First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.                                                                                                                                             —Pastor Martin Niemöller

By Sandy . . . We either live in a civilized nation or we don’t. Our legal and judicial system, based on the time-honored premise that one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law as drawn from the 5th amendment, either means something or it doesn’t. Either our rules of common decency and courtesy are in place to protect the guilty and the unlikable as well as the innocent and the beloved or they protect no one. Our laws and our Constitution either stand for all, or they stand for none.

Once before our country stood balanced on the precipice of injustice becoming the norm, at a time when, in a large portion of the nation, people of color were accorded few if any civil or human rights and were regarded as being, literally, worth less than one of Caucasian ancestry. We managed to draw back from that precipice, but today we stand at yet another, and this one may succeed in destroying us where the other did not.

We have created another monster to fear, another whose life is worth less than any other not in the same classification–the “sex offender.” It is in quotes not to make light of those sexual crimes that cause harm to others but to show that it has become a clearly defined, easily identifiable sub-category of Americans. Violations of civil and human rights visited upon people with historic convictions for any of a vast myriad of reasons are considered “okay” because those people are, after all, “sex offenders.”

Therefore, vigilantes have hunted down registered people, using public registries like roadmaps, and been called “heroes.” Other vigilantes, in tracking down and killing registrants, felt fully justified in also murdering totally innocent persons, in at least two separate incidents, who were present—a friend and a wife.

In March of 2023, a vigilante in Minnesota felt completely justified in violently murdering a man who had previously been on the registry because he “believed” that the former offender would molest his, the murderer’s, daughter and her friends. His actions created a literal storm of defense and praise for his actions, including his being called a “hero” and comments by a former F.B.I. agent that a jury would probably sympathize with him.

Persons simply accused of a sexual offense are vilified and condemned in the press and on social media well in advance of any trial or conviction, often in advance of even an arrest or charges being brought. Men in prison for convictions involving sexual offenses are often considered “fair game” for mistreatment and violence.

Those with past sexual crime convictions are routinely stripped of the rights otherwise their due. They are turned away from emergency shelters during hurricanes or extreme temperature conditions. Even after death the ignominy continues: Some veterans on the registry are denied the right to be buried in veterans’ cemeteries.

In varying parts of our nation, those on a sex offender registry, sometimes with certain offenses, are barred from:

• Living/working/just being where they wish;
• Participating in their children’s education and extra-curricular activities;
• Participating in Halloween (and in Louisiana Christmas and Easter) activities;
• Enjoying public parks;
• Living with a minor in the home;
• Living in long-term-care facilities.

Men have murdered entire families, sometimes their own, and been given a fair trial. Men have murdered heads of state and been accorded their rights under the law. Men have committed the most atrocious of war crimes, annihilating thousands upon thousands, and have been treated with basic decency as they faced their accusers in court.

But none of those men were “sex offenders.” None of those men lived in twenty-first century America bearing a label that marks them as one who is to be accorded no rights, no decency, no fairness, one who even has no right to the claim of innocence until guilt is proven.

The precipice gapes and widens, and its message is this: If our laws do not protect those judged to be the least deserving among us, then they do not protect any of us.

The post The precipice 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 . . . The headline sounds rather bad: “Peoria council points to sex offender at vice mayor’s house as grounds for resignation.”

The first part of the accompanying piece lays out some seemingly valid reasons for concern:

Derek Lawson, registered in Arizona as a sexual offender due to a conviction in 1984 in California, is required by law to register any address where he stays three or more days a month.

He stayed at the home of Peoria, Arizona’s City Council’s deputy chief, Denette Dunn, “intermittently throughout the past year.”

He did not register her address.

Mayor Jason Beck and the city council have asked Ms. Dunn to resign her position as deputy chief as her relationship with  Lawson has “breached public trust” and “depicts behavior that ‘does not uphold the standards of conduct we expect from our public servants.’ ”

Then other information is – almost reluctantly – given.

Mr. Lawson’s estimate of his time spent overnight at the home in the past year is between 20 and 30 days, which averages to between 1.6 and 2.5 days a month, less than the 3 days per month that triggers an obligation to register the address.

In addition to Ms. Dunn living in the home, the mother of Mr. Lawson lives there.

Local law enforcement has no open case against Lawson; he has a legally registered address at an extended stay motel.

Derek Lawson, his mother, and Denette Dunn have been close family friends for years, and Lawson did maintenance and security chores at the home where his mother and family friend live.

Ms. Dunn has for years been terrorized and harassed by a neighbor with clear mental health issues, extremely well documented; some of Lawson’s overnight stays at the home were to provide safety and protection.

Mayor Beck and Ms. Dunn have divisive political conflict, lending credence to Dunn’s belief that this entire issue is being used in an attempt to force her resignation.

So when all is said and done, what remains?

A man who committed a crime 39 years ago, has long ago completed punishment for that crime, and is not wanted by law enforcement for any reason, spends some time in the home that his mother and a long-time friend share. The mayor and city council are able to use that fact to try and force the resignation of one of their members, Ms. Dunn.

How is this possible?

It is because his crime requires that he register himself on the state’s sexual offender registry, a non-criminal but civil regulatory registry – a civil regulatory registry that can have very serious criminal implications, that seriously inhibits rehabilitation and reassimilation, that is used to inhibit movement of law-abiding citizens as wall as persecute and harass them, and that can be used to harass and destroy family members and friends who have the audacity to maintain a relationship with a person on the sex offender registry.

And all of that with being a civil policy.

God knows what it could do were it a criminal one.

The post What can the sex offender registry do? 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.

By Jacob Sullum . . . Sunday, March 5, [2023] marks[ed]the 20th anniversary of Smith v. Doe, a U.S. Supreme Court decision that approved retroactive application of Alaska’s sex offender registry, deeming it preventive rather than punitive. That ruling helped propagate several pernicious myths underlying a policy that every state has adopted without regard to its justice or effectiveness.

Writing for the majority in Smith, Justice Anthony Kennedy took it for granted that collecting and disseminating information about people convicted of sex offenses made sense as a public safety measure. But that premise was always doubtful.

The vast majority of sexual assaults, especially against children, are committed by relatives, friends or acquaintances, and the perpetrators typically do not have prior sex-offense convictions. That means they would not show up on a registry even if someone bothered to check.

It is therefore not surprising that research finds little evidence to support Kennedy’s assumption that publicly accessible registries protect potential victims. Summarizing the evidence in a 2016 National Affairs article, Eli Lehrer noted that “virtually no well-controlled study shows any quantifiable benefit from the practice of notifying communities of sex offenders living in their midst.”

Read the rest of the piece at the Chicago Sun-Times.

The post What did the Supreme Court do? first appeared on NARSOL.

By John C. . . . Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs has vetoed two punitive bills that AZRSOL strongly opposed.  One (SB1253) would have required that anyone listed on the sex offense registry who has a child in school must report their registration status to that school, regardless of their risk level.  The second (SB1583) would have taken the radical step of placing Level 1 low-risk registered citizens convicted of certain offenses on the state’s public sex offense registry.

AZRSOL organized write-in campaigns to members of both the state House and Senate urging them to oppose these bills.  We also testified in person against SB1583. Both bills eventually passed along strict party-line votes, prompting AZRSOL to contact Governor Hobbs to urge her veto.

In nixing SB1253, Hobbs noted that there are already adequate safeguards in place regarding registrants with children in school.  Since the bill did not address how the information being reported could be used, she said she feared such reporting could lead to these children being harassed.

In opposing SB1583, AZRSOL said the bill would for the first time place on the state’s public registry many individuals who had already paid the penalty for their offense, successfully completed their treatment programs, adhered to their numerous registration requirements, and remained offense-free for years and even decades. Employing a widely used evaluation tool, law enforcement had determined they posed little risk to their communities.

We emphasized in our campaign against SB1583 that the American Law Institute—a prestigious group of judges, attorneys, and scholars who in 1962 developed and published The Model Penal Code adapted by many states—is now recommending that access to registries be limited to law enforcement only and that they include only the most serious offenses.

Part of our argument against SB1583 was that considering the growing understanding that registration is ineffective in achieving any of the goals that were expected of it, it is ironic that certain legislators in Arizona continue trying to expand it even more. It certainly raises the question of whether these efforts are based more on a desire to punish past offenses rather than work to prevent new ones.

The Democratic Party minority report on SB1583 outlined their reasons for opposing the bill, citing among other issues the retroactive nature of the bill and the potential for shame and harassment it posed to registrants and their families. The report used a document posted on AZRSOL’s website in support of their arguments.  We are glad they took advantage of the resources we have to offer and that AZRSOL made it into the legislative history.  It shows at least some legislators are listening!

AZRSOL thanks everyone in Arizona who heeded the call to voice their opposition to these punitive bills. Their efforts played a key role in blocking them from becoming law and show that our concerted actions really can have an impact!

The post Arizona affiliate AZRSOL helps defeat onerous bills 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.

By Vicky Campo . . . Meet Ryan, who, as a young man, had a caring and consensual relationship with his high school sweetheart. After months of dating, just before her 15th birthday and shortly after his 18th, their relationship became sexual. These young people were in love, hoping to build a life together, but because of their slight age difference, Ryan will spend the rest of his life on Arizona’s sexual offense registry and will carry the label of “child sexual predator” forever.

The post AZRSOL’s Vicky Campo: Registry doesn’t keep communities safe first appeared on NARSOL.

By Emily Horowitz . . . Watching the Senate hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, I was struck by how Republican senators pounced on the judge’s thoughtful, considered, and mainstream sex offense sentencing. My research examines why our sex offense policies are based on fear-driven myths and how excessive criminal-legal responses do not genuinely and effectively address sexual violence — and do create new harm. At the time, based on this knowledge, I wrote about the spectacle, where politicians like Josh Hawley accused Jackson of “endangering our children” and not “protecting the most vulnerable,” while those voting in her favor were branded “pro-pedophile” by the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene.

The message was clear: Supporting sex offense policy as it exists on the books is the same as supporting sexual violence, not caring for children, and, as in Salem, the equivalent of being someone who sexually offends.

Since 1994, ostensibly in the name of public safety, legislators passed sweeping federal, state, and local laws imposing onerous requirements and restrictions on people who have completed sentences for sex-offense convictions. On pain of further punishment and incarceration, these provisions require their names’ inscription on registries easily consultable by the public, notification of their moving into a new community, and restrictions on residency, travel, work, and presence. In practice, these burdens fail to reduce recidivism while subjecting those on them to never-ending state surveillance; even after sentence completion, not adhering to the myriad of complex and ever-changing rules, such as failure to update personal information to law enforcement, can result in reincarceration. An example: A 62-year-old, last convicted of a sex offense in 1989, and off probation since the mid-1990s with no sexual re-offense, received two years in prison for failing to update his registration in 2020.

For almost three decades, the Sex-Offender Registration and Notification Act, also known as SORNA, has subjected millions with sex-offense convictions to a period or even a lifetime of being openly named, shamed, and essentially banished from society. . . .

Public and political support for registries remains high. There is little evidence that attitudes have been impacted by a growing body of research showing that public registration, community notification, and residency restrictions do not decrease the incidence of sexual offense. Rates of sexual re-offense have been low both before and after registries, and sex offenses have lower recidivism than almost all other crimes. Further, decades of data consistently show that the majority of sex offenses involve non-strangers and those without prior sex-offense convictions. In other words, there’s scant proof that sex offender registries make us any safer.

Read Emily’s full piece here at Inquest.

The post When it comes to policy for sex offenders, who are the real monsters? first appeared on NARSOL.

By Kelsey Turner . . . Cross, director of Oregon City-based nonprofit organization Free on the Outside, which provides housing and recovery for formerly incarcerated individuals, knows what strings to pull to get people housed. While working in Hillsboro west of Portland, he successfully sheltered people of all criminal backgrounds.

But those he turns away often have one thing in common: Their names are on Oregon’s Sex Offender Registry.

“I got housing for guys that committed murder — easy, no problem,” said Cross, 63. “Robbery, drug dealing, identity theft, almost anything, I could find 10 beds a day. I had a hard time finding one bed a week for someone with a sex offense.”

Recent proposals in Oregon and Washington aim to increase community notification when offenders move to an area. In Oregon, a bill introduced this year would have expanded the state’s public registry to include lower-level offenders. In Washington, proposed legislation would have required public notification and meetings before the state could make plans to house high-risk offenders in a community.  . . .

Nearly 5% of the people on Oregon’s Sex Offender Registry — about 1,500 — are homeless, according to Oregon State Police data. In Multnomah County, the rate is more than double, at 11%. Across the state border in Clark County, people on the registry experience homelessness at about 25 times the rate of the general population, according to an InvestigateWest analysis of county homelessness data. . . .

“This sort of ostracism and lack of opportunity winds up increasing the likelihood of somebody turning to crime,” said University of Michigan Law School Professor J.J. Prescott, who researches public safety effects of sex offender laws.

Read the rest of this excellent piece here at INVESTIGATEWEST.

The post Sex offender registry can result in homelessness first appeared on NARSOL.