Registries have been examined in numerous academic studies over the past several decades and virtually all of them have found that registries do not accomplish what they were intended to do. They do not reduce recidivism. 

They do not prevent sex offenses. They do not protect children. They do not make communities safer. 

These findings certainly run counter to the beliefs of some policy makers seemingly more interested in inflicting additional punishment on past crimes or enhancing their “tough on crime” personas. New directions must be taken—employing evidence-based reforms focused on intervention and treatment methods that have been shown to reduce sexual violence. 

Sex offense registries in this country go back to the mid-20th century, when they had the limited aim of providing law enforcement (and only law enforcement) with contact information on those who had committed specific types of offenses.  

Then, in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Alaska’s relatively lean registry, using the now debunked premise that people convicted of a sex offense have an exceptionally high recidivism rate. Policy makers around the country took it as an invitation to pile on new regulations and requirements, vastly expanding registries that had once focused on a narrow spectrum of serious crimes to include an ever-growing list of offenses, even including such things as public urination and sex among underage teenagers. 

Those who seek to maintain, and even expand, sex offense registries make the claim that those convicted of a sex offense cannot be rehabilitated and need to be under constant surveillance. However, study after study has shown that therapeutic interventions largely lead to success. In fact, those convicted of sex offenses have essentially the lowest recidivism rate among all classes of offenders; a study done by the U.S. Department of Justice found a reconviction rate of 3.5% among individuals in 15 states released over a three-year period.  

So, if registries do not work as intended, what can be done? 

The American Law Institute (ALI) provided recommendations on where states might go when it adopted extensive model penal code revisions regarding sex offense registries in 2021.  ALI’s model codes are enormously influential in the courts and legislatures, and in legal scholarship and education. 

ALI’s proposed changes match the recommendations of academic literature, which shows that people convicted of sexual offenses have low reoffense rates and that registration hinders rehabilitation and reintegration into society. 

Specifically, it recommends restricting the information on registries to be available to law enforcement only, limiting those registered to only the most dangerous, and shortening the length of time individuals must remain on the registry. 

The first is important because publicly listing those convicted of a sex offense on the internet exposes them to a variety of negative consequences, ranging from public shaming, physical intimidation and violence, and difficulties in finding employment and a place to live.  

The requirement of lifetime registration that many states, including Arizona, impose carries burdens for many convicted of a sex offense, often preventing them from ever being able to fully reintegrate into their communities even many years after the offense.   

In her dissent in the Alaska Supreme Court case Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that many registries, including Arizona’s, make no provision at all for the possibility of rehabilitation. “However plain it may be that a former sex offender currently poses no threat of recidivism,” she wrote, “he will remain subject to long term monitoring and inescapable humiliation.” 

At a time when the American Law Institute, virtually all available research and a growing body of public and professional opinion reflects the reality that our current sexual offense policies do not work, it is important for Arizona to take a new direction. 

John Covert is a member of the Arizonans for Rational Sex Offense Laws Executive Committee. 

During general elections, it is not uncommon for politicians to seek impactful campaign strategies. Often, this involves employing fear-based tactics and proposing sometimes unnecessary and constitutionally questionable measures. A frequent target of such a strategy is the issue of sex offenders within the system. Despite the lack of empirical evidence supporting these measures’ efficacy, instilling fear remains a prevalent political tool. One typical manifestation of this approach is the proposal of additional, yet arguably ineffective, restrictions to the sex offender registry.

The practice of political mudslinging is a well-known aspect of election campaigns, typically involving exchanges between politicians. However, the trend of using ordinary citizens, primarily registrants, as targets in these political skirmishes is drawing criticism. Such tactics are being called out not only for their poor taste but also for their disregard for the principles of decency and respect towards voters. This shift in political strategy raises questions about the ethical boundaries of election campaigning and the respect owed to the electorate.

In North Carolina, like many other states across the country, individuals listed on the public sex offender registry are prohibited from entering school premises. This policy faces a unique challenge during states of emergency, such as severe ice storms or hurricanes, when schools are often converted into temporary shelters for the general public. In these situations, those on the registry are excluded from these emergency shelters, highlighting a critical gap in the state’s emergency response plan.

For almost ten years, civil rights groups have been advocating for a change in North Carolina’s legislation, urging the General Assembly to incorporate a provision that would temporarily lift the ban on individuals listed on the sex offender registry from accessing emergency shelters until a state of emergency is lifted. Despite these efforts, as the state braces for another season of freezing temperatures, the legislature has yet to address this issue. This inaction raises concerns about the potential harm to those registrants and their families who are denied access to emergency shelters, especially those not under active probation or parole. Critics argue that this situation underscores a fundamental flaw in the state’s emergency management strategy, highlighting the use of the registry as an extension of punishment rather than a means of reintegrating individuals back into society by allowing reasonable accesses to safe places during states of emergency.

As the debate continues over the exclusion of individuals on the sex offender registry from emergency shelters in North Carolina, a pressing question emerges: How many citizens must face potentially life-threatening risks or death before the legislative and executive branches of government take decisive action? After a decade of inaction by lawmakers on this issue, concerns are growing that the foundational principle of ‘all men are created equal’ is not being upheld in practice. This situation highlights a critical disparity in how those in power regard the rights and safety of all citizens.

As the election season approaches, the spotlight turns to the importance of electing lawmakers who truly represent the moral duty owed to the citizenry. With a focus on adherence to constitutional principles, particularly those prohibiting ex post facto laws and ensuring equality and rights for all persons, voters are faced with a crucial decision. This year, the challenge is to assess whether the status quo remains satisfactory or whether it is time to seek out leaders committed to treating all citizens with dignity. This includes reevaluating and potentially dialing back the sex offender registry laws, which some critics liken to Jim Crow-style policies and view as products of fear-driven, knee-jerk reactions.

The call to bring an end to the national sex offender registry, along with its associated extended punishments, complex premises restrictions, and other supplementary limitations, is gaining momentum. Critics of the system argue that the existing measures of probation and parole should suffice in addressing concerns related to sex offenses. They contend that the current registry system, often described as a ‘social experiment,’ has become overly punitive and fails to balance public safety with rehabilitation effectively.

Writing for the majority in Smith, Justice Anthony Kennedy took it for granted that collecting and disseminating information about people convicted of sex offenses made sense as a public safety measure. But that premise was always doubtful.

The vast majority of sexual assaults, especially against children, are committed by relatives, friends or acquaintances, and the perpetrators typically do not have prior sex-offense convictions. That means they would not show up on a registry even if someone bothered to check.

It is therefore not surprising that research finds little evidence to support Kennedy’s assumption that publicly accessible registries protect potential victims. Summarizing the evidence in a 2016 National Affairs article, Eli Lehrer noted that “virtually no well-controlled study shows any quantifiable benefit from the practice of notifying communities of sex offenders living in their midst.”

To reinforce the logic of registries, Kennedy averred that “the risk of recidivism posed by sex offenders is ‘frightening and high.’” He was quoting his own opinion in an earlier case, which in turn relied on an unsubstantiated estimate from a source who has publicly and repeatedly disavowed it.

According to Kennedy’s paraphrase, “the rate of recidivism of untreated offenders has been estimated to be as high as 80%.” By contrast, a 2003 Bureau of Justice Statistics study found that the three-year recidivism rate for sex offenders was 3.5%.

Studies covering longer periods find higher recidivism rates, but still nothing remotely like 80%, even for high-risk offenders. Despite its empirical emptiness, Kennedy’s “frightening and high” claim has been quoted again and again in legal briefs and judicial opinions across the country.

Although registries are ostensibly based on the risk of recidivism, they apply indiscriminately to broad classes of people, even when there is little reason to think they pose an ongoing danger. Dissenting in Smith, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that Alaska’s law “applies to all convicted sex offenders, without regard to their future dangerousness.”

One of the men who challenged Alaska’s law, Ginsburg pointed out, “successfully completed a treatment program” and “gained early release on supervised probation in part because of his compliance with the program’s requirements and his apparent low risk of reoffense.” A court determined that “he had been successfully rehabilitated,” based partly on “psychiatric evaluations” indicating that he had “a very low risk of re-offending” and was “not a pedophile.”

That man nevertheless was required to renew his registration four times a year for the rest of his life. The online registry included his name, photograph, criminal record, address, physical description, date of birth and place of employment, along with the license plate numbers of vehicles he used.

Kennedy minimized the consequences of publicly branding people as presumptively dangerous sex offenders, calling it “less harsh” than revocation of a professional license. But as Justice John Paul Stevens noted in his dissent, there was “significant evidence of onerous practical effects of being listed on a sex offender registry,” ranging from “public shunning, picketing, press vigils, ostracism, loss of employment and eviction” to “threats of violence, physical attacks, and arson.”

Those predictable costs, combined with legal restrictions on where registrants may live and which locations they may visit, undermine rehabilitation and continue to punish registrants long after they have completed their sentences. That is why several state and federal courts have concluded, contrary to what the Supreme Court said in Smith, that registration schemes are punitive in effect.

Activists who oppose registration will call attention to that reality during a vigil at the Supreme Court on Tuesday morning. They are clearly right in arguing that the illusory benefits of public registries cannot justify the burdens they impose.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine.

Justice Kennedy’s statements were wrong then and they are wrong now. They were based on an article in a lay publication, Psychology Today, not a peer-reviewed journal, that was written by a sex offender counselor, not a researcher, who earned his living selling his counseling program to prisons. The author has since disavowed these numbers and said they were never meant to be used as a basis for any type of judicial ruling.

It is now clear, based on decades of data, that those who have committed sexual offenses rarely recidivate. Indeed, while the recidivism rate for drug offenses exceeds 80%, study after study finds the three-year recidivism rate for people who commit sex offenses to be 3.5%, much lower than that claimed by Justice Kennedy. This low recidivism rate is in line with the finding that the vast majority of sexual offenses — as high as 95% — are committed by people who are first-time offenders and thus are not on the registry at all.

University of Miami law professor Tamara Rice Lave found an Arizona state government analysis showing only 2.4% of the 209 individuals released in 2001 had committed a new sex offense within the next three years. ”[T]he … belief that sex offenders have a high rate of reoffending is not supported by the evidence,” she concluded.

Professor Ira Ellman, retired law professor at ASU, points out: “Many assume that most registrants committed violent rapes or molested children, but they would be wrong.” In fact, sex offense registries sweep in individuals with vastly different backgrounds who pose vastly different levels of risk. Individuals have been placed on the registry for such acts as teenagers having consensual sex, public urination, or sexting.

Ellman said “if the registry’s main purpose is to let us monitor and warn people about those who committed violent, coercive, or exploitative contact sex offenses, we dilute its potential usefulness when we fill it up with people who never did any of those things.”

Several of the Supreme Court justices in Doe wrote separately.

Justice David Souter wrote, “The fact that the [registration process] uses past crime as the touchstone, probably sweeping in a significant number of people who pose no real threat to the community, serves to feed suspicion that something more than regulation of safety is going on; when a legislature uses prior convictions to impose burdens that outpace the law’s stated civil aims, there is room for serious argument that the ulterior purpose is to revisit past crimes, not prevent future ones.”

Justice Stevens noted that registrants and their families justifiably live in fear of vigilante justice. They have experienced “profound humiliation and isolation as a result of the reaction of those notified. Employment and employment opportunities have been jeopardized or lost. Housing and housing opportunities have suffered a similar fate. Family and other personal relationships have been destroyed or severely strained. Retribution has been visited by private unlawful violence and threats.”

The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg complained that the registry completely ignores the possibility of rehabilitation. “Offenders cannot shorten their registration or notification period, even on the clearest demonstration of rehabilitation or conclusive proof of physical incapacitation,” Ginsberg wrote. “However plain it may be that a former sex offender poses no threat of recidivism he will remain subject to long-term monitoring and inescapable humiliation.”

The American Law Institute, authors of the Model Penal Code, an independent organization consisting of thousands of lawyers, judges and scholars, recently concluded a nearly ten-year process to help guide states in updating their laws, making positive recommendations for reform to the sex offender registry.

The Supreme Court’s decision 20 years ago has led states to implement increasingly onerous laws that feed the public’s fear of people who commit sexual offenses while at the same time doing nothing to enhance public safety. Decades of data show unequivocally that the sex offender registry is a failed social experiment. It’s time for a new paradigm in sex offender policies, one that considers real studies by real scientists.

John Covert is with Arizonans for Rational Sex Offense Laws, ARSOL

SOURCE: Arizona Capitol Times 

In 2016, North Carolina for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NCRSOL) was created as a voice calling for a meaningful discussion about the harmful cause and effects of sex offender registries. While most of our members are active registered voters, we often witness an ex post facto of judicial partisanship turning back the clock and taking away voting rights from citizens that ought to have a constitutional right. 

Even as the rising American electorate gains momentum, new regressive laws, rulings, and maneuvers are threatening voting rights without facing the strict scrutiny that would come with an affirmative right to vote in the Constitution. 

In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), stripping the Justice Department of the powers it had for five decades to curb racial discrimination in voting. The Election Assistance Commission was left without commissioners for years and frequently faces bills in Congress that would end its existence entirely. Many schools skip civics education, contributing to the decline in voter turnout in local and primary elections.

Enshrining an explicit right to vote in the Constitution would guarantee the voting rights of every citizen of voting age, ensure that every vote is counted correctly, and defend against attempts to effectively disenfranchise eligible voters. It would empower Congress to enact minimum electoral standards to guarantee a higher degree of legitimacy, inclusivity, and consistency across the nation, and give our courts the authority to keep politicians in check when they try to game the vote for partisan reasons.

The Constitution has been amended 27 times. Excluding the Bill of Rights, 7 of the last 17 constitutional amendments have dealt directly with expanding the franchise and improving the way citizens vote. 

While the U.S. Constitution bans the restriction of voting based on race, sex and age, it does not explicitly and affirmatively state that all U.S. citizens have a right to vote. The Supreme Court ruled in Bush v. Gore in 2000 that citizens do not have the right to vote for electors for president. States control voting policies and procedures, and as a result, we have a patchwork of inconsistent voting rules run independently by 50 states, 3,067 counties and over 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal. 

Approximately 5 million Americans convicted of felonies who have already completed their sentences are permanently disenfranchised. Fourteen states do not have an automatic restoration process in place for returning citizens who have completed their sentences. Some states like Florida leave re-enfranchisement decisions to the discretion of public officials, discretion which could be exercised arbitrarily or used for political gain.

However, it is not only ex-felons who face difficulty registering to vote. Americans living overseas have trouble registering in their home district, because their state may not consider them residents anymore. Many college students attempting to register at their college precinct have faced voter intimidation or were simply refused the ability to register to vote. Such obstacles are not only arbitrary, but in many cases politically motivated.

A Right to Vote Amendment will guarantee all American citizens at least 18 years of age a constitutionally protected individual right to vote. Much like the rights to speech and religion, a constitutionally protected right to vote will be difficult to limit without showing a strong need for the limitation to exist.

Voting should be a simple process in which any registered citizen can easily participate. However, this is not always the case. Voter identification and registration requirements, as well as the machines that voters use, vary widely between states. States and counties design their own ballots, pursue their own voter education, and have near-complete authority over their state voting policies and procedures. With over 10,000 different jurisdictions, voters and potential voters are much more likely to cast a counted vote in some states, some counties, and some areas of the country than others, simply based on the difference in standards for each election. Elections in many states are rife with lost and incorrectly counted votes, and many voters are incorrectly told that they cannot cast a ballot. 

Since voting is regulated by the states, there is little the national government can do if voters are intimidated or harassed at the polling booth. With the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision to strike down section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, and Congress’s unwillingness to act to restore key components of the Act, a Right to Vote Amendment is needed to further enforce voting rights.

At present, Congress can take no action to formally help improve voting standards across the nation. While the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, which passed in response to the voting fiasco of the 2000 presidential elections, does establish some standards including a provisional ballot, states are not required to follow these policies. The only way to ensure that every vote is counted and that electors follow the will of the people of their state is to create a constitutionally protected right to vote. The Right to Vote Amendment will give Congress the authority to protect the individual right to vote and oversee voting policies and procedures to ensure that elections are fair, accurate and efficient.

In 2017, U.S. House Members Mark Pocan, among a number of other co-sponsors, has shown great leadership in introducing House Joint Resolution 74 (H.J. Res. 74), a bill that would establish an explicit right to vote in the Constitution. However, the bill died without ever having a chance to move forward. Congress has a duty to protect the democracy of all Americans by creating constitutional amendment that allows voting rights for all. It should read something similar to this: 

SECTION 1. Every citizen of the United States, who is of legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides.

SECTION 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.

Only with a constitutional amendment with easy-to-read language will citizens and the courts understand that we can finally put who can or cannot vote to rest. 

ACADEMIC PAPERS

• The International Status of the Right to Vote, by Alexander Kirshner, provides an overview of the right to vote in countries around the world and how laws are interpreted
• The political and organizational dynamics of constitutional suffrage movements in U.S. history: The experience behind the 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th and 26th amendments, by Alex Keyssar, Kennedy School of Government 
• Election Reform and the Right to Vote, by Anita S. Earls, Director of Advocacy, UNC Center For Civil Rights, explains the limits of HAVA and what Congress can do to establish a right to vote.
• A Right To Vote Amendment To The Constitution: Confronting America’s Structural Democracy Deficit, by Jamie Raskin, Professor of Law, American University, Washington College of Law – Includes a discussion of the impact of states constitutional provisions of the right to vote; impact of different formulations of the right-to-vote amendment; and whether a right to vote vote amendment might provide a legal means to pursue reforms such as election day registration.
• A legislative and national political strategy for a right-to-vote amendment during the 2004 presidential election and beyond, by Steve Cobble, Institute for Policy Studies
• The Constitutional Right to Vote, by Ron Walters calls for a right to vote amendment by detailing the problems that minorities faced in the last election.
• Why Americans Need a Constitutional Right to Vote for Presidential Electors, by Demetrios James Caraley, discusses the legal implications of a system that does not constitutionally guarantee the right to vote.

HISTORY OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE

Throughout the history of the United States, voting rights have been expanded repeatedly by Constitutional Amendments and legislation. When the Constitution was written, most of the Framers did not believe in universal suffrage. However, as we have progressed as a society, traditionally disenfranchised groups, including women and racial minorities, have received voting rights through Constitutional Amendments. Of the 17 Amendments ratified since the Bill of Rights in 1791, seven have expanded voter eligibility or increased democratic participation. Enshrining an affirmative Right to Vote in the Constitution would be one more step toward universal suffrage and equal voting rights for all.

“We’re here to address some of those collateral consequences, to ask our legislators to believe in our ability to change, to hold space for our ability to transform our lives and to provide ourselves a chance at good footing to have a second chance in our lives,” Kristie Puckett Williams with the North Carolina Second Chance Alliance said.

Puckett Williams was among several speakers who gathered outside in Downtown Raleigh to discuss the challenges and barriers that people face after they spend time in jail or prison.

“I’m a recovering drug addict and a survivor of severe substance abuse. My story is of redemption, restoration and hope and that people who suffer from drug addiction, from trauma, can restore their lives, can return to full healthy lives, and we need to return to full citizenship,” Puckett Williams, who has three felony convictions on her record in the state of North Carolina, said.

Dwayne Daughtry, a lobbyist and Executive Director of North Carolina for Rational Sexual Offense Law, was among other organizations in support of second chances for all who hoped to spread awareness and express concerns of how state laws unfairly target and impact people on the sex offender registry.

Bishop William J. Barber II, a social activist and President of Repairers of the Breach, was also among several speakers that helped energize crowds and tout a message that second chances for all are essential to reintegration to communities all across America.

“We’re all flawed people, but there’s a point where you can get released from your past. These are people who have paid their debt to society, and they want to be full citizens in this democracy,” he said.

At one point, the large crowd headed inside to hold a press conference and directly talk to North Carolina lawmakers. Several residents expressed concerns about a recent court ruling that ended voting rights for some people with criminal convictions. Organizers also hoped to support ending the harmful use of mugshots, expanding criminal record relief, ending debt-based driver’s license suspensions and eliminating/reducing criminal court fines and fees.

Additionally, Senator Julie Mayfield of Senate District 49 said she is committed to second chance issues and breaking down some of the barriers. Mayfield said she recently introduced Senate Bill 730, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Benefits Bill to eliminate waiting periods and bans on services.

“Everybody says we want these folks to be productive, want them to stay out of the criminal justice system, and yet there are so many barriers to them doing that,” Mayfield said.

With support, Mayfield said she is hopeful that the bill will pass.

Puckett Williams said it meant a lot to see so much support on Tuesday.

“Oftentimes, people living with criminal convictions don’t participate and are locked out of the political process. We are showing people that we are people who are interested in what’s happening politically, that we care about our community and we are going to be here and want to be addressed,” Puckett Williams said.

In 2009, Robert Suttle was convicted in Louisiana of illegally exposing someone to HIV without their consent. In most other parts of the country, Suttle would only need to live with a conviction on his record. But Louisiana is one of a handful of states that forces those convicted of such a charge to register as sex offenders, a label that carries life-altering shame and stigma. Suttle has since moved to New York, but the designation still haunts him. He sued to remove the label, but the state’s lower courts have thus far held that Suttle must remain on the registry, even though New York has no HIV-specific criminal laws.

But now, Suttle has asked the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, to invalidate a law he says unfairly criminalizes people with HIV. In November, an attorney representing Suttle filed leave to appeal, castigating the lower court’s decision to keep Suttle on the sex offender registry.

“The decision permits, if not requires, New York courts to enforce laws of foreign jurisdictions through SORA, no matter how unconstitutional or contrary to New York’s laws and policies,” the brief states. “It specifically undermines the constitutional and statutory mandates that HIV+ persons have a right to privacy in their status.”

In a phone interview, Suttle told The Appeal that the onerous requirements that come with being forced to register as a sex offender have added significant hurdles to his life.

“It’s almost like they just throw you into this situation and just throw away the key, and there’s nobody there to really explain to you, which is what the system just doesn’t do anyway,” Suttle said. He added later: “I’ve been just trying to hang in there, with the hopes that I will be able to sort of move beyond this and really go out and get the things that I want in life.” Suttle told The Appeal in September the charges stemmed from a brief relationship in the early 2000s.

Across the country, HIV-related criminal laws have come under increased scrutiny as science on HIV—and its prevention—have advanced. Highly effective HIV-preventative drugs have proliferated. Medicine regimens can now prevent people living with HIV from passing the virus to their partners.

Legal experts have also argued that such laws, known as “HIV criminalization” laws, disproportionately impact Black and brown people living with HIV, target LGBTQ people in particular, and violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Center for HIV Law and Policy (CHLP), a nonprofit that advocates for the rights of people with HIV, said as much in a December brief to the New York Court of Appeals in support of Suttle. In the filing, CHLP attorney Jada Akers argued that both Louisiana’s HIV criminal statute and New York’s treatment of Suttle contravene the ADA.

“The NY Courts cannot just collectively bury their heads in the sand and ignore the fact that the underlying Louisiana conviction for which Mr. Suttle has to now register as a sex offender in New York is clearly due to a discriminatory law,” Akers wrote in the brief.

Louisiana is one of 14 states that have repealed or amended their HIV-related criminal statutes in the past decade. Texas was the first in 1994. Last year, New Jersey became the third state to repeal its HIV criminal statute fully. That law, while enacted, let prosecutors charge people who did not report their HIV status to sexual partners.

In 2014, the New York State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders decided that Suttle had to register as a sex offender due to his conviction in Louisiana.

Suttle challenged that decision in court, but a state appeals court unanimously ruled in October that the board had decided correctly. Now that Suttle has brought his case to the New York Court of Appeals, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office—which previously said it would not fight Suttle’s efforts—has filed briefs opposing him.

In a brief filed in court, Assistant District Attorney Kelly Fulham wrote that, while the Manhattan DA’s office opposes the law impacting Suttle, prosecutors were legally bound to enforce it.

“People support a legislative amendment to the foreign registration provision that would remove the registration requirement in circumstances like these,” she wrote. “Under the statute as currently enacted, however, the Board’s determination that [Suttle] must register is consistent with [state law].”

In an emailed statement to The Appeal, a spokesperson from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office said prosecutors’ hands are tied. The spokesperson said that the office does not support HIV criminalization but, due to the “confines of the law,” has no choice other than to oppose Suttle.

The spokesperson added that the DA’s office previously sent a proposal to the state legislature to change the law and prevent people like Suttle from being forced into these situations.

But legal experts from CHLP hit back at the DA Office’s claims. Kae Greenberg, a staff attorney at CHLP, told The Appeal that prosecutors should have “the courage to take a potentially unpopular stand in the midst of a political minefield,” since removing Suttle from the offender registry is “in the interest of justice.”

And, given the ongoing national rise in anti-LGBTQ hatred, Greenberg said the DA’s present position is a treacherous one to take.

“Currently, as other statutes that are still on the books in other states criminalizing abortion come back in full force, as states rush to criminalize drag shows and gender-affirming care, the ‘my hands are tied’ argument is a dangerous one to be made by an elected official tasked with promoting the safety of all New Yorkers,” he said.

Source: The Appeal

Being on the state child abuse registry can impact someone’s career for their whole life — even barring them from jobs that have nothing to do with children, the lawsuit charges. It also can restrict their ability to adopt or parent, according to the complaint filed last week in state Superior Court.

The plaintiff, identified as K.C., is asking a judge to declare lifetime registration without a chance for removal unconstitutional and to terminate his registration. The lawsuit names Attorney General Matt Platkin and state Department of Children and Families Commissioner Christine Norbut Beyer as defendants. DCF’s Child Abuse Record Information (CARI) unit oversees the registry.

Attorney James H. Maynard represents K.C., now 42, who landed on the registry 25 years ago for a sexual offense involving a sibling that occurred when both were children.

Lifetime registration requirements ignore that recidivism risks fall over time, Maynard told the New Jersey Monitor.

“Lifetime registries are wrong,” he said. “They’re wrong based on the science and they’re wrong based on the reality that risk is not static. It is dynamic. Risk declines over time in virtually all cases, but the CARI registry is for life with no right of review, and no process for removal.”

A Beyer spokesperson declined to comment.

New Jersey created its first child abuse registry in 1971, and legislators have expanded it several times since then.

Now, a CARI check can disqualify someone from a job — even at workplaces where there are no children, such as drug treatment — mental health and jail diversion programs, and health care services for geriatric and developmentally disabled adults, according to the lawsuit.

And while crimes committed as a juvenile don’t show up on criminal background checks, they do appear on CARI checks, according to the complaint.

K.C. is a counselor who has worked in adult psychiatric care but has withdrawn from his bids for promotions and new job opportunities, afraid a CARI check would reveal his childhood offense, according to the lawsuit.

He’s single and childless and would like to adopt someday, but his inclusion on the child abuse registry is “akin to a ‘Scarlet Letter,’” implies he’s dangerous, and reduces the likelihood he will be approved as an adoptive parent, the lawsuit charges.

“We need to be very careful if we’re going to employ registries as a means of social organization,” Maynard said. “We need to make sure that they don’t inappropriately infringe on people’s rights, and that they are not permanent or without right of review and removal.”

The lawsuit also seeks more transparency around the child abuse registry, which isn’t publicly accessible the way the Megan’s Law registry for sex offenders is. People who don’t contest their placement on the child abuse registry within 20 days are denied access afterward to the state’s records on their case, according to the complaint.

“Once they put you on it, you can’t even see what’s in your file. You can’t have a lawyer review it. You can’t get it and review it yourself,” Maynard said. “Everyone deserves to have the right to review what the CARI registry has relating to them, and to present evidence that they no longer pose a risk for the same or similar conduct.”

Registration on the child abuse registry is lifelong, even though courts have trended toward leniency for juvenile offenders in recognition of brain research that shows people don’t fully mature until their mid-20s.

In April 2018, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that people convicted of sex crimes they committed as children can petition to get off the lifelong Megan’s Law registry if they commit no new crimes for 15 years. K.C. successfully petitioned to be removed from the Megan’s Law registry in December 2018, according to his lawsuit.

Reformers have been fighting to exempt juveniles from sex offender registries altogether.

Advocates calling for change say this is a racial justice issue because research has shown both sex offender registries and child abuse registries disproportionately impact people of color.

A spokesperson for Platkin didn’t respond to a request for comment. 

As part of the settlement, the county agreed to pay damages of $2,500 each to the plaintiffs ― sex offenders Charles Munsey Jr., Vincent Rinaldi and Charles Violi ― plus pay $150,000 for plaintiffs’ attorney fees.

The lawsuit filed in January 2022 in U.S. District Court was triggered by a 2006 Brevard County ordinance that, with some exceptions, prohibits people on the sex offender registry from being within 1,000 feet of a school, day care center, park or playground. Violators are subject to up to 60 days in jail and up to a $500 fine.

Because the Brevard County Government Center in Viera is within 1,000 feet of a school — and the ordinance had no exceptions for attending public meetings — sex offenders were prohibited from attending County Commission meetings.

Legal action filed: 3 Brevard County registered sex offenders file federal lawsuit against county

The lawsuit alleged that, because of this, the county violated the First Amendment and Florida’s Government in the Sunshine Law.

After the lawsuit was filed, the County Commission changed the rule to allow an exception for attending commission meetings. But the lawsuit continued, until the plaintiffs and the county agreed to the settlement.

Appearing before commission: Registered sex offenders address county commission after rule changed to allow them

In commenting on the settlement, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney in the case, Ray Taseff of the Florida Justice Institute, said: “We’re happy that the Brevard County government is now truly open to everyone. Cities and counties should take note that they cannot restrict who attends their public meetings.”

Taseff added that “it is quite unfortunate that this lawsuit had to be filed in the first place.”

Another attorney for the plaintiffs in the case, Jessica Travis of the law firm DefendBrevard.com, said: “It is important that every single citizen be able to address their elected officials, regardless of who they are or what their background may be.”

Taseff noted that, before the County Commission carved out an exception for its meetings, the plaintiffs could not even address commissioners when the commission in 2020 was considering making sex offender ordinances more restrictive by barring offenders from entering within 1,000 feet of businesses where children typically congregate, a proposal that commissioners approved.

Brevard County Communications Director Don Walker said the county would have no comment on the settlement other than saying the payments of the legal fees and the payment to the plaintiffs would be covered by insurance.

After the County Commission modified the ordinance in March 2022 to allow sex offenders to come to County Commission meetings, the plaintiffs attended a May 17, 2022, meeting. During the public comment period, they spoke about how the remainder of the ordinance negatively affects their lives, such as restricting their ability to take loved ones to the hospital or attend events with their grandchildren.

By settling the lawsuit, the case did not go to trial, and no formal judicial ruling was issued.