On Monday, the Circuit Court in liberal Arlington County will be the scene of a heavy-handed morality play, with prosecutors seeking lifelong incarceration for a young gay man who has already paid an extraordinary price for youthful, nonviolent sexual indiscretions.

Virginia, like 19 other states and the federal government, has a Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA). Under these laws, people who have completed their criminal sentences under any of a large number of sex-related offenses can be indefinitely detained in a high-security facility until the state determines that they no longer present a risk, typically never.

Civil libertarians have always objected to such practices. They smack of double jeopardy, of ex post facto punishment and of a glaring form of Catch-22: The defendant is deemed mentally fit to stand trial but is mentally unfit for release. The Supreme Court has swatted aside such objections, ruling that civil commitment is not punitive as long as the state claims that the purpose of detention is psychiatric treatment.

SVPA laws and practices refer to “mental abnormalities,” which sounds scientific. But the American Psychiatric Association has opposed such laws, citing their abuse of civil liberties and the use of unscientific “disorders” as the basis for punishment. In practice, designation as a sexually violent predator (SVP) is not based on substantial scientific research, and the therapy received by detainees in “treatment facilities” is based more on passing fads than on careful scholarship.

Nationwide, some 6,400 people are being held in civil commitment.

Galen Baughman could be one of them. At age 20, Galen pleaded guilty to two charges of illegal sexual misconduct: The first “offense” occurred 10 days after his 14th birthday (he was charged as an adult six years later) and the second when he was 19. Neither charge involved violence or deception; neither “victim” participated in his prosecution. As a consequence of an unwise plea agreement, he served six and a half years in prison, much of the time in solitary confinement.

Before Baughman could begin his probation term, he was detained for two and a half more years pending a civil trial as an alleged predator under the Virginia SVPA.

The commonwealth’s attorney general at the time, Ken Cuccinelli, attempted to paint Baughman as a dangerous sexual criminal. But an Arlington County jury of his peers unanimously rejected the prosecution’s arguments and refused to find Baughman a SVP.

After his release on probation in 2012, Baughman became a professional advocate for himself and others victimized by SVPA laws. He held a Soros Justice Fellowship, writing articles and speaking on the topic in forums around the country and internationally. Much of his work was focused on the Virginia law under which he had been so abused.

But the commonwealth was not finished with him.

In 2017, Baughman went to a funeral in another state — with his probation officer’s permission. There, he met a 16-year-old family acquaintance and began exchanging text messages with him. The messages were non-sexual, and the boy was above the age of consent in his state. But the commonwealth seized this as an opportunity to revoke Baughman’s probation.

Fred Berlin, a psychiatrist and internationally recognized expert on sexual disorders, testified at the hearing that the messages did not constitute “grooming” or manipulation. But Arlington Circuit Court Judge Daniel S. Fiore II insisted that the texts were evidence that Baughman was trying to recruit the heterosexual youth into gay sex. Asserting that a “tragedy for a minor” had been narrowly averted, the judge sentenced Baughman to 21 months in jail. Such a minor technical violation would normally not result in jail time.

Despite the tenuousness of its case, the commonwealth has seized on Baughman’s second incarceration — on a technical, not criminal, probation violation — to initiate a second attempt to have Baughman labeled a SVP.

As a standard part of the SVPA process, the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services hired a psychologist to determine whether Baughman was a sexual predator. After conducting a mental health assessment, psychologist Ilona Gravers found that Baughman was not a predator and recommended his release.

Unsatisfied with this opinion, Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D), ignored Virginia law and hired a second psychologist, Michelle Sjolinder, who was handpicked by prosecutors outside the statutory process. With the first report in hand, the replacement expert gave the state what it wanted and claimed that Baughman was a SVP in need of potentially lifelong commitment. She did not allege any change in Baughman’s mental health since his previous SVP trial in 2012, effectively rejecting and reversing the 2012 jury decision.

Baughman’s second SVPA jury trial is scheduled for Arlington next week. He is facing the possibility of indefinite detention despite having never committed a violent offense.

This new civil trial will be played out with few of the legal protections assured criminal defendants. Fiore has barred Baughman’s attorneys from presenting the state’s first psychologist as a witness or from even introducing her report into evidence. Nor can any mention be made of the first SVPA trial and that jury’s findings. Psychiatric evaluations by Fred Berlin and psychiatrist Richard Krueger at Columbia University that found that Baughman suffered no mental health problems also will not be admitted.

If Baughman’s offenses had involved noncoercive, nonviolent conduct with a young woman under the age of consent, it is unlikely Virginia would have prosecuted him under SVP laws. The “scientific” instrument Virginia uses to screen for future dangerousness, known as the Static 99, is simply a checklist of supposedly relevant factors, including the offender’s age, whether he has had a long-term intimate relationship and the victim’s gender. Because he is young, has no “significant other,” pleaded to two offenses and is gay, Baughman accumulated four points, scoring him as “high-risk.”

It is impossible to call any of this “scientific” or fair. Homophobic bias is built into the process.

The SVPA also grants the state extraordinary power to impose potential life imprisonment. Prosecutors unilaterally decide which of those individuals previously convicted and punished for sex-related offenses (typically fewer than 17 percent) will be tried again for lifelong civil commitment.

If a jury rejects the state’s assessment, the process can be repeated under a variety of pretexts a second (or third) time until the state achieves its goal. And as seen in this case, prosecutors are free to shop for “experts” whose paid assessments match that goal.

Baughman’s case stretches legal practices and commonsense definitions to their breaking points, but it is not altogether exceptional. Others who have never committed a violent crime have been civilly committed. Minors have been subjected to indefinite detention, as have senior citizens in debilitated condition.

Indeed, our civil containment practices for sex offenders are so extreme that high courts in the United Kingdom and Canada have deemed that they are in flagrant violation of international human rights standards and have blocked defendants’ extradition to the United States.

Some states are rethinking their civil commitment statutes in the face of successful legal challenges to portions of their SVP laws and practices. Virginia, by contrast, is expanding its 28-acre Nottoway County treatment facility by 258 beds at a cost of $110 million, or $426,000 per bed. It expects to run out of beds (again) in 2022 as the state zealously expands SVPA prosecutions.

Baughman’s case is a prime example of why Virginia and other states should scrap the SVPA: It corrupts science and the legal system. It normalizes prosecutorial vindictiveness. It erodes citizens’ basic rights and protections against punishment without a crime.

Source: The Washington Post

Last month, former Isaac Bear Early College High School teacher Michael Kelly pleaded guilty to 59 chargesrelated to child sexual abuse, including against students. The following weeks have seen a criminal and an internal investigation launched into New Hanover County Schools’ handling of abuse allegations, and a class action suit brought by six of Kelly’s victims.

After Kelly serves his time in prison — between 17.6 and 31.8 years — he will be required to register as a sex offender for the next 30 years. A StarNews review of state data found that offenses against children are the most common convictions for sex offenders who live in the area.

Each year, the StarNews compiles mugshots of sex offenders for every ZIP code in New Hanover, Brunswick and Pender counties. Those images, as well as addresses and other information about offenders, are publicly available via the N.C. Sex Offender Registry.

Who ends up on the registry?

North Carolina established its registry in 1996, two years after Congress created the first federal law governing sex offender registration. In 1996, it updated the rules with Megan’s Law, mandating public disclosure of information about sex offenders to protect the public.

To end up on North Carolina’s registry, you must be convicted of a sexually violent offense or offense against a minor.

Of the 611 offenders who live in the Wilmington tri-county area, a sizeable proportion were convicted of crimes against children.

A breakdown of the data shows those 611 offenders were registered for 672 separate offenses (people convicted for multiple offenses may appear on the list several times). Of those, 150 were convicted outside of North Carolina.

But on the list of convictions for offenders convicted in-state, “indecent liberties with a minor” appears 289 times. The second-most common conviction on the list is sexual battery, appearing 44 times.

Of the 522 convictions local offenders racked up in-state, 360 were for crimes against a minor — more than two-thirds of the offenses.

Amy Feath, director of the Carousel Center in Wilmington, said when an instance of child sexual abuse receives press, the public often immediately brands the perpetrator a pedophile. But the causes of child sexual abuse, she said, often have more to do with the power structures that allowed the offender — be they a guardian, a teacher, or a coach — to victimize that child.

While pedophilia is a specific psychological diagnosis, an abuser needs just three things to offend: the motivation or desire to commit a crime, an opportunity, and a vulnerable victim.

“Any kind of sexual crime is generally not about the sex act, it is simply the degradation and the power and control issue,” Feath said. “In every society, the most vulnerable pieces of your society are going to be your youngest and your oldest.”

Where can offenders live?

State statute also mandates that any person on the registry not live within 1,000 feet of a school. But that restriction only applies to people convicted after August 2006.

That means many sex offenders registered in the Wilmington area would be exempt. Those include a man registered on Chestnut Street, convicted in 2002 of indecent liberties with a minor, who lives roughly 500 feet from New Hanover High School.

Offenders who committed crimes against children are not allowed to visit places where children frequently congregate, like certain libraries and parks, when children are present. But the state does not have a residency restriction for those types of places, meaning offenders can live any distance from them. A cursory search of the sex offender registry located a handful of offenders living within steps of Ogden Park, Greenfield Lake, Legion Stadium and Brunswick Nature Park.

In the vast majority of cases, offenders are located well away from schools are parks, and the residency restrictions can even make it difficult for some to find housing. The registry shows instances of multiple offenders living in a single home in the Wilmington area, or registering a hotel room as their official address.

Feath cautioned that the old “Stranger Danger” mentality, that teaches children to be wary of adults they don’t know, doesn’t help children identify signs of abuse from trusted adults.

“I always say to people, I’m not as worried about the ones on the registry, I’m worried about the ones who didn’t get caught yet, of which there are many,” she said.

How should we use it?

As Feath said, the registry should not be used as a tool to harass or persecute offenders. It it another source of information with which community members can arm themselves.

“I think that it is extremely important that people are well educated about the sex offender registry and what does it have the ability to do,” she said. “The sex offender registry is simply one tool that we use in safely informing our community, just like a fire extinguisher, just like a smoke alarm.”

Feath said she hopes the recent focus placed on child sexual abuse leads people in the Wilmington area to start having more conversations about proactively protecting children.

She would like to see children encouraged to use the proper names for body parts, and to trust their intuition in situations that might make them uncomfortable. Feath said she’s encouraged by the work New Hanover County’s Board of Education is doing to hire a coordinator to focus on sexual assault and harassment, and to rewrite district policy. She is also a member of the district’s Title IX committee, established this year in the wake of the Kelly case.

One of the most important issues to address, she said, is state mandatory reporting laws. Those are the laws that require people to report suspected child abuse, and include specific reporting protocol for medical professionals and educators.

“It takes a village to keep our kids safe,” Feath said. “You’re fulfilling your part of the contract by reporting.”

SOURCE: Star News Online

Filed by NARSOL and by NCRSOL on  behalf of “John Doe,” the suit alleges that changes in the law, as applied to Doe, constitute an ex post facto violation in regard to five amendments that affect only those with sexual crimes convictions.

You may read the decision here.

By MICHAEL HOBBES . . . The first time Damian Winters got evicted was in 2015. He was living with his wife and two sons in suburban Nashville when his probation officer called his landlord and informed him that Winters was a registered sex offender.

Those on the registry and those of us who advocate for their rights are accustomed to new legislation every year that further erodes the rights and due processes of those it targets. We are accustomed to fighting against the passage of such legislation before it passes and seeking to lesson its impact if it passes. This legislation could have been just another such law.

Instead, it proved to be a line in the sand.

During the latter part of May, registrants who are on record as currently residing with a minor were mailed noticesadvising them of the action they must take in order to prevent being arrested and prosecuted for a new crime. Within weeks a small group of Tennessee attorneys had plaintiffs, were preparing litigation, and had filed in federal court seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO). The court granted the TRO which prohibited enforcement of the new law until a hearing could be held on the request for a preliminary injunction. On the NARSOL in Action (NIA) program, Tennessee attorney Patrick McNally, announced that, prior to the hearing, an agreement was reached with the state of Tennessee extending the TRO until the litigation is concluded.

This is terrific news. Registrant parents who had been ordered to leave their homes and families or else be arrested will not be required to do so. During the Q and A session, the point was raised that some registrants had been ordered to leave before the TRO was granted and had complied. Mr. McNally advised that in those circumstances, the affected registrants should contact the agency who instructed them to leave and inquire if they were aware of the TRO and if they could return home.

For now, Tennessee parents are safe. They will not be ripped from their children who love and need them.

Now the work begins for the attorneys building the case. Mr. McNally also announced that class action certification is being sought; however, class action is not automatically granted nor easily come by. In fact, Tennessee has indicated it will oppose certification. No decision has come down yet regarding this.

This case has critical and urgent ramifications. The law was passed because Tennessee’s neighboring state of Alabama has the same law already in place. If this stands in Tennessee, where will it go next? Arkansas? North Carolina? Kentucky? Missouri? And then?

A link to the most recent order of the court can be found here.

It has been a most incredible experience.

We have been honored to extend ten scholarship grants to persons who otherwise would not have been able to attend, persons who qualified under the requirements set by the board and were eligible to receive not only free conference registration but a cash allotment to help offset their travel and lodging expenses. This is the 3^rd year that NARSOL has offered this program. Additionally, a significant number of others received a waiver of registration fees.

Our overall attendance broke all previous conference records at just over 200, making Houston our largest conference to date.

Also making this conference special was the honor that the office of the mayor of the city, Sylvester Turner, extended to NARSOL in the way of an official letter welcoming us to Houston.

There were so many highlights worth noting that I’m almost reluctant to mention any, knowing that I will omit someone or something I should not have.

Certainly the bright starts were attorney Paul Dubbeling with his message of effective legal and advocacy strategy that emphasizes facts, truth, and persistence; Guy-Hamilton Smith and David Mensah with their messages of effective personal story-telling – without which the facts may never have an impact; and Lenore Skenazy with her absolute, unquenchable enthusiasm and ebullience and her message of living our lives based on the rational rather than the irrational.

The crowning highlight was our now traditional banquet and awards ceremony held Saturday evening. The service was flawless, the food delicious, and the master of ceremony, NARSOL’s vice-chair Robin Vanderwall, charming and witty. Lenore, in her speech, took us back to her beginning involvement with our advocacy and how she very early recognized the sexual offense registry and all that it has spawned as another example of what she calls “worst first thinking,” which is, in any situation, imagining the worst possible outcome there could be and then proceeding as though that thing were virtually sure to happen.

A significant number of Pearl awards were given to NARSOL members and volunteers who have made significant contributions through the year to the advocacy. Our yearly Braveheart Award went to Dana Nessel and was accepted by our advocates in Michigan. Connecticut affiliate leader Cindy Prizio was awarded the well-deserved Advocate of the Year Award for her unfailing and tireless fight on behalf of registered citizens.

What has been previously and unofficially called our Outstanding Achievement Award has been officially named the Paul E. Shannon Outstanding Achievement Award after the initial founder of RSOL, now NARSOL. Two board members were given this award: Paul himself and long-time board member Sandy Rozek.

The silent auction, quilt raffle, and 50-50 raffle were great fun.

Anticipation for this conference has been building for weeks, even months. Now it is over, leaving in its wake exhaustion, gratitude, and an overwhelming sense of pride and accomplishment. Those attendees who are willing, please take a few minutes to write a paragraph about your conference experience and impressions and send to communications@narsol.org. If you would like, include a head-shot of yourself. We have already started planning for next year’s conference in Raleigh, North Carolina, and these will be used as part of our promotional materials.

From the bottom of our hearts, thank you to all who attended.

Robin represented NARSOL and Vivante Espero at the AFP 2019 international conference. Founded in New York City by three charter members in 1960 as the National Society of Fundraisers (NSFR), the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) is the nation’s oldest and largest organization seeking to empower individuals and organizations to practice ethical fundraising through professional education, networking, research, and advocacy. The founders’ vision for the organization was outlined in its original Articles of Incorporation:

• To aid fundraisers in the performance of their professional duties;
• To unite those engaged in the profession of fundraising;
• To formulate, promote, and interpret to organizations, agencies, and the public the objectives of fundraising and the role of those who practice it;
• To promote and maintain high standards of public service and conduct;
• To exchange ideas and experiences and to collect and disseminate information of value to fundraisers and the public;
• To promote, sponsor, and encourage study, research, and instruction in the field of fundraising by means of courses in established institutions of learning and by other means; and
• To encourage and sponsor the granting of awards and fellowships in recognized institutions of learning for study and research in the field of fundraising.

To these ends, AFP’s members are expected to adhere to a code of ethical standards and a Donor’s Bill of Rights that ensure the highest level of professional integrity in the performance of their fundraising activities. As a non-profit, all-volunteer organization, NARSOL depends on your membership and generous donations in support of the initiatives that enable it to continue the many services and projects undertaken in the pursuit of its vision and mission. And NARSOL’s board of directors is determined to assure the organization’s continued presence in the future of our important advocacy work, however long that may take.

NARSOL’s primary work is two-pronged: educational and legal. Because of your membership and generous support, NARSOL continues to grow into a formidable instrument for social change and the eradication of dehumanizing registries. Educationally, our staff and volunteers write and publish op-eds, research pieces, and issue press releases. We give interviews. We host a national conference each year (now in its eleventh year!). NARSOL publishes an expanding newsletter/magazine in several formats. And we maintain a comprehensive website.

Legally, and through its foundation Vivante Espero, NARSOL offers support by providing supporting briefs in critical appellate level cases, assists with legal strategy, and extends financial support to legal actions that have the potential to positively affect a significant number of those with sexual convictions who are required to register.

These things don’t just happen. They cost money. Lots of money. And every dollar we receive from you, our wonderful and generous donors, and from our fundraising efforts is expended in support of either educational or legal initiatives. We thank you for that, each and every one of you. And we encourage you to continue making your voices heard throughout the nation by continuing, or increasing, in your financial support of both NARSOL and Vivante Espero.

Still recovering from oral surgery that was scheduled for the day after his return, Robin was able to speak with me about his experience at AFP’s conference in San Antonio.

“From the very first workshop I attended about major gifts to the very last educational session on increasing board participation in the cultivation of donors, I was just amazed at the quality of content and experience of the presenters at this conference. There were more than 3,400 people there from all over the continent; the US, Canada, Mexico, and even a handful of attendees from China. Often I was asked why I was there and who I represented. I shared our story, our mission, and why we feel called to fill our space advocating on behalf of registered citizens and their families. Prepared for the worst kind of responses, I was really surprised. Everyone I spoke with about NARSOL and Vivante Espero fully appreciated the importance of our work and understood how critical our advocacy is under the broader umbrella of civil rights. At one point, a very nice young lady from Arizona made a point to share with me how much she appreciates what we’re trying to do because it directly impacts her family (she has an uncle and former law enforcement officer who’s doing time for a sexual offense),” Robin said.

Asked about some of the things he learned in San Antonio, Robin paused in reflection. “You know, I am still trying to soak it all in. There are a lot of things we’re doing right. But there are a substantial number of areas where we have to improve. I am compiling a report for the boards. And some of what I will share will call upon the directors to re-evaluate board level investment of time and devotion to donor cultivation. We have to make sure that the people who support us feel appreciated and acknowledged for the sacrifices they are making. We’re all in this together. This is, for many of us, our life’s work. And we have to get it right the first time. We can’t afford to rest on our laurels and imagine that we’ve got it all figured out. The strength of NARSOL, in my estimation, is the collegiality of its leadership model. Our advocacy is not built around anyone. When you think of NARSOL, no particular person comes to mind . . . and it shouldn’t. We’re building a movement. We’re building towards a future free from dehumanizing registries. We’re building something that can, I hope, sustain itself long after any particular individual involved has ceased to exist. Our members, our donors, our volunteers, our state and local affiliate leaders, these are the people who make all the difference for the thousands of registered citizens and families we advocate for. We can’t lose sight of that. Ever!”

The goal of our advocacy is that we are no longer needed in that future of which Robin speaks. But as long as we are, with the help and generosity of our members and donors, NARSOL will be there.

Those points, which should be obvious, are a sadly necessary corrective to the hysteria that has driven legislators in one state after another to enact indiscriminate, mindlessly restrictive, and covertly punitive laws aimed at sex offenders. ASORCNA, which Watkins calls “the most comprehensive and debilitating sex-offender scheme in the nation,” is a prime example.

The lead plaintiff in this case, dubbed John Doe 1, pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges of indecent exposure in the early 1990s, when he was living in Wisconsin. He received a six-month suspended sentence for each charge and was not required to register as a sex offender, even after moving to Alabama in 1994. But 14 years later, Alabama expanded its registry, forcing Doe to comply with ASORCNA’s numerous demands and restrictions under threat of imprisonment. Among other things, that meant his driver’s license was marked with the phrase “CRIMINAL SEX OFFENDER” in bold red letters. Here is how Doe describes the consequences of that notation:

I have never felt so embarrassed and ashamed in all of my life. I would not wish showing this on my worst enemy. It makes me not want to go places where I have to show it, and I try not to go places where I know I will have to. But every week, there is some places that ask me to show it, and every time, I get them evil looks from people—like I’m a murderer or something. I done paid for what I did over 25 years ago. Nobody should have to carry this. It ain’t right, but I don’t have a way out.

On Monday, Judge Watkins ruled that Alabama’s branding of registered sex offenders’ identification cards is a form of compelled speech prohibited by the First Amendment. “The branded-ID requirement compels speech,” he writes, “and it is not the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling state interest.” The state conceded that its ostensible purpose of alerting police officers to a sex offender’s status could be served by a much less conspicuous mark, such as a letter, that the general public would not readily recognize as a badge of shame. “Using one letter would keep officers informed while reducing the unnecessary disclosure of information to others,” Watkins notes.

Another aspect of Alabama’s “debilitating sex-offender scheme” is a requirement that people in the registry report “email addresses or instant message addresses or identifiers used, including any designations or monikers used for self-identification in Internet communications or postings other than those used exclusively in connection with a lawful commercial transaction.” Registrants also have to keep the authorities apprised of “any and all Internet service providers” they use. The information, which includes mundane activities such as logging into a Wi-Fi network outside the home or registering with a website to comment on news articles, must be reported within three business days, and local law enforcement agencies have the discretion to demand that it be done in person.

That requirement also violates the First Amendment, Watkins concluded. “An offender must report to the police every time he connects to a Wi-Fi spot at a new McDonald’s, every time he uses a new computer terminal at a public library, every time he borrows a smartphone to read the news online, and every time he anonymously comments on a news article,” he writes. “Every time he walks into a new coffee shop, he must determine whether opening his laptop is worth the hassle of reporting.” Those burdens “chill a wide swath of protected speech under penalty of felony,” Watkins says, making the law “facially overbroad.”

Watkins notes that the demand for information about online activity applied to Doe and the other four plaintiffs even though their offenses had nothing to do with the internet or children. And like other ASORCNA provisions, such as its restrictions on residency and employment, the rule applies for life, even though the risk of recidivism for most offenders declines over time to the point that registrants pose no greater threat than the average person. “The failure to account for risk is a problem throughout ASORCNA,” Watkins observes. “Not all sex crimes are the same. Nor are all offenders the same.”

That’s a striking statement from a judge who was appointed by George W. Bush just two years after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Alaska’s sex offender registry based partly on fictitious recidivism numbers that continue to influence state and federal courts. It’s a message that judges and legislators throughout the country need to hear.

Source: Reason.com

It’s a remarkable argument. Safety and accountability have been the ostensible watchwords in our ongoing collective discussion of sexual violence, but strong (and understandable) emotion has tended to override those concerns and diverted discourse into negative-feedback loops of ever more brutal consequences for anyone who would even be perceived to stand in the way of that punitive impulse. Just ask Aaron Perksy.

For politicians, then, few bets have been as safe as wanting to punish sex criminals harsher than the last person who spoke. Statehouse legislation proposing new and harsher restrictions for the nearly million people now on America’s sex offense registries have been as perennial as the grass in a nationwide race-to-the-bottom, regardless of whether or not those proposals were grounded in any sort of evidence. Court decisions have favored a brand of results-oriented intellectual dishonesty to conclude that registration is non-punitive and designed to enhance public safety (though with some notable exceptions), even as they turn people into permanent nomadic pariahs wholly incapable of redemption.

And so, it is indeed remarkable that Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel made the argument that sex offender registries are exquisite punishments that undermine safety in important ways. The cases the briefs filed in People v. Betts, and People v. Snyder involve state constitutional challenges to Michigan’s sex offense registry in the context of a pair of people who were convicted of sex offenses in the mid-90’s, well before modern registration schemes were born.

The AG’s briefs make the case that Michigan’s SORA scheme is punishment, and therefore can’t be applied retroactively. That alone, that an AG would be making the argument that these laws are punishment, is remarkable enough. But these arguments go much, much further than that.

Nessel’s arguments forcefully and passionately highlight how modern registries are objectively bad public safety policy.

Modern social science research has shown that SORA’s extensive burdens are excessive in relation to SORA’s purported public safety goals. There are two salient points: 1) research refutes common assumptions about recidivism rates that supposedly justify SORA’s extreme burdens; and 2) regardless of what one believes about recidivism rates, registries are not good tools to protect the public.

Read Guy’s complete piece here at Simple Justice.

The state’s highest court next month takes up the case of repeat sex offender Torrey Grady. It comes three years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in his case that mandating GPS ankle monitors for ex-cons is a serious privacy concern.

“There’s different possible outcomes of the case. One is that it’s never reasonable at all. Another is that it’s reasonable, maybe while the person is still on post-release supervision” for five years after prison release, said James Markham, a professor who focuses on criminal law at the University of North Carolina’s School of Government. “Another possibility is that it’s reasonable for the rest of their life.”

Grady took his case to the nation’s top court arguing that having his movements forever monitored violated his constitutional protection against unreasonable searches. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that attaching a device to a person’s body in order to track their movements qualifies as a “search” and a question of constitutional rights. But the decision left it up to states to decide whether imposed monitoring is reasonable, and for how long.

States are still at work answering that question, with Michigan and Wisconsin among the handful that have considered whether long-term electronic monitoring’s public benefit outweighs the privacy rights of the sex offender. Both decided it constituted a reasonable search. Delaware’s Supreme Court last year rejected a challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union to a law requiring GPS monitoring of certain sex offenders complained the ankle bracelets were embarrassing, sometimes painful and an invasion of privacy.

North Carolina’s Supreme Court will consider Grady’s case on Dec. 3 as well as a second challenging the GPS tracking ordered for Darren Gentle. The combination would give the justices “an opportunity to compare and contrast those different situations,” Markham said.

Gentile was convicted in Randolph County in 2016 of violently raping a 25-year-old woman who was seven months pregnant and with whom he’d been taking drugs, according to state attorneys. He is serving a 41-year prison sentence, but is arguing he shouldn’t have been ordered into post-release GPS monitoring because the trial judge didn’t review whether that was reasonable.

Grady, 40, returned to prison in April after failing to register as a sex offender, according to state prison records. He was convicted of a sexual offense in 1997 when he was 17, and was convicted in 2007 of taking indecent liberties with a minor who was 15, according to the state sex offender registry.

His attorneys argue that after paying his debt to society in prison, Grady and other sex offenders do not give up their privacy rights even though laws restrict where they can live and travel, for example barring visits to school grounds.

A divided panel of North Carolina’s second-highest court in May reversed a trial judge that ordered Grady enrolled for life in satellite-based monitoring, saying they saw no studies showing tracking prevented future crimes.

“The State failed to present any evidence of its need to monitor defendant, or the procedures actually used to conduct such monitoring in unsupervised cases. Therefore, the State failed to prove” that lifetime monitoring, the state Court of Appeals ruled, “is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.”

Reprinted from the Charlotte Observer.