Michigan’s SORA is punishment, says MI Attorney General in amicus briefs

February 8, 2019

LANSING, MI – Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed amicus briefs in the Michigan Supreme Court today in Michigan v Snyder (Case number 153696) and People v Betts (Case number 148981), arguing that Michigan’s sex offender registration and notification requirements are punishment because they are so burdensome and fail to distinguish between dangerous offenders and those who are not a threat to the community.

“When originally put into place, Michigan’s Sex Offender Registration Act was narrow in scope and specifically designed to be an important law enforcement tool to protect the public from dangerous offenders,” said Nessel.  “But since its enactment, the Act has swelled without any focus on individualized assessment of risk to the community, which makes it increasingly difficult for law enforcement officers to know which offenders to focus on. It also makes it difficult for offenders to rehabilitate and reintegrate into the community because they are limited in where they can live, work or even attend their children’s school functions.”

Nessel also pointed out that public accessibility of the registry has led to shaming, ostracizing, and even bullying of registrants and their families.  Because the registry now allows the public to submit tips on the registry website, the public is essentially encouraged to act as vigilantes, opening the possibility for classmates, work colleagues and community members to be vindictive and retaliatory.

“There are certainly dangerous sexual predators and the public needs to be protected from them,” said Nessel, “but the current requirements are not the way to achieve that goal.”

Amendments to the Act in 2006 and 2011 – especially geographic exclusionary zones and in-person reporting requirements –are onerous restrictions that are not supported by evolving research and best practices related to recidivism, rehabilitation, and community safety.  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently agreed, holding that Michigan’s SORA is punishment and cannot be applied retroactively.  A number of state supreme courts have struck down their state registry laws on similar grounds.

“Simply put,” said Nessel, “the state Sex Offender Registration Act has gone far beyond its purpose and now imposes burdens that are so punitive in their effect that they negate the State’s public safety justification.”

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


This topic contains 58 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by Charlie Charlie 2 months, 1 week ago.

  • Author
  • #51829 Reply

    February 8, 2019 LANSING, MI – Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed amicus briefs in the Michigan Supreme Court today in Michigan v Snyder (Cas
    [See the full post at: Michigan’s SORA is punishment, says MI Attorney General in amicus briefs]

  • #51831 Reply

    Wow. Gov. Snyder and A.G. Shulette wouldn’t budge on this, even after the 6th Circuit ruled it unconstitutional. Only 6 weeks after taking office, new Gov. Whitmer and A.G. Nessel are pushing it through with no delay or non-sense.

  • #51838 Reply

    The winds of change for the better of S. O. ‘s is coming!

    • #51889 Reply

      I sincerely hope so. I hope these positive changes to the SORA spreads to other states. And very soon!

  • #51846 Reply

    Yes there should be a reassessment to those on registry , not just by what offense they Committed many years ago and every state should state it’s all punitive to every registrant and families !! We been dealing with this restriction stuff almost nine years now ! Our child can’t even have his daddy participate in nothing but being at home outside , whee is the liberty to live and move around and just to be a family ,, and why isn’t csl abolished yet , nobody should have to go thru this for life , it is not redemptive and doesn’t restore them ,, and be on csl , is not that another punishment after probation is up , I hope naraol will work on this part to to stop csl in its tracts after people get off probation , my hub is already o. Probation 18 years and the attorney never said how long he be on the registry nor explaib what csl is when he was faced with the plea deal ;( please help the families , and also help get the registries to be private , all the registrants families are in danger and victimized from society cause of the repercussions the registry causes , from loseing a job , to not able to get a job from having to move , can’t do thus do that etc ,,,there is more to life then going out to eat as it’s the only thing not restricted unless you go out of the county , and why county restrictions to ? I understand state but to say you can’t leave just the county unless you notify pro is crazy , yes we deal with every rule and abide by it , but it doesn’t make it right to do to people ;( registrants and their families date treated worst then even a murderer ;( it’s reficulos and yes I’m very sad , please help our families

  • #51848 Reply

    Yeah now if that would start happening from 2011 till 2019 it would feel like things are really starting to happen, and if something would happen in pa. it would be a miracle.

  • #51853 Reply
    Edward T. Byrd

    It’s not only the offender who is punished but his entire family. The collateral damage done by the registry cannot be overstated.

  • #51855 Reply

    finally an honest cop

  • #51856 Reply
    Obvious answers

    I would feel more hopeful if the reality wasnt that when ever they give a little it is only to take a lot …I would love for my son to see his home..he is American to but illegals have more rights then he does….never will a member of my family strap on boots for this country again except to take it back.

  • #51857 Reply
    Don Gury

    I have a legal question that doe not involve the current topic of what’s happened in Michigan. My Q has to do with the registry in Florida. I know they are very strict there, as I watched the documentary “Untouchable”. I am retired, three times over. I spent 13 years on the registry in Maryland and was removed in 2014. If I wanted to move to Florida, and the authorities found out I was previously on the registry in MD., if they put me in jail, wouldn’t that action violate a civil right issue? I checked to see if I was listed anywhere on the registry and I don’t find my name any place I look. That means I’m DONE, right?
    Thanks for your time.

    • #51866 Reply

      Don, from what I’ve read about Florida sex offender laws, you would have to register within three days even though you are no longer on the registry, I won’t ever visit Florida because the laws are too strict as I too am off the registry after ten years, hope this helps

      • #51890 Reply

        Same here. I have immediate family members who live in Florida. I will never visit them because of Florida’s draconian laws and “public safety” measures.

  • #51858 Reply

    This is a GREAT accomplishment! How do we get it applied to Florida and Wisconsin?? I’m convicted in WI in 1996 when no registration existed. I was 19 she was 15 and age was the ONLY factor in my case. I was in WI on vacation. I always resided in FL. Over the last 23 yrs I have personally experienced all of the very things the attorney general pointed out occurring in MI. I have lost jobs, humiliated at work, moved into an apartment and 24 hrs later city police knocked on my door and demanded I move within 24 hrs or I would be arrested. In 2003 I was in process of moving one county to another and was arrested for failure to report address change within 48 hrs. After thousands in attorney’s fees and bailing out of jail it was later resolved without adjudication… I’ve been denied jobs, had anonymous posters passed around my place of employment and my neighborhood to all my neighbors. And I know what has personally happened to me has happened far worse to others. It’s unjust, and most certainly ex post facto when registration didn’t exist when I was convicted. WI also carries an annual registration fee… I heard rumor FL wants to impose a fee… this is in addition to the fact every time I change addresses or want to add a new temporary address I personally have to visit the sheriff’s office and driver’s license office to update this info and FL DMV charges $35 for the update each time. This is horrendous continued punishment. In my case I was given 7 yrs probation. I completed that 16 yrs ago… The registration requirements are harsher than probation was. And for 16 yrs I’ve been supposedly a free man… We need to band together and fight our respective states that are violating our constitutional rights. I’m sick and tired of being a puppet to legislature and LE!!

    • #51882 Reply

      Justin, Wisconsin SOR began via 1993act98. Statute 175.45(93)

    • #51897 Reply

      My story mirrors yours in Texas down to most of the details. I asked the DMV clerk stealing my money this past year if they knew they are involved in expost facto actions against me every year including this one for the last 20+ years? They looked at me with that blank stare but got a little fidgety.

      Please note that any activity conducted on, for or against the registered sex offender who has completed the original agreed sentence such as SUBJECTIVE REASSESSMENT by those who have every interest in you REMAINING IN THE SCHEME opens up a new EXPOST FACTO phase in your life. It’s time they lay it down and walk away from us.

      The bottom line is they think they have a higher claim over your life than you do because their man-made regulations are backed by the threat of force.

      Any class action naming defendants should include the street level enforcers because no man-made regulation has any effect without the actions/threat we encounter at the hands of the administrative level clerk or sheriff, police desk jockey staring at you.

  • #51864 Reply

    As bad as Michigan’s registry is, Floriduh’s is worse. Every year punishments increase. There is no risk assessment, you’re either a “sexual offender” or “sexual predator,” and these designations are arbitrary and capricious. In fact, you can move from being an offender to predator without committing a new sexual offense, just by not complying with the hundreds of conditions you are subject to. You can read how onerous and barbaric these “laws” are here:


  • #51865 Reply
    a man without a country

    Another important but seldom discussed issue is the scope of time and aging SOs. I am not the healthy young guy I was 20 years ago. In fact, due to a chronic, incurable health issue, I am pretty much stuck at home 24/7 except for trips WITH MY WIFE to the grocery store every week and to the clinic for my health issue once a month or so. Any kind of reassessment should make a point of including health and age issues in the equation. Some days, just walking around at home is a major undertaking for me! What kind of a threat does that make me now?

  • #51867 Reply

    Dana Nessel is a lion with a heart and a soul. Very rare in this world ruled by gutless politicians looking for fame and a quick buck. I too was removed from the registry in one state just to have to re register after moving to another. All The differing state laws are so contradictory and confusing nobody can make heads or tales out of them without unjust hypocritical bias. It’s made this country look like a monkey cage at the zoo.
    I hope Attorney General Nessel takes her case to the top. She has definitely done her research and has the facts not hysterical hearsay like all those that might oppose her.

  • #51874 Reply

    When are we going to make a stand against the registry itself?

    People continually argue of the rules of the registry. NOT the registry itself. People convicted of an offense of sexual nature are the LEAST likely to commit any crime let alone a crime of sexual nature… if the registry is to notify the public of high risk individuals for “public safety”… then it should be fore those crimes that are statistically and empirically shown and HIGH rates of recidivism… those are HOME INVASIONS, DUI, VIOLENT CRIMES TO COMPLETE STRANGERS, DRUGS.

    PLEASE someone start arguing the TRUTH. EMPIRICALLY BASED / EVIDENCE BASED arguments… NO MORE OF THIS THEORETICAL, POLITICAL RHETORIC. Ask them to provide the evidence behind their claims! they will not be able to provide any.

    There are decades of published research from our very own government, not some cheezy news paper article, all backed up by the worlds leading research clinicians and many of these publications have made it into several state laws and case law.

    start looking thru the summary reports for each chapter, dig thru the research references.

    i want to know when the Class Action Law suit is coming? Who do I need to speak to? the only way these types of laws are changed is to sue them for everything they have for lying to the public. specifically and categorically targeting a “group”, blatantly stripping people from their constitutional rights.

    They are trying to create an INTERNATIONAL MEGANS LAW. How ludicrous is this thing? It has grown so far out of control they are trying to put the entire world on a registry all based on an absolute LIE.

    Links removed due to NARSOL rules against posting links. Sorry…

  • #51873 Reply

    This is a great day, for all Americans ! Thank God someone has realized this is unconstitutional, these barbaric mid evil punishments are wrong , always have been, always will be. Modern day Civil Rights movement ? This is big ! 🙂

  • #51878 Reply

    This is great news. Being a Michigan resident, and a sex offender I have been waiting years for this to happen. All states need to look at their laws and make sure they are constitunial, and fair, not just a ploy to to remain in office by scaring the public.

  • #51888 Reply

    Everyone should contact the AG’s office in Michigan and thank this lady for being so courageous and Correct!!!!!

    • #51964 Reply
      Registered notoffender

      You are right she’s going to get a lot of negative feedback and be painted negatively as soft on crime we have a duty to counteract that by sending her support

  • #51895 Reply

    What this means is that the top law enforcement official in Michigan does not support the registry. This is the person who passes down orders to the state police and local law enforcement agencies. They look to her for direction.

  • #51898 Reply

    For every legislator or official who exhibits rational thinking along these lines there are 100 who tirelessly work to turn the screws and make life unbearable for us. An. Official in Ohio once told me the problem is that those who evaluate offenders can’t discern who is or who is not a serious risk, so they opt to ever on the side of caution. I don’t ever see any meaningful change happening in my lifetime. Nevada requires annual driver license renewal even when an offender has to register 4 times yearly. Why?

  • #51899 Reply
    John P

    This is a great story and a great moment in our fight for justice. While we can all loathe the registry and hope it is deemed unconstitutional, the reality is that the best way forward is not to end the registry but to reform it to focus it on those who represent a genuine public threat. And then make it non-public so that law enforcement officials can use it without the force of public shaming and vigilante [wink wink] encouragement. This argument does both of those things. Consider the 7th Circuit just shot down government probation violations of a registrant looking at legal porn as overly broad as well as others. Legal PORN! Add to that Packingham which was broadly restrictive of the government impairing registrant’s rights and set standards that, to be honest, the government ignores with impunity.

    The day is coming, folks, that the registration is going to be private and more narrowly tailored to focus on dangerous SOs. It won’t be shuttered but it will be [ironically] castrated! It can’t come soon enough though, am I right?

    • #51918 Reply
      Steve D

      No, John P. You are wrong. The idea of a non-punitive registry is analogous to separate but equal. Under SORNA, we are in the same twilight zone that existed between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board. Blacks who were discriminated against under separate but equal knew separate was inherently unequal. We who are registered citizens know that registration is inherently punishment. While we will certainly applaud any incremental taming of registration schemes along the way, the goal has to be eventual abolishment of the registry, and that can only happen when SCOTUS is convinced of the practical impossibility of a non-punitive registry. This courageous amicus brief by the Michigan AG (I love her so much! I’d marry her if she ever switched teams!) lights the way.

      • #51928 Reply

        Thank you Steve D

    • #51930 Reply

      You are entitled to your opinion, but that is not NARSOL’s position. Our mission is “NARSOL opposes dehumanizing registries and works to eliminate discrimination, banishment, and vigilantism against persons accused or convicted of sexual offenses through the use of impact litigation, public education, legislative advocacy, and media outreach in order to reintegrate and reconcile affected individuals and restore their constitutional rights.” This includes registries for all convicted of sexual offenses, even those deemed the “worst”.

      Vision, Mission and Goals

      • #52106 Reply


        Can we agree “The distinction is intolerable!” ??

    • #51951 Reply
      Ed C

      John, I understand your “half a loaf is better than none” argument. However, one danger in having a registry is “mission creep.” If the registry exists, those who want to gain some political advantage will invariably enhance requirements over time. Michigan is a perfect example of this, and Florida’s laws could nearly be considered sociopathic.

      No, the registry must ultimately be abolished.

  • #51900 Reply

    44000 families + all our friends applaud, support and indorse the government employees that enforce the constitution and bill of rights

    Thank you attorney general!

  • #51901 Reply

    Hello, what i want to know is these registry laws we’re made because they thought that recidivism rate was 80% and since the person who did the study has since retracted his study and has done another study and his new study has shown recidivism rate is under 5% and every single state in the US has done a study on recidivism and the US government has done a study and every single study has shown recidivism rate is under 5% and i mean every single study is under 5%, so that being the case then why not go after all of that an get the registry taken down, and that recidivism rate is lower than any other crime so why are we walking on egg shells and get this done, the government don’t want this to happen because every peron on the registry can sue in every state they live in! So i hope you redirect your focus in this direction because if you don’t i am going to put together a group to collect all of these studies and blast it on the media and the government, i hope you do go in this direction an if you do i would like to join the cause, Thank you

  • #51919 Reply

    That is good news for Michigan. Additionally, it sounds like Michigan’s new AG is simply applying some fact based logic and reason to the MI registry. Sadly, it wont affect other states.

    My hope is we get a solid case before SCOTUS soon, or Dana Nessel gets appointed as the next US Attorney General…. or both 🙂

    It still sucks here in the Bible belt states and probably will for quite some time. But, I am happy for all benefitting in Michigan. Congratulations; it sounds like some reasonableness is near for you.

  • #51921 Reply

    Everyone living in Michigan that cares about this should contact Danna Nessel office. Just say thanks! Also contact local rep and senator. Such a huge step in right direction!!

  • #51933 Reply

    Does anyone have contact info (including phone number) on AG Danna Nessel in Michigan? I would like to obtain a copy of the briefs to see if I can contact my State Govenor’s office and AG to see how to get this started here in New Mexico. Thanks!!

    • #51948 Reply
      • #52033 Reply

        Thank you. Is there an office that accepts volunteers in Albuquerque? I was a legal assistant for 23 years and would like to volunteer to type up a pleading/brief or whatever I can do to help. My son will be coming home to Albuquerque from Arizona when he is released, so I feel that I must invest my time to help change this registry system. We are currently in the process of filing a clemency, and if that does not give us a breather we have six years left of his sentence for attempted molestation filed by his angry wife … his sentence was 15 years.

        • #52038 Reply

          Hello Teresa,
          NARSOL Operations office is actually located in Albuquerque, and we have an affiliated organization located there as well. Please review our volunteer positions at https://narsol.org/volunteer/ and fill out the application. We will put you in touch with our people there and let them know about your legal assistant experience. Also consider being involved on the national level as well. I am sure you would be a great addition to both.

        • #52039 Reply

          Great!! I will do that today!! I am retired and have lots of time on my hands!

  • #51934 Reply

    Well I read about this two days ago and I almost choked on my coffee, I convicted way back 0n 6-19-1992 and yes that was before Michigan had a registry. So that means I was NOT sentenced by a judge to register a due process violation by the way, then I got of prison on 12-15-94, then off prole in 1996, then unconstitutionally placed on the registry for 25 years and then it was changed to life in 2011, now when June 19th roll’s around this year I will have 27 years in, so thanks to Ms Nessel when this is finally sorted out I will be completely removed from this unconstitutional registry.

    Luckily I have lived in the same town my entire life 50 years on June 2nd, so unlike some of you I have had no issues still living in a town I grew up in, and that my mom also grew up in, and also my grandmother grew up in before she passed in 2011 at 89. Anyway no disrespect to those still waiting and who are having a difficult time in other states like Florida , but I am glad it is almost over for me and other’s in Michigan. again I was placed on it when I was 23 years old, and I am almost 50 years old. A BIG THANK YOU TO MS. NESSEL FORSTANDING UP FOR US AND DOINGTHE RIGHT THING, ANDNOT DOINGWAT PEOPLE EXPECT OR WANT YOU TO DO, THANK YOU.

  • #51940 Reply
    N Brown

    I thought dangerous predators were in prison. Illinois puts them in prison and even holds them past their sentence if they are deemed dangerous predators. This whole situation has been treated like politics and we are not politicians and do not know how to operate in such an environment.

    • #51985 Reply

      Excellent point N. Brown. Sex crimes that include forceable rape, kidnapping, murder, and even non-willing (non-consensual) sex offenses, are crimes of which judges sentence for many years or life. Those people are in prison. Many states and all federal cases have civil commitment for those “they” deem too dangerous to place back in society (civil commitment being a different issue altogether deserving a hard look). Therefore, why would there be a need for a registry of which people are placed on for many years or life when civil commitment is in place for truly dangerous offenders? The registries should be abolished altogether but at least reduced in time that offenders must be on them.

  • #51958 Reply

    I’m confused. Isn’t the State of Michigan prosecuting the case of Michigan v Snyder, which appears now to be Does II?

    • #51961 Reply

      Does v. Governor Rick Snyder and Michigan v. David Snyder are two different cases on almost the same grounds. Does v. Snyder was already won. ACLU is working with Michigan’s legislators to make the necessary changes which might happen before the above cases are decided.

      • #51969 Reply

        @Fred. Betts and Snyder, are scheduled for oral argument application on March 6th and 7th, so I doubt, the legislature will actually fix the registry by then, unless Ms Nessel’s briefs to Michigan’s Supreme Court is now finally forcing the Michigan Legislatures hand, either way, my time on the stupid registry is finally coming to and end after almost 27 years on it.

        • #51974 Reply

          These cases won’t be decided immediately after oral arguments. Typically the state supreme court is expected to release their decisions for all pending cases by July. I am not giving a time frame for the Does case being resolved. I am only saying that negotiations will be ongoing while the state cases are pending. It’s possible they will reach a resolution before those two cases are decided.

      • #51971 Reply

        In my few email conversations with the Aclu, it was their belief that it would be early to mid summer before negotiations would yield any results…I’m curious to see if Fred is right and the timetable has significantly shrunk in light of AG’s amicus briefs.

  • #51987 Reply

    “… limited in where they can live, work or even attend their children’s school functions.”

    Add to these restrictions, Nursing Homes. I help care for my 99 year old grandmother (dementia). Recently mother and I placed her in a nursing home. For (3) months mother an I visited my grandmother daily. We were burdened less by daily care enabling us to spend quality time with her.

    On 4 February 2019 management informed me I was no longer allowed to see my grandmother. Someone had alerted the administrator, “you might want to check the registry.” It is at this point I began to research the issue. Not only are nursing homes refusing access to (registered) family members, they are refusing placement for registered citizens!

    My heart is broken and there seems to be no recourse …

    • #52935 Reply

      Is there no feedback on this issue ? Is this a concern to no one ?

      • #52937 Reply

        Is it an actual law that says registrants can’t visit or stay in nursing homes in Michigan? Or is it the policy of the nursing homes? From the way you described it, it sounds like a policy, and a badly misinformed one. If it were me, I would want to see a copy of their policy to see what it says on this issue, then I would want to show it to an attorney to see what that attorney says about it. You said “you” placed her in the home, which implies you are paying for it and should have visitation privileges. You really should talk to an attorney about that. I am sure many other homes have a similar policy, but I think you will find many that don’t. My understanding is that schools and day cares are among the places registrants are forbidden by law to work, live within 1000 feet of or loiter near.  I don’t think that includes nursing homes.  Keep in mind, private businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone, provided their reasons aren’t based on gender, disability, race, religion or age.

        • #53217 Reply

          It doesn’t matter what the Nursing Home policy is, because policy is NOT LAW, and policies, only apply to the corporation or Business and their employees and employers NOT the General. Public. So in other words the the Nursing Homes policies ONLY applies to their employees and employers, NOT to this registrant or the General Public.

        • #53240 Reply

          I am not sure that statement is accurate. A private business is private property, and as such, does have control over who they allow on the grounds. However, if they are receiving government funds, like Medicare/Medicaid, I would check out the equal access angle.
          My mom lived in private senior apartment complex. Her lease specifically stated that registered sex offenders we’re not allowed to reside there. However, no provisions were made to prohibit visitation. This would have violated her right to peaceful enjoyment and control of her leased unit etc as a leasee. But, I could not live there, nor stay overnight more than 14 days in a year as any other guest would be limited. I checked further, and also found that they took government subsidies, so we were goin to sue. But, the money came from HUD to reduce rents, and we, for some unknown rationalization, are prohibited from living in HUD susidized housing. So, the long and the short if it is, government money can open or close the door. It took an attorney to sort this one for us. If your mom is a lease, you should be permitted, since she has a bundle of rights associated with rental property usage. If she is a client, she is subject to their rules, unless the government funding trump’s them. What a message for us to live under….

      • #53259 Reply

        Thank all of you.
        It seems the other issue is that “offenders” are finding it hard to receive nursing home care. There is much hysteria regarding this issue leading to a want to legislate. Getting ahead of the issue is a good idea.

  • #51988 Reply


    Despite the intuitive value of using science to guide decision-making, laws and policies designed to combat sexual offending are often introduced or enacted in the absence of empirical support. This dynamic was recently acknowledged and identified as a concern by the national experts – both researchers and practitioners – who participated in the February 2012 SOMAPI forum. …both public safety and the efficient use of public resources would be enhanced if sex offender management strategies were based on evidence of effectiveness rather than other factors.

    SORN requirements arguably have been implemented in the absence of empirical evidence regarding their effectiveness. It has been suggested that SORN may be a specific deterrent for sex offenders; that it would facilitate sex offender awareness, monitoring, and apprehension; and that it would in the end help prevent sex offenses – particularly repete sex offenses – from occurring. While these hypotheses were not empirically tested prior to the implementation of SORN requirements, a significant body of research using various methods has since examined the impact of SORN, particularly in relation to recidivism.

    Recidivism Rates: Perhaps the largest single study of sex offender recidivism conducted to date was carried out by Langan, Schmitt, and Durose (2003). The study, which was published by the US Dept of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, examined the recidivism patterns of 9,691 male sex offenders released from state prisons in the United States that year. Of the 9,691 sex offenders released from prison in 1994, 3.5% were reconvicted for a sex crime and about one-quarter (24%) were reconvicted for an offense of any kind during the follow up period.

    A number of state studies did not find evidence that SORN implementation positively impact the rate of sexual offending or recidivism. …More importantly, the researchers found that registration was not associated with recidivism; however, nonsexual, non-assault recidivism significantly decreased for those on the registry. (Letourneau, Levenson, Bandyopadhyay, Armstrong, and Sinha, 2010)

    In New Jersey, researchers compared the recidivism rates of offender, subject to SORN with those of offenders who were not subject to this strategy. Based on a 6.5 year follow up period, offenders subject to SORN recidivated at a rate of 7%, compared to 11% for offenders who were not subject to SORN, however, these differences were not found to be statistically significant. (Zgoba & Bachar, 2009, Zgoba et al., 2008)

    Policies and practices that take into account the differential re-offending risks posed by different types of sex offenders are likely to be more effective and cost-beneficial than those that treat sex offenders as a largely homogenous group.

  • #51989 Reply

    Interesting article and even this dehumanizing thing. I guess one can dehumizate oneself by not agreeing with another or does truth have its true understanding. Don’t get NARSOL wrong one has to have a vision to combat this ordeal that we all go thru. If thats the case once a cripple always a cripple but that isn’t true.

    Man will finely see the light in a lot of this sex offender ordeal and understand that they are playing the master of someone elses fate when one happens to get caught up in a lot of this nonsense. Who is violent and who is not or does one have to write a good sex novel to be a sex offender with a fiticous cast of characters, or we could go with erotica. I wonder who gave the rated PG at the box office today or are those characters cashing in at the box office.

    Now NARSOL has a good Vision, Mission, and Goals but the real product comes with the truth or should we all just let our tempers fly. I’m sure if a lot could go back to court or get a redress of grivance I’m sure the truth would finely come out of law enforcement gone bad in this seductive. I just wonder if the flesh is weak or should we all learn something about truth in all this ordeal.

    Mike and all you folks at NARSOL your doing a great job and its feedback and honest opinions and truth that will make a difference in all this type of ordeal that a lot of us go thru. My hat’s off to ya.

  • #52008 Reply

    This was posted online a few hours ago thought you all might want to read it.

    Hi Bobby, the forum rules prohibit posting links other than those from NARSOL. I recommend you email this to NARSOL directly, and let those who decide these issues to decide if it should be posted. Thanks, Charlie

  • #52085 Reply

    Though I still hold on very tightly to my skepticism, this is the best news I’ve heard in a very long time. When there are many of us who are(or at least feel) helpless to fight this injustice, due to one or more reasons, and all they can do hope that things will “work out” eventually, things like this put a bit of sunshine in their lives, and restore a little faith in the good that human beings are capable of.

  • #52234 Reply

    Libel Definition

    Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person’s reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession.


    Traditionally, libel was a tort governed by state law. State courts generally follow the common law of libel, which allows recovery of damages without proof of actual harm. Under the traditional rules of libel, injury is presumed from the fact of publication. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of expression limits a State’s ability to award damages in actions for libel.

    In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Court held that proof of actual malice is required for an award of damages in an action for libel involving public officials or matters of public concern. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). The Court reasoned that speech related to matters of public concern is at the heart of the protections guaranteed by the First Amendment, and outweighs the State’s interest in compensating individuals for damage to their reputations. This “actual malice” test created a national judicial standard for whether speerecch qualifies as libel.

    In Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967), the Supreme Court decided that, in addition to public officials, public figures must also prove that actual malice had been the intent of libelous claims against them.

    In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the Court refused to extend the New York Times standard to actions for libel involving private individuals even where the matter is of public concern. In Gertz, the Court recognized a strong and legitimate state interest in compensating private individuals for injury to reputation, but cautioned that this interest extends no further than compensation for actual injury. The Gertz Court held that with in a case regarding a public concern, recovery of presumed or punitive damages is not permitted without a showing of malice. The only exception to this is when the liability is based on a showing of knowledge of falsity or a reckless disregard for the truth.

    In Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. (1985), the Supreme Court held that in actions for libel involving private individuals and matters of purely private concern, presumed and punitive damages may be awarded on a lesser showing than actual malice. The Court determined that the First Amendment was not violated by permitting recovery of presumed and punitive damages without a showing of malice, as long as the defamatory statements do not involve issues of public concern.

  • #52368 Reply

    Indenturing men to databases was the first thing done with it, upon discovery. It being the state’s ( people’s) electronic databases. Undoubtedly! Immediately upon discovering fire, man burned man, and man felt power. Immediately upon discovering the electronic database, man again burned man, and felt power.
    I doubt this genie can be put back in the bottle.

Reply To: Michigan’s SORA is punishment, says MI Attorney General in amicus briefs
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post links or email addresses..
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.
Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre> <em> <strong> <del datetime=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">

Printer Friendly Version Printer Friendly Version