NARSOL, others, continue battle for those on sexual offense registry

narsol,-others,-continue-battle-for-those-on-sexual-offense-registry

By Sandy and Robin . . . In Wisconsin a new battle is being launched in what is getting to be an old war. Civil rights attorneys Adele Nicholas and Mark Weinberg, seasoned soldiers in this war fought on behalf of persons forced to live as someone on a sex offender registry, have launched this latest skirmish due to a “village’s moratorium on any more sex offenders living there.”

In Texas, NARSOL’s affiliate Texas Voices is unwavering in its battles against legislation that targets those on the registry for special restrictions, most often those that limit the very presence of a registrant within an area designated as a “child-safe area.” These onerous restrictions often make finding housing and employment virtually impossible and can even rip registrants from the support of family. Mary Sue Molnar, the group’s executive director, spends unlimited hours every legislative session ferreting out these bills, organizing the troops, and descending on the capitol in Austin armed with written and oral testimony heavy not only with poignant personal stories but also with researched facts about the issue.

North Carolina has proven to be very fertile ground for these battles. With an extremely active affiliate there, NCRSOL, and a civil rights attorney, Paul Dubbeling, who is no stranger to battles involving restrictions on registered citizens, opportunities abound for challenges on constitutional grounds. The state legislature has continually added blanket restrictions on where registered people can work, live, socialize, and even worship. Mr. Dubbeling is extremely experienced in filing successful civil rights claims on behalf of registered people. Initially an understudy of Atty. Glenn Gerding of Packingham fame, Paul assumed more responsibility in the successful Does v. Cooper challenge to North Carolina’s old premises statute which prevented most registered people from being within 300 feet of schools, parks, playgrounds, swimming pools, etc. In response to its loss, the N.C. Attorney General worked with legislative leaders to enact a new premises statute that ended up being more restrictive than the first. Working with NCRSOL and supported by NARSOL’s foundation, Dubbeling filed an ex post facto lawsuit in 2017 patterned after the ACLU’s challenge to the registration scheme in Michigan.  Styled NARSOL v. Stein, the case finally went to trial in April 2021. We anxiously await a decision from Judge Loretta Biggs some time in summer or fall. In the midst of waiting for an outcome in that case, NCRSOL’s attorneys filed additional successful lawsuits challenging the vague statutory language used to determine whether or not people with out-of-state convictions should be required to register in North Carolina (Grabarczyk v. Stein) and are prepared to accept a substantial settlement in a lawsuit against the sheriff of Cherokee County who rounded up all the registered people in his county on Halloween in 2019 (Crisp v. Palmer). The Halloween case is currently in mediation.

In Arizona a battle waged on for years through court after court, only to be lost on the steps of the United States Supreme Court.  May v. Shinn came about as a result of a legislative statute in which the burden of proof was shifted from the state to the defendant. Rather than for the state to be required to prove that Mr. May had criminal intent in his touching of a child, Mr. May, and others similarly situation, were put in the position of having to prove that they did not. Courts differed throughout the years of this lengthy battle with most favoring the plaintiff’s position that this burden-shifting was in violation of the Constitution. Hopes were high as the case reached the Supreme Court, only to be destroyed when the Court did not grant cert.

NARSOL has participated in other skirmishes whose outcomes are not yet determined. Rhode Island has proved a battlefield of long standing. The issue involves residency restrictions and would evict registrants from the homes where they had been living before the law was passed that increased the restricted distance from 300 to 1,000 feet. The ACLU filed Freitas v. Kilmartin on October 29, 2015. A restraining order was sought and granted the very next day, to remain in effect until trial, which was originally set to begin in January of the following year. The state was not ready, citing discovery issues. The trial has never taken place; the restraining order remains in place, and registrants remain, for now, in their homes.

Georgia saw battles launched on several fronts regarding signage on private property required at Halloween and other requirements not authorized by law. One county backed down after receiving a cease-and-desist letter from NARSOL; the sheriff and other officials in another vowed to fight on, and so did NARSOL. That case is ongoing and morphing into something different from what it started. Wherever it goes, we will be there.

Whether the battles are fought in the courtroom or in legislative chambers, they are fought. Some are lost; some are won. They will continue to be fought; NARSOL will continue fighting, until, one by one, enough are won that we will have won the war. This won’t happen in the next few months or, most likely, not even the next few years.

But it will happen.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

As vice chair of NARSOL, Robin is the managing editor of the Digest, director of development, and provides assistance to the webmaster in keeping our websites running smoothly. He also serves as founder and president of Vivante Espero, NARSOL’s 501(c)(3) foundation and legal fund.

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

Sandy Rozek

Sandy is communications director for NARSOL, editor-in-chief of the Digest, and a writer for the Digest and the NARSOL website. Additionally, she participates in updating and managing the website and assisting with a variety of organizational tasks.

Source: https://narsol.org/2021/04/narsol-others-continue-battle-for-those-on-sexual-offense-registry/

NARSOL Speakers Bureau

narsol-speakers-bureau

Chrysanthi S. Leon, J.D., Ph.D.

Chrysanthi Leon, JD, PhD, is Deputy Dean of the Honors College at the University of Delaware and Associate Professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice with secondary appointments in Women and Gender Studies and Legal Studies. She received her graduate degrees from UC Berkeley. Leon is an interdisciplinary scholar in the area of penology, law and society who teaches courses on law and social science, sex crime and punishment, and criminal justice and mental health. Her book, Sex Fiends, Perverts and Pedophiles: Understanding Sex Crime Policy in America, is available from NYU Press. Leon is co-editor, with Katie Hail-Jares and Corey Shdaimah, of Challenging Perspectives on Street-Based Sex Work (Temple University Press).

Dr. Leon has consulted on sex crime issues for a number of agencies, including the U.S. Attorney’s office and the Justice Center of Louisiana and speaks regionally and nationally on sex offender issues, including media commentary in venues such as NPR’s NYC affiliate, the Takeaway and Al Jazeera, America.

Speaking Topics

  • Impact of the registry
  • Sex offense recidivism
  • Religious communities and re-entering persons
  • History of US sex offense policy

SCHEDULE CHRYSANTHI S. LEON

Source: https://narsol.org/narsol-speakers-bureau/

Halloween sign challenge suffers setback

halloween-sign-challenge-suffers-setback

By Larry . . . On September 24, 2019, NARSOL engaged an attorney and filed a lawsuit a suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia challenging the Butts County Sheriff’s Office’s practice of placing warning signs at the residences of registered persons before Halloween. The court granted a request for a preliminary injunction which prevented the Butts County Sheriff’s Office from erecting signs on the property of the plaintiffs during the 2019 Halloween holiday. With Halloween 2020 rapidly approaching, NARSOL’s legal team moved for Summary Judgment (decision without a trial) to permanently enjoin the sheriff’s office from placing signs in front of their homes, or, in the alternative, a new preliminary injunction barring sign placement during 2020 Halloween. Unfortunately, the court denied our motion for summary judgment and resolved the case against us, denying the relief we had sought. In addition, most of the assertions raised in the complaint were dismissed with prejudice meaning they cannot be raised again.

Background

One of the registrants lives with his 6-year-old daughter and his parents, who own the home where they all reside. Shortly before Halloween 2018, two Butts County sheriff’s deputies appeared at his door to inform him that the sheriff’s office would be placing a sign in front of  their home. The sign conveyed a “community safety message” from the sheriff’s office “warning” that there could be no trick-or-treating at the home. The other plaintiffs had similar stories.

As amended, their complaint asserted three claims:

  • That the state compelled speech from the plaintiffs in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
  • That the state trespassed in violation of state law.
  • That the state committed an unlawful taking of the plaintiffs’ property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Explanation of Summary Judgment

“Summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is proper ‘if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving party bears the burden of establishing that no genuine issues of material fact exist. All facts and all inferences to be drawn therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. The Court’s function at the point of summary judgment is limited to determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented to make the issue of fact a proper question for the factfinder. The Court does not weigh the evidence or determine the truth of the matter. Nor does the Court search the record ‘to establish that it is bereft of a genuine issue of material fact.’ Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1479- 80 (6th Cir. 1989). Thus, ‘the inquiry performed is the threshold inquiry of determining whether there is a need for a trial-whether, in other words, there are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party.’ ” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250.

The standards upon which a court evaluates motions for summary judgment do not change when, as here, both parties seek to resolve the case through the vehicle of cross-motions for summary judgment. “The fact that both parties have moved for summary judgment does not mean that the court must grant judgment as a matter of law for one side or the other; summary judgment in favor of either party is not proper if disputes remain as to material facts. Taft Broad. Co. v. United States, 929 F.2d 240, 248 (6th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). Instead, “. . . the court must evaluate each party’s motion on its own merits, taking care in each instance to draw all reasonable inferences against the party whose motion is under consideration.” Id. For more details, see our article on Does v. Rausch in the August/September Digest.

What is Trespass?

The plaintiffs brought two claims alleging the signs intrude on their property rights.  It is undisputed that two of the plaintiffs did not own the property where each resided at the times the signs were placed. The defendants argue that as a result, neither of them had “standing to assert any claim that turns on a real property interest.” The defendants contended that a third party who is not a property owner cannot maintain a trespass action, and the Court agreed.   , 214 Ga. 149, 151, 103 S.E.2d 557 (1958) (“To maintain an action for trespass or injury to realty, it is essential that the plaintiff show either that he was the true owner or was in possession at the time of the trespass.”) The plaintiffs accused the defendants of “an inaccurate recitation of the law as addressed” and cited contrary ‘authority.’ That authority consisted of three cases.  The court stated, “None remotely supported their argument.” Order at 9.

Quoting from the Order the court stated, “Under Georgia law, “[t]respass is a wrongful interference with the right to the exclusive use and benefit of a property right.” Bishop Eddie Long Ministries, Inc. v. Dillard, 272 Ga. App. 894, 901, 613 S.E.2d 673, 682 (2005) (citing OCGA § 51-9-1). The plaintiffs argue, perplexingly, that “[t]he facts underlying Petitioners’ trespass claims are wholly undisputed by either party[.]” Doc. 50-1 at 29. Among those purportedly undisputed facts, they say, is that “Respondents were entering private property which was closed to the public[.]” Id. at 30.  But that critical issue is, in fact, hotly disputed: The defendants claim they placed the signs in the rights-of-way.  Doc. 51-1 ¶ 4. But as critical as that issue is, the parties have all been unable to find evidence establishing the location and extent of the rights-of-way, if any, on the plaintiffs’ properties.  Nor have they been able to find legal authority that resolves the relative rights of the general public, the abutting landowner, and the sheriff’s office in the rights-of-way. Order at 11-12.

The court stated, “There is no clearly established law that every temporary physical invasion of property constitutes a taking. Further, if even the parties’ counsel have not yet found law establishing the location of the rights-of-way and the relative rights of the parties in the rights-of-way, certainly a reasonable officer would not have known the placement of the signs interfered with the plaintiffs’ property interests. And again, the officers have adduced undisputed evidence that they at least attempted to place the signs in what they believed was the right-of-way. They are entitled to qualified immunity on the takings claim.” Order at 18-19.

Compelled Speech0

The First Amendment “forbids abridgement of the freedom of speech,” and “freedom of speech includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.”  Now, the record is more developed, and there is evidence that the sheriff’s office does not now have a policy of prohibiting or the intention to prohibit competing speech. The plaintiffs dispute this, citing the sheriff’s testimony at the preliminary injunction hearing before last Halloween. They cite no further evidence showing such a policy or intention. On the issue of injunctive relief, the initial question, then, is whether the record provides evidence that the sheriff’s office intends to bar the plaintiffs from placing competing messages. It does not. Whatever the sheriff’s office planned to do in 2019, it is clear now it will not attempt to impinge the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. The plaintiffs are free to offer speech competing with the Sheriff’s Office’s views and to disassociate themselves from those views. Order at 21-22.0

Is There Hope?

Yes, because the court was not able to resolve all issues, particularly the issue of whether the signs were on public right-of-way or private property. Quoting from the order, “The Court first makes clear what it is not concluding. The Sheriff’s Office believes it has the right to post the signs in front of the Plaintiffs’ homes as long as the signs are in yet to be defined rights-of-way and that it can prosecute anyone who moves the signs.  The Court doesn’t reach that issue, but as noted, the Defendants have scant authority to support either proposition.  And the Court certainly doesn’t conclude, given the facts here, that putting the signs in the Plaintiffs’ yards makes sense. Rather, the Court only concludes that, for the most part, the relief the Plaintiffs seek is not available.” Order at 28.

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

Larry Neely

Larry serves as NARSOL’S treasurer, publisher of the Digest, and co-chair of the conference planning committee. He also hosts the “NARSOL in Action” and “Can They Do That?” webinars and is a regular on the “Registry Matters” podcasts.

Source: https://narsol.org/2020/11/halloween-sign-challenge-suffers-setback/

NARSOL’s litigation summit webcast; sign up now!

narsol’s-litigation-summit-webcast;-sign-up-now!
http://narsol.org/

Fresh on the heels of our record-setting summer NARSOL LIVE web event, the National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws will soon be hosting a NARSOL LIVE Litigation Summit on November 19 & 21, 2020. This live virtual event will feature dynamic attorney presenters speaking on the hottest topics in registry litigation, giving us updates and insights to the key court cases recently decided or currently in play that could have electrifying implications for the future of the registry.  Members in good-standing are eligible for a 10% discount, and should have received an email with their special coupon code.    Register Now 

  • Paul Dubbeling, Civil Rights Attorney & NARSOL General Counsel
  • Our presenters include:Erica Dubno, Post-Conviction Counsel
  • Aaron Marcus, Civil Rights Attorney
  • Adele Nicholas, Civil Rights Attorney
  • Paul Reingold, Civil Rights Attorney & Law Professor Emeritus
  • Mark Yurachek, Post-Conviction & Appeals Attorney

Program schedule (all times EST):

Thursday: 

  • 6:30 PM opening
  • 6:45 Mark Yurachek – Georgia
  • 7:45 break
  • 8:00 Erica Dubno – Arizona
  • 9:00 closing

Saturday

  • 10:45 AM opening
  • 11:00 Paul Dubbeling
  • 12:00 Aaron Marcus
  • 1:00 Lunch
  • 1:45 Details
  • 2:00 Paul Rinegold
  • 3:00 Adele Nicholas
  • 5:15 closing

We look forward to providing you with this next installment in our series of World-Class Events to educate, energize, and empower our members and supporters nationwide. The path to registry reform/abolishment starts with knowledge, and we know you’ll find the NARSOL LIVE Litigation Summit a great way to provide you with the critical information you need to be better informed and a more effective advocate for criminal justice reform change.

For 30 days after the event, the recordings will be available for viewing, and access can be purchased after November 21 during the 30 days.

Watch the “electric” video trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZLUeN6QdUA

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

Avatar

Source: https://narsol.org/2020/10/https-youtu-be-c4ojnfpsm7g/

Reason agrees: No red dots marking those on sex offense registry at Halloween

reason-agrees:-no-red-dots-marking-those-on-sex-offense-registry-at-halloween

Originally published 10/1/2020 at Reason; reprinted in full here with permission.

By Jacob Sullum . . . Every year in the run-up to Halloween, Patch publishes maps showing the homes of “registered sex offenders” in various cities. Ostensibly, this information is aimed at helping parents who worry that their children might be molested while trick-or-treating. But research shows that such fears have no basis in reality, and these stories—like the warning signs and restrictions imposed by local police prior to Halloween—mainly serve to stigmatize people who have already completed their sentences, along with their spouses and children, who have committed no crimes at all. That stigma invites harassment, vandalism, and violence. Like much local journalism, the practice of publishing these maps is ill-informed sensationalism masquerading as a public service.

This fall a petition organized by the National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL) is urging Patch and other outlets to cut it out. Noting the “total lack of evidence that the publication of these addresses at Halloween keeps children safe,” the petition asks news organizations to “cease a hurtful publication practice that has no positive effect at all on child protection or public safety.”

The irrationality of that practice is clear once you understand a few basic facts:

1. Sex offender registries include a wide range of people, many of whom were not convicted of crimes against children.

2. Sex offenders stay on the registry long after they have completed their official punishment, even though they are less likely to commit new offenses of the same type than people convicted of other crimes. According to a 2019 report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), less than 8 percent of people who had served sentences for rape or sexual assault were rearrested for a similar crime within nine years after they were released. That report also shows that the annual risk of recidivism falls dramatically over time.

3. The vast majority of sexually abused minors—93 percent, according to a 2000 BJS report—are assaulted by relatives, family friends, or other people they already know.

4. The vast majority of convicted sex offenders—86 percent, according to another BJS report—have no prior convictions for this category of crime, so they would not show up in registries.

5. There is no evidence that children face a higher risk of sexual assault on Halloween than they do the rest of the year. A 2009 analysis of 67,000 cases, reported in the journal Sexual Abuse, found “no increased rate on or just before Halloween.”

The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) amplifies that last point: “A heightened risk of being sexually abused is NOT one of the dangers children face at Halloween. The simple fact is that there are no significant increases in sex crimes on or around Halloween. There is no ‘Halloween effect.’ There is no change in the rate of sexual crimes by non-family members during Halloween. That was true both before and after communities enacted laws to restrict the activities of registrants during Halloween.”

In light of this evidence, the NARSOL petition argues, pre-Halloween stories showing the homes of people on the sex offender registry are gratuitous, unethical, and reckless. NARSOL adds that the focus on a nonexistent threat distracts attention from the main perpetrators of sex offenses against children, which are rarely committed by strangers, and from the main danger that kids face on Halloween: traffic accidents. The Washington Post reports that “children are three times more likely to be fatally injured by a car on the holiday, and the risk grows to 10 times for kids 4 to 8.”

The 150 or so signatories include ATSA, activists and journalists (including Reason contributor Lenore Skenazy) who support reform of sex offense laws, and an impressive list of professionals and academics. Among them are Elizabeth Letourneau, director of the Moore Center for the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse at Johns Hopkins University; Jill Levenson, a professor of social work at Barry University; Fred Berlin, director of the National Institute for the Study, Prevention, and Treatment of Sexual Trauma; Carleton University psychologist Karl Hanson; Arizona State law professor Ira Ellman; Southwestern Law School professor Catherine Carpenter; and University of Delaware sociologist Chrysanthi Leon.

Might these experts know more about this subject than the editors and writers who insist that parents should “find out where the registered sex offenders are living…before the kids go out trick-or-treating”? Perhaps Patch will consider the possibility.

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

Avatar

Source: https://narsol.org/2020/10/reason-agrees-no-red-dots-marking-those-on-sex-offense-registry-at-halloween/

Halloween, “Sex Offenders,” and Big Red Dots

NARSOL’s Halloween project this year, developed and implemented by NARSOL and Connecticut’s One Standard of Justice, is an open letter in the form of a press release asking for the end to “red-dotting” the homes or listing the names and addresses of those listed on sexual offense registries. This is an insidious practice that has developed over the past ten or so years, a practice that is totally contradicted by research. The open letter is signed by NARSOL, by all of our affiliate organizations and most individual contacts, and by a great many notable organizations and individuals.

The Patch websites are especially prolific in the publishing of these maps and articles. A copy of the open letter was sent to the president of Patch Publications with an appeal to him to engage in a dialogue with NARSOL and with One Standard of Justice. He chose not to respond.

You may  view the press release here, complete with all of the names who signed in support.

The truth behind virtually all child sex trafficking rings: there are no rings

the-truth-behind-virtually-all-child-sex-trafficking-rings:-there-are-no-rings
http://narsol.org/

By Michael Hobbes . . . Human trafficking has been having an eventful summer. In July, internet sleuths accused online retailer Wayfair of selling missing children in overpriced cabinets. In August, QAnon supporters (along with some well-meaning if ill-informed influencers) held nationwide “Save the Children” rallies.

And last week, there was the trailer story.

“U.S. Marshals Find 39 Missing Children in Georgia During ‘Operation Not Forgotten,’” proclaimed the government’s official press release. Federal agents and local law enforcement, it said, had rescued 26 children, “safely located” 13 more and arrested nine perpetrators, some of whom were charged with sex trafficking.

The facts of the operation weren’t clear (what does “safely located” mean, exactly?), but it didn’t stop media outlets from taking up the story. “Missing Children Rescued in Georgia Sex Trafficking Bust” wrote The Associated Press, a headline dutifully repeated in The New York Times. “39 Missing Children Located in Georgia Sex Trafficking Sting Operation” was People magazine’s version. Few media outlets contributed any original reporting; the vast majority of stories were little more than rewritten versions of the U.S. Marshals Service’s press release.

Within hours, social media users continued the game of telephone. “39 kids were just recovered from traffickers in Georgia,” Charlie Kirk, the founder of the right-wing student group Turning Point USA, wrote in a tweet. “Law enforcement officers saved their lives.

How is this not the biggest story in America right now?” . . .

Well, to answer a one-sentence question with a one-sentence answer, 39 kids being rescued from a trailer in Georgia is not the biggest news story in America because 39 kids were not rescued from a trailer in Georgia. 

“This is not the big trafficking bust everyone thinks it is,” said Erin Albright, a human trafficking and law enforcement consultant who works with cities to develop anti-trafficking strategies. “Any time a child is being harmed and is connected with meaningful support, that’s good. But at the same time, we have to recognize that these stories are not what they look like at first.” . . .

But What About All Those Kids They Found In The Trailer?

Yeah, there was no trailer.

Federal agents did not rescue a large number of children from a single location — or even a single jurisdiction. Kirby told HuffPost that only two children were recovered together. The other kids were found individually across 15 Georgia counties and six other states: South Carolina, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Florida, Kentucky and Michigan. The operation took place over two weeks, not one night.

In other words, the “sex trafficking sting” described in headlines and social media posts was neither a sex trafficking operation nor a sting. . . .

But At Least They Rescued A Bunch Of Kids From Traffickers, Right?

Nope again.

One of the greatest misconceptions about child sex trafficking is that it requires a trafficker. Legally speaking, every time a person under 18 trades sex for anything of value, they have been trafficked. The statutory definition does not require coercion, force or the involvement of a pimp.

In the majority of underage sex trafficking cases, Albright said, the child is homeless, has run away from foster care or has been kicked out by their parents, often due to being queer or transgender. Many of these kids end up trading sex for money, drugs or a place to sleep because it’s their only way to survive. . . .

You’re Not Implying That Child Sex Trafficking Is Fake, Are You? 

No, I’m not a monster. Child sex trafficking is real, and it’s important for America to do something about it.

It’s also important, however, to acknowledge that the actual drivers of underage sex work are far more complicated than airport posters and Liam Neeson movies would have you believe.

First of all, decades of social science research has found that the vast majority of children are abused by someone they know, usually their parents but sometimes other children or figures of authority they trust. “Stranger danger” kidnappings, on the other hand, are extremely rare — the latest estimate is 115 per year in the entire United States.

Read the full story here at the HuffPost.

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

Avatar

Source: https://narsol.org/2020/09/the-truth-behind-virtually-all-child-sex-trafficking-rings-there-are-no-rings/

GA: Hundreds of Georgia sex offenders off ankle monitors as lawmakers seek legal fix

ga:-hundreds-of-georgia-sex-offenders-off-ankle-monitors-as-lawmakers-seek-legal-fix
July 2020SundayMondayTuesdayWednesdayThursdayFridaySaturdayJune 28, 2020

7:30 pm: Affiliate Development Meeting

7:30 pm: Affiliate Development Meeting

June 28, 2020

 

 

June 29, 2020June 30, 2020July 1, 2020July 2, 2020

8:00 pm: Tech Committee Meeting

8:00 pm: Tech Committee Meeting

July 2, 2020

 

 

July 3, 2020July 4, 2020July 5, 2020July 6, 2020July 7, 2020July 8, 2020July 9, 2020July 10, 2020July 11, 2020July 12, 2020July 13, 2020July 14, 2020

7:30 pm: Board Meeting

7:30 pm: Board Meeting

July 14, 2020

 

 

July 15, 2020July 16, 2020July 17, 2020July 18, 2020July 19, 2020

8:00 pm: Nominating Committee Meeting

8:00 pm: Nominating Committee Meeting

July 19, 2020

 

 

July 20, 2020July 21, 2020July 22, 2020July 23, 2020July 24, 2020July 25, 2020July 26, 2020

7:30 pm: Affiliate Development Meeting

7:30 pm: Affiliate Development Meeting

July 26, 2020

 

 

July 27, 2020July 28, 2020July 29, 2020July 30, 2020July 31, 2020August 1, 2020

Source: https://narsol.org/2020/07/ga-hundreds-of-georgia-sex-offenders-off-ankle-monitors-as-lawmakers-seek-legal-fix/

PA cannot require registration of juvenile offenders rules PA Supreme Court

pa-cannot-require-registration-of-juvenile-offenders-rules-pa-supreme-court

By Jerry B . . . In 2006, Defendant  Zeno committed two delinquent acts that occurred when he was age 14 and 16. Because of the nature of the two acts, his case was transferred from juvenile court to adult criminal court where he pled guilty to rape of a child, sexual assault, criminal attempt (rape), criminal attempt (incest), and indecent assault. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of four to eight years’ incarceration followed by five years’ probation, and informed him that he would be required to register as a sex offender. In August of 2017, Zeno was found guilty of violating the terms of his probation and parole and was sentenced to 2 to 10 years of incarceration.

Zeno challenged the registration based on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Ruling in In Re J.B.,107 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014) that “SORNA’s registration requirements improperly brand all juvenile offender’s reputations with an indelible mark of a dangerous recidivist even though the irrebuttable presumption linking adjudication of specified offenses with a high likelihood of recidivating is not ‘universally true.’ . . . The application of SORNA’s current lifetime registration requirements upon adjudication of specified offenses violates juvenile offenders’ due process rights by utilizing an irrebuttable presumption.”

The Commonwealth, however, argued that since Zeno was tried in criminal court rather than Juvenile Court, he was eligible for registration as a sex offender.

A panel of Superior Court justices disagreed with the Commonwealth and ruled that because Zeno was a juvenile when he committed the crimes, he does not have to register as a sex offender. In Re J.B. applies to him. See the decision here.

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

Avatar

Source: https://narsol.org/2020/05/pa-cannot-require-registration-of-juvenile-offenders-rules-pa-supreme-court/

Just what is Vivante Espero and what does it do?

just-what-is-vivante-espero-and-what-does-it-do?

By Larry . . . We recently received a letter written by  a  prisoner  asking  specifics on what the Vivante Espero  Foundation  does. The  writer  suggested  that  he  would  consider  supporting  us  if  we  addressed  his  concerns. We view the letter as an opportunity to help our readers who are  incarcerated  better  understand  what  we do since most incarcerated individuals  are  not  able  to  stay  fully  connected  due  to  the  constraints  of  the  penal  system.  Our Digest newsletter/magazine  is  the  best means of connection for those incarcerated.

First, he asked what Vivante Espero  is. Vivante Espero is the education and  program arm of NARSOL, and it has  been granted 501 (c)(3) status by the  Internal Revenue Service. This is consistent  with  how  other  organizations  are structured. For instance, the ACLU  has a foundation which permits them  flexibility to separate their day to day  operations  from  their  core  mission.  Donations made to Vivante are tax deductible.

Second, the writer observed that we  have  some  nice  brochures  and  questioned if that is the best utilization of  our  resources.  We  have  learned  that  this is a no-­win situation, and we are  criticized regardless of what we do. If  we print black and white brochures in-house, we are criticized as being unprofessional.  If  we  have  nicer  brochures  and  letterhead,  some  feel  we  are  wasting  resources.  We  have  concluded  that  quality  materials  enhance the image of the organization,  and we purchase  printed  material  at  very  favorable  prices.

The  most  significant  point  the  writer  noted  was  that  our  brochure  mentions  conferences,  lobbying,  strategic  planning  and  litigation, and he wanted more details. NARSOL has held a national  conference each year since 2009.  Unfortunately, our 2020 national  conference  which  was  scheduled  to be held in Raleigh in June will  be  conducted  electronically  because  of  the  pandemic.  National  conferences consist of 2 ½ days of  fantastic speakers and workshops which  assist  those  advocating  for  reform.

NARSOL is involved in a number of  legal cases around the United States.  For  example,  we  have  filed  amicus  briefs in some important cases, including  Millard  v.  Rankin  in  the  United  States Court of Appeals for the Tenth  Circuit. This is the case in which a Colorado federal judge found various aspects  of  their  registration  law  to  be  unconstitutional.  NARSOL  also  has  initiated  litigation.  We  initiated  two  cases  in  Georgia  challenging  rogue  sheriffs who decided to unilaterally impose a requirement forcing registrants  to erect signs on Halloween. Due to extremely  limited  resources,  NARSOL  only supports impact litigation, which  means cases that have the potential to  have far reaching ramifications.

The lobbying that NARSOL does is  facilitated by our affiliates and advocates at the state level. This is because each  state  has  its  own  registration  scheme, which means the battle must  be fought at the state level. If Congress  were to repeal the SORNA component  of the Adam Walsh Act, there would  still be 50 registration schemes operating, and they would not go away. This  does not mean we do not think it’s important  to  lobby  at  the  federal  level.  We are hoping for the day that additional resources will materialize which  will permit us to have a presence in the  U.S. Capitol.

In  addition  to  the  things  listed  above, NARSOL conducts training and  holds  regular  conference  calls  which  are  well  attended.  Those  conference  calls  review  important  cases  and  feature attorneys and other prominent  leaders who help our stakeholders in  professional development. The Vivante  Foundation  publishes  the  newsletter  six  times  each  year  which  is  distributed  in  printed  form  to  approximately  1,000,  to  more  than  5,000  to  those  receiving  it  electronically, and to over 1,000 in the  Federal Prison System. NARSOL and  Vivante  send  representatives  to  important conferences each year such  as  the  National  Association  of  Criminal  Defense  Lawyers  (NACDL)  and the Association for the Treatment  of Sexual Abusers (ATSA). It manages  and supports Humans on the Registry  and Fearless support groups.

The Vivante Espero foundation is a  vital  and  important  component  in  NARSOL’s fight for equal rights of all  people and in accomplishing our goal  of eliminating the shaming public sexual offense registry.

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

Larry Neely

Larry serves as NARSOL’S treasurer, publisher of the Digest, and co-chair of the conference planning committee. He also hosts the “NARSOL in Action” and “Can They Do That?” webinars and is a regular on the “Registry Matters” podcasts.

Source: https://narsol.org/2020/05/just-what-is-vivante-espero-and-what-does-it-do/