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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of that is the good news.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 . . . 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.

By Sandy . . . February 12, WKRC, Cincinnati, aired and ran a piece by David Winter about what they imply is a failure to protect children based on law enforcement’s handling of residence restriction laws for people with a historic sexual offense conviction. There was immediate consternation among NARSOL’s affiliates, and we wrote and sent the following to the news director of WKRC, Timothy Geraghty.

I read this piece with interest as I and the nonprofit organization I represent—the National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL)–have a keen interest in both the safety and protection of children and the lawful and evidence-supported management of people who have convictions for a prior sexual offense.

I kept waiting for it to get to the other side of the story and display even a modicum of balanced reporting, but sadly, it did not. What is the other side? That decades of evidence verify one thing in regard to residence restrictions: They are ineffective in protecting children from sexual harm, a stance supported by ATSA—the Association for the Treatment and Prevention of Sexual Abuse.

ATSA supports evidence-based public policy and practice. Research consistently shows that residence restrictions do not reduce sexual reoffending or increase community safety. In fact, these laws often create more problems than they solve . . . homelessness, transience . . . Housing instability can exacerbate risk factors for reoffending. Therefore, in the absence of evidence that these laws accomplish goals of child protection, ATSA does not support the use of residence restrictions as a feasible strategy for sex offender management.

A most important piece of this issue, and one that would improve this news story’s display of fair presentation of the facts, is why residence restrictions don’t protect children.

The idea behind the restrictions is this: If those who have committed these crimes against children in the past are kept from living too close to where children congregate, those children will be safe. It does seem logical.

However, IF people on the registry—those who have committed these offenses and a host of other non-child-related crimes—were the ones abusing children today, it would still be a foolish proposal. Is a registrant living 1,001 feet from a school safe while one living 999 feet is not? Do people on the registry not drive cars? Ride busses?

Why IF? Because people on the registry are not those who are sexually abusing today’s children.

As shown in this graph depicting information from the Department of Juvenile Justice, between 94% and 98% of those who have sexually abused children are the family members, peers, and other acquaintances, generally authority figures, of the victims–not an unknown person on the registry who has moved into the community.

In the largest and most comprehensive sexual recidivism study ever done, the Department of Justice discovered that after three years, only 5.3% of people with previous sexual offense convictions were rearrested for a new sexual offense, and only 2.2% of those were against a child.

Mr. Winter, in his berating Cincinnati in particular for the lax enforcement of state residence restrictions, praises other Ohio areas, writing, “Word seems to be getting around about cities, and their attorneys, that are tougher on people listed on the sex offender registry.” If he had investigated what some other states are doing, he might have discovered that Kansas law prohibits residence restrictions for the entire state for post-supervision registrants. The page on their DOC website pertaining to this begins with this statement: “Housing restrictions appear to be based largely on three myths that are repeatedly propagated by the media: 1) all sex offenders reoffend; 2) treatment does not work; and 3) the concept of “stranger danger.” Research does not support these myths, but there is research to suggest that such policies may ultimately be counterproductive.”

NARSOL asks that WKRC broadcast and write a follow-up piece informing their readers of the facts presented here. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or for additional information.

I was pleasantly surprised when Mr. Geraghty contacted me very quickly, soon followed by emails and a phone call from David Winter, the journalist and news anchor. The result was interviews with Brenda and, as he wanted to interview someone on the registry, NARSOL board member Philip Kaso.

The result is here.

Well done, all!

The post “Please print a balanced piece,” NARSOL asks WKRC–and they did! first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . For years telephone scams targeting persons registered on their states’ sexual offender lists have plagued registrants in half, possibly more, of our states. NARSOL first was alerted to this in 2018 and in turn did everything we could to get the word out. We posted multiple pieces over several years and featured the topic in a special, three-hour NARSOL in Action teleconference.

In more recent years, other issues have pushed their way to the forefront, and while we knew the scams were persisting, it was just one more thing among a host of others.

Recently the chatter surrounding these telephone scams has increased, drawing our attention once more to them, and this time with a distinctive twist. Most of the focus of today’s media reports is on law enforcement’s concern and warnings over the scams. While much of their interest may be driven by the fact that scam artists are impersonating police officers, the end result is the same: law enforcement seems  finally to be paying attention. At the beginning and for several years, anecdotal reports almost invariably said that officers were anywhere from indifferent to hostile when registrants tried to file complaints or report an incident. Media reports were infrequent and seldom mentioned law enforcement.

That is no longer the case. Many of today’s scam warnings are media pieces reporting on law enforcement’s concern, and in many cases, warnings coming directly from law enforcement entities themselves, including some from state agencies. The Nevada government web site bears a warning on its state police page. The Wisconsin DOC also features a warning on their website, and a most eye-catching and comprehensive alert was posted by the Delaware State Police. In Colorado, the City of Louisville posted on its official website a scam warning issues by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

In Oklahoma, the Creek County sheriff’s office could not bring themselves to identify registrants as the target of the scams, but they posted a warning on their website that clearly fits the pattern. The King County, Washington, Sheriff’s Office alerted registrants to the scam, and in Georgia, the DeKalb sheriff’s website featured a very prominent and thorough scam warning.

There are undoubtedly more states where law enforcement and government entities have issued alerts and warnings on their websites, and in addition to this, there are a host of media articles featuring these scam alerts. With headers such as, “Phone scam targets people on Delaware’s sex offender registry,” “Oakland County Sheriff’s Office [Michigan] warns residents not to fall for latest sex offender scam,” and “Deputies [Anderson County, South Carolina] warn of scam targeting residents on sex offender registry,” it is clear that attitudes of law enforcement, state officials, and the media have changed in the five or more years that these vicious scams were first set in place and used to attack and defraud a population terrified of setting one foot wrong for fear of being locked up.

The next step will be serious attempts to identify and arrest those behind the scams, which, given today’s technology, may prove very difficult if not virtually impossible; it is conceivable some of them are in another country. The next best thing is for every registrant to be made aware and be on guard. A person within our movement gave this advice to anyone who receives such a phone call and is tempted to listen and engage with the caller: “Shut up and hang up.”

That will work every time.

The post Law enforcement paying attention to “sex offender” scams first appeared on NARSOL.