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.

JACOB SULLUM — This Sunday marks the 20th anniversary of Smith v. Doe, a Supreme Court decision that approved the retroactive application of Alaska’s sex offender registry, deeming it preventive rather than punitive. That ruling helped propagate several pernicious myths underlying a policy that every state has adopted without regard to its justice or effectiveness.

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 percent.

Studies covering longer periods find higher recidivism rates but still nothing remotely like 80 percent, 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.

Many citizens know the Miranda v. Arizona case, where police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning. An appearance at a local sheriff’s office that is supposed to be a verification check turns into a line of police questioning. There are no Miranda rights presented to the registry community. Instead, it is quite the opposite effect. Police use an open-warrant tactic to investigate a group of citizens that continually lose rights at every in-person visit.

The right to remain silent doesn’t appear to be an option for people on the registry in North Carolina. Registrants often complain to NCRSOL about deputies who pepper them with questions unrelated to an in-person appearance requirement. Instead, the in-person condition quickly escalates, becoming an investigatory moment for police to ask anything they want, where civil rights are completely ignored. Those that do attempt to challenge deputies are promptly threatened with a non-compliance arrest. Registrants are often dominated or mentally and emotionally drained to comply, only to have the same police tactics repeated in another six months or ninety days.

Perhaps the state’s culprit of registry conditions is how the registry is managed. There are one hundred counties in the state, with an elected sheriff in each county. However, one hundred county law enforcement chiefs of the registry equate to one hundred different opinions on managing a statewide regulatory scheme. Additionally, the registry has no formalized intake or duplicative measures on paper. Each county creates its version of unofficial forms, making them appear official without any disclaimers of consequences.

Another culprit of spending waste is the certified letter standard on how registrants are informed. In-person registry letters are delivered by certified mail to every active registrant in the state. Registrants sign a postal release and then take the same document to the sheriff’s office to sign again. Is this practical? COVID and postal deliveries were met with many registrants complaining to NCRSOL of certified mail not being delivered or constructively placed back in the postal system as undeliverable without question, which triggered an investigation where Miranda was entirely ignored.

Lastly, another issue is where deputies perform home checks of registrants. Deputies have been known to appear at registrants’ homes knocking on doors in the early hours of the morning or dark hours of the night to verify a registrant. However, police begin questioning the validity of the person that answers the door or will wait until a person appears to make an unnecessary verification and a waste of valuable police resources.

The state registry isn’t a true statewide managed program. It is an outsourced multitudinous policing experiment supervised by political, social, and personal leadership influences inflicting more harm to civil rights than its intended purpose of protecting the general public. The time has come for the state’s registry to end unnecessary in-person appearances that primarily are used as a tool for unconstitutional police questioning and snap investigations.

We should be able to live in a state where we trust those that protect and serve our communities. But equally, citizens without probationary requirements should be able to live in peace without superfluous police knock searches and in-person examinations.

The bill, proposed by Senator Vickie Sawyer from the 34^th district, would clarify that the 1,000-foot residency exclusion zones surrounding schools and childcare facilities must be measured from property line to property line, rather than the property address or structure. This clarification would significantly increase the residence restrictions in many communities around the state, including cities like Charlotte and Raleigh, where people on the sex offense registry are already excluded from half of the available residences.

Although this legislation appears to focus on a technicality, it requires further scrutiny. The introduction of SB 52 is an important opportunity to begin a conversation about how to effectively manage the myriad circumstances of those on the sex offense registry list.

One-size-fits-all lawmaking is not working. Study after study shows that the current approach is ineffective yet fear and judgment have driven legislators on both sides of the aisle. Lawmakers should base their votes on sound research rather than emotional reasoning.

Legislation like SB 52 creates an illusion of public safety but would in fact increase the likelihood of recidivism among people on the registry by drastically limiting their housing options and pushing them into homelessness. In addition, such laws further racial inequity in the criminal justice system.

“Residency restrictions are ineffective in promoting public safety but create extreme hardships for people on the sex offense registry, including a disproportionate number of Black North Carolinians,” said Daniel Bowes, attorney and project director of the Fair Chance Criminal Justice Project at the North Carolina Justice Center. “For example, in Iredell County where Senator Sawyer resides, Black people make up just 12 percent of the general population but more than 30 percent of sex offense registrants.”

In turn, SB 52 would also push hundreds of people out of their homes and make it hard for many others to comply because of difficulty ascertaining property lines. Ultimately, this legislation relies on fear tactics, does not improve public safety, and is harmful to those working to reenter society. It’s time to begin a new conversation about this issue.

Source: ncjustice.org

I occasionally write articles about things that are hitting me at the moment.  I found that as I made my daily commute to work, so many things would enter my mind.  I would literally hold my phone, hit the record button, and just talk out my thoughts.  These thoughts eventually became an article.  This was so therapeutic to me.  2020 is a year unlike any other.  I am no longer making my commute and have spent more time inside my house in the last ten months than I have in the last 15 years!

Does that mean the things of the world aren’t bothering me?  No.  Does that mean I am any less annoyed with the absurd laws and treatment of people on the registry?  Heck-to-the-NO!  Does that mean I have no complaints about the registry?  Absolutely not.  I have no idea why my thoughts aren’t stirring me up, getting me fired up to write and convince you to talk actions.  I have turned off the television far more than I used to.  I am sick to death of the news – and I’m pretty sure they are highly responsible for the reasons I get so wound up.  I just needed a break.

But as I sit here today thinking about the break I “needed,” I realize I can’t really afford to take that break.  If we stop pushing for positive change, if we all stop to take breaks, the lawmakers will continue making unconstitutional laws.  Those decisions usually have far more serious impacts than our lawmakers realize at the time they are clicking in their Yes /No votes before moving on to the next issue so they can close out their legislative session quickly.

Let’s be clear.  Supporting changes to the laws to help registrants and their families is NOT a popular campaign strategy.  It takes BOLDNESS to do what’s right rather than what gets you votes.  It takes BOLDNESS to slow down and learn the impacts of the registry.  It takes BOLDNESS to talk to colleagues and fellow lawmakers about taboo topics. It takes BOLDNESS to make common sense laws rather than quick-attention-getting laws.

What can you do right now, even a state of blah-ness like I am at the moment?  At a time when your motivation has waned?  At a time when you feel like all you can do is sit at home and wish 2020 away?  I’m starting my list….

1. Find the names of your Senator and House of Representative.
Email them – frequently.
Tell them stories.  Tell them what it is like to be on the Registry or a family member of the Registry.  Tell them your constitutional rights are impacted.  Tell them how this is double punishment (after serving time, after probation, and still on the registry).  Tell them the length of time on the registry.  Trust me – most have NO idea of these things.
2.  Join NCRSOL.  Read the newsletter.  Read the articles.
3.  Find 1 friend or family member to join NCRSOL and start reading the articles.  This isn’t just about membership drive – it’s about educating people with real-life examples of how the laws impact us.  We need people to stay current with the laws and the temperament of our legislators.
4.  Be bold!  Report situations to NCRSOL if you are being treated unfairly by employees, law enforcement, law makers, educators, etc.  We need to know about situations that are happening with people if they seem outside the boundaries of enforcement.  We need evidence of these situations.

You may be a registrant, but you are also a person.  You deserve fair treatment.  I will always, always, always say that if you are guilty of your charges, you must first focus on rehabilitation.  You CANNOT REOFFEND.  Period.  Make sure you’re working through treatment programs and dealing with that first.  Reoffending is the very issue any person in our society will latch on to.  If even ONE person is a recidivist (reoffender), then the assumption is that the thousands of registrants must be also.  That’s simply not the case.  Our lawmakers don’t know the statistics.  The public doesn’t know the statistics.  The media doesn’t know the statistics.  We do, and the recidivism rate is extremely low.  But it’s all about PERCEPTION.  The one reoffender WILL be published on the news and papers.  It will blow up into a big stink.  It will hurt every registrant and every family member by sheer perception of guilt.  So there’s my sermon, people.  DO. NOT. REOFFEND. EVER.

We must change the misconceptions about offenders.  We must educate people.  We must work towards fair treatment and reintegration into society.  The few volunteer leaders of NCRSOL cannot do it alone.  We need YOU.  We have seen so much growth in this organization in just a few years, but we can’t know what’s happening if you don’t share your stories with us.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. Be a Change Agent.  BE BOLD.
– Phoebe

States have rules and requirements for sworn officers to wear a badge and uniform. However, in North Carolina, many police and sheriffs departments are skirting uniformity standards by introducing relaxed clothing trends, making it often challenging to identify a police officer. Mostly, if police officers want respect, they should look respectful, professional, and wear the official uniform of the policing agency they represent.

The most disturbing trend is that police officers across the state have migrated toward a mixture of military-style camouflage patterns as a part of the policing uniform. Wearing a combat styled camouflage uniform should be left to our armed forces and not a police agency. However, once again, the badge, the patch, and distinguishing identifications that the person is a police officer are questionable and confusing. In some cases, officers wearing “alternative relaxed/casual” uniforms have been the center of investigations where citizens have been shot by an officer mistakenly assumed for a civilian perpetrator.

A reason for such a candid discussion is how officers across North Carolina often go door-to-door claiming to be performing sex offender compliance checks. While sheriffs checks at home are not a requirement under current law except when notifications have not been verified, deputies often appear at the doorsteps of registrants wearing a mishmash of unprofessional and questionable uniform standards. Who on earth would ever answer a door to someone you could not readily identify? If it doesn’t look like a uniformed police officer, perhaps you shouldn’t answer the door? Law enforcement is supposed to announce themselves or, at least, at a minimum look the part easily identified by a name tag and department issued badge. However, we are witnessing a transformation from a typical police officer into either a militarized or “casual Friday” uniform standard.

Registrants all across North Carolina have contacted NCRSOL regarding officers approaching registrants doors at either 6 AM or as late at 11 PM improperly dressed or not easy to identify as police officers. NARSOL and other advocacy organizations are keenly aware of vigilante groups wearing open-carry weapons dressed in tactical pants and a polo shirt that has either harassed or roughed-up registrants. There are plenty of news stories about “pretend police” and how they prey on the most vulnerable. Citizens on the registry are statistically the most vulnerable population because home information is typically available on the internet. Perhaps if the police would halt unnecessary and possibly unlawful compliance checks, there may be a restoration towards civility, safety for all, and improved relations between the community and law enforcement.

Safety is what police across our state should be providing. That safety begins with an easily identifiable uniform with a distinctive badge, nametag, and official police patch. While uniform standards inevitably change over time, the standards and appearances shouldn’t confuse the general public. If officers are going to knock and bang on registrants’ doors for questionable compliance checks, at least look the part so that registrants or family members may answer the door safely.

The bottom line is that police should wear the police duty uniform and stop pretending to be military members skirting a fine line of “stolen valor” or trying to be a fashion trend of casual Fridays. If police are to remain proud to serve its community, then officers should be proud enough to represent the municipality for the uniform standard that represents the people of that community. Otherwise, police have suggested for decades, “don’t open the door to strangers.”  Perhaps now is the time to heed that advice.

SORNA has an uncanny ability to disqualify registrants from seeking employment opportunities because of states that implement additional restriction laws or ordinances. Such methods are known as collateral consequences of the sex offender registry. 

Now that the COVID-19 virus pandemic is a present part of our lives, some registrants are asking if they qualify for funds from the stimulus package?  

For many registrants, the simple answer may be “yes!”. However, there are some steps to ensure those impacted by the registry receive stimulus funds promptly. This moment in our history may be the only period where those impacted by the registry are allowed to receive a federal benefit without being excluded. 

The IRS said the Treasury Department is developing a web-based portal for individuals to provide their banking information to the tax agency online. That will allow consumers to receive immediate payment instead of waiting for their checks to arrive in the mail. However, that portal isn’t yet available. 

The IRS said consumers should check this agency website for updated information about the stimulus payments. 

If I don’t provide direct deposit info, will my check be delayed?

According to media sources, some people without direct deposit information may not receive their checks until mid-August. The IRS will start making direct deposits in mid-April to those that have filed a 2018 and 2019 tax return provided they have included their banking information on the tax return by a return or refund method. 

Taxpayers that did not provide the IRS with banking information will receive paper checks. Those checks will be issued starting late August to early September.

I owe child support. Will that impact my check? 

Anyone owing child support will see a reduced check amount. But the average payout after garnishment should be around $700. 

I owe back taxes. Will that reduce my check?

No. The payments won’t be affected by taxes that you owe to the IRS or any other agency. 

I am behind on student loans. Will that impact my check?

No.

I am not required to file a tax return because I am not working. Will I receive a check? 

If you have not filed a 2018 or 2019 tax return, more than likely, you will not receive a stimulus check. However, you may quickly file a 2019 tax return so that the IRS will know where you live and where to mail a check. But you must file your 2019 tax return quickly!

Will Social Security, SSI, or disability recipients get a stimulus check even if they didn’t file taxes?

Yes. The Social Security Administration tracks their income and will be able to get their check or direct deposit to them. Disability recipients do not apply to those receiving benefits from Veterans Affairs. 

What if I am a disabled veteran drawing a compensation rating (i.e. 10% to 100%)? Will I get a check? 

If you filed a federal tax return the IRS is using the addresses or direct deposit information on file from Americans’ 2018 or 2019 tax returns. Therefore, if you filed a tax return, even if the amount was zero dollars earned, you will receive a stimulus check.  A majority of those tax filings will be a mailed check instead of direct deposit. 

If you did not file a tax return despite receiving a disability compensation rating you may not receive a stimulus check. But those receiving a veteran’s disability compensation rating do qualify to receive a stimulus payment. To correct this, you should immediately file a tax return as soon as possible to trigger the IRS to send you a stimulus check. 

U.S. Senators sent a letter to the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs, Treasury, and Social Security Administration pleading to fix this broken issue.

What if I do not give the IRS my banking information?

Some people without direct deposit information may not receive their checks until mid-August.

What if I moved? What will happen to my check if mailed?

The IRS will send payments to the last address known on file based on the most recent tax return. Checks are prohibited from being forwarded by postal authorities, even if there is a forwarding address on file with the post office. Unclaimed or wrong addresses will be returned to the IRS for reprocessing at a much later time. 

Can prison inmates or civil commitment people get a stimulus check?

No. They are dependents of the state. However, those at half-way home programs or jail awaiting trial qualify for payment. 

Prison (federal and state) inmates that erroneously receive any government incentive or stimulus based program could be forced to repay or garnished by the government from a 2009 federal ruling. In a majority of these cases, payments may be redirected towards restitution programs flagged by the government as a part of the court agreement.

I am on probation or the sex offender registry. Do I qualify for a stimulus check?

Yes. 

What if I do not have a banking account but qualify for the stimulus check?

You will receive a check by mail.

How will I know if I have a stimulus check in the mail or direct deposit?

Watch your mailbox for a letter from the IRS. For security reasons, the IRS plans to mail a letter about the economic impact payment to the taxpayer’s last known address within 15 days after the payment is paid. The letter will provide information on how the payment was made and how to report any failure to receive the payment. If a taxpayer is unsure they’re receiving a legitimate letter, the IRS urges taxpayers to visit IRS.gov first to protect against scam artists.

What is the deadline to file and pay federal income taxes?

July 15, 2020

Editors note: Originally published 4/2/2020. Updated 5 PM, 4/11/2020.  This article has been updated as new or changed information becomes available.  

“Every day I feel like I’m reliving my crime all over again,” Daughtry said. “When people talk to me, the first thing they want to hear about is what I did — not what I do or who I am.”

In 2011, Daughtry was charged with sexual battery — the only misdemeanor that leads to being listed as a sex offender. Other offenses that end with registration range from possession of child pornography to rape.

The federal government requires law enforcement to make the personal information of an offender — name, race, sex, height, weight, address, birthday, scars, marks, tattoos, eye and hair color — public.

Daughtry and more than 25,600 people are listed on North Carolina’s Sex Offender Registry. In 2019, just over 1,300 registrants were added, which is more than any other year in the last two decades.

Read the entire article by clicking here

Dear Mr./Ms. Lawmaker,

Thank you for your service to our state.  Thank you for the time and energy you put forth.  You ask to hear from your citizens, so I accept.  I want to support you.  I want to trust you to be fair and represent all citizens in the great state of NC.  It is with sadness that I express my disappointment at most of our lawmakers.  Not all, mind you, but most.  I work.  I pay taxes.  I help my fellow citizens in times of hardships.  My heart belongs to this state.  However, if I am being honest, I am frustrated at the lack of representation for ALL citizens.  As elected officials by voters, it is not your decision who you represent.  You represent each and every one of us.  And, each and every one of us has a voice.

I have been to many of your offices, only to have my voice fall upon deaf ears, but I keep going.  There is a distinct population of this state who are voters, but do not feel represented by you.  It is election year and the way I have seen things transpire, there are so few who move through this process with sincerity.  I ask you…be that person.  Represent everyone.  Do not forget the thousands which your laws have placed on the sex offender registry.  Understand the real statistics on the registry, not the hearsay.  You’d be shocked, I promise you.  People deserve second chances.  These people have voices.  These people vote.

I often sit and wonder if each of our NC lawmakers could abide by the very laws to which they make.  You make ‘em, but could you follow ‘em?  Take, for example, registry restrictions.  Could you, Mr./Ms. Lawmaker, walk through your day-to-day life for a month and abide by every stipulation?

1.  Do you know the restrictions?  ALL of them?
2.  Could you find someone in this state who clearly knows and can answer your questions regarding the restrictions?
3.  Would you miss attending your kids’ school, church, sporting events, dance and music recitals, teacher conferences?
4.  Could you handle parenting simply through pictures or stories of your kids’ events?
5.  Could you handle not participating in your kids’ birthday parties?
6.  Could you explain to your kids WHY you can’t go to their events…and could you deal with the emotional trauma to which it subjects them?
7.  Could you find fun, family entertainment week after week, given that there are few places you could actually go?
8.  Could you still work?  Would your employer allow you to?  Do the premise restrictions impact your ability to work?
9.  Could you pass up the best French fries at your favorite fast food restaurant because they have a playground and you are restricted from going there?
10.  Could you find new places to work out?  Not at a gym.  Not at a YMCA.  Not at a park.
11.  Could you miss church…or worse, continue sending your family there alone, without you?
12.  Could you do this for 30 years?  Yes, that’s the length of the registry here in NC, regardless of the severity of the charge.
13.  Could you emotionally survive this?  Would you empathize with the thousands of people living this out every day?  Would you rethink the laws you create and vote on and their implications?

Proof is in the pudding.  Elections are coming up.  Take a stand and live this out for a month.  Let NCRSOL know that you did.  Let’s start conversations so we learn to work together rather than continuing to pick apart a ridiculous set of laws that are nearly impossible by which to live.

Mr./Ms. Lawmaker, I remind my readers that you must be the change you wish to see in the world.
Be a change agent…
– Phoebe