By Mark . . . On May 31, 2024, the parties filed their opening summary judgment briefs in Antrim v. Carr, 19-cv-396 (Eastern District of Wisconsin), in which plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s statutory scheme requiring that certain individuals convicted of sexual offenses be forced to wear a GPS monitoring device for life, even after they are off of any criminal supervision. Attached below are each side’s opening summary judgment briefs. Response briefs in the case are due July 5, 2024. NARSOL is intimately connected to the litigation, having subsidized the full costs of the plaintiffs’ two expert witnesses — Kate Weisburd, a law professor at George Washington University School of Law, and Kelly Socia, Professor in the School of Criminology and Justice Studies and a Fellow for the Center for Public Opinion at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell.

The post NARSOL cases in Illinois and Wisconsin moving forward first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . Do they reoffend with another sexual crime? Yes, but rarely. Do they commit petty offenses? Yes, sometimes. Do they violate the terms of supervision or the registry? Yes, some.

Do they live normal, ordinary, law-abiding lives? Yes, the vast majority.

Do they still get in trouble and become the subjects of ridicule and condemnation for living their ordinary, law-abiding lives, and do they cause—usually inadvertently–those who would help, befriend, or love them condemnation and often worse? Yes, probably more often than we would believe.

A registrant in California was working as an umpire with a company that had a contract to supply umpires at baseball games, including Pony League games. His occupation and his working at games played by minors were completely legal. Nevertheless, the headline screamed, “Registered sex offender umpired Monterey County Pony league games, says president.” The league has “chosen to terminate its relationship” with the contractor, possibly putting the registrant’s job at jeopardy. Even if that was not the case, the contracting company lost a client because it provided employment for registrants.

In South Dakota, the headline makes the issue clear: “Teacher resigns after inviting registered sex offender to classroom as guest speaker.” Neither the teacher nor the registrant was doing anything illegal or against school or district policy. However, the teacher lost her job due to the incident. In the face of public pressure, both the teacher and the school superintendent tendered their resignations, but the school board accepted only that of the teacher. The registrant’s conviction was in 2017.

In yet another situation, this one in Rhode Island, doing something that was not illegal cost someone her job. An employee of a YMCA allowed her registrant fiancé to wait for her inside the building while she finished work. “Cranston YMCA employee fired for letting sex offender on grounds,” announced the headline. He was apparently breaking no laws in being there as he was not arrested. He wasn’t hiding or being “sneaky”; he was sitting at the entrance table right by the front door in plain view. She was promptly fired.

In a just-released report in Massachusetts, an entity no less than the state government is in trouble.  “Massachusetts placed homeless families in shelters with sex offenders, report says,” details that persons and families in need of temporary housing were placed where “sex offenders live or work.” The report goes on to say that the housing agency is “in the process of removing the identified sex offenders.” A logical translation of what that process means is that an untold number of registrants, through no fault of theirs and in the absence of any criminality, are now displaced from their homes and /or fired from their jobs.

A convoluted and multi-layered situation in Alabama presents the opinion that people with convictions for historic sexual offenses should not be allowed to serve in roles that are interwoven with the very fabric of our communities. “Case of missing child sparks concerns over sex offender fire chief in Barbour County” is the latest chapter in an older controversy, that of a registrant, with his background fully known, who was appointed chief of a small town volunteer fire department. The search for a missing child—later found unharmed—was the catalyst for the more recent upheaval. A woman who says she had been a victim of sexual abuse was incensed that the registrant fire chief was “allowed” to be part of the search party for the missing child and started an on-line campaign to have him removed from his position. An Alabama legislator authored a bill to prohibit registrants from working as first responders in the state; the bill failed to gain momentum in the session just ended. The fire chief resigned his position amidst all the controversy. His conviction was in 1998.

In Ohio, a media outlet appears to take pride in “outing” a registrant and causing the priest who was helping him to be fired. News 5, an ABC affiliate, announced, “Local Catholic pastor forced to resign following News 5 Investigation into sex offender volunteer.” The pastor may or may not have used poor judgement in allowing the registrant to fill the volunteer position that he did, but no laws appear to have been broken as no one was arrested. The diocese is indicated as knowing about the status of the registrant, which would indicate the firing is the result of public pressure.

A common element, remarkably similar from story to story, is easily discernible in every story. “There have been no reported incidents and all their children are safe”; “Student safety was not compromised”; “There’s no indication that he had any interactions with YMCA members or children”; “. . . did not interact with kids”‘ “. . . no issues from the presence of these offenders.”

People who employ, befriend, or otherwise engage those on a sex offender registry may be putting their reputations and their jobs at risk. This is at total odds with the mission statements of many states’ correctional departments that claim to support and provide opportunities for rehabilitation and second chances to those in their system.

How are these missions to be achieved if opportunities to become rehabilitated are denied? How are persons on sex offense registries to have the ability to use their rehabilitation, often even after many years, if the granting of second chances is more likely than not to be met with negativity and if every step forward is countered with two steps back?

The post How do persons on sex offender registries get in trouble? first appeared on NARSOL.

Originally prublished in the Arizona Capitol Times

By John Covert . . . Among all the policy experiments in this country that have thoroughly missed the mark, sex offense registries have surely earned their own special niche.

Registries have been examined in numerous academic studies over the past several decades, and virtually all of them have found that registries do not accomplish what they were intended to do. They do not reduce recidivism.

They do not prevent sex offenses. They do not protect children. They do not make communities safer.

These findings certainly run counter to the beliefs of some policy makers seemingly more interested in inflicting additional punishment on past crimes or enhancing their “tough on crime” personas. New directions must be taken—employing evidence-based reforms focused on intervention and treatment methods that have been shown to reduce sexual violence.

Sex offense registries in this country go back to the mid- 20th century, when they had the limited aim of providing law ennforcement (and only law enforcement) with contact information on those who had committed specific types of offenses.

Then, in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Alaska’s relatively lean registry, using the now debunked premise that people convicted of a sex offense have an exceptionally high recidivism rate. Policy makers around the country took it as an invitation to pile on new regulations and requirements, vastly expanding registries that had once focused on a narrow spectrum of serious crimes to include an ever- growing list of offenses, even including such things as public urination and sex among underage teenagers.

Those who seek to maintain, and even expand, sex offense registries make the claim that those convicted of a sex offense cannot be rehabilitated and need to be under constant surveillance. However, study after study has shown that therapeutic interventions largely lead to success. In fact, those convicted of sex offenses have essentially the lowest recidivism rate among all classes of offenders; a study done by the U.S. Department of Justice found a reconviction rate of 3.5% among individuals in 15 states released over a three- year period.

So, if registries do not work as intended, what can be done?

The American Law Institute (ALI) provided recommendations on where states might go when it adopted extensive model penal code revisions regarding sex offense registries in 2021. ALI’s model codes are enormously influential in the courts and legislatures, and in legal scholarship and education.

ALI’s proposed changes match the recommendations of academic literature, which shows that people convicted of sexual offenses have low reoffense rates and that registration hinders rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Specifically, it recommends restricting the information on registries to be available to law enforcement only, limiting those registered to only the most dangerous, and shortening the length of time individuals must remain on the registry.

The first is important because publicly listing those convicted of a sex offense on the internet exposes them to a variety of negative consequences, ranging from public shaming, physical intimidation and violence, and difficulties in finding employment and a place to live.

The requirement of lifetime registration that many states, including Arizona, impose carries burdens for many convicted of a sex offense, often preventing them from ever being able to fully reintegrate into their communities even many years after the offense.

In her dissent in the Alaska Supreme Court case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that many registries, including Arizona’s, make no provision at all for the possibility of rehabilitation. “However plain it may be that a former sex offender currently poses no threat of recidivism,” she wrote, “he will remain subject to long term monitoring and inescapable humiliation.”

At a time when the American Law Institute, virtually all available research, and a growing body of public and professional opinion reflect the reality that our current sexual offense policies do not work, it is important for Arizona to take a new direction.

John Covert is a member of the Arizonans for Rational Sex Offense Laws Executive Committee.

The post AZ RSOL says, “It’s time for a new direction in sexual offense policy” first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . It is seldom that the morning newsfeed offers not two but three pieces dealing with the same topic, a topic that piques my interest and warrants some consideration.

Some states structure their sexual offender registry so that a technical violation is punishable by a jail or prison sentence and in some states is considered a new sexual offense. This may be tied in with a violation of sexual offense probation. Granted, when on probation or parole, restrictions are more rigid and expectations of autonomy are fewer, but the question remains: Is incarcerating a person for a year or longer the best solution for a technical violation that involves no new attempt at committing a crime against a person?

In Cumberland County, Tennessee, a 79-year-old man, John, was given a year’s sentence for “. . . technical violations of the sex offender registry law . . .” The media source does not identify what the technical violations were. They could be anything from accidentally being a digit off in a submitted telephone number to moving without registering the new address. But even if it were the later, he didn’t go far; law enforcement apparently had no trouble finding him. At the time of this sentencing, John had already been in jail for three months for a probation violation, which, as best as I can decipher the verbiage, was for the same offense. Tennessee imposes lifetime community supervision—probation– on a significant number of registrants, and failure to comply with registry requirements can be charged as a probation violation. Further investigation shows that John’s one sexual offense conviction was in 2015 for possession of illegal images.

A case in Albany, New York, raises even more concerns. Jason, age 43, the registrant in this case, has been sentenced to 28 months imprisonment for “. . . failing to update his sex offender registration information.” When released, he will serve five years of post-release supervision. His one prior conviction was in 2011 for receiving child pornography—different language meaning essentially the same as the Tennessee case, possession of illegal images consisting of child pornography. This new conviction is for failing to update his residency address on the sexual offender registry. According to the media source, in New York this conviction, for a registrant, is a new crime as it is in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.

Finally, a 43-year-old Coldwater, Michigan man has been sentenced to from 17 months to ten years for parole violations and from 17 months to four years for not complying with the sexual offender registry. Travis was given an additional sentence, to run concurrently, of 16 months to two years for not complying with reporting duties. His sexual offense conviction was in 2020 for 2^nd degree criminal sexual contact.

NARSOL has frequently said that we are not attorneys and we do not give legal advice. There is one bit of legal advice, however, that we have been known to give: If it’s the law, obey it. If you are on probation, your responsibility is to follow the terms of your probation. If you are on the registry, you are responsible for knowing the registry requirements for your state and following them. If you believe they are excessive—such as counter-productive residency restrictions—or illegal—such as sheriffs requiring Halloween yard signs without legal authority—beg or borrow if needed and find an attorney.

When individuals do not follow supervision requirements or registration stipulations, they must expect  consequences. But shouldn’t the consequences fall to the person who is in violation rather than to the state, its taxpayers, and the innocent?

Jason and Travis are mid-forties in age. With any luck, they were working; they were earning, supporting at least themselves and quite possibly families. They were renting or buying, spending, contributing to the economy. They were paying taxes. And now? How much does it cost to incarcerate a man for a month? A year? Ten years? Will their families need public assistance now? Lose their homes? How much more is lost over and above their wages and all that a wage-earner contributes?

And what of John? He is 79 years old. In addition to the base cost of incarcerating him for a year, what are his medical needs? Is there an elderly wife at home who can manage—or not—without him?

Whatever lessons these incarceration terms are intended to teach, would it not be reasonable to try a few months instead of a year, two years, possibly ten years? John’s criminal record shows that this is his third conviction for registry and supervision infractions, and were it not for his age, a year’s sentence might be appropriate. Perhaps the question in his situation is will the cost of his incarceration be offset by what he learns in a year behind bars.

The criminal records of both Jason and Travis indicate that these convictions for parole/registration violations (Travis) and failing to update registration information (Jason) are the very first of the sort that either of them have accrued. Would not a few months in the county jail be a reasonable and much more cost-effective attempt at correction? A second, more subtle concern that must be raised in connection with registration violations is this: Failing to comply with registry requirements is an offense applicable to no category of crime except those that trigger an obligation to register. This is an often-overlooked fact among the plethora of discriminations that make up criminal registries.

Is it not time to give these issues some serious thought?

The post The unintended victims of sexual crime hysteria first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . I receive email every day — lots of it. Occasionally it is hate mail, but most of the time it is responsive, informative, helpful, or inspiring. I received one today that can only be described as awesome.

From Vincent . . . I don’t know if you’re familiar with the writings of Cornell legal scholar Joseph Margulies, but in case you aren’t, I call your attention to him. He writes magnificently on what he says is our need for a “forgiving society.” See his many essays at https://verdict.justia.com/author/margulies.

I’ve always wondered what his views are on sexual offenses, but I’m not aware of his having addressed the issue directly. In a recent essay, though, called “I Would Take Just Being Left Alone,” he seems to be talking about someone who is living life on the sexual offender registry. I quote just the first section:

As regular readers know, I have been writing about social forgiveness for some time. Social forgiveness is very different from personal forgiveness. When a victim forgives, they relinquish a debt owed to them by the wrongdoer. Personal forgiveness is thus a purely personal choice. But when society forgives, it restores membership to someone who has committed a wrong against the group. It is a social choice.

But what does social forgiveness look like in practice? I got a perfectly serviceable answer to that question from a reader who got in touch with me after my last essay about Jack Teixeira, the young man accused of disclosing classified documents on a Discord server.

My reader generously shared his own journey, which included a lengthy stint in prison for a very serious crime, and I asked him what social forgiveness might look like in his case. He answered, “I would take just being left alone, free of probation, registration, or record, as forgiveness. I’ve served my time and learned my lesson, I would like to just rebuild a better life now.”

Just being left alone to rebuild a better life. That’s as good a definition of membership in society as I’ve ever heard. It implies nothing more or less than acceptance and tolerance. A person who is “left alone,” as my reader described it, is a person who belongs. At least, they belong as much or as little as any of us can hope to be, neither favored nor slighted by society.

In fact, to leave someone alone is the social opposite of casting them out. When we say, “leave that person alone,” we do not mean, “leave them alone on a deserted island.” We mean leave them to stand on their own feet, like everyone else. Leave them to fall in love, get a job, go to school, start a family, create a community. Leave them to build a life. Do not entomb them in their past. That’s social forgiveness, and I am much in debt to my reader for describing it so simply and so powerfully.

Especially worth reading is Margulies’ essay, “Building a Forgiving Society,” which I send attached.

Hope all is well with you, Sandy. Keep up your work for NARSOL.

Regards, Vincent

This is Sandy now. The essay that Vincent attached is indeed quite good, and the first paragraph is tailor-made for us, for those in our advocacy, especially for those who suffer. It is one of the loveliest things I have ever read.

From “Building a Forgiving Society” by Joseph Margulies.

I am hard at work on a new book. It begins at the end. It imagines we have created a world that is considerably more forgiving than our own. Where society has neither the right nor the inclination to treat a human being as a monster, indelibly branded as unworthy of membership, and where no transgression, no matter how severe, permits society to dissolve the bonds that all humans share, simply because they are human. A world where punishment proceeds from the premise that wrongdoers were, are, and will always remain one of us, and that the goal of punishment is not to cast out but to bring back. Where people are not entombed in their past. 

The post “I would take just being left alone” first appeared on NARSOL.

By Larry and Sandy . . . After all the hoopla over the past several days regarding the booking of former president Donald Trump, NARSOL agrees with a recent article published by Reason Magazine. Mugshots are not taken for the purpose of humiliating an accused person before they’ve been convicted of the accusations. Unfortunately, that is how they are often used in the modern era.

We have no desire to get into the issues of the allegations against Trump or any of the other defendants. Our concern is for everyone accused of a crime, including those who were booked and photographed in Fulton County, Georgia, over the past few days. Those particular accusations will be decided by the courts at some point in the future. Until the time the charges against each defendant have been resolved, each of them, including Trump, should be presumed innocent.

Rather than the charges, NARSOL is focused on the public policy ramifications of publishing mugshots upon an arrest. According to Reason Magazine, that is the reason why the media should decline to publish such photos and why governments should limit their release.

Taken on what may well be the lowest point of one’s life, they are virtually guaranteed to portray the accused as looking like the worst criminal who ever lived. There have been instances where individuals have lost their careers and been forced to expend tens of thousands of dollars defending against weak or unfounded allegations.

NARSOL wholeheartedly agrees that the defendants in the Georgia indictment should not be held to a different standard than other criminal defendants. Our position is that we would like to see the system itself reformed. It is important to point out that most if not all of those facing charges in Georgia have the financial resources to pay for their defense teams. We seek change for those without huge financial holdings and political connections, those who stand to lose their livelihood by having their faces published along with salacious speculation. This totally contradicts the “presumption of innocence” which has been held dear by most Americans since our founding.

We seek change for those against whom spurious accusations of sexual impropriety have been made. More than any other, the accusation of being a “sex offender” wreaks havoc, as much as an actual guilty plea or verdict. More than any other, the accusation of having committed any sexual impropriety guarantees the loss of the presumption of innocence. The publication of mugshots, often the staple of “vigilante” web sites and You-Tube sound-bites, lingers long after the false accusation is recanted, the mistaken identity is corrected, or the innocent person is vindicated.

Billy Binion, the author of the Reason piece, unknowingly describes those for whom we seek change. He writes that the standard itself, the practice itself, needs to change for “people who are much less powerful and who stand to lose much more by having their faces splashed across the press before they’ve had a chance to state their case.” He says that, regardless of Trump’s mugshots being out there, he would bounce back. Binion concludes, “Others in his situation, whose names you’ll never hear, might not.” And, I will add, often don’t.

According to Reason Magazine, some states are moving to limit the release of mugshots prior to a conviction. Reason mentioned that last year Louisiana passed a law restricting law enforcement’s ability to release certain mugshots pre-conviction for nonviolent crimes. They stated that there are several exceptions in place for more serious crimes and if the person in question is deemed a fugitive. It is unclear which crimes are deemed “serious,” but we can assume that sexual offenses – virtually all sexual offenses– are on that list. Reason also pointed out that other states, including Arkansas, Florida, Montana, New York, and California, have implemented various restrictions against the unfettered access to and publication of mugshots.

This is action whose time has come. As long ago as 2014 concerns were raised about the deleterious effect of publishing mugshots. One contributor to the article wrote that the public displaying of mugshots “ . . . would likely not exist if not for the punitive urge to view, consume, judge, and mock the misfortune of others. This reveals the ways in which punishment escapes the courtroom and prison to saturate everyday life.”

NARSOL believes that limiting access to mugshots prior to a criminal conviction can be achieved with bipartisan support. This is important because an issue that gains bipartisan support has become exceedingly rare in recent years. We are cautiously optimistic based on the fact that the list of states that have imposed or are considering such limitations includes both states considered conservative and those considered progressive.

We support and urge our affiliates to work with their legislatures to limit this harmful practice. In addition, there may be an opportunity for Congress to act as well.

Larry is an authority in legal issues, legislative affairs, and policy.

The post Mugshots are not a good look for anyone first appeared on NARSOL.

Originally published at CT Mirror; published here in full with permission.

By Cindy Prizio . . . This year will mark the 25th anniversary of the public Sex Offender Registry (SOR) in Connecticut.

The SOR – also called the sexual offense registry by advocates who want to move past the stigma of dehumanizing labels – is a publicly accessible internet database of individuals who have been convicted of a sexual offense and reside, work, or attend school in Connecticut. It is searchable and includes their name, physical description, addresses, photo, and offense details.

The post Time to reform the Connecticut Sex Offender Registry first appeared on NARSOL.

Published with permission by Newton Daily News, Newton, Iowa.

By Christopher Braunschweig . . . Visitors at the Iowa Board of Corrections meeting Aug. 4 complained [that] the multidisciplinary team that determines if incarcerated individuals who finished treatment are still considered sexually violent predators are extending their prison time by referring them to the attorney general’s office for review.

Michelle Alfano, an educator from Chicago advocating for an incarcerated person, spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting at Newton Correctional Facility. She was “extremely disturbed” by the multidisciplinary team, or MDT, appointed by Iowa Department of Corrections Director Beth Skinner.

The multidisciplinary team, Alfano alleged, sends a majority of the cases it reviews to the attorney general’s office and thereby extends sentences, ignores “significant accomplishments” like earning a degree while in custody, and does not consider re-entry plans for incarcerated individuals.

“In doing so, the MDT has overcrowded the prison system and has put staff and incarcerated people in danger,” Alfano said.

The multidisciplinary team is also used to refer sexually violent predators to the state’s Civil Commitment Unit for Sexual Offenders (CCUSO) in Cherokee. The five-phase treatment program has a 166-bed capacity. As of June 30, 2023, there are about 148 individuals in the program.

According to the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services, CCUSO is supposed to treat sexually violent predators who have served their prison time but have been found likely to commit further violent sexual offenses. The CCUSO program has been operational in Iowa since 1999.

In order to be eligible for the CCUSO program, incarcerated individuals must be considered a “sexually violent predator” by a civil court and by the state’s criteria, and it must be determined they have a “mental abnormality” that makes it more likely than not that they will engage in future acts of a sexually violent nature.

They must also be referred into the program by the multidisciplinary team and be determined by a professional evaluator to be at a high-risk for re-offending.

According to state code (Chapter 229A.3), the multidisciplinary team has 30 days upon time of notice to assess whether an incarcerated individual meets the state’s definition of a sexually violent predator. The state’s attorney general, Brenna Bird, is to be notified by the team of its assessment.

The law provides no exemptions or provisions for the 30-day timeframe, Alfano said. Any reviews conducted beyond the 30-day window should be immediately dismissed, she added, and those individuals should be cleared. Instead, Alfano alleged the cases are sitting dormant and in error at the attorney general’s office.

“In my view, the AG does not have the authority to review a case and possibly prosecute an individual for commitment if their case was referred in violation of the law,” Alfano said, adding that the person she is advocating for, Eric Strenge, was reviewed in November 2022 but the team received notice around June 2022.

Furthermore, Alfano contends in a letter addressed to Skinner and board members that Strenge should be cleared from civil commitment proceedings so that he may be staff-initiated for release on parole. Strenge’s review did not follow the 30-day timeframe, she alleged, and should not be considered.

“It’s not that the AG needs to review Eric’s case. It’s that Eric’s case should not be at the AG’s office,” Alfano said in the letter, which was dated the same day as the board’s meeting this month. “The case was sent to the AG’s office in violation of the law.”

At the Iowa Board of Corrections meeting, Alfano went over her allotted three minutes to speak and provided board members with a packet of information regarding Strenge’s case. She also included documents submitted to the multidisciplinary team but felt like they either did not receive or review them.

Webster Kranto, vice-chair of the Iowa Board of Corrections, said he was glad Alfano was able to hand the documents directly to them.

“Because now I’m going to go through it personally,” Kranto said.

Alfano also said she had sent letters about Strenge’s case and her concerns about the multidisciplinary team to board members and the department of corrections for some time. Board members seemed confused and admitted they had not received the letters. Alfano estimates 25 letters had been sent.  . . .

When public comments concluded, Kranto said the board should have a review of the multidisciplinary team at the next meeting, and he addressed the lost mail.

“I’m deeply sorry for all the people who have sent in materials that haven’t made it to us,” Kranto said. “That shouldn’t be that way … As far as everything else, we’re going to have answers for you at our next meeting, if you can make it to our next meeting. I, myself, have questions for the MDT.”

If you wish, you may contact Michelle at  michellemidwestbooks2prisoners@yahoo.com

The post Advocate for incarcerated person accuses Iowa A.G. of wrongly committing persons to civil commitment first appeared on NARSOL.

The post Press Release: Group calls registries useless in child’s horrific death first appeared on NARSOL.

In this timely and extensively researched book, sociologist Emily Horowitz shows how current sex-offense policies in the United States create new forms of harm and prevent those who have caused harm from the process of constructive repentance or contributing to society after punishment. Horowitz also illustrates the failure of criminal justice responses to social problems. Sharing detailed narratives from the experiences of those on registries and their loved ones, Horowitz reveals the social impact and cycle of violence that results from dehumanizing and banishing those who have already been held accountable.

From Rage to Reason offers a new perspective on how and why false claims about sex offenses became so pervasive and how these myths fostered ineffective policies that have little to do with the reality of most sexual abuse. It argues that to truly prevent sexual abuse, we must unearth the sources of these misunderstandings, debunk these claims in a systematic way, and have frank and genuine discussions about the limits of legal responses to complex social problems.

Reviews

“This may be the bravest book you have ever read. Horowitz’s meticulous interviews with people on sex offender registries returns a modicum of humanity not just to them but, more importantly, to the rest of us. As she aptly describes, registries are utterly useless for preventing new sex crimes. All they do is sentence to social and civil death people who have already served their time of punishment and labored to repent. We can ill afford to deny rights and humanity to anyone in our culture. To do so cuts us all at an Achilles heel that very few are willing to acknowledge. Horowitz won’t let us look away.” ―Debbie Nathan, Prize-winning Journalist, Author of Sybil Exposed: The Extraordinary Story Behind the Famous Multiple Personality Case and Satan’s Silence: Ritual Abuse and The Making Of A Modern American Witch Hunt

“The compelling stories Horowitz tells in From Rage to Reason bring home, more powerfully than could any statistical analysis, the systematic and gratuitous harms generated by America’s unique program of government-sponsored shunning of people who have already been fully punished for a sexual offense. Her stories show how the senseless barriers registry laws erect to gainful employment, adequate housing, and normal parenting often destroy the registrants’ families along with their futures, while contributing nothing to public safety. These are stories we need to hear.” ―Ira Mark Ellman, Distinguished Affiliated Scholar, Center for the Study of Law and Society, University of California, Berkeley

“From Rage to Reason offers an unvarnished look at the crippling realities of life on the sex offense registry. Crafted from over 100 in-depth interviews, From Rage to Reason is storytelling at its best, vividly portraying the needless abuse and punishment directed at those society deems to be ‘others.’ ” ―Catherine L. Carpenter, Arleigh M. Woods and William T. Woods Chair, Southwestern Law School and President, Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws

The post From Rage to Reason: Why We Need Sex Crime Laws Based on Facts, Not Fear (Bloomsbury, 2023), by Emily Horowitz first appeared on NARSOL.