By Mark . . . NARSOL announces the filing of its opening appellate brief  in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the case NARSOL et. al. v. Latoya Hughes, No. 24-2103. NARSOL is the lead plaintiff in the case. The case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of a parole restriction imposed on individuals on mandatory supervised release in Illinois for a sexual offense. In particular, plaintiffs sued the Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections seeking injunctive relief from the prohibition on individuals using erectile dysfunction medication while on mandatory supervised release. Plaintiffs contend that the condition interferes with rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive due process component and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

At its core, however, the case is not about the particular condition being challenged. It is about the ability of individuals on parole as a general matter to challenge the constitutionality of their parole conditions through the civil rights law (I.e., § 1983) as opposed to being forced to challenge these conditions through a habeas corpus petition. As things currently stand, individuals may only challenge the constitutionality of their parole conditions via a habeas petition, which has the real-world effect of foreclosing individuals’ ability to challenge the constitutionality of their parole conditions at all given the burdensome requirements associated with bringing a habeas challenge and given that attorneys’ fees are not recoverable in such an action. This mean that the cases, when they are brought at all, are brought pro se (on one’s own behalf, i.e., self-representation).

The lawsuit is important primarily because parole conditions have over time become increasingly intrusive and harsh. Many conditions now are categorically imposed by statute, without any individualized consideration, and intrude upon an individual’s most basic constitutional rights. They include wholesale internet restrictions, inhumane no-child-contact restrictions, and burdensome GPS requirements. Absent the ability of individuals to effectively challenge such restrictions via § 1983, individuals are forced to endure constitutionally suspect conditions for years while on criminal supervision.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys are Mark Weinberg and Adele Nicholas in Chicago, Illinois.

The post NARSOL’s new case fights for parolees’ rights to bring civil rights challenges over parole conditions first appeared on NARSOL.

October 3, 2024 . . . CorrLinks, a private company that manages the federal prison email system, began as a pilot program in 2005. It has since then served as the primary method by which persons in custody in the federal Bureau of Prison (BOP) system send and receive emails from family and friends as well as access and receive information about employment and newsletters from legal, educational, and religious/supportive resources.

The format for newsletters from the beginning has been that groups of subscribers were created and could be emailed with email blasts directed to everyone in the group. A group could be as large as 1000. Now, effective October 1, 2024, a group can be no larger than ten (10).

For family members and friends, this will most likely make no difference. They use CorrLinks to correspond with one person. If someone knows several persons in custody in the BOP and wanted them each to receive the same information, they would create a group of three, or seven, or ten and send the same message to all of them with one email.

But for organizations sending legal, educational/informational, or religious/supportive newsletters, this makes a huge, huge difference. Prior to October 1, 2024, one email could be sent, and it would go to 1000 people. Now it will require 100 emails to get the same information to the same 1000 people.

Thomas Root of the highly respected Lisa Foundation  lays the blame directly at the feet of BOP Director Peters. “The worst change – made at the request of unnamed ‘correctional agencies’ (undoubtedly Director Peters’ BOP) – is to limit group size to only ten names (1 pct of the [previous] total).”

He makes the purpose crystal clear. “The BOP has thus been able to do with computer science what it could not do with a direct ban on free speech, which is to cut off inmates from legal reporting services and advocacy, religious and educational groups.”

Regardless of who or why, this drastic move will see remarkable changes in many organizations, from allocating more volunteers or hiring more staff to deal with the enormous increase in time required for the same task to discontinuing their CorrLinks newsletters altogether.

“I hope everyone understands,” said Sandy Rozek, communications director of NARSOL (the National Assc. for Rational Sexual Offense Laws), “there is no doubt that the big loser in this is free speech and, of course, those who already live with so many losses in their lives—persons who are behind bars with little to no other access to the information that the rest of us take for granted every day. This is information that they need to get legal help and information, to learn how to advocate for themselves, and to receive spiritual support.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Sandy . . . A young man was sentenced to prison in Florida last week. The charge, following his arrest last year when he was 19, was 30 counts of possession of child pornography. The materials to which he entered an open plea are disturbing as the children involved were very young. Clearly intervention and appropriate punishment were called for.

However, a sentence that makes no allowance for his young age when the activity was occurring nor for the non-contact nature of the conviction seems inappropriate. Florida, since 1978, has had a youthful offender act. The young man who was sentenced, Anthony by name, seems to be a tailor-made candidate for this option. He appears to meet all the criteria. Whether or not it was considered for him is unknown to all but a very few, but if it was considered, he was denied that opportunity to be held accountable for his crimes; quite possibly serve some prison time; and, most importantly, be evaluated for underlying issues and receive treatment judged appropriate for them and for his offending behavior.

Young people, primarily males, seek out pornography for a variety of reasons. One of these reasons has been identified by the National Health Institute as underlying mental health issues. In a study involving college students, they found that depression as well as high levels of stress and anxiety were precursors to pornography use in these students.

In a study even more specific to Anthony’s case, the National Health Institute concluded that young males with a history of possessing child pornography would most benefit from specific treatment. They found, “. . . juvenile possessors of child pornography need a specific target intervention focusing on dysfunctional Internet use and sexually deviant arousal.” If Anthony had been managed in the youthful offender program, his screening and diagnostic implements may well have reached the same conclusion. It is unlikely he will receive this type of intervention sentenced and incarcerated in the adult system in Florida.

Another possible reason adolescents partake of child pornography is to help them understand sexual abuse of which they themselves were victims. Pornography addiction is one of the latter expressions of victimized children, according to the National Children’s Alliance. In agreement, another organization, in an unpublished study, identified coping with their own prior abuse as one of seven reasons why teens turn to pornography. As far as the public record goes, there is no indication of whether or not any of these issues apply to Anthony. Again, this type of diagnosis and subsequent related treatment would only have been available to him as part of the youthful offender program.

How long was Anthony sentenced for? The answer is shocking. His sentence is for 68 years in state prison, followed by lifetime sex offender probation. And of course, if he survives his prison time, of which 85% must be served, and gets out, he will have sex offender registration as well as sex offender probation.

To put that sentence a bit more in perspective, the U.S. Sentencing Commission shows that for Anthony’s conviction, the average sentence given is 95 months, which is a month shy of eight years.

Another perspective can be had with this. In hunting for the longest sentence given for a non-contact pornography conviction, the case of Stephen Chase, 58, also of Florida, stands out. Stephen, in 2014, created an illegal child pornography website on the dark web. Stephen himself is identified as “. . . creator and lead administrator of what was believed to be the world’s largest child pornography website—with more than 150,000 users around the world.” His conviction, in 2017, was for “. . . engaging in a child exploitation enterprise and multiple child pornography charges.” He was sentenced to 30 years.

Why was Anthony’s sentence so extreme? Any answer will be speculative. However, it is interesting that several of the media articles about his arrest and his conviction say that law enforcement “suspect” him of hands-on molestation of children and put a call out for anyone who had contact with him during the past five years—that would be when he was 14 to 19—to get in touch with law enforcement. The absence of any media or of any new charges indicate there was no one.

We all make choices. We do not know what demons drove Anthony, but he still chose to engage in illegal behavior. The county of Volusia and the state of Florida chose to prosecute Anthony in the adult legal system. As a youthful offender, there is a good chance his problems would have been identified and treated; he would still have served a sentence, but he would have been released with most of his life left. He would have been able to take advantage of rehabilitation and enter his society as a productive, tax-paying citizen.

Now, if he manages to stay alive through the six decades (85%) he will be in a Florida penitentiary, he will emerge, having cost the state at the current rate of $24, 265 per year close to a million and a half of its tax dollars, either a broken and ruined man, dependent on welfare and costing the state even more, or a hardened criminal.

Choices are important.

The post Florida, make better choices 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.

By Sandy . . . The Michigan Supreme Court, on July 29, 2024, issued an opinion that may result in close to 300 people being removed from Michigan’s sex offender registry. The case, People v. Lymon, revolved around whether individuals who had committed crimes that were non-sexual in nature could appropriately be required to register; the court held that they could not and that to do so was unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, the minority opinion, included in the decision, is garnering almost as much interest as the majority one. Emails directed to the NARSOL communications desk have been concerned with what it says and the message that it sends and perpetuates. That minority opinion is this: ” ‘The majority opinion ignores that countless Michigan families rely on the registry to ensure their safety. … Registration provides vital information for the parent who must choose a babysitter or entrust a child with a volunteer coach,’ said Zahra, who was joined by Justice David Viviano.”

August 6, 2024, NARSOL sent an email to 48 Michigan media outlets, all whose focus is Michigan news and politics. This is a copy of the email:

The post To MI media: Sex offender registry increases risk of harm to children 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 Sandy . . . And what an awesome conference it was! The room was packed at every plenary session. The presentations were amazing. The awards dinner was fun-filled and delightful.

The opening presentation by Meghan Mitchell over the effectiveness—or rather lack thereof—of criminal registries set the bar at excellent, a level that was continued throughout, both in plenary and break-out presentations.

MacKensie Leclaire made us cry as she told us about life after sexual harm and gave us hope with her discussion of restorative justice alternatives. SHINE made us feel the indignities that women on the registry live with. Kimberly Buddin made us laugh—if you can imagine such a thing—in her presentation of the history of the registry. Janice Bellucci, Brenda Jones, and Amber Vlangas encouraged us as they not only talked about but demonstrated the value of coalitions.

Featured speaker Vicki Henry reminded us of her journey into advocacy, the pitfalls, and the triumphs, in her awards dinner speech. Daniel Lambert, from behind bars, told us of his work to expose the conditions where he is in civil commitment at Moose Lake, Minnesota–conditions that are an affront to human rights, safety, and dignity.

Lisa Kessler-Peters and Waleisah Wilson, in their presentations, both showed us the importance of faith and how their journeys into advocacy depended on that and keep them going. There were more, too many more to name here, but all thought-provoking, heart-felt, and encouraging.

The awards dinner was a time to relax, enjoy food and fellowship, and listen to long-time advocate Vicki Henry reminded us of why we are in this fight. Master of Ceremonies Robin Vanderwall was at his best. Richard Mori had the audience in stitches as he conducted an auction of prison art for the benefit of the men incarcerated. The awards themselves recognized individuals in various aspects of advocacy for their special and valuable talents and their service to NARSOL and to the men and women for whom we advocate.

Braveheart award: Daniel Wilson in Moose Lake, Minnesota, Civil Commitment Center

Excellence in service award: Ken Roberts, Mississippi, NARSOL’s gatekeeper

Excellence in leadership: Mary Sue Molnar, Texas Voices for Reason and Justice

Advocate of the Year: Margaret Hawkins, Delaware Advocates for RSOL (DARSOL)

Lifetime Achievement Award: Gail Coletta, Florida Action Committee (FAC)

Hawthorne Award: Kimberly Buddin, attorney

Thanks to everyone who attended, watched, or helped support the conference in Atlanta–and a special thanks to everyone who works so hard to make these conferences successful.

The post Another year, another conference–NARSOL’s 16th first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . It happened in Arkansas, in Garland County, and, according to local media, the jury deliberated for 17 minutes before recommending the highest allowable sentence plus a $5,000.00 fine.

Granted, this registrant does have a rather colorful history of failing to register. He has several convictions for that offense in three states, including this one and another in Arkansas. However, his criminal record reveals only one other conviction, his sexual crime conviction in 2002.

Making this situation even more ludicrous, this most current conviction was not an actual refusal to register as required. He had registered, and timely, but he moved from that location and failed to report the move to local law enforcement within five days. He was shortly thereafter arrested, so they clearly had little difficulty locating him.

There is no indication whatsoever that he took advantage of his flying beneath the radar to commit any new crimes.

The jury had a lot of leeway. The conviction required a sentence with a range of from six to 30 years. The trial was only one day, so they weren’t exhausted from a lengthy ordeal. If they felt that he needed a sentence that would encourage him to take his registration duties more seriously, six or even ten years would have sufficed. But 30?

Some spot-checking suggests that a significant number of states classify failure-to-register as a low-level felony with an average maximum requirement, some even for additional offenses, of from less than a year up to around five years. Several states classify a first offense as a misdemeanor with subsequent offenses deemed a very low level felony. Federal convictions dictate an assessment of a fine and/or a prison sentence up to ten years.

Although not very many states use it, a classification of a misdemeanor is more appropriate considering that the sex offender registry, in every state, is a CIVIL REGULATORY SCHEME. It is not a criminal statute. Why should failing to update it be subject to habitual offender enhancement, which is what results in ridiculously high sentencing? Habitual enhancement is intended to be used when new serious or violent crimes have been committed.

The words “classified as a habitual offender” are in the very first sentence of the media piece about this registrant. This is what enables the offense to be charged as a class A felony and such a high sentence given. It is up to the district attorney to decide how to charge an offense, and most states allow this enhancement to be used in cases of repeat failure to register.

Of the states that were spot checked, extremes for failure to register are astronomical. New York appears to dictate no jail time but only probation for up to seven years if repeat, less if first time (the NY SOR has been contacted to verify this; when they respond, it will be updated). On the high end, Arkansas’ 30 years is the highest, with West Virginia at 25 and Louisiana at 20 in second and third places. Only a fourth of the states have been checked, but the southern states appear to tend to have the highest penalties.

However, as stated, many states allow “habitual offender enhancements,” which can add many years to even the top allowable penalty for its classification. So, theoretically, Illinois’ top allowable penalty of seven years for second and subsequent charges of failure to register could be “enhanced” up to 20 or 30 years. Only a very few, such as New Mexico, have been found to have specific law prohibiting the use of this enhancement when the only offense was repeat failure to register, law that other states should emulate.

Failure to register–or to update registration elements timely–in the absence of an actual criminal act, should NOT be eligible for long prison sentences or heavy fines, whether allowed through a higher charging of repeat offenses or through enhanced “habitual offender” penalties.

The post A 30-year sentence for sex offender failure to register: How far over the top will this go? first appeared on NARSOL.