Sex-Offender Laws Sent a Man to Prison Over a Prayer Livestream

Source: wired.com 2/23/22

Jason wasn’t sure what to do. After an alleged sexting incident in 2012 snowballed into a felony conviction in his southern state, he was forced to register as a sex offender and barred from using a computer or smartphone. Over time, the conditions of his probation were reduced to a patchwork of technology-related restrictions: He was allowed to use email, but he was initially not allowed to send text messages. He could use the internet, but he was not allowed to have a social media account, and all of his time online was monitored by a probation officer.

Since his conviction, Jason has become a leader in nonprofit advocacy around criminal legal system reform, regularly testifying at the state legislature, organizing state lobbying efforts, and winning community engagement awards. Last summer he petitioned the court to have his probation end early, given the growing list of public officials and local leaders who offered their support of his case.

But right now Jason is sitting in prison and will be there until July 2023. And it started with watching a community prayer livestream.

The relationship between sex-offense registries and technology is complicated. While the internet has certainly created new opportunities for sexual harms, the legislative response has often centered on efforts to ban people convicted of any type of sex crime from using technology at all. As the internet is now the de facto venue for public life, it’s been difficult to justify these laws without violating the Constitution and creating a massive class of people unable to survive in modern society.

More broadly speaking, one of the frustrating things about sex-offender registries is that they are ineffective in preventing sexual violence or rape. It is widely accepted among experts that registry laws don’t prevent sex crimes, that people on sex-offender registries are very unlikely to reoffend (something the US Supreme Court got terribly wrong in a consequential case), that around 90 percent of people who commit new sexual assaults aren’t on a registry, and that most sex crimes occur between people who already know each other. Registries are rife with data errors and a surprising number of juveniles.

But, even against this mountain of evidence, registry laws just seem to get more technical and more complex, especially when it comes to what is and is not allowed on the internet.

For instance, many states require people on the registry to report their “internet identifiers” to state authorities. Legislatures reason that “since those on the registry already have to report their physical addresses, why not require them to report their digital ones as well?”

Read the full article

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

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

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. 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.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

6 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

An exceedingly articulate, insightful, and thorough article. The author raises many of the issues with which we are all too familiar including First Amendment violations (as articulated by the US Supreme Court in Packingham); vague and ambiguously written laws leaving us vulnerable to needless prosecutions; and the one that raises my blood pressure exponentially – expecting us to succeed (post-punishment) in spite of ‘them’ creating needless and burdensome conditions that serve only to dispirit us, fostering within us all a sense of hopelessness, shame, and despair, which collectively and invariably increases the risk and potentiality of failure/re-offending. Then they wish us “good luck in the future”.

“The relationship between sex offender registry and technology is complicated.” I’d simply say the two are inextricably linked. And that is none of the doing of offenders themselves. The historical tie between the two are entirely the responsibility of Congress.

This is a good piece. I’d add to the “ambiguity” aspect the notion of computer crimes themselves being singled out. In Michigan, any crime where a “computer” plays a role gets an extra charge with associated penalties. Not “social media,” not “the internet,” but a “computer,” defined broadly as anything with a microprocessor. That means your calculator, digital watch, cordless phone, car, ATM. Literally any crime could get this enhancement if there was any transportation, communication or planning involved. This is a 2000-era law written by the technologically naive that is still prosecuted today. It’s my only conviction, and I want it off the books—any ideas how to start?

First amendment rights violated.

How are you supposed to worship freely when the government can throw in prison over an unrelated issue?

This is perhaps one of the most troubling articles that I’ve read when it comes to people labeled by the government as “Registered Sex Offenders.” It’s truly a slippery slope when it comes to suppressing Free Speech — and the First Amendment is one of the few things left that make America stand above every other county. (Again, as it’s been said here, America lauds itself as the “Land of the Free,” but the United States has a higher incarceration rate than Russia, China, and North Korea, COMBINED, as well as about one million Registered Sex Offenders.)

Is the person in this article planning to fight his punishment for the government suppressing his few speech in the higher/appellate courts? Where is the ACLU? Where is the EFF?

I’m also astonished at how the corrupt prosecutor and “judge” are in cahoots when it comes to fighting to suppress the basic, Free Speech, rights of the Registrant. Their basic cluelessness to technology, even to the extent of misspelling something basic as TikTok, I think says a lot about how embarrassingly incompetent — and out-of-touch — our “leaders” are. As public servants, they have all failed us tremendously. And as the Registered Sex Offender population blows past one million American citizens, these same leaders will have to answer for the House of Cards they are creating.

I like this article. basically its right up my alley. Course I do like bowling. What is considered a computer crime. Guess it takes two to tango. Course I could tell you how to make $4 thousand bucks in one weak with a click of a mouse click…. just give me your credit card and I will tell you the secret. What a con. While the first amendment seems good than what is bearing false witness all about. We all face challenges daily. This internet ordeal of a sexual nature is a challenge in and of itself. In other words its man made by Government.

Sure I got the person to admit what they wanted me to come down for and that was to talk dirty to them. Here they are pretending to be some little girl lost or looking for whatever but its all a trap if one listens well. Sure one can say who’s internet rights, but who is abusing who’s rights to trap in this type of computer protection con of perverseness. So can one say the proof is in the pudding or do the mean’s justify the ends. Why does the bible say dare go to court in front of the unjust than?. Guess thats a word of wisdom to all. Crack down’s are different than showdown’s .

So its getting time for a showdown to come to reason for these offenders. Either past, present, or future. A computer crime such as this or did someone actually land on the moon.