By Sandy . . . Everyone loves a good protest. Most of us can look back to younger days, college or early job perhaps, and recall the excitement of being part of something we believed in. The right to protest is enshrined not only in our memories but also in the Constitution.

“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble  . . .” – United States Constitution Amendment I

The wording in the Constitution explicitly requires that any assembling for the purpose of petitioning or protesting must be peaceful. When exercising the right to assemble and protest has the intent of destroying another’s right to assemble, peacefulness is lost. Today’s lightning-fast, mass communication system produces an environment where the intent to harm is weaponized a thousandfold.

NARSOL has recently experienced this.

A known hate-group, using lies, fear, and vigilantism, persuaded a hotel to cancel our June conference space just days before it was set to begin, leaving no options to relocate in time to hold the conference as planned. NARSOL and NARSOL’s Foundation teams planned that conference for more than a year. We lost it in a matter of days. We were, of course, shaken. Temporarily. Our supporters were also shaken, angry, worried.

To be clear – NARSOL did not choose to cancel this conference. The hotel venue called NARSOL staff and informed them they were “cancelling our event booking,” closing access to the hotel venue to our nearly 200 attendees, caving to pressure from an “American far-right, neo-fascist militant organization that promotes and engages in political violence.”

NARSOL has existed for 18 years. Through 2024, we have had 16 consecutive, peaceful conferences. Every day, we receive letters and emails from individuals on the conviction registry thanking us for giving them hope for a better tomorrow. It will take more than an online hate campaign to deter us. There are six months left in the year. There are many thousands of conference venues.

What we do is too important to stop. We fight the lies and myths surrounding registrants with facts and truth. We fight repressive, unconstitutional laws and restrictions with legal action. We publish the Digest, a newsletter for registrants, the incarcerated, their families, and their supporters.

We have conferences, educational, collegial, and enjoyable.

We daily strive toward our vision: NARSOL envisions a society free from public

shaming, dehumanizing registries, discrimination, and unconstitutional laws. We live up to our mission: NARSOL opposes dehumanizing registries by working to eliminate the laws, policies, and practices that propagate them.

We will move forward with greater care and doubled resolve, and we will continue to join together to fight for rational sex offense laws and against criminal registries.

What we do won’t be stopped or deterred. It will survive as long as it is needed.

The post As long as we are needed first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . Residency restrictions for persons required to register as sexual offenders are often enacted for no reason other than neighboring towns have implemented them. They spread like wildfire,

and like that destructive force, they wreak their own form of havoc, making it more and more difficult for registrants to find decent housing for themselves and their families. This, in turn, makes it more and more difficult for them to create the stability they need to become productive citizens, which, in reality, is what drives down recidivism.

The match that starts the blaze is the totally appropriate desire, a desire we all share, to protect children from sexual harm. Residency restrictions, however, are an inappropriate response to that desire. They are based on three assumptions that are contradicted by evidence:

Residency restrictions assume most child sexual abuse is committed by strangers, when in reality 94 % or higher of cases involve someone known to the child.

The percentage of situations in which a prior relationship exists between an abuser and a child victim varies dependent on the age of

the victim. A study done by the Office of Juvenile Justice found that for very young children, family members and close acquaintances comprise close to 100% of their offenders while for teens, those categories make up 94.3%. The U.S. Department of Justice, in a mega study, found that overall, 90% of the offenders of children and teens were either family members or trusted acquaintances (p.10).

The policies presume offenders choose victims based on residential proximity, which is not supported by research.

Residency restrictions create zones around schools, daycare facilities, and often parks. A two-state study, Michigan and Missouri, did not support the mistaken theory that living close to one of these was a factor in repeat sexual offenses against children. Another study examining several states found that, in Florida, “There was no significant relationship between reoffending and proximity to schools or daycares.”

Residency restrictions assume that most sexual abuse is committed by repeat offenders, which research shows to be inaccurate.

On average, a significant majority of registered sex offenders are one-time, first-time-convicted offenders. A study in New York found that “. . . over 95% of all sexual offense arrests were committed by first-time sex offenders, casting doubt on the ability of laws that target repeat offenders to meaningfully reduce sexual offending,” and a study from the university of Tennessee had very similar findings. They report, “Another factor constraining [sex offender registries’] effectiveness is that past studies have shown that … ‘94.1% of those arrested for child molestation were first-time sex offenders.’ ”

Restrictions often force offenders away from support systems, treatment, stable housing, and employment opportunities, which are crucial for successful reintegration. These are the elements associated with remaining offense-free. Some areas are so encompassed by residence restrictions that homelessness has escalated, especially in states where residency restrictions are aggressively implemented, such as Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is the state of Kansas, who

actually has a page on their DOC website about why residency restrictions do not work and who passed legislation in 2006 prohibiting their jurisdictions from implementing them.

What drives down reoffense? Housing and employment stability; family and community connectedness. What makes those things difficult, sometimes impossible? Residency restrictions.

The choice should be easy.

The post Sex offender residency restrictions: bad, bad public policy first appeared on NARSOL.