s decision to deny the state’s motion. You will understand the process—and the Court’s reasoning—a lot better if you take the time to read Judge Biggs’ Memorandum Opinion and Order.

Otherwise, the good news is that the NARSOL v. Stein case will now move forward into the most critical phase of its development, discovery. This is where we will have an opportunity to further develop the facts, provide additional statistical support, interview possible witnesses (including expert witnesses), and frustrate the state’s efforts at preparing for battle. It should be great fun!

And thank you for your patience! “The night may seem long, but it is the part of fidelity to watch and wait for the morning” (Jeff Davis, 1866).

The post NARSOL’s ex post facto case clears hurdle, proceeds to discovery first appeared on NARSOL.

By Robin and Sandy . . . One of the highlights among so many at NARSOL’s annual conference is the banquet and awards ceremony.

NARSOL initiated the awards in 2015 with two awards. The Braveheart Award recognizes a person outside of NARSOL who does something, normally in the course of his or her work, that is consistent with our mission and supports and furthers our advocacy. Lenore Skenazy was our very first recipient; her overall goal is to encourage us to live our lives based on the rational rather than the irrational, and she is very outspoken that the registry is based on the irrational.

The second initially created award recognizes someone within the NARSOL family who has performed in an outstanding way during the previous year toward advancing our advocacy, and our first recipient, Mary Sue Molnar, founder and president of our Texas affiliate organization Texas Voices for Reason and Justice, fits that definition to a “T” and was our choice for our first Advocate of the Year Award.

This year the Braveheart Award was awarded to the Attorney General of Michigan, Dana Nessel, for the contribution of her amicus briefs in Michigan v. Snyder and People v. Betts, cases arguing that Michigan’s sex offender registration and notification requirements are punishment because they are so burdensome and fail to distinguish between dangerous offenders and those who are not a threat to the community.

The 2019 Advocate of the Year Award went to Cindy Prizio, the founder and ED of our Connecticut affiliate organization One Standard of Justice. Cindy and the organization have, in a very few years, made remarkable strides in furthering the mission and goal of NARSOL both legislatively and educationally, even hosting their own successful conference in May of this year.

A third award, the Hawthorne, was established in 2018 and recognizes someone who has contributed ten thousand dollars either financially or in work and time toward advancing the mission and goals of NARSOL. This year’s Hawthorne was awarded to attorneys Adele Nicholas and Mark Weinberg for their litigation work in, primarily, Illinois in conjunction with Illinois Voices, our affiliate organization in that state.

Created in 2017, the Pearl award recognizes NARSOL members and volunteers who have gone above and beyond in their service on behalf of the organization and the people for whom we advocate. A significant number of Pearls were given this year.

The most prestigious award, created in 2016, is our Lifetime Achievement Award. This award is not automatically bestowed yearly but only in years in which a deserving candidate has emerged. The very first recipient was the man known to all of us for many, many years as E-Advocate. Robin Vanderwall, NARSOL’s vice-chair and 2019 master of ceremonies, announced this year that the Awards Committee has revised the name of the award to the Paul E. Shannon Lifetime Achievement Award in honor of our organization’s founder and current chair, who himself was a recipient of it in 2017.

The newly renamed Paul E. Shannon Lifetime Achievement Award was presented this year to Sandy Rozek, NARSOL’s secretary, communications director, and Digest editor, who has served on the NARSOL board for many years.

The post NARSOL honors Rozek, Prizio, Nessel, and Illinois legal team at annual awards banquet first appeared on NARSOL.

By Robin . . . In February 2019, renowned author and social activist Judith Levine gave a presentation entitled “The Feminist & The Sex Offender” at an event primarily sponsored by the Sex Offender Policy Reform Initiative (SOPRI). While I was unable to attend, after viewing the YouTube video of her talk, I found it to be very informative and insightful. However, NARSOL’S positions on a couple of issues need clarifying, and that is what this is intended to do.

Twenty-seven minutes into the video, Ms. Levine begins a portion of her talk which covers the development and rise of local initiatives aimed at reforming sex registry laws. She cites specifically to Paul Shannon’s 1999 petition To Safeguard our Children and our Liberties, which really began the nascent movement opposing the use of sex offender registries as legitimate public policy instruments in combating sexually based offenses. Several years later, Shannon’s petition would gain wider circulation when a revision was published by Counterpunch entitled An Urgent Call to Support the Well Being of Children and the Rights of Us All.

The second iteration of Paul Shannon’s petition would lay the cornerstone for the formation of Reform Sex Offender Laws, which held its first national conference in Boston in 2009. The significance of this first-ever, national gathering of concerned citizens committed to the abolition of sex offender registries would alter the landscape and spawn the formation of similar organizations throughout the United States. Ms. Levine does a fairly good job reviewing this critical period in the development of our advocacy, but there are a couple of things that need to be clarified for the sake of accuracy.

The same Paul Shannon is the founder and board chair for the National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL), which is the direct descendant of Reform Sex Offender Laws (RSOL). NARSOL is the oldest and largest extant civil rights organization exclusively dedicated to defending the rights of registered citizens and their families. Notwithstanding Ms. Levine’s singular recognition of Women Against Registry (W.A.R.)—which itself originated as a NARSOL (RSOL) project—as the “only” organization completely opposed to the use of sex offender registries, NARSOL has always opposed public sex offender registries in any form whatsoever.

Additionally, I think it’s important for our members and supporters to know that NARSOL has never supported residency restrictions for anyone. Any statements by or for NARSOL concerning residency restrictions for probationers or parolees is merely an acknowledgment that individuals in a post-release supervisory status are very likely to continue being subjected to restrictions and requirements imposed by sentencing orders or restrictions that are reasonably related to their post-supervisory rehabilitation and at the discretion of their supervising officers. Abolishing sex offender registries and the restrictions that attach to them is highly unlikely to do anything at all about the imposition of such restrictions in a post-release, supervisory setting. And, in any event, it’s not the focus of NARSOL’s advocacy.

While NARSOL has always advocated for the abolition of ALL public sex offender registries, there was a period of time when the idea of a law enforcement only (LEO) registry was floated as a reasonable alternative. But there was a serious, strategic purpose for this that might be overlooked or too easily dismissed by people concerned about the existence of a law enforcement only registry.

From its inception, NARSOL has focused much of its advocate energy on legislative lobbying. And whenever anyone is speaking to a state legislator or legislative committee, it is nearly impossible to be received in a serious manner if the pitch coming out of the box is “we want to get rid of sex offender registries.” In fact, this is darn near laughable as a reasonable posture for anyone to take before most legislative bodies, and it’s highly likely that NOTHING one has to say will be taken seriously after making such a statement. That’s just how polarizing our advocacy is in a legislative setting.

The LEO concept was a means to an end. It was simply a way of speaking to legislators and legislative bodies in a sensible manner by offering a reasonable alternative to public sex offender registries—an alternative that is already employed in places like Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand, and Australia. And it’s noteworthy that this perspective was first advanced by Paul Shannon—the same individual who courageously stepped out in 1999 as a staunch opponent to the nation’s first generation of sex offender registries.

Nevertheless, NARSOL has since suspended its promotion of the LEO alternative for a number of valid reasons. First, and most prescient, NARSOL abandoned LEO because it wasn’t getting much attention. The idea just didn’t connect well at the grassroots level. Second, LEO was abandoned because there already IS a law enforcement only registry, and it’s called the National Criminal Information Center (NCIC), which is managed by the FBI. According to its website, the NCIC is “an electronic clearinghouse of crime data that can be tapped into by virtually every criminal justice agency nationwide, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.”

Whenever you are pulled over for even a minor traffic violation and no matter where you are in the nation, everything about your criminal history—even your arrest record—is immediately known to the law enforcement officer who has detained you. It merely requires a few clicks on a computer. In more rural, less affluent areas, it may still require a call to the dispatcher. In many states these days, it only requires scanning your license plate number (assuming you’re driving a vehicle registered in your name).

If you’ve been arrested for or convicted of a sexually based offense, the only way that a law enforcement officer won’t know that is if he or she simply doesn’t make an effort to look. Therefore, a law enforcement only “registry” already exists in every state in the nation. There is really no reason to create another one.

Third, NARSOL has occasionally been called to task for supporting a “bifurcated” registry: a registry that contains some individuals but not most individuals. The concept of a registry that only publicizes personal identifying information about the “worst of the worst” is a conversation that comes up frequently among advocates who work together against the present registration regime. There are many patrons of this perspective interspersed throughout the reform movement. In our estimation, the very idea that certain individuals continue to believe (and regularly repeat) that NARSOL is in favor of a limited registration scheme was the final basis for jettisoning the LEO alternative as a functional aspect of our national advocacy.

At our annual board retreat held this year in Houston, NARSOL adopted revised vision and mission statements in order to make abundantly clear our position regarding sex offender registries:

NARSOL’s Vision

NARSOL envisions a society free from public shaming, dehumanizing registries, discrimination, and unconstitutional laws.

NARSOL’s Mission

NARSOL opposes dehumanizing registries and works to eliminate discrimination, banishment, and vigilantism against persons accused or convicted of sexual offenses through the use of impact litigation, public education, legislative advocacy, and media outreach in order to reintegrate and reconcile affected individuals and restore their constitutional rights.

Thanks to the leadership and abiding dedication of Paul Shannon in his effort to bring awareness to the evils of sex offender registries, a great many people have been inspired to follow suit. From this fountainhead has flowed a host of positive, progressive efforts at challenging the existence of sex offender registries and the flimsy, often fabricated, statistical claims in support of their continued use. Yet, as the forerunner to most of the organized efforts throughout the United States, NARSOL—founded by Shannon—is routinely misunderstood, misrepresented, and, in more extreme cases, outright maligned and viciously assaulted.

But—and this is what’s most important to take away from this—if YOU should hear anyone say or read anything written that suggests NARSOL is not totally committed to abolishing sex offender registries, it is a lie. If you hear or read anything about NARSOL agreeing to some form of residency restrictions, that is also a lie. And the same is true if you hear or read anything about NARSOL favoring a registry just for the “worst of the worst.”

In fact, aside from questions of style and approach, if you hear or read anything about NARSOL that seems hard to swallow or sounds over-the-top, that’s because it is. And you are very likely listening to or reading the ramblings of someone who is less concerned about accomplishing the goals we’ve set for ourselves than who ends up getting the credit.

“The last act is the greatest treason. To do the right deed for the wrong reason.” -T.S. Eliot

The post The cornerstone: Paul Shannon and his legacy of reform first appeared on NARSOL.