Does Smith v. Doe really hurt people today?
In advance of the all-advocates vigil to be held in Washington, D.C., March 3-4, this letter will be mailed to the Supreme Court.
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (SCOTUS)
Dear Chief Justice Roberts,
We, the undersigned organizations, are writing to respectfully address the Court.
When the Court issued its decision on March 5, 2003, in Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, the lives of millions of American citizens were negatively and significantly impacted, specifically the lives of those required to register as sexual offenders as well as members of their families; and their communities were torn asunder.
To honor and remember the countless lives that have been damaged or destroyed as a result of this decision during the past two decades, advocates from across the nation will gather in Washington, D.C., on March 3 for a commemoration of this decision as well as the significant harm it has caused. On that day, we will gather near the steps of the Supreme Court Building starting at 11 a.m. for a vigil in order to shed light on the significant adverse effects of Smith v. Doe, as well as the now-disproven myth that the re-offense rate for sex-related crimes is “frightening and high” and that registration as a sex offender is “similar to membership in the Price Club.”
What are some of these significant adverse effects?
- Persons required to register are underemployed or unemployed due to their registry status.
- Persons required to register have very limited housing opportunities because state and local jurisdictions have passed laws–and applied them retroactively–that prohibit registrants from living near schools, parks and other locations. This has, in some cases, led to homelessness for both registrants and their families. Persons on the registry, including veterans, are often denied entry into senior care facilities.
- Persons on the registry are often denied entry into homeless shelters and emergency shelters.
- Some persons required to register who are veterans are denied burial in a military cemetery even though they earned that benefit by serving the nation in military service.
Families of registrants are significantly affected.
- Spouses and partners are criticized for “standing by” a person on the registry.
- Economic and housing difficulties are exacerbated by the registration status of their loved ones—which is what causes the economic and housing difficulties.
- Children of registrants are often harassed and excluded from social occasions and school friendships and groups.
The threat of vigilante activity is part of a registrant’s daily life.
- Persons required to register are harassed, threatened, and assaulted; their cars and homes are damaged. Vigilantes, in fact, have murdered persons required to register solely because they are on a sex offender registry.
- The fear of being listed on a registry contributes to individuals taking their lives rather than facing the shame of the registry. One of those individuals was a state court judge in Maryland who chose death rather than endure the consequences of an accusation and the significant harm that would result from being required to register.
How did it come to this? The words “frightening and high” quoted in Smith v. Doe were used to describe the re-offense rate of persons who have been convicted of
sexual crimes. The fact is those words were taken directly from an article published in a Psychology Today magazine. The article did not reflect any type of research but instead was a marketing statement that was later refuted by its author.
This finding influenced the Court’s reasoning in several key ways:
- The Court used the magazine claim of a high re-offense rate to justify Alaska’s Sex Offender Registration Act (ASORNA) as a necessary public safety measure.
- This claim also influenced the Court’s classification of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) law as regulatory rather than punitive, stripping registrants of their constitutional rights.
- This claim was also used to justify the retroactive application of the registry, denying registrants ex post facto protection.
- The “frightening and high” language has had and continues to have significant influence on later cases, having been cited in numerous federal and state cases to uphold various sex offender laws and restrictions that punish registrants and their families.
Those three horrible words — “frightening and high” — have been discredited over and over during the past 22 years. In fact, not one source can be found upholding their validity, and yet they live on. That is why on March 3, 2025, we will gather near the steps of the Supreme Court Building, and we will grieve. We will grieve for all of those whose deaths are directly linked to the registry. We will also grieve for the men, women, and children on sex offender registries today whose constitutional rights have been denied and continue to be denied. Finally, we will grieve for our nation, burdened with this blight on its history—and on its future.
Respectfully,
- Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL)
- Family Safety Foundation
- National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL)
- Restorative Action Alliances
- United Voices for Sex Offense Reform (UV4SOR)
- Vivante Espero Foundation
- Women Against Registry (WAR) and the WAR Family Foundation
- AL: Alabama Voices
- AK: Alaskans for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (AKRSOL)
- AR: Arkansas Time After Time
- AZ: Arizonans for Rational Sex Offense Laws (AZRSOL)
- DE: Delaware Advocates for RSOL (DARSOL)
- FL: Florida Action Committee
- GA: Restore Georgia
- HI: Hawaiian Voices
- IA: Iowans Unafraid
- IN: Indiana Voices
- KS: Kansas CUAR
- MA: Massachusetts Advocates for RSOL
- MO: Missouri Advocates for RSOL
- MD: Families Advocating Intelligent Registries (FAIR) Maryland
- MI: Michigan Citizens for Justice
- MN: Minnesota for our Rights
- MS: Mississippi Advocates for RSOL
- MT: Montana Advocates for RSOL
- NC: North Carolina RSOL
- NC- NARSOL-NC
- ND: North Dakota Advocates for RSOL
- NE: Nebraskans Unafraid
- NM: Liberty and Justice Coalition New Mexico
- NY: Restorative Action Alliance New York
- OH: Ohio RSOL
- OK: OK VOICES, INC.
- OK: Oklahoma Reform Sex Offender Laws
- OR: Oregon Voices
- PA: Pennsylvania Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (PARSOL)
- SC: South Carolina for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (SCRSOL)
- SD: South Dakota Advocates for RSOL
- TN: Tennessee Advocates for RSOL
- TX: Texas Voices for Reason and Justice
- VA: Safer Virginia
- WV: West Virginia Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (WVRSOL)
- WI: Wisconsin Advocates for RSOL
It’s their tried-and-true, “go to” excuse and response when it comes to defending the SORNA and all related registry machinations. Without that singular ruling, the registry challenges would have been more successful along with the possibility of it being declared unconstitutional under multiple violations of the amendments.
But no, Roberts made it next to impossible to be revisited by going along with “frightening and high” boogeyman lie.
I’d be more concerned with the NCMEC than S v D. That entity relies HEAVILY upon using the registry to promote their child safety propaganda They would be front and center challenging and appealing any efforts and momentum made in revoking or repealing the registry.
What’s historically been “frightenly high” is the congressional tendency to engage in the use of retrospective language upon crimes. Thus the founders found it absolutely necessary to outright ban the use of ex post laws by congress to crimes already adjudicated.
Roberts (and Theodore Olson, US Solicitor General) knew that to be the case so they flipped the burden of proof of Punitive intent on to the plaintiffs’ to prove. AND in doing so altered the course of human history as it relates to the use of a database.
The preamble of the Act expressed the errant claim that the database driven regime could be used to prevent crime. This is a lie, but it lenders virtue to the machine, so the people would trust it. Nevertheless, the civil designation based upon court opinion alone is not enough to undue the words contained in the 13th Amendment to the constitution which defines historical forms of punishment did not make its way into the discussion n Smith V Doe. How convenient for the purveyors of database driven enterprises.
Tulsi Gabbard roasted the collective panel in her confirmation hearing. And she didn’t shy away from condemning the mass collective of database properties. Confrontation with those who’d wanted and got unfettered use is a must have in checking tech government power. The machines uses render autocratic outcomes by default. Thus fascism tends to follow. Otherwise a human’s liberty will not survive it. As Isaac Asimov put it, when and where machine value will outweighs human value.
Meanwhile other violent people, drug dealers, murderers, etc can roam around and have no regrets of who they hurt. Passing a law or saying one crime is better than the other makes no logical sense at all. If you’re going to protect kids, wouldn’t getting these people off the street and away from schools work too? Living assistant? Yeah, more like the people that sell drugs have some issue of wanting not to work. They need get rid of the registry period. Yeah I may seem like I’m venting this issue but how come some other countries don’t have to go through this and they do fine. It’s only in America where they profit off of people’s misfortune. The registry does nothing to protect anyone. It’s just a witch hunt to make people feel good about themselves because they have nothing else to go by. Meanwhile, they probably do it themselves and haven’t got caught yet. They should pass a law and call it the FCLA “Fairness Crime Law Act.”
Why are we still using the Term ‘Sex Offender’; it is in the Active Tense of the English Language and assumes all those that have been convicted are still sex offending!
Why has not NARSOL sued Federal and State Agencies for Slander and Libel? as it is both written and spoken?
Statutory Language CANNOT be USED that promotes such!
It is a Shameful term denoting such!
Any Comments?
Yes, several. First, are you speaking generally or in specific to this piece? I don’t believe you will see the term used in the letter or the brief preface to it. Secondly, the only people I hear use the term anymore are people on the registry themselves. NARSOL and all anti-registry advoccates quit using it sometime back except when totally necessary to make a point, and then we put it in quotation marks. Thirdly, the media use it liberally. It is a stock part of a “grabber headline” even when the story isn’t even about that. We can’t control them. And finally, the words “sex offender” do not themselves have tense; they are not verbs, but yes, we agree that using them to describe someone on the registry gives the connotation that they are still actively comitting crimes. That’s why we don’t use it.
I left out one. Statutory language most likely won’t chanage, or it will be very slow doing so. Statutory language is written in response to a crime, and the crimes that statutes that we care about the most are written are sexual crimes, making the person who commits one a “sex offender.” Other crimes have their own designation: a thief; a murderer; an arsonist. I guess the term “sexer” could have been used, but I don’t think we would like that any better.
Part 2
But if a drug dealer, violent offender or a murderer can roam around without ANY restrictions where they live or work, etc then why are we going through this? To protect kids you say? How is that different from a violent person or a murderer? Drug dealers? Yeah where I’m from everytime I go to work I smell weed (not saying anything wrong) but it’s near a school. Sooo they teach kids it’s ok to smoke or get high without any sense in the laws. And kids learn this from this example that it’s ok to have weed or pills where they go. Isn’t that itself a cause for protection until they get older enough?
Has anyone made this argument?
Part 1
As a person that myself I can say I start probation tomorrow and my journey of going through hoops and dodges makes no sense to me. I already learned my lesson and I been through it myself when I was younger. No one helped me nor did I know it could’ve happened to me the same until after I was convinced and sentenced. I have no criminal history, no repeat offenses. I have to carry this mistake for 20+ years (and I know others do as well). The registry should be removed period, it does nothing to protect anyone. It’s another way to make money off people’s misfortunes.