In 2009, Robert Suttle was convicted in Louisiana of illegally exposing someone to HIV without their consent. In most other parts of the country, Suttle would only need to live with a conviction on his record. But Louisiana is one of a handful of states that forces those convicted of such a charge to register as sex offenders, a label that carries life-altering shame and stigma. Suttle has since moved to New York, but the designation still haunts him. He sued to remove the label, but the state’s lower courts have thus far held that Suttle must remain on the registry, even though New York has no HIV-specific criminal laws.

But now, Suttle has asked the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, to invalidate a law he says unfairly criminalizes people with HIV. In November, an attorney representing Suttle filed leave to appeal, castigating the lower court’s decision to keep Suttle on the sex offender registry.

“The decision permits, if not requires, New York courts to enforce laws of foreign jurisdictions through SORA, no matter how unconstitutional or contrary to New York’s laws and policies,” the brief states. “It specifically undermines the constitutional and statutory mandates that HIV+ persons have a right to privacy in their status.”

In a phone interview, Suttle told The Appeal that the onerous requirements that come with being forced to register as a sex offender have added significant hurdles to his life.

“It’s almost like they just throw you into this situation and just throw away the key, and there’s nobody there to really explain to you, which is what the system just doesn’t do anyway,” Suttle said. He added later: “I’ve been just trying to hang in there, with the hopes that I will be able to sort of move beyond this and really go out and get the things that I want in life.” Suttle told The Appeal in September the charges stemmed from a brief relationship in the early 2000s.

Across the country, HIV-related criminal laws have come under increased scrutiny as science on HIV—and its prevention—have advanced. Highly effective HIV-preventative drugs have proliferated. Medicine regimens can now prevent people living with HIV from passing the virus to their partners.

Legal experts have also argued that such laws, known as “HIV criminalization” laws, disproportionately impact Black and brown people living with HIV, target LGBTQ people in particular, and violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Center for HIV Law and Policy (CHLP), a nonprofit that advocates for the rights of people with HIV, said as much in a December brief to the New York Court of Appeals in support of Suttle. In the filing, CHLP attorney Jada Akers argued that both Louisiana’s HIV criminal statute and New York’s treatment of Suttle contravene the ADA.

“The NY Courts cannot just collectively bury their heads in the sand and ignore the fact that the underlying Louisiana conviction for which Mr. Suttle has to now register as a sex offender in New York is clearly due to a discriminatory law,” Akers wrote in the brief.

Louisiana is one of 14 states that have repealed or amended their HIV-related criminal statutes in the past decade. Texas was the first in 1994. Last year, New Jersey became the third state to repeal its HIV criminal statute fully. That law, while enacted, let prosecutors charge people who did not report their HIV status to sexual partners.

In 2014, the New York State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders decided that Suttle had to register as a sex offender due to his conviction in Louisiana.

Suttle challenged that decision in court, but a state appeals court unanimously ruled in October that the board had decided correctly. Now that Suttle has brought his case to the New York Court of Appeals, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office—which previously said it would not fight Suttle’s efforts—has filed briefs opposing him.

In a brief filed in court, Assistant District Attorney Kelly Fulham wrote that, while the Manhattan DA’s office opposes the law impacting Suttle, prosecutors were legally bound to enforce it.

“People support a legislative amendment to the foreign registration provision that would remove the registration requirement in circumstances like these,” she wrote. “Under the statute as currently enacted, however, the Board’s determination that [Suttle] must register is consistent with [state law].”

In an emailed statement to The Appeal, a spokesperson from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office said prosecutors’ hands are tied. The spokesperson said that the office does not support HIV criminalization but, due to the “confines of the law,” has no choice other than to oppose Suttle.

The spokesperson added that the DA’s office previously sent a proposal to the state legislature to change the law and prevent people like Suttle from being forced into these situations.

But legal experts from CHLP hit back at the DA Office’s claims. Kae Greenberg, a staff attorney at CHLP, told The Appeal that prosecutors should have “the courage to take a potentially unpopular stand in the midst of a political minefield,” since removing Suttle from the offender registry is “in the interest of justice.”

And, given the ongoing national rise in anti-LGBTQ hatred, Greenberg said the DA’s present position is a treacherous one to take.

“Currently, as other statutes that are still on the books in other states criminalizing abortion come back in full force, as states rush to criminalize drag shows and gender-affirming care, the ‘my hands are tied’ argument is a dangerous one to be made by an elected official tasked with promoting the safety of all New Yorkers,” he said.

Source: The Appeal

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

On Thursday, the highest court in Virginia ended the Commonwealth’s 13-year campaign to indefinitely detain a prominent advocate on criminal justice matters, Galen Baughman. In a victory for justice, the Supreme Court ruled that the petition filed against Baughman in 2017 was illegal.  Baughman v. Commonwealth

A Short History of Baughman’s Fight

Baughman has been targeted by the Virginia attorney general’s office under the state’s civil confinement scheme since 2009 when prosecutors filed a petition to send him to Virginia’s shadow prison in Burkeville shortly before his release from a seven-year prison sentence for consensual adolescent sexual conduct. That initial petition went to trial in 2012 and a jury voted unanimously in his favor. Baughman describes that trial in a 2015 TED Talk. In 2017, less than 24 hours before his release from a 20-month sentence for an alleged first-time technical violation, the attorney general’s office petitioned a second time to have Baughman indefinitely detained past his release date. The Supreme Court’s ruling last week dismissed that 2017 petition because it was based on the testimony of an expert who was prohibited from testifying under “the plain language of the statute.”

Galen Baughman, Soros Justice Fellow

Outrage Against Injustice

Virginia legislator Patrick Hope (D–Arlington) described the situation in an op-ed published immediately before Baughman’s second trial in 2019: “The [Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (DBHDS)]-hired psychologist found Baughman did not meet the criteria and recommended his release. The attorney general’s office ignored that finding, went outside the law and hired a second expert. This expert did not interview Baughman, but nonetheless claims that Baughman meets the statutory criteria. At trial, Baughman’s defense attorneys may not present the results of the 2012 civil commitment trial or the results of the DBHDS psychological assessment, nor can they present qualified psychological expert testimony. His trial… serves as a prime example of how the SVP laws are unjust and unfair.”

The Baughman case was closely watched by lawyers, activists, and civil and human rights organizations. Amicus briefs were filed by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) joined by Del. Patrick Hope (D–Arlington), law professors and scholars, as well as a coalition of LGBTQ+/HIV rights advocates and organizations. Baughman was represented by a pro bono team from KaiserDillon PLLC, a notable boutique firm in Washington D.C. (Jonathan Jeffress, Emily Voshell, and William Zapf), supported by the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs.

Orwellian civil commitment assessment process

Catherine Hanssens, founder and then-executive director of Center for HIV Law & Policy (CHLP), was especially instrumental in bringing this issue to the forefront by organizing an LGBTQ+ sign-on letter to attorney general Mark Herring (D-Virginia) very early in this case. KaiserDillon also sent successive letters to AG Herring (in 2018 and 2020) asking him to stand down from this obviously illegal action — on the same grounds that the Supreme Court ultimately used to dismiss the petition. CHLP’s amicus brief “describes the deep homophobic bias embedded in an already-Orwellian civil commitment assessment process, and in the drive to confine him as a dangerous predator in the absence of credible evidence.”

Ruling Dramatically Limits State Scheme

The Court also addressed claims by the attorney general’s office that a judge could find probable cause that someone suffers from a “mental abnormality or personality disorder” based on conviction history alone. “As the trial court had no evidence regarding Baughman’s mental state, it could not have found that there was probable cause to believe that he was a sexually violent predator,” the Supreme Court said. “Accordingly, the trial court should have dismissed the Commonwealth’s petition.”

Because the second petition was unlawful from its inception, the Court decided “the other matters that Baughman raised in his appeal (i.e., the trial court’s decision to exclude the testimony of his expert witnesses, its denial of his motion for summary judgment and its failure to dismiss the petition based on res judicata) are… rendered moot.” Regrettably, the justices declined to address these other important issues that might have made a significant difference in the lives of other individuals targeted by Virginia’s pre-crime preventative detention program — those questions remain unsettled by the court.

Prosecution Overreach & Judicial Activism

The Baughman case is a stunning win that beats back a disturbing attempt by the Virginia attorney general and an activist judge to dramatically expand the scope of involuntary civil confinement. If the state had gotten its way, prosecutors would be able to shop for experts until they find someone willing to give whatever opinion they wanted and judges would be encouraged to proceed with a putatively “mental health” commitment case absent any psychological evidence.

A sustained and systemic constitutional violation to get outraged about

Virginia is one of 20 states (and the federal government) with laws allowing for the indefinite ‘civil’ confinement of persons after the completion of a prison sentence for a sex-related crime. At least 7,000 people in the U.S. are presently held in prison-like facilities under the guise of involuntary psychiatric confinement based on a past sex-related conviction. While many facilities have begun to release people to an Orwellian form of “conditional release” as states begin hitting the practical ceiling that comes from a system designed to lock up more people every year without ever letting anyone out; for many, “civil commitment” for the purposes of “treatment” remains a life sentence.

Systems of pre-crime preventative detention have been under fire since their inception in 1990. The American Psychiatric Association formally opposes so-called “sexually violent predator” laws and has described these legislative schemes as a “misuse of psychiatry” designed to “preventively detain a class of people for whom confinement rather than treatment was the real goal.” In 2015, legal scholar David Post quipped for the Washington Post, “If you’re looking for a sustained and systematic constitutional violation to get outraged about, may I suggest this one?”

Impact of Baughman Supreme Court Win

This decision from the Virginia Supreme Court makes plain that the attorney general’s office flagrantly violated the “plain language of the statute.” Even with top-notch lawyers, it took Baughman 5 years to reverse this unlawful action — resulting in 40 months of unnecessary incarceration past his release date in a punitive carceral setting at the Arlington County Detention Facility (ACDF), and another year and a half of draconian conditions including being restricted from leaving Arlington County and house arrest for up to 18 hours per day.

Baughman is a leading advocate bringing to light the flawed rationale and human rights implications of efforts to lock up people prospectively for what they might do in the future. Baughman’s case should be a warning to any defenders of due process and freedom that so-called “sexually violent predator” laws lend themselves to wild misuse by unscrupulous government officials.   The fact that Virginia was able to very nearly get away with committing someone who does not suffer from any volitional impairment-causing psychological conditions — but had no trouble finding and using an expert willing to cavalierly misrepresent the psychological literature for pay — should be terrifying to us all.

The Next Battle for Defenders of Human Rights

In 2021, Virginia became the first state in the U.S. to consider abolishing its system of post-sentence ‘civil’ confinement. Baughman v. Commonwealth clearly illustrates the need to abandon laws and policies designed to incarcerate people for imaginary future crimes based on deeply dubious predictions by “experts.”

“The Commonwealth of Virginia’s case against Galen was morally and legally indefensible,” said Jonathan Jeffress, partner at KaiserDillon representing Galen Baughman. “It appealed only to the worst in people and their prejudices. I know I speak for everyone at KaiserDillon in saying that, although we are proud to have brought Galen’s case to a successful end, there is still much work to do, including reforming — or better yet, abolishing — Virginia’s broken, corrupt, and unconstitutional system of civil confinement.”

“The Commonwealth of Virginia’s case against Galen was morally and legally indefensible,” said Jonathan Jeffress of KaiserDillon. “It appealed only to the worst in people and their prejudices. I know I speak for everyone at KaiserDillon in saying that, although we are proud to have brought Galen’s case to a successful end, there is still much work to do, including reforming — or better yet, abolishing — Virginia’s broken, corrupt, and unconstitutional system of civil confinement.”

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. 

Now they’re suing.

At least 11 men and the nonprofit group North Carolinians for Rational Sex Offender Laws accused Cherokee County and Sheriff Derrick Palmer of violating their constitutional rights in a lawsuit moved to federal court Wednesday. The case was originally filed in state court in early October but defense attorneys opted to change venues, citing issues related to federal case law.

Attorneys for the offenders, defense attorneys and a representative for Cherokee County and the sheriff’s office did not immediately respond to McClatchy News’ request for comment Thursday.

The lawsuit seeks $5 million in damages and a jury trial, according to court filings.

According to the website of the North Carolinians for Rational Sex Offender Laws, the group was created in 2016 as an affiliate of a national chapter and advocates for “legal reforms that will protect and restore (sex offenders’) fundamental rights to life and liberty.”

READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

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.

This is NCRSOL’s monthly meeting for outreach and concerns affecting North Carolinians, families, and allies. All members and non-members are welcome. Legal advice is unavailable and highly discouraged from discussional topics because we are not licensed attorneys.

The dial-in number is (425) 436-6200, Access Code: 500410.

For those that wish you use computers, tablets or smartphones without having to dial-in, may do so at the following:

Dial-in number (US): (425) 436-6200
Access code: 500410#
International dial-in numbers: https://fccdl.in/i/dsdaughtry
Online meeting ID: dsdaughtry
Join the online meeting: https://join.freeconferencecall.com/dsdaughtry

Officials say at least 42 inmates and one staff member on the medium-security side of the prison have COVID-19. However, Butner is a medical facility that treats the Bureau of Prisons systems. Infections from the prison into hospitals create a precarious situation demonstrating it may not be feasible to reduce the spread of the COVID virus if inmate exposure continues to rise. How will Butner hospital mitigate and prioritize inmates keeping them safe?

There are 15 cases on the minimum security side and at least one confirmed case at the medical center.​​ Those numbers should be a concern to family members of inmates housed at Butner. There have been discussions by reliable media sources that Butner facilities may be overcrowded. To forcibly relocate inmates from one crowded area to another may not be a practical and safer solution.

While the U.S. Attorney General exercised emergency authority under the CARES Act to further increase home confinement, there hasn’t been much data or information to suggest any level of inmates have been released, if any at all?

Butner federal prison is host to famous people such as Bernard Madoff, Samuel Israel, and Gilberto Rodríguez Orejuela.  Some inmates at Butner federal prison are housed due to federal sex offense crimes. However, a majority of those serving prison sentences for sex crimes are low-level non-contact internet-based charges and convictions. Many of Butner’s inmates are serving low-level prison sentences that pose no significant risk to communities.  In today’s world a felony conviction could indicate any crime ranging from embezzlement, voting election fraud, to placing a bomb threat without actually carrying out the act. Prisons haven’t actually rehabilitated the incarcerated. It just made the prison system much more lucrative all while making the inmate population that much poorer.

There is no published data that demonstrates those convicted of sexual offenses or other low-level offenses are a threat to communities or the general public. Most sex offenses or other criminal convictions are plea deal based and prey on a one-time poor decision based on curiosity or other factors, those with mental conditions, or the disenfranchised. Yet, the media and fear-mongering among the general public judges’ others without mercy or redemption continue to ratchet up unfounded hysteria and false rhetoric.

Perhaps prison reforms should begin with prosecution reforms? Only time will tell to remedy our failing prison and criminal justice system.

Parts of the SORA were declared unconstitutional in 2016, and on Feb. 14, 2020 U.S. District Judge Robert Cleland gave the legislature 60 days to rewrite the law. Offenders were still required to report through mid-May. But on Monday, Cleland issued an interim, temporary order prohibiting officials from “enforcing registration, verification, school zone, and fee violations” of the sex offender registry law that happened or possibly happened from Feb. 14 “until the current crisis has ended.”

Read the entire story by clicking here.