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.

Attorney General Josh Stein has had since 2017 to address sex offender issues and sheltering during hurricanes, yet hasn’t produced one memo or suggestion on how to resolve the issue. According to Mr. Stein’s election website promoting priorities of public safety, “To live our lives to the fullest, we must first be safe and secure at home and in our communities.” Mr. Stein doesn’t intend to live up to addressing safety for all since registrants are still banned from all hurricane shelters primarily because they are facilitated on school properties.

Mr. Stein should be reminded that people on the registry have been adjudicated in court for their past wrongdoings. Mr. Stein shouldn’t use the registry as punishment and banishment from basic essential needs and accesses to safety. However, this is exactly what the Attorney General continues to do each hurricane season.

But let’s not put the Attorney General in front of the bus just yet. Our legislative leadership should share some blame in this issue. The N.C. legislature has had nearly a decade to fix the law banning registrants from shelters on school properties. Since 2011, not one bill has been introduced on the house or senate floor to address the state of emergency conditions for registrants and their families.

But while N.C. Governor Roy Cooper stands in front of microphones requesting federal funding to mitigate an approaching hurricane, he also shares a tremendous responsibility of not addressing registrants at emergency shelter issues during his long tenure as Attorney General before he became elected to the states highest office.

It is time for state leaders to take a moment and think of the bigger picture. People on the registry are human beings that paid their price in court. However, people on the registry continue to be the “fear selling modern-day boogie man” used as pawns during elections. Enough is enough! Either we address the most challenging task today, or we will never address the issue at all. Registrants are humans and deserve the same benefits of safety as other humans. Registrants should have the right to unrestricted safety, security, and emergency shelter needs. Now is the time to call your state leaders and make your voice heard. Also, make your voice heard on election day. Vote, and vote for those that listen to your needs and concerns.

The bottom line is that the Governor, Legislature, and Attorney General since elected in 2017 could have addressed this issue, but didn’t. By the looks of things doesn’t seem interested in working hard for the people of North Carolina.

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?