By Sandy . . . Residency restrictions for persons required to register as sexual offenders are often enacted for no reason other than neighboring towns have implemented them. They spread like wildfire,

and like that destructive force, they wreak their own form of havoc, making it more and more difficult for registrants to find decent housing for themselves and their families. This, in turn, makes it more and more difficult for them to create the stability they need to become productive citizens, which, in reality, is what drives down recidivism.

The match that starts the blaze is the totally appropriate desire, a desire we all share, to protect children from sexual harm. Residency restrictions, however, are an inappropriate response to that desire. They are based on three assumptions that are contradicted by evidence:

Residency restrictions assume most child sexual abuse is committed by strangers, when in reality 94 % or higher of cases involve someone known to the child.

The percentage of situations in which a prior relationship exists between an abuser and a child victim varies dependent on the age of

the victim. A study done by the Office of Juvenile Justice found that for very young children, family members and close acquaintances comprise close to 100% of their offenders while for teens, those categories make up 94.3%. The U.S. Department of Justice, in a mega study, found that overall, 90% of the offenders of children and teens were either family members or trusted acquaintances (p.10).

The policies presume offenders choose victims based on residential proximity, which is not supported by research.

Residency restrictions create zones around schools, daycare facilities, and often parks. A two-state study, Michigan and Missouri, did not support the mistaken theory that living close to one of these was a factor in repeat sexual offenses against children. Another study examining several states found that, in Florida, “There was no significant relationship between reoffending and proximity to schools or daycares.”

Residency restrictions assume that most sexual abuse is committed by repeat offenders, which research shows to be inaccurate.

On average, a significant majority of registered sex offenders are one-time, first-time-convicted offenders. A study in New York found that “. . . over 95% of all sexual offense arrests were committed by first-time sex offenders, casting doubt on the ability of laws that target repeat offenders to meaningfully reduce sexual offending,” and a study from the university of Tennessee had very similar findings. They report, “Another factor constraining [sex offender registries’] effectiveness is that past studies have shown that … ‘94.1% of those arrested for child molestation were first-time sex offenders.’ ”

Restrictions often force offenders away from support systems, treatment, stable housing, and employment opportunities, which are crucial for successful reintegration. These are the elements associated with remaining offense-free. Some areas are so encompassed by residence restrictions that homelessness has escalated, especially in states where residency restrictions are aggressively implemented, such as Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is the state of Kansas, who

actually has a page on their DOC website about why residency restrictions do not work and who passed legislation in 2006 prohibiting their jurisdictions from implementing them.

What drives down reoffense? Housing and employment stability; family and community connectedness. What makes those things difficult, sometimes impossible? Residency restrictions.

The choice should be easy.

The post Sex offender residency restrictions: bad, bad public policy first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy Rozek, NARSOL Communications Director & John Dawe, NARSOL Marketing Director
When families face emergencies and are driven from their homes, they need quick and equitable access to emergency facilities. Families should be allowed to stay together during crises. However, a new bill, The Safe Shelters Act, proposed by Nancy Mace, a former South Carolina state representative who is now a U.S. congresswoman, seeks to deny this fundamental right to families with a member on a state sex offense registry. “Women and children deserve safety,“ she has said in defense of the bill. While protecting vulnerable populations is a goal we all share, this bill fails to achieve that and instead imposes unnecessary harm.

About the Safe Shelters Act

Mace’s legislation, the Safe Shelters Act, states: “Except for the purpose of seeking information on designated shelters, a covered sex offender may not enter or use the services of an undesignated shelter.”

Under the proposed bill, “designated shelters,” as determined by FEMA, would likely include federal buildings or prisons deemed suitable for registrants by the General Services Administration. This bill is cruel and unfairly targets registrants with families, particularly those with small children. Non-registered spouses depend on their partners for help and support during emergencies, and registered single parents would be made to choose between their children’s safety and forced separation. We believe that requiring families to separate during a crisis is contemptible.

The following signers have endorsed this opinion-editorial:

• Brenda Jones, Executive Director National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL)
• Robin Vander Wall, Chair, NARSOLJohn DawejohndEdit Profile
• James Ward, NARSOL representative, Alabama
• Audrey Kelly, NARSOL representative, Alaska
• Patricia Borden, Director, Arizonans for Rational Sex Offense Laws
• Susan Walker, Executive Director, Coalition for Sex Offense Restoration, Colorado
• Cindy Prizio, President, One Standard of Justice, Connecticut
• Margaret Hawkins, President, Delaware Advocates for Rational Sexual Offense Laws
• Gail Colletta, President, Florida Action Committee, Inc.
• Waleisha Wilson, Chair, Restore Georgia
• Adele Nicholas, Executive Director, Illinois Voices
• Michael Harris, Executive Director, Indiana Voices
• Amanda ******, Executive Director, Iowans Unafraid
• Teresa Butell, NARSOL representative, Kansas Coalition United Against Registry
• Jeff Goetz, NARSOL representative, Kentucky 
• B.V. Jones, Executive Director, Maryland Families Advocating for Intelligent Registries
• Kathie Gourlay, NARSOL representative, Michigan
• Tim P, NARSOL representative, Sex Offense Reform Specialist. ACLU of Michigan
• Timothy Davich, NARSOL representative, Minnesota for Our Rights
• Ken Roberts, NARSOL Gatekeeper, Mississippi
• Erik McInnis, NARSOL representative, Missouri
• Kevin Nunez, NARSOL representative, New Jersey
• Larry Neeley, NARSOL representative, New Mexico
• Dwayne Daughtry, Executive Director, North Carolina RSOL
• Justin Hillman, NARSOL representative, North and South Dakota
• T. Jackson, NARSOL Representative, Ohio RSOL
• Mary Krehbiel, NARSOL representative, Oklahoma RSOL
• Lori Hamilton, Executive Director, OK Voices, Inc.
• Dr. David Mayer, Chair, Oregon Voices
• John Dawe, Managing Director, Pennsylvania Assoc. For Rational Sexual Offense Laws
• Don Thurber, Executive Director, South Carolina RSOL
• W.G. Crump, NARSOL representative, Tennessee
• Mary Sue Molnar, Executive Director, Texas Voices for Reason and Justice
• Timothy R. Burgess, Executive Director, Vermont Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants
• JP Welch, Board member, Safer Virginia
• Philip Kaso, Executive Director, West Virginians for Rational Sexual Offense Laws 
• Robert Thibault, NARSOL representative, Wisconsin
• Amber Vlangas, Executive Director, Restorative Action Alliance New York 
• Danell Puglisi-Knutson, Board member, SHINE-VOICES
• Shawn Barrera-Leaf, United Voices for Sex Offense Reform (UV4SOR) Michigan
• Janice Bellucci, Executive Director, ACSOL

The post ACT NOW: The Safe Shelters Act: Unsafe, Unjust, and Cruel first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . Looking at some of the headers of the articles sent in today’s alerts, I cannot help but shake my head in wonder.

“Communities explore other Halloween plans after sex offender law abolished,” announces a Missouri news outlet. This is in regard to the Missouri Supreme Court’s recent ruling that requiring those on the state sex offender registry to post “No candy here” signs at their homes is unconstitutional.

Even if the signage requirement were not only one part of a comprehensive set of restrictions, would this require that Halloween plans be changed?

Another media outlet says, “California’s tiered sex offender registry law allowed two convicted sex offenders to remain off list.” This is a reference to changes in the registry law in California that allows registrants to be removed after a certain length of time. This is part of a legal process, and a process followed in many states, not, as the article implies, some “loophole” that is used to skirt the law.

In spite of the online outlet Patch abandoning its “red dot” Halloween safety maps in virtually every state and location, a few Illinois editors are running them, “warning” parents where registrants in their communities live. NARSOL has done battle with Patch for years and are pleased that so few editors remain who are willing to defy all empirical evidence by printing this information.

Changing Halloween plans, dismay over legal registry procedures, and trick-or-treat “safety” maps—why would these have me shaking my head in wonder? Perhaps because I am old enough to remember the time when the registry and all it has spawned did not exist.

What was life like then? Were children molested while they were trick-or-treating? Did community members feel panic over who might live down the street? Were sexual crime and reoffenses rampant? Were children grabbed daily—or weekly—or monthly–out of school playgrounds and parks?

No.

Empirical evidence shows the rate of reoffense by those convicted of sexual offenses has remained steady over many years, both before the registry existed and since. As shown in an AI overview, “According to research, there is little evidence to suggest that sexual crime recidivism was significantly worse before the existence of sex offender registries, with most studies indicating that sex offenders generally have a low recidivism rate regardless of the registry system; in fact, some studies even suggest that public registration could potentially increase recidivism rates by making it harder for offenders to reintegrate into society and find employment, potentially leading to further criminal behavior.”

And as far as Halloween, this has been said many times, and it remains true: research reveals no instance of a child being abducted or molested by a person on the registry while trick-or-treating. As far as can be determined, the only time this has happened was pre-registry, in 1973—51 years ago—in Wisconsin. The victim was a little girl named Lisa French, and the perpetrator was someone who, even if there had been registries, would not have been registered.

This is a good place to remember that virtually all sexual crime against children is committed by those who are not already registered. What does this mean for Halloween?

Quoting myself from the Lisa French piece:

According to research, approximately 96% [of the perpetrators of sexual crime] have no previous history of this type of crime and therefore are on no registries. They aren’t locked up or confined to their homes with all lights off on Halloween. They aren’t checked on by law enforcement to assure that they are keeping themselves away from all child-related activities. They don’t show up as red dots on a map warning parents away from those addresses.

They are in your homes, at your parties, in your neighborhoods. They answer the doors and hand out candy to your children. They are where they have always been. And all of the Halloween restrictions on all of the people on sexual offense registries across America mean absolutely nothing.

The post Halloween 50 years ago and now first appeared on NARSOL.

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

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

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

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

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

By Sandy . . . .Even before Hurricane Helene entered the Gulf of Mexico, plans for emergency sheltering for those fleeing flood areas were well underway, the plans of both those assuring that the shelters were up and running and those who would be doing the fleeing.

With time now measured in hours rather than days, preparations have become more focused. Imagine the uneasiness, even fear that would be felt by those involved, the questions they would have, and the concerns for family members and young children.

Imagine that time, fear, and stress being doubled, tripled, or quadrupled in families with a member listed on a state sexual offender registry. What would happen? Would the family be separated or turned away if they were determined to stay together?

Those are the questions and the feelings being experienced by many, even as I am typing this. With every passing minute, the expectation of a direct hit grows, aimed directly at Florida, with both torrential rains and extreme winds expected. Florida’s law governing this situation is long and thorough:

Florida: § 685.101. Temporary emergency shelters; sexual predators and offenders notification requirements.  

Any person who is required by Florida law to register as a sexual predator or sexual offender and who utilizes or intends to utilize a temporary shelter provided by any public or private entity and established as a result of any emergency or incident or threatened emergency or incident shall, immediately upon entering the shelter, notify the individual or individuals operating the shelter that he or she is a registered sexual predator or sexual offender. The sexual predator or sexual offender shall be assigned to a temporary shelter specifically designated for use by sexual predators and sexual offenders.

The Sheriff may designate a public building or a jail or other correctional facility as a temporary shelter to be utilized by sexual predators and sexual offenders.

Failure of a sexual predator or sexual offender to make notification as required in Section (b) shall constitute a Class D offense.

When a member of the Florida Action Committee was asked what this translated to in real practice, she said, “Hurricanes are county by county in how they deal with our registered population. We’ve made many improvements over the years. We do get cooperation from probation, and if you’re not on paper, you go where you’ll be safe and report as soon as possible when it’s safe to do so. Some counties have shelters that allow them to go in, while others do not. It’s a web, as is everything else.”

Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, and South Carolina are also expected to experience excessive rain and flooding in some areas. None of these states appear to have specific provisions in state law regarding registrants in weather-emergency shelters.

This is unfortunate as the control is left in the hands of local sheriffs, which creates a wide disparity of policies. Most officials are reluctant to be seen as callous enough to just let people die, and they provide alternate accommodations, often jails or buildings that house jails. There have actually been cases of registrants being arrested for being present on school property that was being used as an emergency shelter.

Contacts in Georgia were determining how the sheriffs would handle the situation in the various counties that would be affected. Registrants who are under community supervision could experience the most difficulty.

North Carolina RSOL’s executive director explained their situation this way: “North Carolina law clearly states that individuals on the registry are prohibited from being on or near schools (both public and private), or any location primarily designated for the use, care, or supervision of minors. In a state of emergency, shelters are often set up in schools, and any registrant who seeks refuge there would be in violation of the law, subjecting them to arrest. Sheriffs have consistently upheld this stance and are supported by the state’s attorney general.”

The situation in Alabama and South Carolina is much the same. When shelter apart from the general population is required for registrants—often in the county jail facilities—it means separating men from their families, women from their husbands and children.

Other states with similar policies may be involved in situations during Helene that require evacuating primary residences, and other states WILL find themselves facing this from other hurricanes. It is time this blatant and agonizing discrimination against our registered citizens ceased.

When safety is threatened, when families are driven from their homes, they need to be allowed emergency shelter just like every other citizen, and they need to be allowed to stay together as families.

People who live registered on a sexual offender registry are ostracized, separated, and discriminated against in much of their lives. Facing emergency situations that threaten their homes, their lives, and the safety of their families must not be one of those times.

The post Stop discrimination against registrants in emergency situations first appeared on NARSOL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Sandy . . . 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 . . . Long before condemnation of the term “sex offender” became so prevalent, many advocates, including those of us at NARSOL, were very uncomfortable with that term. That was the primary reason behind us making the decision, in 2016, to change our name from RSOL—Reform Sex Offender Laws—to NARSOL—National Assoc. for Rational Sexual Offense Laws.

Various terminology was used, tried out, and critiqued. Everybody knew who was meant when “sex offender” was used—someone who had been convicted of a sexual crime and was on a sex offender registry. “Registrant” became the most used when we simply meant someone on a registry, although we knew we needed more when writing or speaking to a wider audience because not everyone would understand what a “registrant” was. “Person convicted of a sexual crime” or “person with a sexual crime conviction” has the advantage of covering those who were innocent of the offense of which they were convicted as does “person on a sex offender registry,” but that one uses the objectionable term.

At some point, “person forced to register” came into limited use. With the abbreviation “PFR,” it was easy to use, and it is used exclusively among advocates. People outside the advocacy community, and many within it, don’t know what a “PFR” is.

I have never used the term, and I have strong objections to it.

Why? It perpetuates a victim mentality. A person forced to register is a person who has no control over his life or his future. He can do nothing to make his life better. When he is forced, he is a victim and will remain a victim as long as he sees himself as being forced.

People who are forced have no control. People who have no control are at the mercy of someone or something else. Those at someone else’s mercy can do nothing to help themselves. Nothing will change for them unless someone else changes it.

Rather than being forced, they are required, obligated, and they are taking steps to comply with a law–no matter how wrong or how despised–that says they must register. They have control of their actions, their lives, and their futures. It’s just semantics, some will say, and yes, it is, but semantics matter. Words matter.

Many, many very active and capable advocates are required to register. They protest. They lobby. They speak out at legislative hearings. They write editorials. They volunteer with advocacy organizations and other worthy criminal justice reform movements. They serve on the boards of such organizations. They become NARSOL contacts and advocates and form NARSOL state groups.

They are not sitting and waiting for someone else to save them. They take the responsibility for their lives and their future, and they do all that they can to work for the betterment of people who are required to register and for the abolishment of the registry.

This reflects the opinion of the writer; it is not intended to convey the opinion of NARSOL as an organization.

The post What’s in a word? first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . In this age of internet, online chat rooms, and social media, parents often feel overwhelmed, even helpless, when they hear about the potential dangers of online predators. Parents consider keeping their children safe their number one job. To accomplish that, they need facts, truth, and reality.

They do not need incorrect information. They do not need undocumented, often outlandish claims or numbers and statistics inflated, twisted, and tortured into something they are not. They do not need emotionally charged and pejorative language designed to incite disgust and fear.

Several child protection sites throw out almost astronomical numbers about online predators and often credit the FBI with the information. Noel Holmes, a journalist for the Pleasanton Express, wrote a piece about keeping children safe on the internet, and she used that information as though it were an undisputed fact. She used it with no documentation except, “According to the FBI . . .”

Exhaustive research has failed to turn up a document, a study, or an internet posting from the FBI using those figures. The FBI does have information online on the subject, information that is not inflated or written in order to fill parents with fear and hopelessness.

I wrote Noel asking for some documentation for the information so that I might read it at the source document. There has been no response from her or her publication.

Another site makes this claim: “For every predator CRC [Child Rescue Coalition] helps law enforcement apprehend, we prevent between 50 and 150 children from being sexually abused. To date, our technology has prevented the abuse of more than 690,000 children worldwide.” There is no citation showing from where these figures were derived.

However, an advertising agency, Ad Forum, in an advertisement for the Child Rescue Coalition,–which says it is a non-profit–gives a hint. They make the claim that 85% of internet predators are also hands-on child abusers. While there is a footnote number at the end of the statement, the link goes nowhere and there is no accompanying footnote information at the end of the ad. I wrote Ad Forum asking for an answer, received an immediate “We have your request” email, and have had no further response.

The number, though, the 85%, seems familiar.

Condemned by the BOP, the Butner Study originated from an unpublished paper presented by its author at a 2000 conference; though never subjected to appropriate scrutiny nor peer-reviewed, it was later published and later still harshly criticized and discredited.  In a nutshell, the findings of the study are that through the use of polygraph examinations, either 79% or 85%–both figures are cited–of between 50 to 60 men who were incarcerated at Butner BOP in North Carolina with convictions for online pornography involving children claimed they also had committed hands-on sexual abuse of children, and most of them claimed to have had between 50 and 150 victims undetected by law enforcement.

By contrast, the US Sentencing Commission, in a 2021 report, found that 4.3% of those with non-production offense convictions were arrested for a sexual offense within three years of release (p.65). That figure is not broken down by percentage between contact and non-contact offenses, but even if the full 4.3% were contact offenses, that falls far short of the high percentage claimed by the Butner Study.

The Butner Study was flawed for a multitude of reasons, but one of the more compelling is evidence—including testimony from some of the participants—that they received benefit from making such claims and were penalized if they denied having undetected, hands-on offenses.

Advertising for CRC uses those numbers. It apparently determines how many online predators it claims it has “helped law enforcement apprehend”; may take 85% of that number; multiplies it many times over, up to 50, 75, even up to 150; and arrives at over 690,000 children they have “saved” from being abused. They extrapolate from the self-admitted, coerced testimony of less than 60 men and apply that to every person ever convicted of online child pornography, over half convicted of a non-production offense.

Similar scare tactics are used by law enforcement. A recent example is the Volusa, Florida, sheriff’s department’s naming of a raid on the homes of registrants in the county: Operation Creep Sweep. These raids frequently use the word “Operation” to legitimize their invasion into the lives of registrants. “Creep” is used to heighten the disgust and fear factors and is insulting and inflammatory.

These numbers, these claims, and this type of language are all over the internet. One need only do some basic searches to find them. No wonder parents are confused, terrified, and ready to support the organization or buy the products that will “save their children.”

Why is this dangerous? It is misdirection. It is promoting a fear that paralyzes and a dependency on something other than themselves to protect their children. Just like the registry, it promotes “stranger-danger” and creates an easy solution to a very difficult and complex problem.

Just as it is dangerous to believe your children are safe from risk of harm if you check the sex offender registry frequently and know where the registrants live and ignore the far greater risk from those already known and trusted by your family, it is dangerous to believe that a piece of software or harsher laws against those already convicted of a sexual crime can replace parental involvement in one’s children’s lives.

The actual FBI advice on the subject is excellent. Open, honest, frequent dialogue between parents and children; some agreed-upon boundaries and instructions; a realization that, just as with the risk of hands-on abuse, the risk of internet enticement is at least as likely to come from someone that the young potential victims already know: These will prove more valuable to parents in protecting their children than anything a tech company can provide.

The post Untrue­­ advertising, utilizing fear tactics increases risk of sexual harm to children, teens first appeared on NARSOL.

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.