Sex offenders in particular are seldom given the nuance and rehabilitation we afford to other people with criminal histories. Their lives are forever affected by the convictions they carry, just like other people convicted of crimes. But unlike some others, they face additional punishment at the hands of the state, even after they’ve served their time. In North Carolina, residents who are registered sex offenders . . .  are not allowed to attend any agricultural fair, including the N.C. State Fair underway in Raleigh. . . . .

Laws like this come from an understandable desire to protect people, particularly children. The reality is that it’s a difficult law to enforce that does not differentiate between varying degrees of sex crimes, or take into consideration the everyday situations that are most responsible for childhood sexual abuse. Advocates for sex offenders see it as an extra burden that is not applied to other offenders with criminal records of violence. “It’s egregious and outrageous. It’s overkill,” Robin Vander Wall, president of North Carolina Association for Rational Sex Offense Law, said in a press release. “This is a matter of fundamental fairness and equal protection under both the state and federal constitutions.”   . . .

[U]nder the law, people convicted of crimes must serve their punishments. Once those punishments are fulfilled, they should be allowed to re-enter society. That’s how it works for other criminal offenses, and it’s the best way to reduce the number of people who re-offend. Even people convicted of manslaughter or assault are allowed to return to society and try to be better people. We don’t ban them from the fair.

Read the full  piece here at the News and Observer.

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 post I wrote dealing with one of these elicited much interest and a high number of comments. This is largely due to their policy, by no means unique to them, of excluding those on sex offender registries.

Articles of other, similar situations have crossed my desk, and using the criteria of a Christian-based ministry and one that excludes those on the registry, these are the first four.

The Allied Churches Shelter in Burlington, North Carolina: “No matter what, sex offenders can’t be taken in because of children at the shelter.”

I placed a phone called and determined that North Carolina state law, though convoluted and confusing, forbids the presence of a registered sex offender in any place intended for the primary use of children even if children are not present and almost any public place at all if children are present. State law also makes it a crime for a minister (or anyone else) to knowingly allow a registrant to worship in the church if a child is on the premises. (See N.C.G.S. 14-208.18 and 14-208.11(A)a, respectively)

The House of Hope Shelter in Danville, Virginia: “Those who stay at House of Hope must not be registered sex offenders or wanted by law enforcement.”

I spoke with Steven Anderson, the director, who said that their shelter is next door to a school and state law forbids anyone on the registry from being there. He said there are women and children staying at the shelter, and it isn’t a good idea for them to be there. I tried to question him on this point and was told that it’s not going to change, no matter what.

Positive Avenues in Eau Claire, Wisconsin: “…registered sex offenders are not allowed at Positive Avenues because children often stay there.”

I left a telephone message and have not yet received a call-back.

The Ministry Center Warming Station in Conway, Arkansas:  “Peden [the center’s manager] emails the Conway Police Department to check for active warrants and to ensure none of the guests are registered sex offenders. ‘They haven’t had to come pick anybody up yet,’ Peden said.”

I also have not received a return call from my message left there.

I understand that in most if not all cases, the policies in place are officially the result of state laws governing those who are registered sex offenders. Nevertheless, I would pose these questions for those responsible for implementing the policies.

Where would you draw the line? What if the state said you cannot take anyone who has ever been convicted of any charge that resulted from the death of another person? Or anyone ever convicted of arson? Or of domestic violence? Or armed robbery? Or, since the presence of children seems to drive the policies, of child neglect?

How do you reconcile your acceptance of the current policy with the answer you give yourself if you ask what Christ would do? Did he minister to all except those who engaged in sexual sin? Did he accept the law of the state in all cases, or did he try to show the leaders of the day that people were more important than man-made laws and that “Love your neighbor” means everyone, especially those most shunned by society?

Does not this serious violation of the separation of church and state bother you? Does the state have the right to dictate how you practice your faith and serve your fellowman?

And finally, if there were no such state law, would you open your shelters to all the homeless and needy, including those on a sex offender registry? Would you at least accept them with the same criteria and the same guidelines for safety that you use for everyone else?

Or would you find another reason to exclude those who, in emergency situations, when life and death are often at stake, need your help more than any other?

That includes parents of students at the schools if they are on the sex offender registry.

The proposed policy permits parents on the registry to participate in parent-teacher conferences, provided they receive advance written approval of the school’s principal. Parents can also come to campus at the request of the principal “for any reason relating to the welfare or transportation of his or her child.”

There is also an exception for voters assigned to a precinct at a school, but the person must inform the principal in advance of their intent to vote and leave immediately after completing a ballot.

The Johnston County Board of Education will vote on the policy at its September 12 meeting.

“There have been no issues. This is just a proactive stance on the part of the Johnston County Public Schools Board of Education. We’ve always followed general statute. This particular policy just strengthens our practice, and it provides clearer guidelines for our principals,” JCPS Chief of Communications Crystal Roberts said.

In order to make one of the approved campus visits, parents on the registry would be required to meet a staff member at the edge of the school property and be supervised during the duration of their time at school.

“I think it’s a great policy to put in effect, but how am I supposed to know that it’s actually being enforced,” elementary school parent Takeyah Nelson said.

“If I bring my child to the park, I don’t know that Tom over there is a sex offender. I don’t know that Regina over there is a child abductor. How are you going to enforce it?”

Roberts said registered sex offenders are supposed to self-disclose their status. She said principals and school staff are also familiar with their students’ families and will probably be aware if there is a violator on school property.

See the rest of this story at WNCN.

RALEIGH, N.C. (WNCN) —The North Carolina chapter of Reform Sex Offender Laws (RSOL) is speaking out against the new law banning registered sex offenders from attending the North Carolina State Fair. The State Fair is now underway and will run through Oct. 23.

The group said in a press release that “For the first time since 1891, thousands of North Carolina citizens and taxpayers are legally prohibited from attending the annual State Fair.”

The group compared the sex offender ban to when African-Americans were banned from the fair up until the early twentieth century. The group said the fair was not fully integrated until 1965 with the creation of “Colored days.”

NCRSOL believes that the premises statute (N.C.G.S. § 14-208.18) passed by the North Carolina General Assembly is a violation of sex offenders’ civil rights.

Sen. Buck Newton (R-Wilson) introduced the bill to ban sex offenders who have been identified as threats to children from places like arcades, parks and swimming pools.

Gov. Pat McCrory signed “Jessica’s Law” on July 21.

The law is named after Jessica Lunsford. She was from Gastonia, but moved to Florida, where she was abducted and murdered by a registered sex offender in 2005.

“Jessica’s Law” is more specific, and outlines restrictions for registered sex offenders whose victims were under 18.

“The bill clarifies that certain sex offenders are prohibited from any place where minors frequently congregate. Including, libraries, arcades, amusement parks, recreational parks, and swimming pools,” McCrory said at the time.

The state had a similar law passed in 2009, but that law that also banned sex offenders from places children gather was ruled unconstitutionally broad by a federal court in April. The state appealed the ruling.

Newton said at the time of the appeal that the state would maintain the 2009 law if the appeal is successful.

The group said that the law bans “registered sex offenders who have served their criminal sentences and fulfilled all their probation or post-release supervision obligations.”

The new law “simply goes too far. It’s egregious and outrageous. It’s overkill,” said Robin Vanderwall, president of NCRSOL. “[Officials] know full well that there is not, and never has been, a problem with registered sex offenders attending the State Fair.”

Source: http://wncn.com/2016/10/13/sex-offender-law-reform-group-calls-ban-on-registered-offenders-at-nc-state-fair-outrageous/