By Sandy . . . Occasionally NARSOL will come across criticisms of our organization, its leadership, our work, and how it is done. These usually appear on one social media platform or another. Interested in all points of view and willing to hear constructive criticism, we have listened and have summarized what appear to be the major areas of contention and our response to each.

The board is lacking in female representation.

Yes, it is; there are two of us. Whenever board seats open, NARSOL appeals for anyone interested to contact us and begin the application process. Female applicants have been rarer than the proverbial hens’ teeth. We will continue. No one will be seated on the board simply because she is female, but we would definitely be interested in a female applicant who brought some of the skills and experiences on our “needed” list to the board.

In the organization and on the board, victim representation and viewpoints are missing or minimal.

This misrepresentation requires a two-part response. First, no one can know who among us was or was not a former victim of sexual abuse, but at the board level, it was multiple, not singular. Among our state-level advocates, there are a significant number who are past victims. Moreover, if those who have suffered collateral damage are counted, 100 percent of us would not be overstating the case. However, this is not something we choose to dwell on. It is not something we write about. We made the choice long ago not to be permanent victims. Continuing to think of ourselves as victims allows our abusers to continue having power over us, and we refuse to grant them that. We do not believe they should be treated as forever-perpetrators; this is the other side of the coin.

Some of us who are former victims are in this advocacy because we know first-hand that an overly-punitive system and the registry system that interferes with rehabilitation have nothing in them that bring us healing or work toward preventing future victims. We healed because we chose to—and some with the help of spiritual faith–despite a system that would keep us victims. The proven programs designed to significantly reduce future victims go begging for the tiniest fraction of government support.

Secondly, NARSOL’s mission statement does not establish a victims’ advocacy; victims have many advocates, starting with the court system. We are an advocate for the other side of the equation, the side that is in desperate need of advocacy. We are advocates for the system as it was initially designed, a system that extracted accountability from the legally-proven guilty, imposed a commensurate degree of punishment, and then expected a return to society with lesson learned. We advocate against distortions of that system, distortions that result in a type of forever punishment and make a mockery of rehabilitation by closing so many doors to it. We advocate for rational sexual offense laws.

We minimalize responsibility and accountability

This characterization is simply not accurate. As stated, NARSOL firmly believes in a fair system that appropriately punishes those who commit crimes; the more egregious the crime, the more thorough the punishment will be, but it must be punishment that is constitutional, in keeping with empirical data, and proportionate to the offense. Longer sentences do not aid in rehabilitation but undermine it. In almost all cases, constitutional punishment comes to an end. It does not continue for 15 or 25 years or even a lifetime after completed sentences end by marking the former transgressor as someone unfit for society.

NARSOL’S advocacy minimalizes rehabilitation

This misconception has already been addressed; it is categorically untrue. Our advocacy is for a system that fosters, allows, and encourages rehabilitation. We frequently reference the low reoffense rate of those who have previous sexual crime convictions; a low offense rate is the result of rehabilitation. Why would we not encourage it? Two sub-points must be made here: 1) Many of this population are self-rehabilitated despite a system that, at best, does little to nothing to aid rehabilitation and, at worst, hinders it mightily. 2) Some on the registry are truly innocent; they were wrongly prosecuted or maliciously and wrongly accused. There is no way of knowing how many; this is an extremely easy accusation. False accusations are effortlessly weaponized by partners wanting the upper hand in divorce or child custody situations. What rehabilitation do these innocent people need?

A last note about rehabilitation for registrants is taken from Joshua Hoe and a post on Twitter (X). He wrote, “Our best chance at public safety is someone returning from incarceration invested in the body politic, with pro-social dreams of contributing to their community . . . foreclosing this is a terrible reintegration strategy.”

If the criticism is primarily, “They don’t serve their full sentence anyway, so it’s only right that they keep on being punished when they are out in the community,” I’m sorry. There isn’t a piece of data anywhere that supports that line of thinking.

NARSOL welcomes and is responsive to constructive criticism. Please keep it coming. We cannot and will not do everything that everyone wants us to do, but if it helps us improve our effectiveness in advocating for fact-driven, data-driven, rehabilitative, and rational sexual offense laws—bring it on.

The post Let’s set the record straight — uninformed, unwarranted criticism first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . Do they reoffend with another sexual crime? Yes, but rarely. Do they commit petty offenses? Yes, sometimes. Do they violate the terms of supervision or the registry? Yes, some.

Do they live normal, ordinary, law-abiding lives? Yes, the vast majority.

Do they still get in trouble and become the subjects of ridicule and condemnation for living their ordinary, law-abiding lives, and do they cause—usually inadvertently–those who would help, befriend, or love them condemnation and often worse? Yes, probably more often than we would believe.

A registrant in California was working as an umpire with a company that had a contract to supply umpires at baseball games, including Pony League games. His occupation and his working at games played by minors were completely legal. Nevertheless, the headline screamed, “Registered sex offender umpired Monterey County Pony league games, says president.” The league has “chosen to terminate its relationship” with the contractor, possibly putting the registrant’s job at jeopardy. Even if that was not the case, the contracting company lost a client because it provided employment for registrants.

In South Dakota, the headline makes the issue clear: “Teacher resigns after inviting registered sex offender to classroom as guest speaker.” Neither the teacher nor the registrant was doing anything illegal or against school or district policy. However, the teacher lost her job due to the incident. In the face of public pressure, both the teacher and the school superintendent tendered their resignations, but the school board accepted only that of the teacher. The registrant’s conviction was in 2017.

In yet another situation, this one in Rhode Island, doing something that was not illegal cost someone her job. An employee of a YMCA allowed her registrant fiancé to wait for her inside the building while she finished work. “Cranston YMCA employee fired for letting sex offender on grounds,” announced the headline. He was apparently breaking no laws in being there as he was not arrested. He wasn’t hiding or being “sneaky”; he was sitting at the entrance table right by the front door in plain view. She was promptly fired.

In a just-released report in Massachusetts, an entity no less than the state government is in trouble.  “Massachusetts placed homeless families in shelters with sex offenders, report says,” details that persons and families in need of temporary housing were placed where “sex offenders live or work.” The report goes on to say that the housing agency is “in the process of removing the identified sex offenders.” A logical translation of what that process means is that an untold number of registrants, through no fault of theirs and in the absence of any criminality, are now displaced from their homes and /or fired from their jobs.

A convoluted and multi-layered situation in Alabama presents the opinion that people with convictions for historic sexual offenses should not be allowed to serve in roles that are interwoven with the very fabric of our communities. “Case of missing child sparks concerns over sex offender fire chief in Barbour County” is the latest chapter in an older controversy, that of a registrant, with his background fully known, who was appointed chief of a small town volunteer fire department. The search for a missing child—later found unharmed—was the catalyst for the more recent upheaval. A woman who says she had been a victim of sexual abuse was incensed that the registrant fire chief was “allowed” to be part of the search party for the missing child and started an on-line campaign to have him removed from his position. An Alabama legislator authored a bill to prohibit registrants from working as first responders in the state; the bill failed to gain momentum in the session just ended. The fire chief resigned his position amidst all the controversy. His conviction was in 1998.

In Ohio, a media outlet appears to take pride in “outing” a registrant and causing the priest who was helping him to be fired. News 5, an ABC affiliate, announced, “Local Catholic pastor forced to resign following News 5 Investigation into sex offender volunteer.” The pastor may or may not have used poor judgement in allowing the registrant to fill the volunteer position that he did, but no laws appear to have been broken as no one was arrested. The diocese is indicated as knowing about the status of the registrant, which would indicate the firing is the result of public pressure.

A common element, remarkably similar from story to story, is easily discernible in every story. “There have been no reported incidents and all their children are safe”; “Student safety was not compromised”; “There’s no indication that he had any interactions with YMCA members or children”; “. . . did not interact with kids”‘ “. . . no issues from the presence of these offenders.”

People who employ, befriend, or otherwise engage those on a sex offender registry may be putting their reputations and their jobs at risk. This is at total odds with the mission statements of many states’ correctional departments that claim to support and provide opportunities for rehabilitation and second chances to those in their system.

How are these missions to be achieved if opportunities to become rehabilitated are denied? How are persons on sex offense registries to have the ability to use their rehabilitation, often even after many years, if the granting of second chances is more likely than not to be met with negativity and if every step forward is countered with two steps back?

The post How do persons on sex offender registries get in trouble? first appeared on NARSOL.