By Sandy and John . . . Portez Smith arrived outside Jesse Grover’s duplex early on Sunday, November 17, 2024, yelling through the closed door, “Grover, you’re a f—ing pedophile,” and when Grover opened the door, Smith pulled out a gun and shot him to death. Jesse Grover was registered on Pennsylvania’s sex offender registry as a Tier I offender. This holiday season, Grover leaves behind his wife, parents, four siblings, four stepchildren, and numerous other family members. He is remembered for his sweet smile and gentleness and as a beloved family member, a good friend, and a lover of reading, cooking, and music.

Grover’s murder is not the first registrant to face such a fate. Gary Blanton was a young married father of two infant sons living in Washington State when, in 2012, Patrick Drum shot him to death for being on the Washington registry for a consensual sexual act with another minor from twelve years prior. Drum then went to the home of registrant Jerry Ray and killed him. With the Washington sex offender registry in hand, he was on the way to shoot a third registrant in another county when apprehended (https://archive.is/T5Zc5).

Charles and Gretchen Parker were at their South Carolina home when Jeremy and Christine Moody stopped in front of their house and raised the hood of their car. Charles was a mechanic and went outside to help. The Moodys entered their home and slaughtered both Charles, a South Carolina registrant, and his wife Gretchen, with a gun and knife. Like Drum, they already had targeted their next victim, another person on the sex offender registry, when they were apprehended. In the wake of these murders, the National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws asked then-governor Nikki Haley to have the home addresses of registrants removed from the public view of the online registry; the request was disregarded.

Portez Smith’s rant at Jesse Grover reveals almost as much about his beliefs as his senseless act of violence does. It is commonly believed that everyone on a registry has a sexual offense against a child: This is a fallacy. In every state, virtually every crime that can have a sexual component carries with it an obligation to register. In many states, non-sexual crimes require registration. And in some states, many of those required to register are minors. Blanton was the same age as his teenage girlfriend when he was convicted for consensual sex with her; her parents pushed for an arrest when they learned of the relationship. Statistics suggest that a third of the offenders against minors are themselves minors. Children have been put on a registry as young as eight.

The most disturbing factor about these murders is that a segment of the community views these vigilantes as heroes. Social media and online articles about these incidents further this perception by allowing ten or even twenty comments praising the vigilante for each one condemning the act of violence. Recently, the glorification of “predator catchers” has driven groups of gangs and teenagers to show up at registrants’ homes to “carry out justice.”  Numerous studies document various degrees of violence and harassment registrants and their family members face daily. 

Blanton’s wife publicly asked that Drum’s supporters stop the harassment of her and her children. According to CBS News, the judge at Drum’s hearing admonished those who were in the courtroom in support of Drum to cease their activity. Leslie said she and her family had been spat upon, had things thrown at their car, had their house targeted, and more.

So what is the answer? The first, quickest, and most straightforward answer is a “band-aid” measure that NARSOL asked South Carolina to take: remove the home and business addresses from public view. This will at least require vigilantes to work a little harder to achieve their goals. Supporters of the registry argue that knowing where registrants live protects their communities, but the USDOJ reports that more than 93% of the cases of sexual harm are committed by someone known to the victim, and 95% are not registrants. Additionally research shows that sex crimes have the lowest recidivism rates of any crime class tracked except murder.

The long-term fix is not an easy one. It involves changing hearts and minds toward a willingness to put aside emotional responses and adopt rational and logical facts. Several decades of evidence-based data show us the sex offender registry is ineffective at every level. It does not make communities safer, protect children from sexual abuse, help those who have caused harm, nor heal those who have been harmed. Instead, it puts families of registrants in harm’s way, impedes rehabilitation, destroys the opportunity to rebuild damaged lives, and costs taxpayers an enormous and ever-burgeoning amount of resources.

One bright spot on the horizon is the increasing prevalence of restorative justice programs. These alternatives to harsh punishment for offenders and nothing for those offended bring the two sides together—for those who choose it—to dialogue, understand each other better, express remorse and forgiveness, and pave the road for future reconciliation. Because the majority of sexual harm happens within families, this is an excellent choice. 

Policymakers need to abolish the secondary punishments accompanying registration. Special restrictions such as residence, proximity, and Halloween restrictions are statistically useless in furthering public safety and child protection. Abolishing them would save significant public funds that could be better used for evidence-based prevention measures.

Most legislators claim to be fiscally responsible, data-informed, and against unfunded mandates. Yet they seem to forget those words when it comes to tightening the plethora of laws and restrictions (such as residence, proximity, and Halloween restrictions) that affect persons required to register. Politicians wanting to project a “tough on crime” platform turn to sex crimes because society’s taboo on anything sexual combined with the visceral nature of sex crimes causes electors and officials to abandon rationality for emotionalism. 

Meaningful reform will begin when enough citizens protest the waste of human lives and public monies and when decision-makers at all levels adopt evidence-based solutions to preventing sexual harm and rehabilitating those with past sexual offenses.

* A version of this article also appeared in the December 20, 2024 issue of Merion West.

The post Vigilantism & Death: A Harsh Reality for Citizens on the ‘Sex Offender’ Registry first appeared on NARSOL.

By Stephen . . . The Florida 5th District Court of Appeals struck down the state driver’s license

designation of labeled Sexual Predator as compelled speech in a 2-1 decision, citing earlier wins in AL and LA over the same compelled speech issue.

While the ruling declared unconstitutional sections 322.212(5)(c) and 322.141(3)(a), Florida

Statutes(2021), the ruling is stayed and held in abeyance pending an appeal to the Florida Supreme Court asking the following question:

Does the requirement that a Florida driver license contain the designation SEXUAL PREDATOR for those persons within that category constitute compelled speech that is unconstitutional under the strict scrutiny test?

The Florida Supreme Court would have to go against every finding to date, both federally and at the state level, to overturn this decision. We shall see.

The post Winners in Florida: First amendment rights, removal of “Sexual Predator” from driver’s licenses first appeared on NARSOL.

By Mark R . . . The topic of death may unfortunately bring up some unpleasant emotions. While causing consternation is not the intention, bringing awareness to those feelings is–because those same feelings often unwittingly influence conversations about “sex offenders.”

Disagreement is common among people, but there is one thing on which rational persons can always agree: Both you and I will someday die. It is undeniable and unavoidable.

Yet most people spend their entire lives trying not to think about death. One could argue that much of human behavior has evolved to help us achieve just that–or to try to avoid it altogether. Otherwise, our lives might only consist of cowering in the corner, waiting for death to come for us.

Instead, we spend our lives trying to fill it with meaningful people, experiences, and things to help us forget that fate. Our culture is often the source of those meanings. It continually gives us something to occupy ourselves in the time between birth and death. Cultural meanings last longer than personal ones. Their power is that they give people a sense of immortality through participating in something that remains after they are gone.

For some of us, the fight for rational sexual offense laws serves that purpose. Death anxiety is important in that struggle because it gives us insight into what really motivates those we oppose and what we might be able to do about it.

Much research has demonstrated that reminders of death cause people to defend their beliefs and strive for self-esteem. Then, when beliefs or self-esteem themselves are threatened, people respond by having unconscious thoughts of death. Continuing the cycle, they will then defend their beliefs and boost their self-esteem more intensely to push the thoughts back down. This process happens without awareness; it is unconscious and automatic.

For almost forty years, researchers in Terror Management Theory (TMT) have repeatedly shown evidence for these behaviors in many different situations.

In an early experiment, a group of court judges suggested more severe penalties for a fictional prostitute after first being caused to consider their own deaths. In another experiment, Protestant Christians started by reading an article that claimed Jesus’ life was plagiarized from other religions. This triggered unconscious thoughts of death in the subjects’ minds, and then, they suggested severe penalties for a fictional prostitute as well. Furthermore, the effect of death anxiety on racism has also been tested. When reading expressions of pride, white persons reminded of death beforehand criticized black persons as racist, more than they did white ones.

TMT research on the public perception of the sex offender has only recently begun. Last year (2023) researchers performed a study to understand how non-offending, clinically-defined pedophiles are viewed compared to those who do actually offend. One conclusion they reached was that fictional, offending pedophiles were given harsher sentences than fictional schizophrenics who had committed various crimes and even harsher than fictional persons with antisocial personality disorder who committed murder. While the difference was not significant, new experiments with improved design may show a more marked difference.

Regardless, the reality remains that registries for schizophrenics and sociopaths do not (yet) exist. People are simply more afraid of “sex offenders.” “The Sex Offender” is a social construct that is continually built with words and deeds. It is the meaning that is created in response to the fear of those who commit sexual offenses, ignorance as to the cause of the offending, and feelings of helplessness about what can be done. Eventually, the idea becomes embedded in the prevailing worldview and subsequently informs responses on the subject.

Moral panic is the usual response to “sex offenders” because they threaten a person’s worldview. People are often triggered when just talking about sexual offenders just as people are triggered when talking about death.

When most people hear the term “sex offender,” their unacknowledged death anxiety usually causes them to think “infant rape homicide.” TMT has already demonstrated that children represent a type of immortality. Physically, they pass the parents’ genetics on to the next generation. Symbolically, they represent our hope for a better world in the future.

As a result, many people most likely perceive the commission of a sex offense as “the killing of hope”—their hope. They respond in kind by killing hope for the sex offender, too. However, confronting their beliefs may only put them more on the defensive.

This irrationality can be overcome, though. Some TMT experiments have shown that death anxiety can be buffered by reinforcing a person’s worldview and self-esteem first. Those persons then often show more compassion in their acts of justice.

For NARSOL and its audience, a mindfulness of these insights when discussing sexual offense laws could actually someday restore hope for good.

Mark R, a new addition to the NARSOL family, is NARSOL’s representative in the state of Utah.

The post Killing Hope: Death Anxiety, Moral Panic, and the “Sex Offender” 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.

An advocate in Switzerland contacted NARSOL with a suggestion: We should organize a sign-on letter to the State Department asking them to cease revoking the passports of registered citizens who met the Angel Watch criteria of needing a “special identifier” affixed to their passports.

As NARSOL has previously successfully organized two sign-on letters— one to Patch regarding “red-dot” Halloween maps and the other to state attorneys general regarding the American Law Institute’s (ALI) revised penal code for sexual offenses — we agreed to do this.

This is the letter sent.

Rachel M. Arndt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services

Dear Ms. Arndt,

Our organizations represent the nearly one million Americans who register for sex offenses or they are organizations in sympathy with the plight of their fellow Americans. We are writing to you regarding the troubling number of cases of passport revocations affecting our members, their families, their employees and other dependents. We believe that there is a simple way to mitigate some of the harm these revocations have caused, and we urge you to consider doing so, as follows.

As you know, passports may be revoked for a number of reasons, but all of these reasons stem from the actions (or inactions, as in not paying federal income tax) of the individual passport holder. This is the first time that we are aware of that an entire class of U.S. citizens faces having a passport revoked through no specific action on their part, aside from having on their record a historic conviction, which may date back many decades.

Revocation is especially frightening for travelers overseas. Their passports may be the only proof of citizenship they possess. Revoking them places them in jeopardy in their host countries and, in our view, hinders the ability of the State Department to fulfill its primary mission of protecting all American citizens.

There is a ready solution. The language of the International Megan’s Law states that the State Department shall include a unique identifier in the passport of a covered individual but that it may revoke a passport without this identifier.

Therefore, we urge you to cease revoking the passports of these covered individuals. Passports are routinely amended, pages are added, and so on, without the need for revocation or the issuance of an entirely new passport. Adding or removing the unique identifier could be done in the same way with much less harm.

Thank you for your attention.

The National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL) – sponsor

<The names of all participating organizations followed.>

We mailed the letter by registered mail February 1, 2024, a Thursday. Tracking showed that it was given into the possession of someone in the State Dept. on Monday, February 5. As of today, February 19, there has been no response or acknowledgment from the State Dept.

The post State Dept. unnecessarily revokes registrants’ passports; NARSOL, others, ask them to stop first appeared on NARSOL.

By Kyle . . . We are witnessing a disturbing trend in America of punishing people after they have completed their official court-imposed sentence for an offense or even before any criminal charges have been filed and a person has been convicted of a crime.

In the arena of sex offenses, this manifests in several ways. Indefinite civil commitment-habeas corpus anyone? Registration beyond the term of the sentence. Registration results in numerous harms which clearly constitute “punishment”: serious housing restrictions; movement restrictions; domestic travel restrictions, making travel for business and pleasure a nightmare; employment challenges; and now, passport markings (A Scarlet Letter) because of the International Megan’s Law in conjunction with Angel Watch. This is not only “compelled speech” (as it is for registration in general) but restricts one’s ability to travel freely internationally for business or pleasure.

All of this is based upon a perceived, theoretical (and very inaccurate, skewed) risk of POTENTIAL FUTURE sexual criminal offending, a la the pre-crime of the movie Minority Report.

Additionally, the U.S. Federal Government refuses to issue a passport to anyone with an outstanding federal tax debt of at least $50,000.00, this before any criminal charges have been filed or a person has been convicted of a tax crime. Again, potential future crimes. Of course, they fear the person may flee the country and never return to settle the tax debt. Fair enough, but if that is the case, then charge them, arrest them, and try them; else, leave them alone.

Innocent until proven guilty? Not any longer in America apparently.

What this really comes down to are understandings of just what constitutes unconstitutional, compelled speech and whether domestic and international travel restrictions, housing restrictions, movement restrictions, etc., aren’t actually criminal punishment rather than just civil administrative, public safety policies.

You could even throw in the restrictions of a former felon with no violent weapon offense being forever banned from owning guns for personal protection, in violation of the Second Amendment. We know from 35 years of data that the argument of public safety holds no water. Given that, these can be seen as nothing less than intentional, vindictive criminal punishment (restrictions of constitutional rights) beyond the terms of the sentence without due process?

Does placing these types of restrictions on people past the terms of their original sentence or without any legal proceedings or due process constitute “punishment” rather than just “inconvenience”? I believe it clearly does. These types of extra-legal punishments need to be litigated out of existence or legislatively abolished. Failing that, it is a sad joke to call America a free country where all citizens enjoy protected, constitutional rights.

Kyle is a person required to register on the sex offender registry in Colorado.

The post Due Process: Another one bites the dust first appeared on NARSOL.

 Also published at the Washington, D.C. Patch

By Sandy . . . “They do it with no regard for travel plans, for the reservations made, for the months of planning and the hundreds and hundreds of dollars that have been spent and will be lost. They don’t care.” Don, a South Carolina registrant with a historic conviction for a sexual offense against a minor, was explaining his months-long struggle with the State Department that ended abruptly when he received a letter from them informing him that his passport had been revoked as it lacked the “unique identifier” required on passports of people with his conviction.

This was in 2020. Earlier that year, Don was planning a trip to Israel with his church travel group. He had heard anecdotal stories from others about passports revoked at the last minute, and he determined that he would find out the status of his. Calls to his local registration office produced nothing in the way of an answer. Every call to the State Department yielded the same answer: “Your passport has not been revoked; no, we can’t tell you when it will be; you’ll know it has happened when you get the letter from us saying it has.” Multiple calls to the office of Lindsey Graham, his state senator, prompted them to call the State Department, where they received the same answer Don had received.

Don lucked out. He made the trip to Israel; no where along the way was he told that his passport was revoked, and he returned home with no difficulties. The letter came a scant month later. He remains resentful and angry that there was not a better flow of communication whereby those who would be affected by what is called the International Megan’s Law could be given information that would help them manage their travel plans without the fear of losing their passports before or during the trip.

What is the International Megan’s Law (IML) and how does it work?

The law that authorizes the inclusion of what is called a “unique identifier” became effective in 2017 and is known as the International Megan’s Law. The relevant part states, “Except as provided under paragraph (2) [which gives the exemption policy for persons so longer required to register], the Secretary of State shall not issue a passport to a covered sex offender unless the passport contains a unique identifier, and may revoke a passport previously issued without such an identifier of a covered sex offender” [emphasis added].

The law further authorizes the Angel Watch Center to receive information as to which registrants need the unique identifier on their passports and then to pass that information on to the State Department.

It starts, though, at the lowest level. One portion of IML requires persons on a sex offender registry to give 21-day notification to their local law enforcement office of their intent to travel out of the country. The local offices then give those names to the Angel Watch Center—which is part of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—and they in turn send the names to the State Department. That is when any registrants who are passport holders find themselves in receipt of a letter saying their passport has been revoked. Not “It will be unless you send it in for the special marking,” but, “It has been.”

There are many, many—too many to ignore—horror stories of this process being triggered while registrants were mid-travel and found themselves being denied entry into a country or unable to board a plane to get back home.

What is the “unique identifier”?

25 words, counting numbers, constitute this identifier. “The bearer was convicted of a sex offense against a minor, and is a covered sex offender pursuant to 22 United States Code Section 212b(c)(1).”

Initially, this was printed on the last page of the passport (see top image). More recently it is printed on the page with the photograph or adjacent to the photograph.

A memo released by the SMART (Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking) office in 2019 includes this statement: “Broadly speaking, this provision is applicable to anyone who is currently required to register as a sex offender based on a conviction for a sex offense against a minor.”

Broadly speaking. So . . . in one of the twelve states where 18 is the age of consent, this would include a conviction flowing from a consensual relationship between a 19-year-old young adult and a 17-year-old teen who later got married. This would include a case of a teenager being prosecuted and registered for sexting nude or partially nude self-images to a romantic partner a year younger. This would include the conviction of a young adult who traveled to see a 17-year-old met in an online chat room, only to find there was no actual victim at all but a law enforcement officer as part of an entrapment operation. This would include the eleven-year-old child convicted and registered for inappropriate sex play with a cousin. As the second and third examples are federal crimes, the age of consent is 18 across all states. For the last example, 35 states register children, some as young as eight.

Why are passports revoked? Does it have to be done this way?

Passports have always been revoked under a few, individualized circumstances. Prior to 2017, revocation was reserved for people discovered to be non-citizens, those who owe “serious, delinquent tax debt” (IRS), and in some situations of criminal indictment where an order is in place forbidding them to leave the country.

After the implementation of IML, persons designated a “covered sex offender” have had their passports revoked based on a historic conviction, some as old as forty years or more. Everyone in the category is targeted.

Look again at the directive in the law: “. . . the Secretary of State shall not issue a passport to a covered sex offender unless the passport contains a unique identifier, and may revoke a passport previously issued without such an identifier of a covered sex offender” [emphasis added].

They may revoke. Thay are not required to revoke. Other options are available. They choose to revoke.

What are the other options? What is the solution?

There are a variety of reasons why passports need to be modified. The most common ones are that people change their names, there was an error in the information that is printed as part of the document, or there is some other document error. Most needed changes have the same solution: passports are mailed to the State Department along with the correct information and documentation. Changes and corrections are made; errors are amended, and the passports are mailed back. There is no fee; the passport is not considered new even though it may be, depending on what needed to be done. Some situations, such as passports being lost, stolen, or damaged, allow the option of handling the matter in person at a local office, but none of them result in revocation, only amendment or replacement. Adding the “unique identifier” could be done in the same manner, and that is what NARSOL asked for in a letter sent to the State Department February 1, 2024, and signed by NARSOL, NARSOL’s associated and affiliated organizations, and a significant number of other civil rights-related organizations. Time will tell if the suggestions in our letter bear any fruit or, indeed, if it is even acknowledged.

Based on past experience, Don is not optimistic. When asked if he applied for a new passport, he said he did, but he didn’t do so immediately. His revoked passport was only a year old. He had held a passport for many, many consecutive years, and having to go through the entire procedure, including proof of citizenship, extensive documentation, and a costly fee, as though he were a first-time applicant, was galling. “After having a passport for close to fifty years, I had to start from zero,” he said.

The post “Stop revoking passports,” NARSOL tells State Department first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . January 5 – 7 the board directors of NARSOL and its foundation Vivante Espero gathered in Boston, Massachusetts, for its annual strategic planning retreat. All of the combined fourteen directors were in attendance, eleven in person and three by Zoom. During these yearly events, the boards map out their advocacy priorities for the coming year, set deadlines, and assign tasks.

As a national civil rights advocacy group led by two boards of directors from thirteen different states, it’s vital to NARSOL’s long-term success that the directors meet face-to-face at least once a year in order to maintain the collegiality and professional cooperation that are hallmark principles of corporate governance.

NARSOL’s board retreats are anything but relaxing with sessions beginning at 9 a.m. each morning. The pace is grueling, exhausting, and sometimes intense as directors don’t always agree while discussing important matters on the agenda.

Friday was devoted to contemplating the future and where we envisioned this advocacy movement being a few years down the road. We scrutinized the statements of purpose and decided that, while we might want to do a little “wordsmithing,” they still reflect who NARSOL is and what it stands for, with both the vision and mission  statements making clear our desire and purpose to see dehumanizing registries abolished and, in the meantime, to fight for the constitutional rights of citizens affected by them. We also reviewed NARSOL’s membership model and thoroughly discussed various options and possibilities related to the topic. This went into the yearly and long-range goals and target areas that were the focus of Saturday’s work.

Saturday was the longest and most intense day. The morning was spent on a variety of topics that directors and state groups had introduced throughout the year, and they were added to the long-range planning documents developed in the afternoon.

Items such as advocate training programs, an enhanced attorney partner program, membership, a timeline for litigation, mental health support, an enhanced program of partnership with other organizations, and social media are just some of the goals that were thoroughly discussed and added or retained on our yearly work chart. Directors volunteered and were assigned “ownership” of the projects they were interested in, and deadlines were set for completion.

Sunday morning was devoted to budget, donations, and expenditures for 2023 and the development of a budget for 2024. After discussing and listing each activity needed to accomplish all of the agreed-upon goals, a 2024 budget was developed.

The planning retreat ended with NARSOL’s future goals firmly in the directors’ minds and their energy renewed for the tasks of the year ahead, stronger than ever in their resolve never to give up this fight. It is important because every man, woman, and child for whom NARSOL fights is important. Its organizational goals and beliefs are important. Fighting for the dignity and the constitutional rights of all is not only important; it is the most important thing this organization will ever do.

The post 2024 NARSOL and Vivante boards gather for plotting out future growth and success first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . This was sent on December 8 to Mr. Dan Bongino.

Mr. Dan Bongino

info@bongino.com

Dear Mr. Bongino,

Mr. Bongino, we agree with you. Calling for the wholesale destruction of any group of people is an abomination and should not be supported, not even under the guise of free speech. It should be condemned, as you have said.

For those who need a little background, a little context, the New York Times ran a story about how three college presidents, when asked during a congressional hearing if students calling for the genocide of Jews violated their school’s code of conduct, would or could not give a simple “Yes” or No” answer. “[M]onstrous and antithetical to everything we represent”; “Unacceptable”; “[H]ate speech.” These were comments from various legislators and White House representatives in response to the issue and in their condemnation of the attempts of the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and MIT to allow some wiggle- room for freedom of speech and the importance of context. Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service agent and current popular conservative radio host, responded to the situation in his usual manner on his talk-show December 6. At times becoming verbally abusive– in verbiage, tone, and volume level—he made his opinion crystal clear: The testimony of the presidents was “stupid,” “ignorant,” and “full of shit,” exemplifying the “cancer” that has “metastasized” on college campuses.

Mr. Bongino, calling for the destruction of any group of people is indeed harassment, criminal, and must be condemned. That is your clear, firm opinion, and NARSOL is in total agreement.

Our organization, the National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws, and the people whose civil liberties we defend are all too familiar with various forms of speech calling for the eradication of them as a group. Almost any online article about persons required to register on a sex offender registry—close to a million individuals with past convictions ranging from innocent but wrongly convicted to public exposure to rape—garners comments calling for exactly that: the wholesale killing of all registrants. Some who post these comments offer up themselves as willing perpetrators of such massacres. They offer the highest praise for the criminals who have sought out strangers and murdered them based solely on their listing on a state registry.

Our members, as well as their wives and husbands, children, and parents, have seen these comments and worse. They have seen the references to registrants being “easy targets” as they can’t have weapons with which to defend themselves. They see the bumper stickers and window decals and tee-shirts reading, “Save a deer; shoot a sex offender.” One threat level down from group annihilation, a message on Tik-Tok says, as a backdrop to music and dancing, “For extra cash consider robbing sex offenders, they’re [sic] address is easy to find and they don’t own guns.”

Mr. Bongino, we appreciate your indignation at verbiage that targets a definable group of human beings for wholesale destruction. We ask you to join us in public condemnation of language that targets persons with past convictions for sexually-based crimes—some convictions thirty or forty years old—and targets them based on those convictions alone.

May we count on your support? Will you invite a member of our executive board to be a guest on a broadcast? Will you publicly denounce these attacks on registered persons as hate speech, as stupid and ignorant, and as a cancer that has grown out of our nation’s sex offender registries?

Thanking you in advance,

The NARSOL Board of Directors

The post Hate speech for some is hate speech for all first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . It is seldom that the morning newsfeed offers not two but three pieces dealing with the same topic, a topic that piques my interest and warrants some consideration.

Some states structure their sexual offender registry so that a technical violation is punishable by a jail or prison sentence and in some states is considered a new sexual offense. This may be tied in with a violation of sexual offense probation. Granted, when on probation or parole, restrictions are more rigid and expectations of autonomy are fewer, but the question remains: Is incarcerating a person for a year or longer the best solution for a technical violation that involves no new attempt at committing a crime against a person?

In Cumberland County, Tennessee, a 79-year-old man, John, was given a year’s sentence for “. . . technical violations of the sex offender registry law . . .” The media source does not identify what the technical violations were. They could be anything from accidentally being a digit off in a submitted telephone number to moving without registering the new address. But even if it were the later, he didn’t go far; law enforcement apparently had no trouble finding him. At the time of this sentencing, John had already been in jail for three months for a probation violation, which, as best as I can decipher the verbiage, was for the same offense. Tennessee imposes lifetime community supervision—probation– on a significant number of registrants, and failure to comply with registry requirements can be charged as a probation violation. Further investigation shows that John’s one sexual offense conviction was in 2015 for possession of illegal images.

A case in Albany, New York, raises even more concerns. Jason, age 43, the registrant in this case, has been sentenced to 28 months imprisonment for “. . . failing to update his sex offender registration information.” When released, he will serve five years of post-release supervision. His one prior conviction was in 2011 for receiving child pornography—different language meaning essentially the same as the Tennessee case, possession of illegal images consisting of child pornography. This new conviction is for failing to update his residency address on the sexual offender registry. According to the media source, in New York this conviction, for a registrant, is a new crime as it is in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.

Finally, a 43-year-old Coldwater, Michigan man has been sentenced to from 17 months to ten years for parole violations and from 17 months to four years for not complying with the sexual offender registry. Travis was given an additional sentence, to run concurrently, of 16 months to two years for not complying with reporting duties. His sexual offense conviction was in 2020 for 2^nd degree criminal sexual contact.

NARSOL has frequently said that we are not attorneys and we do not give legal advice. There is one bit of legal advice, however, that we have been known to give: If it’s the law, obey it. If you are on probation, your responsibility is to follow the terms of your probation. If you are on the registry, you are responsible for knowing the registry requirements for your state and following them. If you believe they are excessive—such as counter-productive residency restrictions—or illegal—such as sheriffs requiring Halloween yard signs without legal authority—beg or borrow if needed and find an attorney.

When individuals do not follow supervision requirements or registration stipulations, they must expect  consequences. But shouldn’t the consequences fall to the person who is in violation rather than to the state, its taxpayers, and the innocent?

Jason and Travis are mid-forties in age. With any luck, they were working; they were earning, supporting at least themselves and quite possibly families. They were renting or buying, spending, contributing to the economy. They were paying taxes. And now? How much does it cost to incarcerate a man for a month? A year? Ten years? Will their families need public assistance now? Lose their homes? How much more is lost over and above their wages and all that a wage-earner contributes?

And what of John? He is 79 years old. In addition to the base cost of incarcerating him for a year, what are his medical needs? Is there an elderly wife at home who can manage—or not—without him?

Whatever lessons these incarceration terms are intended to teach, would it not be reasonable to try a few months instead of a year, two years, possibly ten years? John’s criminal record shows that this is his third conviction for registry and supervision infractions, and were it not for his age, a year’s sentence might be appropriate. Perhaps the question in his situation is will the cost of his incarceration be offset by what he learns in a year behind bars.

The criminal records of both Jason and Travis indicate that these convictions for parole/registration violations (Travis) and failing to update registration information (Jason) are the very first of the sort that either of them have accrued. Would not a few months in the county jail be a reasonable and much more cost-effective attempt at correction? A second, more subtle concern that must be raised in connection with registration violations is this: Failing to comply with registry requirements is an offense applicable to no category of crime except those that trigger an obligation to register. This is an often-overlooked fact among the plethora of discriminations that make up criminal registries.

Is it not time to give these issues some serious thought?

The post The unintended victims of sexual crime hysteria first appeared on NARSOL.