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.

HARRISBURG, PA – October 28, 2025 – The Pennsylvania Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (PARSOL) Advocates gathered at the Pennsylvania Capitol Rotunda today to mark thirty years since the enactment of Pennsylvania’s Megan’s Law and to call for modernization of the state’s sexual offense laws which were signed into law by then- Governor Tom Ridge on October 21, 1995, launching the PARSOL #StuckIn1995 Campaign.

“Our lives have changed since 1995. You’ll all recognize Microsoft’s groundbreaking system, Windows 95. But is anyone still using that? Pennsylvania’s registry laws are stuck in 1995 while everything else has moved forward,” remarked Robert Ciccinelli (Havertown), PARSOL board member, who opened the event while advocates held signs showing nostalgia from that year including props from the era including the O.J. Simpson verdict headline news, a poster from the hit 90’s TV show “ER”, the dial-up internet modem, a 22-cent postage stamp, and the floppy disk drive.

Speakers included Josiah Krammes (Pottsville), PARSOL Chair, Joey Nicholson (Coatesville), founder of the Pathfinder Reentry Project, State Representatives Emily Kinkead (D-Pittsburgh) and Tim Briggs (D-King of Prussia), and Olivia Schmidt (Sharon), PARSOL Advocates secretary.

“Modernizing the system means focusing resources on current risk, not decades-old cases. That’s how you protect families,” he noted, citing multiple studies from the U.S. Department of Justice, Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, and Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.

Nicholson, sharing experiences from PARSOL’s statewide programs, told several personal stories of how the registry hinders successful reintegration—even among those who have completed treatment and proven stability. “When policies lack nuance, entire families carry the weight,” said Nicholson. “Modern times demand modern policies built on what we now know about accountability, growth, and rehabilitation.”

Reflecting on his fourteen years of incarceration, Nicholson added, “Real transformation doesn’t begin in a cell, it begins in the heart, and then it transforms your mind. I came home with one goal – to help others find that meaningful spark before the system or life breaks them. These programs are now supported by law enforcement, treatment providers, correctional administrators, and members of the faith community – people who believe in modernization over marginalization.”

Kinkead added that by using what we’ve learned over thirty years to modernize the law and actively include those who have committed offenses in the solution, “… we reduce the number of victims that happen. We prevent people from committing crimes because we are supporting not just survivors but the safety of the entire community.”

“People who are willing to do the work, get better, learn from their mistakes, make amends, and pay their debt to society deserve the opportunity to be a full member of it if we are willing as legislators to be bold, take a stand, and ensure we are making evidence-based policies,” she concluded. “These are common-sense reforms from thirty years of understanding what works and what doesn’t. [Legislators] cannot be held in the past because we are afraid to make changes, and how it will be perceived.

Chairman Briggs echoed Kinkead’s resolve, adding, “Too many times this issue seems too difficult for legislators to get their heads around, and they want to continue that thirty-year-old approach. Despite this, we need to modernize the registry to allow individuals who no longer pose a risk to be removed from the list and ensure the tools necessary for safe communities, including evidence-based assessments, ensuring individuals who need services are receiving them.”

“There is no time better than the present to start tackling these issues. Today’s kickoff reinforces the desire to keep our communities safe by using modern thinking to address these issues in a fair and compassionate way. We look forward to working with PARSOL moving forward,” Briggs concluded.

###

About PARSOL – The Pennsylvania Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (PARSOL) works to modernize the Commonwealth’s sexual offense laws through advocacy, education, and evidence-based practices. PARSOL is the Pennsylvania affiliate of NARSOL.

The post Pennsylvania Rally Marks 30 Years of Failed Sex Offense Policies first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy Rozek, NARSOL Communications Director & John Dawe, NARSOL Marketing Director
When families face emergencies and are driven from their homes, they need quick and equitable access to emergency facilities. Families should be allowed to stay together during crises. However, a new bill, The Safe Shelters Act, proposed by Nancy Mace, a former South Carolina state representative who is now a U.S. congresswoman, seeks to deny this fundamental right to families with a member on a state sex offense registry. “Women and children deserve safety,“ she has said in defense of the bill. While protecting vulnerable populations is a goal we all share, this bill fails to achieve that and instead imposes unnecessary harm.

About the Safe Shelters Act

Mace’s legislation, the Safe Shelters Act, states: “Except for the purpose of seeking information on designated shelters, a covered sex offender may not enter or use the services of an undesignated shelter.”

Under the proposed bill, “designated shelters,” as determined by FEMA, would likely include federal buildings or prisons deemed suitable for registrants by the General Services Administration. This bill is cruel and unfairly targets registrants with families, particularly those with small children. Non-registered spouses depend on their partners for help and support during emergencies, and registered single parents would be made to choose between their children’s safety and forced separation. We believe that requiring families to separate during a crisis is contemptible.

The following signers have endorsed this opinion-editorial:

• Brenda Jones, Executive Director National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL)
• Robin Vander Wall, Chair, NARSOLJohn DawejohndEdit Profile
• James Ward, NARSOL representative, Alabama
• Audrey Kelly, NARSOL representative, Alaska
• Patricia Borden, Director, Arizonans for Rational Sex Offense Laws
• Susan Walker, Executive Director, Coalition for Sex Offense Restoration, Colorado
• Cindy Prizio, President, One Standard of Justice, Connecticut
• Margaret Hawkins, President, Delaware Advocates for Rational Sexual Offense Laws
• Gail Colletta, President, Florida Action Committee, Inc.
• Waleisha Wilson, Chair, Restore Georgia
• Adele Nicholas, Executive Director, Illinois Voices
• Michael Harris, Executive Director, Indiana Voices
• Amanda ******, Executive Director, Iowans Unafraid
• Teresa Butell, NARSOL representative, Kansas Coalition United Against Registry
• Jeff Goetz, NARSOL representative, Kentucky 
• B.V. Jones, Executive Director, Maryland Families Advocating for Intelligent Registries
• Kathie Gourlay, NARSOL representative, Michigan
• Tim P, NARSOL representative, Sex Offense Reform Specialist. ACLU of Michigan
• Timothy Davich, NARSOL representative, Minnesota for Our Rights
• Ken Roberts, NARSOL Gatekeeper, Mississippi
• Erik McInnis, NARSOL representative, Missouri
• Kevin Nunez, NARSOL representative, New Jersey
• Larry Neeley, NARSOL representative, New Mexico
• Dwayne Daughtry, Executive Director, North Carolina RSOL
• Justin Hillman, NARSOL representative, North and South Dakota
• T. Jackson, NARSOL Representative, Ohio RSOL
• Mary Krehbiel, NARSOL representative, Oklahoma RSOL
• Lori Hamilton, Executive Director, OK Voices, Inc.
• Dr. David Mayer, Chair, Oregon Voices
• John Dawe, Managing Director, Pennsylvania Assoc. For Rational Sexual Offense Laws
• Don Thurber, Executive Director, South Carolina RSOL
• W.G. Crump, NARSOL representative, Tennessee
• Mary Sue Molnar, Executive Director, Texas Voices for Reason and Justice
• Timothy R. Burgess, Executive Director, Vermont Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants
• JP Welch, Board member, Safer Virginia
• Philip Kaso, Executive Director, West Virginians for Rational Sexual Offense Laws 
• Robert Thibault, NARSOL representative, Wisconsin
• Amber Vlangas, Executive Director, Restorative Action Alliance New York 
• Danell Puglisi-Knutson, Board member, SHINE-VOICES
• Shawn Barrera-Leaf, United Voices for Sex Offense Reform (UV4SOR) Michigan
• Janice Bellucci, Executive Director, ACSOL

The post ACT NOW: The Safe Shelters Act: Unsafe, Unjust, and Cruel 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.

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 Sandy . . . .Even before Hurricane Helene entered the Gulf of Mexico, plans for emergency sheltering for those fleeing flood areas were well underway, the plans of both those assuring that the shelters were up and running and those who would be doing the fleeing.

With time now measured in hours rather than days, preparations have become more focused. Imagine the uneasiness, even fear that would be felt by those involved, the questions they would have, and the concerns for family members and young children.

Imagine that time, fear, and stress being doubled, tripled, or quadrupled in families with a member listed on a state sexual offender registry. What would happen? Would the family be separated or turned away if they were determined to stay together?

Those are the questions and the feelings being experienced by many, even as I am typing this. With every passing minute, the expectation of a direct hit grows, aimed directly at Florida, with both torrential rains and extreme winds expected. Florida’s law governing this situation is long and thorough:

Florida: § 685.101. Temporary emergency shelters; sexual predators and offenders notification requirements.  

Any person who is required by Florida law to register as a sexual predator or sexual offender and who utilizes or intends to utilize a temporary shelter provided by any public or private entity and established as a result of any emergency or incident or threatened emergency or incident shall, immediately upon entering the shelter, notify the individual or individuals operating the shelter that he or she is a registered sexual predator or sexual offender. The sexual predator or sexual offender shall be assigned to a temporary shelter specifically designated for use by sexual predators and sexual offenders.

The Sheriff may designate a public building or a jail or other correctional facility as a temporary shelter to be utilized by sexual predators and sexual offenders.

Failure of a sexual predator or sexual offender to make notification as required in Section (b) shall constitute a Class D offense.

When a member of the Florida Action Committee was asked what this translated to in real practice, she said, “Hurricanes are county by county in how they deal with our registered population. We’ve made many improvements over the years. We do get cooperation from probation, and if you’re not on paper, you go where you’ll be safe and report as soon as possible when it’s safe to do so. Some counties have shelters that allow them to go in, while others do not. It’s a web, as is everything else.”

Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, and South Carolina are also expected to experience excessive rain and flooding in some areas. None of these states appear to have specific provisions in state law regarding registrants in weather-emergency shelters.

This is unfortunate as the control is left in the hands of local sheriffs, which creates a wide disparity of policies. Most officials are reluctant to be seen as callous enough to just let people die, and they provide alternate accommodations, often jails or buildings that house jails. There have actually been cases of registrants being arrested for being present on school property that was being used as an emergency shelter.

Contacts in Georgia were determining how the sheriffs would handle the situation in the various counties that would be affected. Registrants who are under community supervision could experience the most difficulty.

North Carolina RSOL’s executive director explained their situation this way: “North Carolina law clearly states that individuals on the registry are prohibited from being on or near schools (both public and private), or any location primarily designated for the use, care, or supervision of minors. In a state of emergency, shelters are often set up in schools, and any registrant who seeks refuge there would be in violation of the law, subjecting them to arrest. Sheriffs have consistently upheld this stance and are supported by the state’s attorney general.”

The situation in Alabama and South Carolina is much the same. When shelter apart from the general population is required for registrants—often in the county jail facilities—it means separating men from their families, women from their husbands and children.

Other states with similar policies may be involved in situations during Helene that require evacuating primary residences, and other states WILL find themselves facing this from other hurricanes. It is time this blatant and agonizing discrimination against our registered citizens ceased.

When safety is threatened, when families are driven from their homes, they need to be allowed emergency shelter just like every other citizen, and they need to be allowed to stay together as families.

People who live registered on a sexual offender registry are ostracized, separated, and discriminated against in much of their lives. Facing emergency situations that threaten their homes, their lives, and the safety of their families must not be one of those times.

The post Stop discrimination against registrants in emergency situations first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . Occasionally NARSOL will come across criticisms of our organization, its leadership, our work, and how it is done. These usually appear on one social media platform or another. Interested in all points of view and willing to hear constructive criticism, we have listened and have summarized what appear to be the major areas of contention and our response to each.

The board is lacking in female representation.

Yes, it is; there are two of us. Whenever board seats open, NARSOL appeals for anyone interested to contact us and begin the application process. Female applicants have been rarer than the proverbial hens’ teeth. We will continue. No one will be seated on the board simply because she is female, but we would definitely be interested in a female applicant who brought some of the skills and experiences on our “needed” list to the board.

In the organization and on the board, victim representation and viewpoints are missing or minimal.

This misrepresentation requires a two-part response. First, no one can know who among us was or was not a former victim of sexual abuse, but at the board level, it was multiple, not singular. Among our state-level advocates, there are a significant number who are past victims. Moreover, if those who have suffered collateral damage are counted, 100 percent of us would not be overstating the case. However, this is not something we choose to dwell on. It is not something we write about. We made the choice long ago not to be permanent victims. Continuing to think of ourselves as victims allows our abusers to continue having power over us, and we refuse to grant them that. We do not believe they should be treated as forever-perpetrators; this is the other side of the coin.

Some of us who are former victims are in this advocacy because we know first-hand that an overly-punitive system and the registry system that interferes with rehabilitation have nothing in them that bring us healing or work toward preventing future victims. We healed because we chose to—and some with the help of spiritual faith–despite a system that would keep us victims. The proven programs designed to significantly reduce future victims go begging for the tiniest fraction of government support.

Secondly, NARSOL’s mission statement does not establish a victims’ advocacy; victims have many advocates, starting with the court system. We are an advocate for the other side of the equation, the side that is in desperate need of advocacy. We are advocates for the system as it was initially designed, a system that extracted accountability from the legally-proven guilty, imposed a commensurate degree of punishment, and then expected a return to society with lesson learned. We advocate against distortions of that system, distortions that result in a type of forever punishment and make a mockery of rehabilitation by closing so many doors to it. We advocate for rational sexual offense laws.

We minimalize responsibility and accountability

This characterization is simply not accurate. As stated, NARSOL firmly believes in a fair system that appropriately punishes those who commit crimes; the more egregious the crime, the more thorough the punishment will be, but it must be punishment that is constitutional, in keeping with empirical data, and proportionate to the offense. Longer sentences do not aid in rehabilitation but undermine it. In almost all cases, constitutional punishment comes to an end. It does not continue for 15 or 25 years or even a lifetime after completed sentences end by marking the former transgressor as someone unfit for society.

NARSOL’S advocacy minimalizes rehabilitation

This misconception has already been addressed; it is categorically untrue. Our advocacy is for a system that fosters, allows, and encourages rehabilitation. We frequently reference the low reoffense rate of those who have previous sexual crime convictions; a low offense rate is the result of rehabilitation. Why would we not encourage it? Two sub-points must be made here: 1) Many of this population are self-rehabilitated despite a system that, at best, does little to nothing to aid rehabilitation and, at worst, hinders it mightily. 2) Some on the registry are truly innocent; they were wrongly prosecuted or maliciously and wrongly accused. There is no way of knowing how many; this is an extremely easy accusation. False accusations are effortlessly weaponized by partners wanting the upper hand in divorce or child custody situations. What rehabilitation do these innocent people need?

A last note about rehabilitation for registrants is taken from Joshua Hoe and a post on Twitter (X). He wrote, “Our best chance at public safety is someone returning from incarceration invested in the body politic, with pro-social dreams of contributing to their community . . . foreclosing this is a terrible reintegration strategy.”

If the criticism is primarily, “They don’t serve their full sentence anyway, so it’s only right that they keep on being punished when they are out in the community,” I’m sorry. There isn’t a piece of data anywhere that supports that line of thinking.

NARSOL welcomes and is responsive to constructive criticism. Please keep it coming. We cannot and will not do everything that everyone wants us to do, but if it helps us improve our effectiveness in advocating for fact-driven, data-driven, rehabilitative, and rational sexual offense laws—bring it on.

The post Let’s set the record straight — uninformed, unwarranted criticism first appeared on NARSOL.

Published first at little red dots

Reprinted in full with permission from the author.

By Guy . . . In bringing a First Amendment lawsuit challenging Kentucky’s newly-passed law prohibiting anonymous speech on social media platforms by some people with past sex-related convictions, I anticipated that the media would likely want to focus on my own story, and my own past.

I’ve written before about my own arrest in 2006, and my gratitude for it. The freest I ever felt was in an interrogation room in handcuffs. My experiences with the legal system gave me a vision of a criminal justice system that could bring all parties to a crime together – the person who caused harm, the person who was harmed, and the community – and leave everyone better for it. I was extremely fortunate, but many are not. It was those experiences that inspired me to apply to law school, and eventually, to become an attorney.

In 2017, the United States Supreme Court decided a case called Packingham v. North Carolina, which considered a North Carolina ban on social media use for people with past sex convictions. The Court struck it down, with then-Justice Kennedy writing that:

Even convicted criminals–and in some instances especially convicted criminals–might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, in particular if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives. 

Justice Kennedy described my path, and the impact that “access to the world of ideas” has had on my life. I am “especially convicted criminals.”

A few years before Packingham, my best friend in law school and I cooked up an idea to challenge Kentucky’s similar law. The plan was not only to win, but to then use social media as a means of advocacy, public education, and networking. That case was John Doe v. Commonwealth ex. rel. Tilley. I was John Doe.

We won, striking down–amongst other things–Kentucky’s ban. I joined social media under my name, did an AMA, networked, and wrote. One of the things that I wrote was a law review article about the importance of social media access, and my own experiences. The article itself was an opportunity that was presented to me by way of an acquaintance I met on Twitter. In the article, I wrote that:

[Mine and my friend’s plan] has taken an enormous amount of work and planning that has spanned several years now. Unnumbered days and nights of research, writing, talking, rewriting. Recruiting expert witnesses willing to serve pro bono. Waiting. Heartbreak. Yet more waiting. In fact, the work is still underway. Tilley was just the first phase of the plan. You, by reading what I have written, have helped with the second.

What good is being given a voice only to persist in silence? Of what value does speaking hold if one is forced to do so only amongst the trees, or to the choir? 

It may be that you find what I have written to be detestable, nonsensical, and even dangerous. If so, you will undoubtedly find me up for a robust debate. Whatever your reaction, you will surely agree with the fact that I was even afforded the opportunity to write the words you find so objectionable, and thus for you to be aggrieved by them, is in itself, nothing short of a small miracle. 

And with that, God is good indeed, Mr. Packingham. 

The lawsuit led to social media, which led to writing, which led to a job, which led to connections, which led to my being a JLUSA fellow, which led me to apply to take the bar exam in D.C., which led me to the life I have today. Packingham and Tilley, and the values that they protect, led me to becoming an attorney.

Tilley has, in some ways, come full circle. Back to another federal courtroom in Kentucky, to fight another social media law. This time, as counsel. To be sure, Kentucky’s new law does not outright ban speech on social media, nor could it. But for many people, including my client, it is a ban by any other name.

Social media certainly has ills, too, that highlight the importance of anonymity. I understand all too well the burdens that come with being public, and being either unpopular, or controversial. I have lost count of the number of times that I have been harassed, or had my life threatened on social media. I am numb to it. My decision to be public was not, initially, by choice. But for many including my client, a requirement to self-identify is too steep a price to pay to avail themselves of the First Amendment rights that Packingham says they have.

The district court granted my motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the law likely violates the Constitution. The Attorney General of Kentucky has appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the fight will continue there. The path that’s brought me here is why it’s a fight I believe in. My conviction isn’t the whole story. It’s the beginning of it.

The post A Voice, If You Can Keep it first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . The media has been making much recently of the inclusion of Steven van de Velde, a Dutch beach volleyball player, at this year’s summer Olympics in Paris. Van de Velde has a historic conviction for a sexual crime against an underaged girl. He served his punishment, and the stance of the Dutch Olympic Committee is that people deserve to be given the opportunity to move on; they laud his repentance at his past actions and his determination to be rehabilitated. His teammates also have spoken out in defense of him. However, virtually no others, including spectators at his events, feel the same, and he is being housed in a separate facility for his own protection from potential vigilantes.

Now a second person at the Olympics has met the fate of being ostracized due to a historic sexual offense. More than 25 years ago Australian Brett Sutton was convicted of sexual crimes against an underaged girl. He was punished. There is no evidence whatsoever that any reoffense has occurred. Sutton is the coach of Julie Derron, a Swiss athlete who won the silver medal in the triathlon. Sutton was at her event in support of her when she competed, having been given accreditation by the Chinese Olympic Committee.

He was recognized when he gave an interview after her event, and the most that officials will say is that he is “no longer here” and that the matter will be “looked into.”

In this day of 24-hour news cycles, as of this writing, it has been almost a week since this story broke, starting first with Steven van de Velde and kept alive and fueled with the Brett Sutton incident. Who knows how much longer it will stay in the headlines? Google searches produce pages of hits, virtually every story using the term “sex offender” in the header and focusing on the indignation felt at allowing such persons to participate or even just be in attendance at the Olympics.

I keep waiting for the pieces that say, no, they are not “sex offenders.” It has been years since they were. They have jumped through all the hoops; they are evaluated at being at no risk to offend. Can we at least say “has a historic sexual offense”?

I keep waiting for the pieces that ask the pertinent questions, questions such as:

Is there no place for true repentance, for remorse, for turning one’s life around, for redemption? Is there never a time, after years of living productive, crime-free lives, that they can be just people?

What kind of redemption is it that says, “Yeah, okay, you can move on—but you can’t be in this place”?

*What kind of rehabilitation is it that says, “You have to get a job, to work,” but, “Oh, no, you can’t work here; we’re close to a playground,” or, “Some of our customers are minors; this is a child-safe zone”?

That says, “You can’t be homeless, but you can’t live here or here or there—residency restrictions”?

What kind of forgiveness is it that says, “Sure, we believe in being forgiving, but you can’t come to our church; we have a youth group”?

What kind of civic  protection of citizens is it that says, “During a storm evacuation, we have shelters open,” but “You can’t come in here; this is a school”?

What kind of fostering of civic responsibility is it that says, “You can vote, but not really because your polling place is a school” and, “Run for office–you? No way!”?

What kind of fostering of family and parental responsibility is it that says, “Family connections are important for rehabilitation, but you can’t pick up your child from school or go to his basketball game or take your family for a day at the state park or even a day at the beach—beaches are designated as parks here, you know”?

And then, after years of being told “No,” what kind of support for his over-burdened family is shown with, “Sorry, he can’t be put in our nursing home; you’ll have to make other arrangements”?*

What kind of appreciation for service to his country is shown with, “Sorry, he can’t be buried in a national cemetery; you’ll have to make other arrangements”?

And finally—what kind of people have we become? What kind of nation are we?

*While these restrictions are not applicable in all states, every one is applicable in one or more states. The majority are due to the dictates of some level of government, but one or two are dictated by the private industry. All are inflicted on only persons who are or have ever been on a sex offender registry.

Denial of the right to burial in national cemeteries is applicable to a small sub-set  of registrants in all states and dictated by federal law.

The post If you’re a registered sexual offender, the answer is “No!” 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.