National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws

The National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL) is a national civil rights and justice reform organization headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina with operations based in Albuquerque, New Mexico and with affiliated organizations, advocates, and contacts in the vast majority of states. NARSOL and its affiliates are part of the growing movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States. NARSOL asserts that while sex offender registries in the United States were originally well-intentioned and for the most heinous and dangerous sex offenders only, their reach has exponentially widened to include petty offenses such as teen sexting and consensual relations between young people.[1][2] NARSOL has generated media attention by arranging national conferences in multiple cities including Boston, Albuquerque,[3] Los Angeles[4] Dallas,[5] Atlanta, Cleveland, Houston, and Raleigh, and by being involved in numerous lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of sex offender registration and notification laws.[6][7][8]

National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws
AbbreviationNARSOL
MottoFighting to restore dignity and constitutional rights to millions
Formation2007
Founded atBoston, Massachusetts
TypeNon-profit corporation
PurposeCivil rights advocacy, Reforming sex offender registry laws
HeadquartersRaleigh, North Carolina
Chair
Paul Shannon
Executive Director
Brenda Jones
Websitehttps://narsol.org
Formerly called
RSOL, Reform Sex Offender Laws
This article is part of a series on the
Sex offender registries in the United States
Legislation
  • Federal
  • International Megan's Law to Prevent Demand for Child Sex Trafficking
  • State
  • Other
Constitutionality

Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States

  • Supreme Court decisions
Effectiveness
Social issues
  • Homelessness
  • Controversial designations as offender
Reform activism

Purpose

While NARSOL believes that offenders should be held accountable in court of law, it criticizes current sex offender registry laws in the United States. NARSOL asserts that current sex offender laws are not based on scientific evidence.[2][9][10] These claims are supported by scientific research,[11][12][13][14] and professional organizations such as Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers have presented similar critiques.[15][16] According to its website, NARSOL's mission is to oppose dehumanizing registries and 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.[17]

Support Assistance

NARSOL is an advocacy organization, not a support organization. Additionally, NARSOL is not a legal organization and is unable to provide legal advice or help with individual legal cases or issues. NARSOL encourages the development of Fearless Groups, which are support groups. More information about the Fearless Groups is available on NARSOLs website under the Resources menu. NARSOL will attempt to connect individuals with questions about registry issues with a state affiliated organization. State affiliated organizations are listed, along with contact information, on NARSOL's website under the About Us menu. These organizations may be contacted directly. A state group or contact person is better suited to answer state specific, registry-related questions. NARSOL may be contacted at 888.997.7765 or by email through its website.

Lawsuits

NARSOL's former Californian chapter, CA RSOL, challenged ordinances governing registered sex offenders in federal court across the state of California.[5][6][7] During 2014 over 20 municipalities were sued by CA RSOL.[18] As of October 11, 15 of the lawsuits had been settled, 38 cities had avoided litigation by revoking their sex offender ordinances, and 6 cities had chosen to discontinue enforcing the ordinances. At the time, sex offender ordinances were under review in 18 additional cities.[19] These efforts culminated in March 2015 when Supreme Court of California declared residency restrictions unconstitutional citing their unfairness and counterproductive effects.[20] Similar lawsuits by the RSOL's Texas chapter forced some Texas towns to ease their residency restrictions in early 2016.[21]

NARSOL's Maryland chapter, FAIR (Families Advocating Intelligent Registries)[22] has played a significant role in reversing the retroactive application of registry laws in the state of Maryland. They were part of the Amicus Curiae cited in the March 2013 Court of Appeals decision Doe v. DPSCS[23][24] which declared that Maryland's existing sex offender registry laws are punitive in effect, and therefore could not constitutionally be applied retroactively to persons whose crimes pre-dated registration. This decision was further solidified in 2014 with the "Doe 2" decision.[25] The full impact of these decisions in Maryland is still being affected.

See also

References
  1. Sethi, Chanakya (12 August 2014). "The Ridiculous Laws That Put People on the Sex Offender List". Slate. Retrieved 24 November 2014.
  2. "Assertions". Nationalrsol.org. Reform Sex Offender Laws, Inc. Retrieved 15 November 2014.
  3. Zakalik, Lauren (Aug 29, 2012). "National conference aims to soften, reform sex offender laws". KOAT. Retrieved 14 November 2014.
  4. Lovett, Ian (October 1, 2013). "Restricted Group Speaks Up, Saying Sex Crime Measures Go Too Far". The New York Times. Retrieved 14 November 2014.
  5. Blow, Steve (17 July 2014). "We can do better on sex offender laws". The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved 14 November 2014.
  6. Belluci, Janice (21 July 2013). "CA RSOL Challenges El Dorado County Sex Offender Ordinance". In Eldorado County News. Archived from the original on 29 November 2014. Retrieved 14 November 2014.
  7. Howes, Rebecca (April 24, 2014). "Attorney files sex offender lawsuit against Lompoc". Lompoc Record. Retrieved 14 November 2014.
  8. Case, Stephanie (September 19, 2013). "City of Orange Sued Over Sex Offender Halloween Restrictions". KTLA 5. Retrieved 14 November 2014.
  9. "Education is Key". Nationalrsol.org. Reform Sex Offender Laws, Inc. Retrieved 15 November 2014.
  10. "Are We Looking at Sex Offender Management Backwards?". Nationalrsol.org. Reform Sex Offender Laws, Inc. April 15, 2013. Retrieved 15 November 2014.
  11. Prescot, J.J. (2011). "Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?". Journal of Law and Economics. 54 (1): 161–206. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.363.1170. doi:10.1086/658485.
  12. Agan, Amanda (2011). "Sex Offender Registries: Fear without Function?". Journal of Law and Economics. 1 (54): 207–239. doi:10.1086/658483. JSTOR 10.1086/658483.
  13. Hanson, R.K.; Morton-Bourgon, K. (2004). "Predictors of sexual recidivism: An updated meta-analysis". Public Works and Government Services. Ottawa, Canada. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  14. Hanson, R.K.; Harris, A.J.R. (1998). "Dynamic predictors of sexual recidivism". Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  15. "The Registration and Community Notification of Adult Sexual Offenders". Atsa.com. Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. April 5, 2010. Retrieved 14 November 2014.
  16. "Sexual Offender Residence Restrictions". Atsa.com. Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. April 5, 2010. Retrieved 14 November 2014.
  17. "NARSOL's Vision and Mission statement".
  18. Johnson, Shea (Oct 21, 2014). "County sued over sex offender ordinance". Daily Press. Retrieved 14 November 2014.
  19. Nelson, Joe (10 November 2014). "SPECIAL REPORT: Pair seeks repeal of sex-offender laws in California". Daily Breeze. Retrieved 14 November 2014.
  20. "Housing Restrictions For Sex Offenders Unconstitutional, California Court Rules". The Huffington Post.
  21. "20 Texas towns ease restrictions on sex offenders". KFOR.com. 7 February 2016.
  22. "FAIR". Fairegistry.org. Retrieved 16 December 2014.
  23. "John Doe v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, Case No. 125, Plurality Opinion by Greene, J." (PDF). Mdcourts.gov. Retrieved 16 December 2014.
  24. "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE" (PDF). Mcdaa.org. Retrieved 16 December 2014.
  25. "STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT ("SORNA")" (PDF). Mdcourts.gov. Retrieved 16 December 2014.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.