Updated 4/23/2026; originally published 2/4/2025 at narsol.org as Sex offender residency restrictions: bad, bad public policy.”

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, according to research, is what drives down recidivism.

What with adding more people to the registry and in some cases making the laws retroactive, the number of individuals caught up in this maelstrom of flame grows exponentially each year.

The spark that starts the blaze is one we all share, the drive to keep our children safe. Residency restrictions, however, are an inappropriate and contraindicated 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 persons unknown or barely known to their random victims when in reality 93% or higher of cases involves someone well known to the children who have been specifically chosen.

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 very 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, 93% 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. These laws and policies, once begun, spread throughout a state with unstoppable ferocity. 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 “. . . proximity to schools and daycares, with other risk factors being comparable, does not appear to contribute to sexual recidivism. These data do not support the widespread enactment of residential restrictions for sexual offenders” (introduction).

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” (abstract), 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’ ” (conclusion of major findings).

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 residency restrictions that homelessness has escalated, especially in states where residency restrictions are aggressively implemented, states as diverse as Wisconsin,  Florida, North Carolina, Illinois, and many more.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is the state of Kansas, which actually has a page on its DOC website about why residency restrictions do not work; the state passed legislation in 2006 prohibiting its  jurisdictions from implementing them.

What drives down reoffense? Housing and employment

stability, access to evidence-based treatment, amd family and community connectedness. What makes those things difficult, sometimes impossible? Residency restrictions.

Are there individuals for whom restrictions from a specific type of place is appropriate? Almost assuredly, and they should be handled on an individualized basis.

Creating “umbrella” laws that indiscriminately restrict everyone listed on a state’s registry, or everyone of a certain classification or tier, thus creating pockets of homeless registrants and acting as a barrier between registrant and rehabilitation, is more than just inappropriate and contraindicated.

It is unrestrained madness.

The post Sex offender residency restrictions–a harmful response first appeared on NARSOL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem

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

A solution

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

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

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

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

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

“Safe” phones

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

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

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

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

The bigger problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Sandy . . . In the many years that we have been tracking Halloween, this one fits the pattern of the past few years.

There were the semi-frequent media and sheriff’s offices who were warning—and scaring—parents about people on sex offender registries grabbing trick-or-treaters, a danger that research indicates has never existed. But the days of Patch “red-dot” maps from coast to coast are gone. A couple of Patch editors in Illinois are hanging on with their “Halloween Safety Maps,” but the dots are blue now, and the articles mitigate some of the fearmongering with the inclusion of a few of the actual facts, such as, “Law enforcement officials and researchers caution that the registries can play only a limited role in preventing child sexual abuse and stress that most perpetrators are known to the child.”

For as many as possible, we responded to media articles and Facebook posts with this message:

Are you aware that any connection between persons on the registry and increased sexual harm to children at Halloween has been totally debunked.? It was an invented construct to begin with. Such a connection has never existed.

You are in a unique position to help make a difference. Instead of writing about something that has never—as far as we are able to determine–harmed any children, write about something that harms, even kills, children every Halloween.

Write about the need for law enforcement to double–and triple–down their foot patrols and crossing guards in high traffic and trick-or-treat areas rather than checking if registered individuals have their lights on. Write about the need for increased sobriety-check traffic stops on Halloween. Write about something that is a real problem, that could save lives, that could make a real difference.

We sent over a dozen emails to reporters and comments on Facebook pages. We received back one reply from a supervising editor wanting more information about our organization.

All of that is the good news.

The bad news is that a more sinister pattern also played out. Trick-or-treating children are several times more likely to be involved in an altercation with an automobile Halloween evening and night. When this occurs, the child seldom emerges unscathed.

In San Antonio, Texas, a truck driver jumped the curb and crashed into a parked vehicle, then striking a group of trick-or-treaters. According to the law enforcement officer on the scene, “By the grace of God, you know, this wasn’t a whole lot worse.” Most of the pedestrians jumped out of the way. A young child received minor injuries and was taken to the hospital with her mother who had more serious but non-life-threatening injuries. The driver fled the scene but was soon apprehended and determined to be intoxicated.

A juvenile was hit while trick-or-treating in Colonial Heights, Virginia. The child was crossing the street, where candy was seen scattered after he was taken to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries. The driver stayed there.

Two young children were critically injured Halloween night while trick-or-treating in Tracey, California and remain critical Saturday morning. The driver remained at the scene.

Charlotte County, Florida, reports, “. . . a serious hit-and-run involving three people trick-or-treating on Friday night.” The injured pedestrians include a teenager and a child who were injured and taken to local hospitals. The driver fled the scene but was soon found and arrested. The area where this happened is described as a “. . . heavy trick-or-treat area.”

A trick-or-treating 13-year-old boy was struck by a car in Portland, Oregon. He sustained serious injuries, and as of the morning of November 1, his prognosis is unclear. The driver remained at the scene.

This is a mixed bag: The good news is that no children were killed outright. The bad news is that seven children were hit by automobiles while they were trick-or-treating and two or more remain in serious or critical condition.

Now the bad, bad news: Before Halloween, media and law enforcement  focus on persons required to register as the way to keep trick-or-treaters safe.

This is in spite of evidence showing zero trick-or-treating children harmed or killed by registrants. Ever. Anywhere.

Neither media nor law enforcement focus enough on a real, actual danger kids face Halloween evening and night across the nation: an increased risk of being hit by an automobile and injured or killed. Some media articles do. Fewer law enforcement offices do.

If this were an equation, in most states it would look like this:

Definite risk of children being harmed Halloween night = <10% allotment of resources; zero risk (based on past 40 years) of children being harmed Halloween night = >75% allotment of resources.

As an ironic sidenote, just as the message is everywhere that there is no connection between persons on sex offender registries and increased risk of sexual harm to children at Halloween, a legislator in Kentucky is proposing that persons on the state registry be forbidden from participating in Halloween activities. Whenever I hear nonsense like this, I remember a question I was asked a long time ago by a registrant. “Why is it that it is fine if I bob for apples with my grandchildren on October 30^th and on November 1^st,” he asked, “but if I do it on October 31^st, I am breaking the law and could go to prison?”

I could not answer his question then, and I cannot answer it now.

The post A good news, bad news Halloween first appeared on NARSOL.

NARSOL has completed its 2025 conference, its 17^th consecutive one. It was a wonderful conference. So many thanks go to our conference committees; our attendees, both in-person and livestream; our speakers and workshop presenters; the hotel and its staff; our law enforcement and security teams; and our opposition, who have given us the opportunity to show what we are made of and that we will NOT go away!

Speeches and presentations were of the high quality that is expected at

NARSOL conferences, beginning with Guy Hamilton-Smith’s kick-off speech on Friday morning, through Joshua Hoe’s Saturday night awards banquet speech, concluding with Danielle Bailey’s brilliant presentation Sunday morning.

Conference attendees—both in-person and livestream—may watch any presentation given in the main room again by using your original identification. As soon as possible, those presentations and also many of the others will be available to everyone for viewing on NARSOL’s YouTube channel.

At the awards banquet, the most prestigious award, the Paul Shannon Lifetime Achievement Award, went to Pat Borden of AZRSOL. Pat graciously accepted it on behalf of not only herself but also her family and the Arizona organization.

This successfully completed conference sends a message: We are here; we are still here; we will continue to be here.

NARSOL not only stands for National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws. NARSOL stands for an organization that expects those who have caused harm to accept responsibility for that harm. NARSOL then stands with them as they navigate life on a sex offender registry.   We will fight:

• for their dignity and respectful treatment;
• that their constitutional rights are not violated by law enforcement or legislation;
• for their protection from vigilantism, both physical violence and online intimidation;
• for removal of impediments to their rehabilitation;
• for policy and legislative decisions that are grounded in solid research.

This 2025 conference in Atlanta has been a “second chance” conference,

and in summing up what NARSOL stands for and what it fights for on behalf of those we represent, is that not it?

Both the ability and the right to seek and to be granted an attainable second chance.

The post Another successful NARSOL conference completed first appeared on NARSOL.

By Ronald . . .  Like every other inmate being released at Missouri’s Farmington Correctional Center, I received a voter registration card and instructions on how to restore voting rights as a felon. The instructions said, “The right to vote is automatically restored upon release” unless convicted of a crime connected to the exercise of the right to vote.

Being released in June of 2024, I knew there was plenty of time to re-register to vote before the November presidential election. But when I began the process later in the summer, things took a decidedly different course.

I showed up to vote in the August primary with my ID and voter registration card

from before I was incarcerated, but the election clerk could not find my name on the voter rolls. A phone call to the election commission offices verified that my voting status was suspended because I had been incarcerated as a felon. I would need to come to the main election board with my discharge papers to renew my voting status.

When I appeared at the St. Louis County Board of Elections office, the clerk was courteous and efficient in reviewing my discharge papers and verifying my identity. But one thing caught her attention: the “lifetime supervision” notation on my discharge. She was hesitant to register me on the spot and said she would make copies of all my documentation and give it to her supervisor (who was out of the office at the time) to review. They would call me with their decision.

This was the first indication of a problem with registering to vote.

Two days later, Cindy, the election board office supervisor, called and told me I could not be registered to vote because I was disqualified since I was on lifetime supervision. (In Missouri, lifetime supervision is applicable only to those with sexual offense convictions.) I explained to her that Missouri law was quite clear in stating the only disqualifications in restoring the right to vote for felons was “probation, parole, or a crime connected with voting.” But she was firm in her decision: I could not register to vote.

The next day I called my attorney’s office and explained my dilemma. The receptionist assured me that one of the attorneys in the office would get back to me with an opinion.  Some time went by and I heard nothing from my attorney. Periodic follow-up calls and reminders—even a letter—did not engender a response.

When I re-read the paperwork on restoring voting rights, I noticed a paragraph at the bottom that said, “If you believe you are eligible to vote and encounter difficulty registering, please contact the Election Division of the Missouri Secretary of State” with the contact information included. I called.

In this day of “press one for …” I was surprised to be immediately connected to a live person. I explained my situation and received a sympathetic response. I was told definitively that I was in the right, and that “lifetime supervision” was not a disqualification for a felon to register to vote. They would call Cindy, the St. Louis Board of Elections supervisor, and instruct her to register me to vote.

The next day I received a call from Eric, the Election Board chair, who reviewed my situation with me and then cited RSMo 559.106 as the basis for his decision that I could not be registered to vote. When I questioned him further, he stated that, in the opinion of the board’s attorney, “lifetime supervision” was a form of probation—thereby a disqualification to being registered to vote. Even though he got a direct order from the office of the Secretary of State, he said, he was going to abide by the decision of their own attorney.

Not so automatic!

So, at the time of this writing, here I sit, four days from the registration deadline, caught between two interpretations of the law. What it shows is that restoration of

voting rights for a felon may not only vary state-by-state, but within a state like Missouri, may even vary from county to county.

The only way to resolve this problem is the hard way—through legal action—by suing the county election commission. And that is exactly what I will be doing, not only for my case, but for all those who come after me or who are currently facing the same challenge in Missouri.

Ronald is a registrant in the state of Missouri.  He has filed a petition with the Missouri Probation and Parole Board to be removed from lifetime supervision.

The post Restored voter’s rights in Missouri: not so automatic first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Post 12226 was opened in the fall of 2023. There were roughly 5,000 such posts in the United States at that time, but this was the first—and so far only–one established inside a prison, the Sterling Correctional Facility, a state institution in Sterling, Colorado. At its peak, the post had 28 members, 24 of whom were men serving sentences, some for sexual crimes and for murder; the other four (4) were staff members. The post had been recognized for being very active, especially in the areas of fundraising efforts and providing support for incarcerated veterans.  https://tinyurl.com/2n8wzbjh

Almost exactly a year later, by fall of 2024, Post 12226 was disbanded. Learning of its existence, various veterans and social media commenters campaigned very vocally against it, and they were heard. The VFW changed its bylaws to disallow membership to anyone with a felony conviction, and the membership dropped below ten, the minimum number required for a VFW post.  https://tinyurl.com/2n8wzbjh

(If this sounds familiar, think of a hotel in Grand Rapids being intimidated by loud and angry voices and cancelling NRSOL’S conference.)

What a poor decision the VFW made. What if other organizations followed this ill-chosen example?

What if some of the more prominent religions protested the time and money spent on faith-based prison programs, and they were no longer allowed in penal institutions? This would mean that the incarceration-impacted population of faith would no longer have access to something important for their spiritual needs, something that for at least some arguably makes the difference between their being model prisoners or troublemakers. Many a prisoner has come to faith and repentance behind bars, some due to attendance at prison worship services. They may not all be sincere, but without doubt some are.

What if state boards of education, universities, and the American Library Association decided that their “product” was wasted on “criminals”? How many of the incarceration-impacted who were trapped in a cycle of poverty due to being functionally illiterate no longer had access to the reading classes that would give them better choices when they were released? A countless number would lose the opportunity to earn a GED, while another huge number would be denied learning the skills that would offer them more employment options in the brave, new technical world into which they would be released. Many colleges and universities offer classes in a variety of subjects and even associate and bachelor degree pathways. These programs are traditionally offered through prison libraries, which also offer reading for pleasure and research capabilities for the institutional population as a whole.

What if special projects developed for incarceration-impacted persons, such as visual arts, drama, and writing were deemed to be inappropriate for “sex offenders”? Since these programs have a proven track record of increasing pro-social behavior and reducing recidivism, there is realistically little chance of that happening. However, moving from the hypothetical—and highly improbable–to the literal, what does happen is that some persons, based on their crime of conviction, are deemed inappropriate to participate in the program.

The exclusion of persons with convictions for crimes of a sexual nature is found in a variety of prison programs, including the visual and performing arts. Seldom presented as an outright exclusion, the language describes the allowed participants for many programs as members of the general population. This would not normally include those convicted for sexual offenses, thus cancelling their participation–and them–efficiantly.

This negation of different forms of art created or performed by someone with a historic sexual offense conviction is carried beyond prison walls to life in the real world. Some years back, a  museum in Maine removed a piece of art because it was created by someone on the sex offender registry. Actors in multiple situations have been “let go” because they had sexual crime convictions.

This bias against “sex offenders” is less seen in creative writing projects. To its credit, when faced with protests against inclusion of a poem by someone bearing the “sex offender” label several years ago, Poetry Magazine stood its ground and kept the poem as part of a special prison edition. However, one extremely talented writer was tempted to give up his writing—not due to discrimination but because he felt responsible for precipitating the events that caused VFW Post 12226 to be shut down.

We have come full cycle.

A dismantled VFW post; a canceled conference; hypothetically canceled prison faith-based services, education classes, library, and arts projects; excluded visual and performing art projects—in prison and in life; a disheartened writer.

The answer for them all is short, simple, and the same: “We will not give up; we will not go away.”

Or, in the words of that same temporarily disheartened writer:

Whether marred by the nature of our crimes or simply by the fact of our incarceration, our work means little to many. But we must try to reach those critics with our writing, demanding our voices be heard, no matter the consequences. For that piece, the result wasn’t what I’d intended. Far from it. But the next time, with the next piece, maybe I’ll change a mind or two.

The post A cancelled VFW post and a cancelled population first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . Follow the money trail. How often has this advice been given, and how often has the heeding of it led to the unraveling of an enigma or a crime.

The sex offender industry is both an enigma and a crime, and following the money trail reveals what lies at the heart and continues to drive this occasionally well-meaning but more often self-serving and punitive complexity of businesses, individuals, and motivations that comprise the billion-dollar “sex offender” industry.

The industry is well diversified. It has three well-developed branches and a fourth smaller but highly important one.

The first, and certainly the lynch pin that holds it all together, is the appeal to the public for security and protection, especially for the need to protect children. This branch encompasses, first and foremost, the public sex offender registries; it includes varied screening, monitoring, and alert products, from systems in schools and libraries to cell phone and email alerts that notify instantly if someone on the registry enters the building or moves into the neighborhood.

The second, and even larger, branch of this industry is the management of those on the registry. Many of these are applicable to registered offenders living in the community, especially when they are on parole or probation. These include the sex offender treatment industry, GPS monitoring, and the polygraph (often used with treatment programs).  The demand for the polygraph creates a need for them  and of course for those who operate them; also, they must be manufactured and marketed. Additionally, many states found the day to day management of their sex offender databases, aka registries, too onerous and demanding for them to keep up with, and a new industry was born–the sex offender database management companies, who, for a fee, take care of all the day to day work of keeping the state online registry updated.

Law enforcement has benefited as their budgets were increased to allow the hiring of new personnel to do parole compliance checks, take care of the constantly ongoing registration process, do home visits, and check on compliance with residence restrictions. In some cases, entire sex offender task forces were created, aided by the U.S. Marshals Service. Their image and public approval are enhanced with every “sex offender” they report violated for a parole infraction or arrested for failure to register.

The management of sex offenders not yet released has spawned another group of businesses–civil commitment “hospitals.” They are extremely controversial, yet they flourish in the 20 states that have them. Among the most protested are the ones in Texas and Minnesota.

The third major branch of the sex offender industry is the role the federal government plays. Under the Adam Walsh Act, the Federal Marshals are empowered to track and capture “absconded” registrants, and they receive large grants each year with which to accomplish their work. Additionally, most investigation of electronic/computer sex crime, such as online solicitation, teen-age “sexting,” and viewing illegal images falls under federal jurisdiction. Federally financed sting operations are infamous. Some federal prisons are filled almost exclusively with those convicted of sexually related crimes.

Finally, comprising the fourth of the components of the sex offender industry are individuals who have and continue to benefit from their participation in the industry. Most notable, perhaps, is John Walsh. Certainly his involvement was thrust upon him in a way no one would ever choose, but it cannot be denied that he built a career that has spanned several decades using his son’s murder. Other parents and some victims have to lesser degrees stayed in the limelight with activism, victim advocacy organizations, and endorsement of harsher and harsher laws dealing with registrants.  One could not possibly count the number of those seeking political office or campaigning to be reelected who used some variation of, “I promise to crack down on those who sexually abuse our children.” Another type of individual who has found a way to earn a living from the sex offender industry is the “scamser.” For close to two decades, across the nation in almost every state, telephone scams targeting persons on the registry have abounded. Registrants are especially vulnerable as they often live in terror of overlooking something they should have done and being rearrested.

The offenses that require public registration run the gamut from the ridiculous to the heinous. Proper management of such a vast range of behaviors requires moving away from our “one size fits all” model and actually reading the research and listening to the experts in the field. Even more essential is focusing on the very real problem of child sexual abuse and those who really do sexually abuse children and developing appropriate programs of education and prevention. But first we need to dismantle the sex offender industry; we need to remove the financial and personal incentives from which so very many benefit.

The post The sex offender industry: follow the money first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . “I am just one person,” he wrote. “I have been trying to find a place to live for ten months and it’s nigh impossible. . . I’m paroled to Milwaukee, a place I’m not legally allowed to live. If something doesn’t change, I will be homeless soon. The laws are making me homeless.”

He was arrested in China in 2016, underwent a trial of sorts, was convicted on a child pornography charge, and served half of a three-year sentence in prison there before the FBI took custody of the case and brought him to Wisconsin for a trial here in 2018. He

was convicted for distribution of child pornography and was sentenced to eight years. He served seven years in New Mexico, six months at Oxford FCI in Oxford, Wisconsin, and March of 2024 was placed under community supervision at Parson’s halfway house in Milwaukee for a year.

Every step of the way, he was humiliated, threatened, and mistreated.

He will be on parole for seven years. He is registered on Wisconsin’s sex offender registry until 2047. He was raised and grew up in Washington State and has no  connection to Wisconsin except it was part of the internet hub used in the distribution charge.

I asked him why he wasn’t legally allowed to live in Milwaukee, and for the first time I learned about Wisconsin’s allowance of original domicile laws. These laws, at the most basic level, prohibit someone on the registry from living somewhere unless they lived there at the time of their conviction.  A significant number of Wisconsin’s cities have original domicile laws, effectively banishing registrants from any of those cities unless they were convicted there or grew up there. Between residency restrictions and original domicile ordinances, a registrant on parole can find virtually no place to live in Milwaukee nor its surrounding cities.

The interplay between  state and municipal original domicile laws and residency restriction ordanances is convoluted and almost impossible to follow; even finding citations is difficult. Additionally, some of the laws have been repealed or modified, but for “serious sex offenders,” they remain fixed. In most states, any CP conviction is labeled as serious.

The bottom line is that Christopher has to have an apartment by the time he leaves the halfway house, March 5. He has gotten a job in Milwaukee, but he can’t stay in Milwaukee due to the restrictions. He is looking outside of the city in hopes of finding a place withough original domicile laws where he can legally live that is close enough to commute to his job. If he doesn’t find something by that deadline, he will be homeless. Even if he finds something, it must be approved by a DOC supervisor, which is another layer of hoops to jump through.

Christopher isn’t the only one. We contacted Robert, NARSOL’s Wisconsin state representative, about

the situation. His response validated everything Christopher had said:

We’re having a massive problem here in Milwaukee.  There is no state-widestandard for registrant housing; each municipality sets its own rules.  State law requires someone being released from incarceration return to the county they’re convicted in, even if they have no connections in that county.  When a registrant finds a place that would accept them, their agent has to accept it as being within the rules—as they interpret them.  I’ve talked with people who had found a place, but the agent wouldn’t approve it and wanted them to go to a different town.  The result is that many registrants right now are homeless.  Even if they stay at a motel, they can only stay there nine days then have to move for at least one day, or they’re “establishing domicile.” I believe the Department of Community Corrections is just as frustrated as we are.

Everyone involved feels frustrated, but that doesn’t even begin to describe Christopher’s feelings.

Most of the people and police departments I contact don’t know what to tell me. I have to fulfill all these requirements, and yet the state has made it impossible for me. I’ve served my sentence; I’ve taken responsibility; I want to be in compliance. Only by good luck or the grace of God could anyone actually in my shoes make it back into society under these conditions. They have boxed me in and left no way out. I am contemplating what I might have to do to stay off the streets and return to prison where at least I’d have a bed and food. My case manager doesn’t even know what to do to help me—can’t offer any advice or tips on how to fix this problem. They are dooming me from the starting gate.

Those who commit these offenses must be held accountable. Christopher has been. He is still paying, now, after incarceration. He will pay by living many more years on the sex offender registry. He will pay until he dies with the scorn and contempt he receives, and many will say rightly so. But should that payment include difficulty even having hope for access to the things that evidence-based data shows inhibits reoffense and best assures a healthy lifestyle—housing, occupation, and family and community connections?

And most of all, should that payment be something that decreases public safety—homelessness—and does so due to the laws that he must abide by?

This piece is based on a series of email interviews with a registrant on parole in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. Every attempt has been made to verify information as accurate.

The post “The laws are making me homeless” first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . The Jacob Wetterling Registration Act, which created the sex offender registry; Megan’s Law, which mandates public disclosure; the Adam Walsh Act, which sets new guidelines: Each name

evokes the image of a child and, for those required to register as sexual offenders, specifics about the laws and what they require. The use of children’s names to create these acts and laws was initiated at the national level, and it occurs at the state level as well, such as Jessica’s Law in Florida, which strengthened the registry and added harsher penalties; and Chelsea’s Law in California, which also increased and enhanced penalties and sentencing.

In Texas, in 2024, eleven-year-old Audrii Cunningham was murdered by a man who was a friend of Audrii’s father and was living in a trailer on her grandparents’ property. He had an extensive and varied criminal background, including a conviction for child enticement—in Texas, not a registerable offense.

If media publicity is the measuring rod, Audrii’s Law, Texas House Bill 2000, is the only piece of

legislation that matters in the 2025 legislative session. Compared to the other laws with children’s names attached, it is somewhat mild. It will have no effect on Texans who are already registered. It seeks only to make the charge of child grooming a registerable offense going forward, which adds more names to an already bloated registry, a registry that studies uniformly validate as failing to improve public safety.

However, Audrii’s Law has far more in common than in opposition to the other laws.

•  Each of them was enacted as a response to a specific crime, in all cases the murder of a child or, in one instance, a teenager. In some cases, the perpetrator was a registered sexual offender, in some not.
•  In each case the law or act is named after the child victim, female in all but two instances.
• In all cases there was a great deal of public outrage; often vigils and memorials were held.
• Each act or law extends—or creates—the registry or consequences to persons on it.
• Each of the laws and acts ignores the vast body of evidence-driven data concerning not only the realities of child sexual abuse but also the failure of the sex offender registry to improve public safety.
• None of the laws or acts address the very real tragedy of child sexual assault—although that is how they are publicized. These cases involve isolated situations of murder; in at least one of the situations, a sexual component may not have been present.
• The perpetrator of each crime therefore has virtually nothing in common with the three-quarters of a million plus individuals who are required to register in America today.

Creating laws based on rare, horrific crimes is bad and dangerous public policy. It uses a tragic, one-off situation and applies it to a group of people who have not done nor will do what was done. It creates “umbrellas laws,” punishing entire categories of individuals for the crimes of a scant handful.

The result is a burgeoning prison population equaled by a burgeoning demand on taxpayer funds to support the imprisonment of so many who could adequately, safely, and much less expensively be managed through community supervision.

To be effective, laws must bear a direct relationship to the desired outcome. The desired outcome is to come as close as possible to eliminating child sexual abuse. The perpetrators of child sexual abuse are

almost always individuals who are not on the registry but are, dependent on the age of the child,  between 94 and close to 100% of the time family members and other persons trusted by the family.  A continued emphasis on the registry, which is based on “stranger-danger” and focuses exclusively on those already registered due to a previous conviction, has been ineffective in meeting the objective and will continue to be so.

The protection of children is too important a goal to be sabotaged by laws that do not address the issue and are disconnected from the desired outcome. Proven prevention programs, improved support for victims, and sentencing that allows for accountability with support for rehabilitation should be the building blocks that drive this vital goal. Using rare, tragic cases as the impetus for laws and naming those laws with the names of the child victims pull at the public’s heartstrings, make “heroes” out of legislators who support the laws, but fail miserably at meeting that goal.

The post Legislative bills named after child victims get A+ for emotion, F for effectiveness first appeared on NARSOL.