There are certain things in life that irk me.  Irk.  What a fun word.  Yes, there are things that just flat out irk me.  Like people leaving their shopping carts in the parking lot.  Like my family leaving the toilet paper roll empty.  Like people talking on their cell phones in a public bathroom.  Just so you know, the first thing I do is flush the toilet just so it is heard.  Like trying to get into one of impossible plastic packages Christmas morning.  Today I realized I have a new irk – legislators who feel that their calling is only to represent those in their district rather than making decisions for all citizens in the state.  I know this is likely to be a controversial topic, but this irks me.  So perhaps I irk you – and for that I am sorry.  Sorta.  Okay, somewhat but we can all have our opinions.

Over the last year I have had multiple encounters with lawmakers about changing North Carolina sex offender laws.  A rare few have been amazingly open to hearing my thoughts and suggestions, knowing that I was not from their district.  My hats off to these people who seek to listen to all NC residents and evaluate what is “fair.”  Most often, though, I contact legislators who either do not respond to me or refuse me because I am not in their district.  Well, Sir or Madam, I contacted you not to “irk” you but rather to express my concerns to those who serve on committees or sponsor the bills.  So, yes, I am irked to know that a bill sponsor does not want to hear from me because I am not from his/her district.  Yes, I am irked when he/she blatantly tells me I agree with your suggestions but won’t vote that way because the people in his/her district won’t go for it.  Yes, I am irked when lawmakers vote one way then immediately go up to those opposed with an admission that they agreed but “just couldn’t vote for it.”  Bottom line – it seems that getting reelected is more important than voting what is “fair” and “just.”  This is a system that just irks me.

Be a change agent…
Phoebe

The definition of “reportable conviction”—which is to say, convictions that require sex offender registration—includes two types of convictions from other states. First, there are out-of-state crimes that are substantially similar to North Carolina crimes that require registration. Second, there are crimes that require registration under the sex offender registration statutes of another state. G.S. 14-208.6(4)b. The second category was added in 2006, to address the possibility that a person could evade their registration requirement by moving to North Carolina if he or she were on another state’s registry for a crime that was not substantially similar to any crime requiring registration here.

We know that time spent on another state’s registry does not generally count toward the time an offender must spend on the registry here before he or she is eligible to petition for removal. In In re Borden, 216 N.C. App. 579 (2011) (discussed here), the court of appeals read the words “initial county registration” in G.S. 14-208.12A to refer to a person’s initial registration in a county in North Carolina, not to a county in any jurisdiction (in Mr. Borden’s case, Kentucky). Thus, the time he spent on Kentucky’s registry did not count toward the 10-year period that needed to transpire before the trial court could grant his petition for removal from the registry.

I suppose that’s clear enough for purposes of the back-end petition-for-removal statute. But suppose Mr. Borden had been on Kentucky’s registry for so long that he was removed from it before he moved to North Carolina. Would he need to re-register with the local sheriff upon his arrival here?

There’s no clear answer in the statutes or case law. I think it may depend on the basis for the reportability of the out-of-state conviction.

If the out-of-state offense were reportable here based on its substantial similarity to a North Carolina crime, I think he may need to re-register. A reportable conviction is a reportable conviction, and there is no provision in our law exempting the person from registration based on service of a full registration period in another state.

If, however, the person’s out-of-state crime were reportable not based on substantial similarity to a North Carolina crime, but rather based on the fact that the offense “requires registration” in the other state, it seems likely that he would not have to register here if the requirement to register had ended in the other state. At the risk of stating the obvious, once the requirement to register ends in the other state, that state no longer “requires registration” for the offense, and it is therefore not reportable here within the language of G.S. 14-208.6(4)b. I suppose you could read “offense that requires registration” to refer to an offense that generally requires registration in the other state, not to whether this particular defendant still has to register for it there. But to read it that way would, to some degree, untether the provision from its intended purpose, which was to prevent offenders from avoiding their registration requirement by moving to North Carolina. If the person no longer has to register for an offense in another state, there’s nothing left to avoid by moving here.

Even if re-registration may sometimes be required as a matter of statute, you could imagine several constitutional objections. Surveying the case law, the most common argument appears to be that re-registration violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Please read the remainder of this article at the North Carolina Criminal Law blog.

Correction: these ideas have been in existence since the first Dolphin was trapped in the net meant largely for sharks. Craig Hallenstein promotes realism and understanding versus fiction and hatred in his fictive novel The Dolphin. The premise given the audience has to do with the danger of creating large nets which are theorized to catch predatory animals, yet without being evidence-based. Akin to throwing hand-grenades in the proverbial barrel of fish – certainly some will float to the top – but at what cost? Rather than being another uncaring, hyper-fueled yet personally unaware being who spits at those who the net has caught, Hallenstein recognizes in his earth-tilting work of truth-based fiction the unfortunate dolphins trapped in an unfeeling, mindless net.

Nothing but a coffin, the registry and its limitations has been given positive hatred by the uninitiated, the untried.

“Who, me? Couldn’t be,” seems to be what proponents like Mr. John Walsh say when they are caught in the ever-widening sex offender net. What is good for some is not good for others, is his claim when Mr. Walsh defends his past underage sexual partners. Well, that is just the kind of ignorance we were fighting this weekend. Thank you for the illustration of the broken system, from the originator of the Adam Walsh Act.

The Catherine Carpenters, Larry Neelys and Janice Belluccis of the world have a deep understanding of the flawed system which works to uphold the registry. This weekend, the speakers busted myths. Look too carefully at the facts, as we did, and the recidivism rates of registered citizens belie the absurdity of the “registry for safety” falsity.

What did the author learn? That to be a sex offender today, he can learn to refute the unhappy citizens who lose nothing by berating folks unknown yet loathed. Should he fail to refute, should he hide in his basement between visits from the parole agent, there will be only the loud ones shouting. Loud isn’t right. It isn’t best. It is, however, loud. And the only voice. For now.

The attendees gathered to hover around a spark of hope, temporarily restrained, fearful of missteps, ready but lacking certainty. Certainty has apparently been reserved for the other side. The other side is full of judges, both sworn and un-, the job ours to educate. For if we remain on the sidelines, if we fail to organize, those holding the puppet strings will have their way. Their way seems to be downhill and punitive. Ours might be described as hopeful and informed.

A blend of the sublime and ridiculous by necessity, mandatory appearance on the registry was given the thrice-over by Professor Catherine Carpenter, the opening speaker in our Holiday Inn Conference room. Kids who played with other kids were “child molesters”, lovers with the incorrect number of years between their ages were “predators”, and boys who played childish pranks forever labelled “Sexually deviant.”

John Douard taught that metaphors are really a frame for painting folks with one brush. And isn’t it easier to hate all sharks, to empty the sea of the beast, than to understand that not all behavior equals title of “monster”? Let’s discount his slightly erratic closing, as Douard worked to show how unlike the truth are these dangerous labels. The New Jersey professor gave food for thought which will undoubtedly help to feed a movement that is in its infancy in terms of growth, yet making its voice unabashedly heard in its dire struggle for a very real, very humanistic, completely deserved survival.

Janice Bellucci was trans-formative in her complete care for the cause. For her words to this author, gratitude. She stopped long enough to express thanks for a question in a lecture she attended as an audience member. Her gentle yet pressing words revealed to this registrant the need for others with her compassion, prowess, and drive. Ms. Bellucci’s is the attorney atop California’s very pressing civil rights abuses of sex offenders, a fact evident after a quick search of the arguments being brought to appellate courts in Cali on behalf of the under-loved population in attendance in Atlanta. Thanks to Bellucci, audience members learned that dignity is not something the courts can take away.

Mr. Larry Neely was in a number of talks, possibly the most memorable of which entitled Can They Do That? in which he teamed up with Schaffnit, Esq. to describe possible objections to parole/probation conditions and codicils. Memorable for the debate sparked by interested audience members, as well as for Neely’s ability to both organize the event and speak at nearly every break-out session in an impassioned yet entirely reasonable voice.

Steve Yoder gave an impressive refutation of five ill-conceived arguments for the shame(reg)istry. Not only was he clear and concise, Yoder gave those with the will enough firepower to overcome a whole neighborhood of hatred using well-sourced material. His blog is a specimen of authenticity and research.

Don’t believe everything you read. Everyone can change. Sex offenders do not, in general, continue to violate the law. Apparently, we have been chosen to fight legislation and misinformation which has created a toxic mix of angry and scared people. The key here is mis-informed. Let us prepare for an information war; you may not have ever wanted this task, but if not you, then who?

Full of love, we move into the future.