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 . . . 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.