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 . . . 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 Kyle . . . In August, 2017, Federal Judge Richard Matsch ruled in a Denver federal court that the Colorado Sex Offender Registry is unconstitutional based upon the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment tenet of due process.  This ruling was overturned by the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (Denver) in 2020.

In August, 2023, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (New Orleans) struck down the Mississippi lifetime ban on voting for people convicted of certain felonies, saying it is unconstitutional because it inflicts cruel and unusual punishment.  The majority said, “By severing former offenders from the body politic forever, Section 241 [the lifetime-ban provision of the state Constitution] ensures that they will never be fully rehabilitated, continues to punish them beyond the terms their culpability requires, and serves no protective function to society.  It is thus cruel and unusual punishment.”

Wow.  Just ponder the harm apparently inflicted on people simply because they cannot vote.  Oh, the pain and suffering.  Your voice is never heard among the thousands or millions of others.

Yet, by comparison, this would be considered a minuscule inconvenience.

Ponder the fate of persons forced to register on a sex offender registry.  One could similarly state, “By severing former offenders from society forever, the registries ensure that they will never be fully rehabilitated, continues to punish them beyond the terms their culpability requires, and serves no protective function to society.  They are thus cruel and unusual punishment.”  Sort of the conclusion of Judge Matsch.  Thirty-five years of studies prove that the registries provide no protective function to society and don’t assist law enforcement in solving new sex offenses.

What we do know from these studies and the news is that registries lead to citizen vigilantism, enabled but not controlled by the state, something Judge Matsch discussed in his ruling.  We know that registrants are stalked, physically assaulted and murdered.  Their spouses, children and families are threatened, belittled and ostracized.  Personal property, vehicles, and homes are vandalized by these vigilantes.  Registrants are discriminated against and denied housing and employment.  Domestic and international travel is severely restricted, making travel for business, pleasure, weddings, and funerals nearly impossible in many circumstances.

Another society that placed marks on passports identifying undesirable people was Nazi Germany.

If one applies logic rather than feelings and emotions to the analysis of these two cases, the only conclusion is that sex offender registries are clearly cruel and unusual punishment and should be abolished.

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

The post Cruel and Unusual Punishment Gets My Vote 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 Sandy . . . Mary Moore of Clayton County, Georgia, was 21 years old in September of 2022. That is surely very young to be a corrections officer and a security specialist in a county jail, responsible for assuring that jail detainees were secured; but that is what she was.

In late September, she was arrested and jailed for inappropriate sexual relations with an inmate. There is nothing to suggest or even hint at force.  The encounter was caught on video, and she confessed. She was later charged with sexual assault and is out on bond.

Reaction to this was swift and condemning.

“That’s ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous”; “. . . doing something stupid”; “She should have been arrested. They need to leave her in there.”; “. . . inappropriate behavior.”

Is it ridiculous? Stupid? Inappropriate? Yes, yes, and absolutely.

Should she be fired? Yes.

Should she lose her corrections officer certification? Of course.

Should she be charged with sexual assault? Should she be sent to prison and “left in there”?

Why? What will that accomplish?

Just this: The state will undergo costly legal proceedings. She will certainly be found guilty, most likely through a plea deal that could give her some prison time – more cost to Georgia taxpayers – and earn her a place on the Georgia sex offender registry. This will assure her of a lifetime of struggling with even basic needs and of diminished earnings, all of which predict possible dependency upon state services – all at more cost to Georgia taxpayers.

Why? All that needs to be accomplished is that she no longer be in a position to misuse her position as a corrections officer, something easily accomplished by assuring that she would never again be credentialed in that capacity. That would be an appropriate, measured response.

This was, after all and as the video will attest, consensual sexual activity between consenting adults. Stupid, ridiculous, and most decidedly inappropriate. But it is consensual and, taking place virtually any place but where it did, totally legal.

To charge her with a sexual crime, to destroy her future, is an emotional response, an over-the-top, unnecessary, costly emotional response.

This has become the norm for sexual activity that is inappropriate or offensive to the public.

Teens sexting each other are charged with distributing child pornography rather than being mandated training on the dangers of inappropriate internet usage.

Men found guilty of serious sexual crimes are given sentences measured in hundreds of years “to set an example.”

And adults having consensual sex with other adults in inappropriate situations are treated as sexual criminals.

These are emotional responses. They are driven by our distaste for the behavior, our sense of indignation, disgust, disapproval, or fury.

Punishment should not be based on moral indignation nor fury at wrongdoing.

Punishment should be sufficient to deter repeat of the crime. Anything more is not punishment.

It is revenge.

The post Punishment or revenge? first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . “I love this song. (Nice to Be with You, a 1972 song by the band Gallery) I was 13 years old when it came out and in love with this 25-year-old girl that lived up the street. I was just a kid to her, but she was always so nice to me. We would go for ice cream. I can still see her walking down the street. She always wore go-go- boots and miniskirts and those halter tops that tie in the front. The next year I started high school and she moved away. I ran into her years and years later. I was in my twenties and she would have been into her thirties by then. We went for lunch, and I told her that I had the biggest crush on her when I was a kid, and she said, ‘Yeah, I knew you did.’ ”

This is a comment, written some years ago, on a YouTube recording of the song. I had searched for the song to listen to it, a brief trip down memory lane. I never look at comments on You-Tube videos, but something drew my eyes down. My only thought as I read it was, “How sweet,” and then I saw the response that someone had put to the comment.

“It’s awesome that you were able to have a relationship as a kid with an adult that was truly just friendship from the adult. Nowadays the adult would be accused of grooming and would be deemed a sexual predator.”

That brought me up short. Two thoughts were in conflict in my mind: how cynical and how true, and then they melded; it is cynical, and it is absolutely true.

I thought of past conversations I have had with male teachers in which they expressed concern about ever being alone in the classroom with a student, male or female, for an after-school tutoring session or after-school detention. As a somewhat older female teacher, I had not experienced that concern, but for them it was very real. “One accusation,” I remember one of them saying, “and life as I know it would be over.”

One accusation, true or not, would immediately have labeled him a “child molester,” and his life would indeed have been drastically changed, his profession denied him, and his relationships affected, even destroyed. He might well have faced criminal charges and expensive legal fees.

So is the reality of today’s world in which any interest whatsoever on the part of an adult toward a teenager or a child is seen in the worst possible light and then acted on as though that interpretation was the only conceivable one. An adult could not take a young teenager for ice cream, a teacher would not have a student alone in a classroom, unless that adult, that teacher, had a sexual motivation.

How much has been lost by this new, cynical view, formed and nourished by headlines screaming about “grooming,” “predators,” and “the sex offender registry,” and also by new sexual offense laws proposed every legislative session in virtually every state? How many children and teens could have benefitted from establishing relationships with caring adults, adults who would have been mentors, adults who would have enriched their lives, adults whose only motivation was altruism and concern and decency, adults who perhaps remembered their own childhoods and their lack of positive role models and wanted nothing more than to provide that to members of the next generation?

Also lost is trust. Children were taught to trust adults, to turn to them for help when needed. Now they are taught to mistrust and avoid them. They are taught “stranger-danger.” They are taught fear.

Attitudes and laws that genuinely protect children from harm are needed, are good.

Attitudes and laws that cripple normal, human, inter-generational relationships are destructive and evil.

The next time you read an article about a teenage boy or young man going on a shooting spree, killing and injuring others and quite possibly himself, ask yourself: Would this have happened if some adult had reached out to this boy, offering friendship and mentorship and helping him see a better version of himself than the one he would ultimately choose?

The post The destruction of trust first appeared on NARSOL.

Published 1/11/23 at Crime Report

By Sandy . . . Which of these would you favor as a husband for your beloved daughter?

The slick fella, too handsome for his own good, whose shifty eyes furtively appraised the family silver or the well-dressed, good-looking young man whose frank curiosity about the family heirlooms showed an appreciation for life’s finer things.

Why?

Word choice makes all the difference. Some words are so emotionally laden with either positive or negative connotations that just using them automatically produces the corresponding emotion in the reader or hearer. Producers of media know this and often choose emotionally loaded language to sway the readers to their way of thinking. This is fine for editorials and opinion pieces, but the purveyors of news pieces bear the responsibility of using neutral language, of presenting the facts, the “plain, unvarnished truth,” and allowing readers to form their own conclusions.

These are the facts about the term pedophilia. It is a medical term, not a legal one. There are no laws or statutes criminalizing pedophilia. Depression might cause a person to shoplift, but the criminal act is shoplifting, not having depression. Not everyone who shoplifts has depression, and not all with depression shoplift.

The same is true with pedophilia. Not everyone who molests a child has pedophilia – in fact, research suggests the percentage is low – and not everyone with pedophilia has engaged in any criminal conduct, including molesting a child. And certainly, not all registrants are pedophiles. Sexual convictions run the gamut from public exposure to violent rape.

Recently a series of news stories were published in Joliet, Illinois, by Joliet’s Patch Publications.  The situation is one where the mayor is doing his best – or worst — to close down an apartment building designed as reentry housing for men with sexual crime convictions. After losing round one by way of a federal ruling, Mayor Bob O’Dekirk launched round two: the city bought a lot with a vacant house a block away from the NewDay Apartments, the home of the registrants and one of NARSOL’s many partners in implementing fact-driven policies that advance meaningful criminal justice reform.

The mayor’s plan, unanimously approved by city council without a grandfather clause, is to demolish the home and create a park/playground there. Projected to be functional by June 2023, the park would place the residents of the apartment building out of compliance with state law and effectually, the mayor hopes, put the apartments out of business. Called a “pocket park,” Joliet is not the first city to resort to this strategy in order to make areas uninhabitable for registered individuals.

Joliet Patch, the local news homepage for the town on Patch.com, has published four articles about the situation in Joliet, three since city hall got involved. Those three all scream, in huge headers, about the “Pedophile Palace” that the mayor has sworn to shut down.

Of all words in our language designed to evoke a strong, visceral, negative reaction, that one ranks right at the top. Seldom fully understood, almost always misused, and often misspelled, pedophilia requires a qualified physician’s diagnosis before one can accurately be labeled a pedophile.

Patch is not the only media outlet to choose and misuse that word to steer readers and listeners toward a specific reaction. Some weeks prior to the most recent article in Joliet, in a recent broadcast of Tucker Carlson, Fox News, in bold headlines, announced, “TUCKER CARLSON: No healthy society can tolerate pedophilia,” with a sub-heading of “Tucker speaks out against child sexual abuse.” The desired connection is made: Pedophilia and child sexual abuse are interchangeable terms.

In another video, Carlson bemoans the fact that California is “Putting thousands of pedophiles back on the street.” He is speaking of individuals who have been convicted of a sexual crime, have completed the court-ordered incarceration period, and are released under community supervision for the remainder of the sentence.

Once again, the connection between the word and the crime is inescapable, and now not only is child sexual abuse the same as pedophilia, but also everyone on the registry for any sexual crime is a pedophile.

But it is a false connection.

Carlson and Fox News ignore the facts and do everything possible to cement the false connection and establish a belief in the viewers’ minds that precludes any reasonable and factual discussion about sexual offending.

Throughout the Joliet pieces, other pejorative language is used. The apartment dwellers are “sexual predators” at every possible occasion, not “men,” not “tenants,” but “sexual predators.”

Tucker continues to use “pedophile/pedophilia” as often as possible, but at least his rhetoric is labeled “opinion.”

I reached out to Joliet Patch and to Tucker Carlson’s team while working on this piece but have not heard back.

Words shape our beliefs, opinions, and actions. They also shape the beliefs, opinions and actions of our lawmakers, and inaccurate words and words whose meanings have been twisted will lead to laws and policies that are inaccurate and twisted. Laws that are based on falsehoods and incorrect beliefs do not advance public safety.

Legislation grounded in empirical evidence and arrived at in the cold, impassionate light of accurate and connotation-free verbiage has the very best chance of providing society with laws that are fair, just, and work as they should.

The post Pedophilia and the media first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . On August 28 a man went to an Oregon shopping center armed with an AR-15-style rifle and a shotgun; more weapons and bombs were found in his automobile. Before he was stopped, he had wounded two and killed two. The first man killed was a customer in the Safeway store where the deranged killer opened fire. The second man was an employee, and he is credited with stopping the gunman and almost without question preventing additional deaths.

Donald Surrett, Jr. was an employee of the Safeway store for five years and manager of the produce department. He was a veteran, having served his nation for 26 years as a member of the United States Army. He worked in the Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for six years.

He was a beloved husband, a church member, and a brave American.

He was also one of almost a million Americans whose name is found on a state sexual offense registry; his conviction was in 1994.

When Donald went to work on the 28th of August, he could not have imagined that his military training and his personal code of courage and service would be called upon to the ultimate degree before the day ended. As the killer walked through the store with his weapons, Donald hid out of sight until the man drew equal with him, and he then attacked him with his produce knife. Killing Donald Surrett was the last thing the gunman did other than turning his gun on himself and taking his own life.

Some media outlets, in “yellow” journalism’s best tradition, made much more of the sexual crime conviction and the “sex offender” designation and registration than they did of Donald’s heroism and bravery in the face of a crisis which few of us — or them — will ever have to face. They almost grudgingly acknowledge that he has committed no crimes since the one that placed him on the registry, yet they speak of his being a “sex offender” as though that distant offense had occurred yesterday and that was all he had ever done.

Honor and respect for Donald Surrett, Jr. and his courageous act are, thankfully, also forthcoming. A spokesperson for the local police department said, “Mr. Surrett’s background does not change the fact that in this instance, when faced with great peril, he acted heroically in attacking and attempting to disarm an active shooter . . .”  According to local Oregon media, the local chapter of the Disabled American Veterans and the Veterans of Foreign Wars are planning a plaque honoring him. Additionally, the Forest Service posted this online honorarium. And NARSOL’s affiliated organization in Florida, FAC, wrote this moving tribute to Donald.

NARSOL too honors Donald Surrett, Jr. We honor his bravery and action in the face of certain danger. We honor his service of 26 years to his country. But equally, we honor his commitment to living a life of decency and respect for the past 28 years and, most especially, for sacrificing his life for the safety of others.

The post NARSOL honors Donald Surrett, Jr., a registrant and a hero first appeared on NARSOL.

Also posted on the Fort Bragg Patch and the Fayetteville Observer

By Sandy . . . In Fayetteville, North Carolina, what could and should have been a warm, human-interest story was re-shaped by law enforcement into something entirely different.

The real story is about those who take very literally the Biblical admonitions to serve the least of those in society, to help our neighbors, and to do unto others as we would want done to us. Additionally, the members of Fayetteville Urban Ministry who visit and take food and other essentials to the men living in tents along Martin Luther King Freeway and Gillespie Street Bridge in Fayetteville are training their children in selfless service to others.

The Cumberland County Sheriff’s Department, however, saw something different. They shifted the focus away from the real story and turned it into a “public service announcement.”

“Cumberland County Sheriff Ennis W. Wright and the deputies assigned to the Sheriff’s Office Sex Offender Registration Enforcement Unit (SOREU) have increased concern for the public’s safety . . . Registered Sex Offenders live under and around the MLK and Gillespie Street Bridge.”

People on the sex offender registry are homeless due to restrictions about where they may live, restrictions that are shown by all studies to be of no public safety value whatsoever, restrictions that have even been denounced by the U.S. Justice Dept. in the summary of their chapter on sex offender management strategies: “Finally, the evidence is fairly clear that residence restrictions are not effective. In fact, the research suggests that residence restrictions may actually increase offender risk by undermining offender stability and the ability of the offender to obtain housing, work and family support. There is nothing to suggest this policy should be used at this time.”

This action by the sheriff’s department begs the question, “What has this accomplished?” – not “Why did they do this?” for that is known only by those involved, but, “What has been accomplished? Who has been helped?”

Without this “public-service announcement,” were children at risk? There is no evidence of that. Even if there were any risk from the occupants of the tents – and there is also no evidence whatsoever that there is — any children visiting there were part of the Urban Ministry group, supervised by parents and other adults.

Without this announcement, would hordes of Fayetteville citizens have rushed to the tents, putting themselves at risk, again a risk that no evidence supports even existed. Why did the sheriff’s office have “. . . increased concern for the public’s safety”?

So what has been accomplished?

Further vilification of a segment of society. Further portraying of people with past sexual crime convictions as “the other.” Further ostracization and isolation of everyone on the registry.

In other words, what the sheriff sees as “a public safety announcement” is, in reality, further reinforcement of the conditions which science shows lead to sexual offending in the first place, conditions that create further barriers to integration of those with past sexual crimes into the community, integration which science deems necessary to maximize rehabilitation and reduce even further the already very low rate of reoffense.

So what has the Cumberland Sheriff’s Department accomplished?

Quite possibly the exact opposite of what will actually increase public safety.

The post Law enforcement actions make situation worse first appeared on NARSOL.

Originally published at the Times-Union, Albany, New York 11/30/21

Reprinted in full with permission.

By Sandy . . . Approximately 180,000 individuals are incarcerated in the United States for a sexual crime. The offenses range from violent rape to exhibitionism.

The vast majority will be released into the community to complete the sentence under probation or parole with some having served the full sentence inside. All will be required to register with their state’s sexual offense registry.

Upon release these persons are expected to secure living accommodations and employment. They are expected to effect successful community re-entry, including not reoffending.

The vast majority succeed at the latter. Various studies have arrived at different numbers, but a success rate of 95% is the generally agreed upon, across-the-board recidivism number.

The success rate for securing employment and a place to live is a different story. In some places, crippling restrictions on where those on the registry can live and work undo rehabilitative initiatives. New York does not have these per se, although, according to a Times Union piece, some courts have interpreted a law forbidding entrance to school or child care properties as somehow also applying to living accommodations in proximity to those places.

Neighbors living in areas where registrants have moved have found other ways to keep these “undesirables” from their midst. They protest, sometimes in vigilante fashion. They create petitions. They go to the media or to local politicians or law enforcement and make noise.

This is what members of a Glenville neighborhood did, and they succeeded at driving the man on the registry out of his home and their neighborhood. The online petition relies on fear tactics and lies, stating that the offender “is amongst the highest rates for Residivsm (sic) which means he will most likely offend again . . . We need to remove him before he strikes again.”

Both the town police chief and the state department of corrections verified that the registrant was in every way compliant with his regulations, breaking no laws, and entitled to be treated the same as every other citizen.

The community’s actions were based on fear born of ignorance.

The man they drove away had a conviction of criminal sexual contact with a boy he knew. Virtually all sexual crime committed against children and teens is committed by persons known and trusted by the victims. These persons are usually family members, authority figures, or peers.

Those who were instrumental in harassing this man from his home were practicing the worst kind of “NIMBY-ism – “Not in My Back Yard.” They were ignoring every shred of evidence about child sexual abuse. They either don’t know or don’t care that their relatives and close friends, that they themselves, are statistically at almost a hundred times greater risk of sexually abusing their children than is this stranger.

They either don’t know or don’t care that their actions are in direct opposition to all evidence showing that stability and community connectiveness are essential for and maximize successful rehabilitation.

Meanwhile, a New York state senator is attempting to codify extended restrictions on where persons on the registry may live and be. Does he know that every study done on the effectiveness of distance restrictions for registrants shows this to be bad public policy, not only failing to accomplish anything positive but often creating a host of negative consequences?

Every time neighbors harass a registrant into leaving his home, they make society less safe. Every time legislators or city councils block a registrant’s access to a decent place to live, from employment opportunities, or from needed services, they make society less safe.

It’s time to decide: Do we want “feel-good” laws, or do we want to do what actually works in creating a safer society?

The post Time to decide: Will we settle for “feel-good” laws? first appeared on NARSOL.