She lists off the offenses that could put a person on a public list of social outcasts widely seen as pedophiles, predators and rapists:

You could be a sex offender if you go to a prostitute. You could be a sex offender if you urinate in public. You could be a sex offender if you go streaking. You could be a sex offender if you touch a stripper. You could be a sex offender if you dated a 15-year-old when you were 19-years-old.

What’s worse, “there are a lot of wrongful convictions in sex cases. A lot of wrongful accusations,” says William Dobbs, lawyer and civil libertarian based out of New York City.

Skenazy and Dobbs want sex offender registries eliminated in the United States. And they’re not alone. Although the vast majority of the American public supports the idea of using registries to keep a close eye on sex offenders, there are voices rising in opposition, saying that sex offender registries are ineffective and often horribly cruel.

The original goal of publishing a list of sex criminals was to protect communities. Parents who worried about the safety of their little ones could pull up a map of sex offenders in their area, and feel more secure knowing which neighbor was more likely to give their kid roofie-laced Halloween candy.

But the maps served the opposite purpose. Instead of feeling more secure, parents freaked out. They’d find that they’re surrounded by sexual deviants — that each dot on the map represents a sex offender, and their map is more speckled than a Jackson Pollock painting.

“It makes you think everyone who’s a dot raped a baby. It makes you think anyone convicted of a sex offense is a fiendish, depraved, child-pouncing predator who when given the chance will drag your child into the bushes,” Skenazy says.

Read the rest of this article on Rooster.

If you have any compassion for your fellow man, or any concern for civil rights, human rights and justice, it behooves you to read David Feige’s well-timed op-ed column (New York Times, Sept. 12, 2017) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/opinion/when-junk-science-about-sex-offenders-infects-the-supreme-court.html and to view the accompanying eight minute video which addresses the distorted stereotyping of citizens labeled as sex offenders as well as the concomitant explosion of sex offender legislation https://narsol.org/2017/09/breaking-the-frightening-and-high-myth/. 

It is unfathomable that the highest Court in our nation relied on false information by which to support sex offender legislation. Support of such legislation, based on fear and inaccurate information over and above actual facts, is an affront to human rights, human decency, and to the livelihoods of our nation’s registered citizens and their families.

Mr. Feige emphasizes that in the coming months new cases before our highest court provide ample opportunity for re-examination of real evidence and real data. It follows that our state (and others) should do the same. Reliance by our highest Court on the falsehoods of an article published in a 1986 edition of Psychology Today (e.g. that recidivism rates of sex offenders are “frightening and high”), and to base laws on this falsehood is, by itself, perverse and ominous. There is numerous reputable research indicating that sex offender recidivism rates are quite low; on average about 3%. To base our nation’s laws on this “junk science,” to devastate a person’s ability to live in the community, to hold a job, and to provide a livelihood for himself and family, all these things are an affront to human decency, and no less our Constitution.

In re-examining sex offender registration laws, the Supreme Court and North Carolina must ask: What evidence exists to support them as valid and effective? Who are they for? Do they really keep children safer? What impact do they have on our citizens, our communities, and our businesses? Is there a political agenda here? Anyone who professes to legislate on behalf of our children’s safety is likely to get a vote, but fear-based laws based on false information, steeped in hysteria and ignorance, do more harm than good. We have only to look at Japanese internment camps during World War II for an example of how hysteria corrupts sound, constitutional law.

North Carolina doesn’t really have to wait for the Supreme Court to rights its wrong. It’s time our state set a good example for the nation to follow. We don’t need another HB2, another Packingham, or another Does v. Cooper to force us to do the right thing. North Carolina can reform its image, and, more importantly, take the higher ground by deciding to set a precedence of inclusiveness, by respecting the rights of all its citizens, and by allowing people who have committed crimes the opportunity to reintegrate and rejoin our communities as they demonstrate adherence to just and rational laws. Ostracization and exclusion only serve to breed more crime and dependence, not growth or productivity.

It’s my fervent hope that next September, the North Carolina Mountain State Fair will welcome ALL the citizens of North Carolina to celebrate the wondrous bounties of its state. As abundant flowers draw the honey bee, laws that promote civil rights and human dignity foster growth and resilience.