Kat’s Blog: Mississippi Senate Bill 2009

Here’s an example of a Bill being passed “before” it was thoroughly thought through.

On July 1, 2020, Mississippi Senate Bill 2009, also known as Carly’s Law, was passed. The Bill prohibits future contact with the crime victim by a convicted “sex offender”; and for related purposes. Here’s a summary of the Bill.

Section 1. 1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for a person required to register as a sex offender under section 45-33-25 to commit any of the following actions with respect to the victim of the offense triggering the duty to register under this chapter:

  1. Threatening, visit, assault, molest, abuse, injure or otherwise interfere with the victim.
  2. Follow the victim, including at the victim’s workplace
  3. Harass the victim
  4. Contact the victim by telephone, written communication or electronic means
  5. Enter or remain present at the victim’s residence, school or place of employment when the victim is present.

The Bill goes on to allow for an exception to Section 1. if the court, at the request of the victim or the victim’s parent, guardian or conservator, enters an order allowing contact with the victim. The court would then determine whether reasonable grounds for the victim to fear any future contact with the defendant no longer existed.

Those violating the actions set forth in the Bill would be subject to arrest, a fine of not more than $5000 and imprisonment of 5-10 years.

This seems to be the standard “for the safety of our children, the protection of the public” kind of bill, but there in an inherent problem with it.

Part A) mentions “threaten, visit, assault, molest, abuse, injure and otherwise interfere.”

Part D) mentions contact, written, phone or electronic means.

Part E) mentions entering or remaining present at their residence.

We know that sexual offenses sometimes occur within a family. Long term sex offender treatment plans often involve future family reunification. Reunification might very well include “visiting”, “phone contacts” and possibly “residing” within the same residence at some time in the future.  This Bill, while making a quasi-provision for reunification, puts that determination into the court’s hands, which then becomes just another set of legal encumbrances with courts, attorneys and fees for registrants and their families.

If a registrant shouldn’t have any future contact with their victim, shouldn’t that be somehow included as part of that one person’s sentence rather than in an “after-the-fact” Bill that would affect all registrants regardless of their individual circumstances?

Punitive blanket-Bills such as this, Bills that penalize all registrants and, in some cases, the very families they are attempting to reunite with, need to be given more careful consideration before they are passed.  Better yet, perhaps we don’t need these “after-the fact” Bills at all.


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Aren’t all those points, especially 1-3, already illegal for anyone to do? I’m not law scientists, but I’m pretty sure “Threatening, visit, assault, molest, abuse, injure or otherwise interfere” with anyone is not permitted by law regardless of your legal status.

If two or more people want to reconnect and heal after a crime has been committed would be a good thing. Why does the government need to be involved when everything they touch gets screwed up? Stop grabbing for solutions that aren’t your business and focus on real problems!! Mississippi is one of the poorest states, so there’s one for you stooges.

Some one apparently is not doing very well this election year and needs help. This law is not needed as an RO will do the same thing. In my case, I had victims trying to contact me.

Make war against the legislature and refuse to recognize their unjust laws. Let them waste tax payer dollars and hundreds of thousands of man hours building their invisible wall.

They never played fair to begin with so why play at all? The game is rigged. They’re quick to screw the system but slow to fix it.

Here’s a ROYALLY fouled-up case, to put it nicely, that is affected by this law: