In 1994, Congress enacted a law mandating that all states create registries of people convicted of sex offenses and crimes against children. Two years later, it passed what’s known as Megan’s Law, a follow-up bill that made information in those registries available to the public. Since then, a broad slate of new laws has been passed, which expanded the types of crimes that classify someone as a sex offender and imposed strict rules they must meet to avoid further criminal punishment. As of 2018, there were an estimated 900,000 people in the U.S. listed on sex offender registries.

The vast majority of Americans believe sex offender registries make their communities safer, according to polls. A growing body of research, however, suggests otherwise. A long list of studies using decades of data have found no significant evidence that registries prevent sex crimes. Some even indicate that the laws imposed on sex offenders may make them more likely to commit crimes in the future.

Unlike most criminals, sex offenders face strong restrictions on where they can live, work and travel that last long after their sentence has been completed — often for the rest of their lives. Many report experiencing “social death” that makes it difficult to maintain employment or be part of their communities. For example, sex offenders are often barred from living within a certain distance of schools or other areas where kids gather. In some dense areas of the country, that rule can make entire cities inaccessible and, in the most extreme situations, force sex offenders to remain in jail or live clustered together in makeshift encampments.

Why there’s debate

Those calling for reform of sex offender registries emphasize that their criticisms do not stem from a desire to be “soft” on people who commit heinous crimes. Instead, they hope to fix an ineffective system that does little to promote public safety while imposing a serious burden on nearly a million people, and often their families too.

Many experts say the main problem with sex offender registries is that they are based on two myths about sex crimes — that sex criminals are uniquely likely to re-offend and that strangers pose the greatest danger to children. In reality, evidence suggests that sex offenders have a lower recidivism rate than most other criminals and that the overwhelming majority of child sex crimes are committed by someone known to the victim.

Another major issue, they say, is the way many laws impose the same rules on all sex offenders, regardless of the severity of the crime. They argue that, while it may make sense to place strict restrictions on offenders who are considered particularly dangerous, it’s unnecessary and counterproductive to place the same burdens on everyone who has committed a sex offense — a category that can include sex acts between teenagers, public urination and even consensual sex between adults.

What’s next

A number of state-level courts have ruled that certain elements of some registry laws are unconstitutional, particularly rules that require juvenile offenders to register for life. Despite the questions Jackson raised about registry laws two and a half decades ago, it’s unclear whether her presence on the Supreme Court would affect the legal precedents that allow sex offender registries in their current form to exist nationwide.

Perspectives

Protecting kids means being honest about where they face the most danger

“This is not a call to ‘go soft’ on crime, it is an encouragement to ‘go smart’ on crime and use data to make informed decisions. This reimagining requires us as a society to confront the uncomfortable truth that those who commit sexual offenses are usually not strangers — they are more likely to be the most trusted figures around us — our loved ones, our babysitters, coaches, teachers and close family friends.” — Meghan M. Mitchell, Kristen M. Zgoba and Alex R. Piquero, Tampa Bay Times

Outdated laws must be updated to account for how integral the internet has become to everyday life

“While the internet has certainly created new opportunities for sexual harms, the legislative response has often centered on efforts to ban people convicted of any type of sex crime from using technology at all. As the internet is now the de facto venue for public life, it’s been difficult to justify these laws without violating the Constitution and creating a massive class of people unable to survive in modern society.” — Sarah Lageson, Wired

Don’t treat juvenile offenders the same as adults

“Nothing about juvenile registration helps our nation’s children. … Advocating against harmful policies for these kids can seem like advocating against justice for survivors, but subjecting children to a failed policy that harms them in the worst possible ways does not help survivors or prevent child sexual abuse.” — Elizabeth Letourneau and Luke Malone, Slate

Registries should focus on preventing the most serious offenses

“The registry as we know it today was designed in the wake of a few horrific situations where children were abducted and murdered, and it is for such cases as these that it was intended. The similarity between the perpetrators of those crimes and the nearly 1 million people who are listed on sexual offense registries today is non-existent, with children themselves being registered as young as 9 for childish, inappropriate behavior.” — Sandy Rozek, Tennessean

Registries must be narrowed down so they can be reasonably maintained

“The registry really doesn’t work. It’s a bloated, inefficient system that is incredibly expensive to maintain. I don’t think it really protects anybody.” — Kelly Socia, criminologist, to NPR

Sex registry laws need to allow much more room for nuance

“​​Registry systems rarely take into account the complexities of sexual abuse or incorporate evidence on the factors that will reduce reoffending. Even when they do split registrants into high-, medium- and low-risk categories, they typically base these assessments on their crime alone. This leaves out critical information about the circumstances of their crime and the factors that could lead them to commit another.” — Michael Hobbes, HuffPost

Communities should stop wasting money on registries and invest in what actually works

“If our goal is to end sexual offending, we need to invest in prevention, hold people accountable, support survivors, and ensure that people with past convictions can reenter society successfully.” — William Buhl, J.J. Prescott and Miriam Aukerman, Detroit Free Press

Strict restrictions on sex offenders, not the registries, are the real problem

“The registry can make the lives of those on the registry extremely difficult when coupled with misguided laws at the local level that govern where those on the registry can live and with overly aggressive community members who use the information in a punitive way. … Municipalities must revisit their punitive rules to make them reasonable and workable while still ensuring public safety. But those misguided laws could exist even without a statewide registry.” — Editorial, Denver Post

No reforms can fix an inherently unconstitutional system

“Repeated punishments violate the Eighth Amendment by imposing cruel and unusual punishment. The government is prohibited from imposing a criminal sentence that is either vindictive or far too harsh for the crime committed. Incarceration is intended to be a punishment and a deterrence, so any subsequent punishment can only be vindictive.” — Jesse Kelley, The Hill

Sex offenders, like all criminals, should be given the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves

“The category of ‘sex offender’ not only fails to account for the vast range of offenses for which one might be forced to register (from streaking to rape). It also implies an indelible, untreatable predatory impulse that must be vigilantly policed and suppressed, even though those convicted of sexual offenses have lower recidivism rates than those convicted of virtually any other offense.” — Paul M. Renfro, Jacobin

I have often heard comparisons that the sex offender registry is somewhat similar to what Jewish citizens experienced during the Holocaust. To me, I wouldn’t go that far of comparative extremism. However, I see stark similarities and warning signs that history and behaviors are somewhat repeating itself. 

First, the registry itself perhaps is much different than a Scarlett letter. I would equate being on the registry is somewhat like the classification system used in Nazi concentration camps. But those symbols of classification extend to family, children, and allies as well. With premises restrictions, living either individually or with family creates housing limitations with unwritten guilt by association clause. Housing limitations or civil commitment programs force many into substandard choices, similar to how groups of people were forced into ghettos administrated by Nazi control. 

Today we are witnessing states introducing legislation to either create a registrant identification card or have a designator on an existing driver’s license. It is already bad enough that International Megan’s Law forces registrants with passport labels. There are similarities in Nazi Germany, where Jewish people or other classifications were stamped on identification documents. Instead, it is an identification card, passport, public registry, facial recognition programs, or mandated property signs. The stigma and persecution follow no differently than a modern-day tattoo with lifelong effects and mental anguish. 

It is nearly impossible for any human to understand the labyrinth of laws, restrictions, and processes currently in place regarding the registry. It is bad enough where lawyers, police, lawmakers, and the public do not have a basic understanding or a sense of collateral consequences. But what about those impacted by the registry at the mercy of discovering a new rule or policy in place each year? Such schemes were comparable to the Nuremberg laws of Nazi Germany, where Jewish people couldn’t navigate rights and citizenship because of ever-changing regulations and red tape. Eventually, Nazi law banished any undesirables from its land or public view somewhat how registry laws are doing the same in America.  

Some would insist that people on the registry arent being gassed or murdered. Instead, I would point out this observation that registrants are murdered, die from lack of care, and commit suicide at an alarming rate. In some cases, suicide occurs in jails well before adjudication has been handed down. A public registry for the world to see allows such heinous trends to continue. Even if a suicide or murder occurs within the registry community, there is little to no sympathy for the loss of human life. Again, a similarity of how citizens of Nazi Germany looked upon Jewish or other classification labels.

There are additional premises restrictions forbidding people on the registry and family members from access to programs. For example, the Nextdoor application prohibits registrants or registrant families from participating in its platform. Additionally, there are places, software apps, parks, churches, libraries, agriculture fairs, Halloween festivities, jobs, and a maze of other uncertainties that disallow registrants and their families. Such similarities occurred during Kristallnacht or the Night of Broken Glass that limited where Jewish people could publically go or where ordinary citizens could interact. 

Therefore, it is fair to assess that the registry and the Holocaust are, in fact, vastly different. But it is safe to point out the similarities and failings of society to learn from history repeating itself. The Holocaust author Laurence Rees said, “Be aware that hatred of minorities can make very popular policy.” It was a warning by the author that hatred is the key ingredient and that silencing the voice of minority groups allows any policy to take shape and sustain indefinitely. 

A survivor of the Nazi death camps, Elie Wiesel saw humanity at its worst. He survived the Holocaust and made it his life’s mission to ensure it was never repeated. Perhaps the registry community, along with the general public, should embrace Mr. Wiesel’s message and warnings that we do not repeat history in any similar fashion or likeness. After all, such striking similarities demonstrate where the wounded are recognized by the wounded. 

The staff of NCRSOL has researched every North Carolina Sheriffs’ official website for Covid-19 information as it pertains to registered sex offenders in the state.

Of the 100 counties in North Carolina, only three counties have posted amended sex offender registration procedures on its official website. Naturally, there will be discourse from those in the law enforcement community that registrants should call their sheriffs department or visit a social media site for the latest information. However, if sheriffs can implement augmented pistol permit and jail policies, then it can amend sex offender in-person requirements. These are not permanent acts – these are temporary acts of mercy and public safety that benefit the bigger picture at hand.

By current law, registrants in North Carolina are prohibited from accessing a website where a part of its terms and conditions prohibits registered sex offenders. Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, Nextdoor, and a few others are platforms that many law enforcement websites use! NCRSOL encourages all registrants to obey the law and remain compliant. Don’t be a fool and assume that one law supersedes another by getting caught up in a legal imbroglio. The first line of defense of credible information is the official county website maintained by various sheriffs departments. The county website should be the sole credible source of public information.

Here are the North Carolina sheriffs departments that have amended sex offender in-person policies by notice on its official website during the Covid-19 pandemic: (effective 3/29/2020)

(F-Facebook; T-Twitter; B-Blogger; X-Nixie; G-GooglePlus; P-Pinterest; L-LinkedIn; S-Snapchat; N-Nextdoor; Y-YouTube; V-Vimeo; K-Flickr; I-Instagram)

Click on any county to be redirected to the official website of that particular sheriff’s department. Sheriffs may quietly change policies or directives without making it public via their website or social media blasts. You are encouraged to use this tool to show the law enforcement community that either there is no, limited, or ambiguous information from the department entrusted and elected to keep you and your community safe.

Upon researching each of the county sheriff websites, some may display a section for Emergency Alerts. However, in nearly all circumstances, no emergency alerts have been activated, updated, or mentioned for Covid-19, jail closings, pistol permit holds, or other sheriff related functions. Instead, many sheriffs have left those decisions to other county officials. 

A majority of sheriff official websites had no information posted about the governor’s recent mandatory “Stay-At-Home” order. A noticeable trend was that many sheriff websites used social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, and in some cases defunct websites or broken links. Additionally, some of the sheriffs websites redirect to county administrative social media platforms with no mention of sheriffs operations amended or not. The scope of this particular research did not scour social media sites maintained by individual sheriff’s offices.

NCRSOL staff identified the following problems with sheriff official websites:

• websites neglected over time with no relevant or updated public information,
• no information about Covid-19 information regarding jail and/or public operations,
• no information about the governors stay at home order,
• no alternative emergency information or guidance procedures,
• broken or inoperable links,
• Sheriff’s updated concealed pistol permit information, but no other information was updated.
• No sheriffs department had alternative solutions for the sex offender community such as mail-in forms, documentation available online, or temporary change of address forms for the registry community.
• There is no standardization of law enforcement websites to simplify emergency data or services.

In a high-tech society surrounded by flagship universities and a state population where internet, webpages, and technology is a significant part of our daily lives combined demonstrates a lag in online technologies or features to keep society moving forward. It has been nearly two decades since 9/11. Yet a majority of our sheriffs departments are greatly unprepared to meet the simple challenges of the 21st century by leaders failing to change policy towards an on-line or application method rather than antiquated and expensive in-person requirements. Sheriffs have a unique ability to step aside of the political compass and begin to look at the human compass. 

While social media appears to be the new facilitation to traditional webpages, there is little to no standardization across the board for the general public to better understand changes under emergency conditions; especially a platform that serves communities such as the poor, homeless, registrants, or seniors without smartphones and social media outlets. North Carolina leaders must do more to simplify our information flow and processes to reduce not only our carbon footprint, but to reduce our public health criteria for the overall safety for all citizens. This is an opportunity to stop the “guessing games.” 

Despite emergency conditions and the putting innocent citizens further at risk, deputies all across North Carolina are still knocking on doors of registrants to verify if they live there. Basic constitutional rights include that citizens are not required to answer the door or talk to the police when they’re knocking at your door without a warrant. Yet, deputies continue to knock on registrants doors without a warrant despite those same registrants go in-person to the sheriffs office to verify his/her address.

NCRSOL staff would like to keep this data and information up-to-date. Please reply with updated information about specific counties to share with other registrants.

In the meantime, please contact your sheriff’s department to learn more about your county’s sex offender in-person registry policy during the Covid-19 pandemic. Most of all, please stay safe and follow the CDC recommended guidelines. Lastly, pay attention to the President and Governor by staying at home until this crisis has passed. 

Recently a well-known animal rescue adoption agency learned about a person listed on the sex offender registry had been working for them over six years. No incidents, criminal charges, complaints, or anything had transpired. Instead, rumor control and fearmongering had become a liability where the volunteer was asked by management to leave because “it made others feel uncomfortable.”

Let that sink in for a moment. A person is asked to never return not because of fact or an issue where an incident occurred. Instead, it was pure emotion that closed the door of opportunity and giving back to a community setting in motion that giving from the heart must be vetted by the feelings of others. I think what made this particular case exceptionable and bizarre is that volunteers at this organization are now screening volunteers for criminal backgrounds while full time paid employees are not. But what is most concerning is that perhaps the animals for potential adoption at such places are deemed at a higher value than humans. That should be a disturbing assessment of any human being.

Such instances of marginalizing people because of their past, fails to address present situations. It is as if society assumes that anyone convicted of a sexual offense has such uncontrollable behaviors that they are always actively seeking sex? It is an utterly ridiculous libelous, and mental condition to think in such a manner. It brings to mind when during the period of the Soviet Union that “invalid policies” were enforced. This is where Soviet-era citizens were prohibited from being visible in the public eye if they were disabled, had a past criminal conviction, or didn’t fit the profile of a typical Soviet person. Similar to “out of sight, out of mind.” But it appears that American culture is somewhat becoming similar to decades-old Soviet culture by creating a sense of feeling so that people feel secure because leadership has facilitated a false image of safety. Mainly, American culture is selling a tune of second chances, reforms, equality, and liberty, all while applying a caveat or asterisks “if you meet this criterion.”

Maybe, just maybe, there is a careful lesson learned moment about volunteering and giving back to a community. If an agency is more worried about its liability policy and who should be a part of volunteerism fully doesn’t understand and embrace the value of people in general. Moreover, any agency that reasonably asks for volunteers but vets them based on background checks isn’t a non-profit that fits the traditional social cause or advocacy of community. Perhaps our best volunteers and leaders of organization dependant upon volunteering take a mitigated risk to assimilate a population to perform and do miraculous things – without being hidden based on policy or law.

Volunteering or working is perhaps the most valued part of society that demonstrates the care and compassion of helping others and ensuring our way of life sustains itself. Those unable to secure jobs or volunteering opportunities should seek organizations that care about the bigger picture. NARSOL based affiliates are in desperate need to find volunteers to help its mission of those affected by the sex offender registry and draconian laws that keep them similarly isolated to Soviet-era policies. At least NARSOL and its affiliates always keep its doors and opportunities open for all with second, third, fourth, and other changes with a caveat of truly understanding liberty and equality. I encourage all registrants, allies, and family members to volunteer for NARSOL affiliate programs and to support such programs. At least we don’t discriminate or turn people away. Lastly, you may be able to do everything from the comfort of your home if you chose.

The choice is yours. Let’s get to work to be visible again!