The Mr. Snuffleupagus Effect: Ephebophilia Is Somewhat Common

WARNING: The following content is for mature audiences only. It facilitates an educational dialog and not a formality to support or denounce opinions of others.

Sometimes we hear of a term that we think means one thing but actually means another. Hearing the word pedophile used openly typically is brandished similar to how people swear or say faggot to others. Another misconception is how sex registries brandish those on it as a pedophile list or child rapists. It simply isn’t true. But sadly society has in its head that it is true because once it’s said enough over and over then it must be true?

Pedophilia is an ongoing sexual attraction to pre-pubertal children. It is considered a paraphilia, a condition in which a person’s sexual arousal and gratification depend on fantasizing about and engaging in sexual behavior that is atypical and extreme.

I am no psychiatrist nor an individual credible enough to clearly understand the “underage community”. There will be a continuous debate on legality, clinical disorders, mental state, age of consent, assault, and so on. To be quite honest it is a taboo subject matter that society often expresses in pejorative terms. But with the open debate about sexual consent and the vastly differing laws, age requirements, and false labels it is worth a serious discussion to best determine if society or a minority group is overstepping its bounds?

The word pedophile by dictionary terms means, “a person who is sexually attracted to children.” But to the medical professional community, it defines it as, “primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.” But to inject a bit of maturity for a sensitive discussion, I feel that the classic pedophile definitions are children that have not reached the physical features of puberty. I may be wrong by other individuals or professionals. But there is my open opinion on the matter. Is pedophilia acceptable in forms of direct contact? Certainly not! But I think society has branded it to the lowest criminal forms. Merely the appearance of expressive classical paintings with nude children can raise eyebrows and suspicions if someone hints at the appreciation of the artistic value. Naturally, from our personal experiences in puberty, we understand that females develop much earlier than males. Somewhere about 5th grade, many girls have begun the transformation into womanhood. Around 7th grade, many males begin noticeable changes into manhood. The birds and bees stories of decades past have been replaced with smartphone app-based searches making the days of the random Playboy magazine hidden dad hid under the bathroom sink cabinet just past the roll of toilet paper a thing of the past. It is something we don’t talk about, but somehow all know the taboo rules of discretion – even as kids in middle school.

But a question that commonly is raised today is, “kids shouldn’t be on the registry because of curiosity?” However, it is acceptable to legislate a harsh prison term for consent, but statutory rape of a 17-year-old girl caught having sex with a 20-year-old boy? Now, remember that I used manhood to describe a 7th-grade boy but boy to describe a 20-year-old male? Why is the fine line of age a sticking point to levy harsh penalty? First: It is the law. Second: It is a feeble attempt to protect innocence. Third: It is the last form of control by others before the other person reaches his/her own legal decision making. Lastly: It has a punctilious conviction.

An example is if a 30-year-old woman has sex with a 16-year-old boy then its called just that; “had sex.” But if a 30-year-old man has sex with a 16-year-old girl, it is called rape. The highest age of the individual could be any significant legal age, and the outcome would be the same. However, the man would be labeled a pedophile, but the boy would be often celebrated in taboo discussions as “one lucky boy!” Funny how society separates sanctions.

When we frame any sort of sexual abuse as a “sexual relationship” or call a male survivor of sexual abuse lucky, we harm survivors of any gender.

But puberty has a funny way of throwing off how the value of maturity is measured. In life, at one time or another, we have met a person that we thought was an attractive woman or man only to learn that the person was 14 years old. It is as if we somehow accidentally internally label our mental assessments as pedophilic or inappropriate thoughts. Does that imply that we all carry pedophilic thoughts? It is a deep conversation perhaps we are afraid to answer because if we do so in an honest manner it could greatly impact the future standing as a trusted individual.

Recently there has been chatter about child sex dolls being banned in individual states? I don’t know how or what to think of that? I have heard of a collector edition Bennie Baby but a child sex doll. Does it come with a birth certificate? I am bewildered as to how this came to be an issue. If a product has a likeness image of a child then its illegal – if used for sexual arousal purposes? Personally, it’s a creepy feeling, but I have to question if a child sex doll could be in comparison to a small condom? Is that suggesting a micro-condom could be used by a minor versus an adult? It’s a silly comparison but to label a product as an age when it’s not in actuality that age presents a mindboggling rational as to why this law was introduced in the first place? Did a Senator catch a Congressman with one? Anyhow. I digress.

There is a thing that most often jokes about commonly known as the midlife crisis. A midlife crisis is a transition of identity and self-confidence that can occur in middle-aged individuals, typically 45–64 years old. Within those discussions, we often read or hear rumor of the 40-something male buying a sports car to meet some random girl half his age. The age is of the girl is indeterminate. But raises the issue if the man is labeled an Ephebophiliac? The reverse can be said for women past the age of 40 and the random “pool boy” stories.

Ephebophilia is the primary sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19. The term was originally used in the late 19th to mid 20th century. It is one of a number of sexual preferences across age groups subsumed under the technical term chronophilia.

I get a chuckle about this particular subject. Women, and now men, have begun this craze of shaving, waxing, or removing pubic hairs from the groin area. Instead of hygiene, comfort, or other indiscretions, it poses a unique question if a man or women with pubic removal looks more pre or post-pubescent? Is this another taboo talking point subject because people want to suggest shaving is for one thing but represents another? But teens are doing the same thing by shaving when nobody, depending on the age of consent laws, can physically venture in that territory. The act of removing pubic hairs isn’t about metrosexual or self-confidence traits. Perhaps it is a hint of post-pubescent suppression for many under the guise of hygiene and appearance.

To be blunt, all of humankind has pedophilic thoughts. It doesn’t suggest that everyone acts out on them with physical touch or leering. The same similarities are how I view humankind with homosexual feelings. Again, it doesn’t suggest that people can become gay just as gay people don’t suddenly become heterosexual. The world has curiosities, and sometimes those curiosities cross a particular line society deems inappropriate with a set of sanctions. A former friend of mine lost his job with a police department because he voluntarily shared during a polygraph interview that he viewed child porn once. It is where a moment that we desire honesty, integrity, and a clean soul intersects quelling with an emotion that can never be eternally spoken. The sex registry isn’t filled with an overwhelming majority of pedophiles, rapists, ephebophiliacs or focused voyeurism individuals. Instead, the sex registry is the epitome of a weaponized all-inclusive mischaracterization of the word pedophile created by politicians and reinforced by pro-registry advocates.

Research has disproven the perception that sex offenders are especially prone to recidivism. In reality, recidivism rates for sex offenses are lower than for all other major types of crime, and the U.S. Department of Justice has found that only about 3 percent of child molesters commit another sex crime within three years of being released from prison. Meta-analysis of hundreds of studies confirms that once they are detected, most convicted offenders never sexually reoffend. (Not all sex offenders who victimize children are pedophiles; only about 40 percent of convicted sex offenders meet the diagnostic criteria for the disorder.) – Psychology Today

Before anyone interprets any ideas about the many classifications of pedophiles, they should never propose they are physically harmful or in similarity to murderers. There is no evidence that I can find to suggest pedophilic classes pose any threat to communities, society, or humanity. I personally do not know anyone that is or claims to be a pedophile. When
Milo Yiannopoulos once said, “In the homosexual world, particularly, some of those relationships between younger boys and older men — the sort of ‘coming of age’ relationship — those relationships in which those older men help those young boys discover who they are and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable, sort of rock, where they can’t speak to their parents” is that discussion that many interpreted as support for pedophilia when in fact it was the opposite. He went on to say, “sexual attraction to someone who is 13 years old. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty. That [discussion about sex and labels] is not what we’re talking about.” Shortly after because Yiannopoulos shared a candid story about his life and backlash, he resigned from his position at Breitbart News.

Perhaps a reason we are scared to talk openly about pedophilia is that we often don’t know anything about it. It is similar to how once the birds and bees were a right of passage became relatively impermissible. Sexual imagination is disallowed to be discussed in public and often in private settings. It isn’t just an elephant in the room issue. Sexual exploration has become the Mr. Snuffleupagus effect. If society and globalization are to remedy attempts at reducing child human trafficking in the sexual context, then we must have an open and candid conversation about the epitome of sexual taboos. Otherwise, if the professional medical community can’t properly address preventative care, then it will only be treated when the action is too late.

Advertisements

Registrant Apartheid: A Warning on Government Infringement

There is a saying that every man’s home is his castle. This saying originated from ancient Rome and later became a part of values with regards to privacy and security. There is a certain amount of honor in having a space to call your own. Rather it is a house, apartment, mobile home, camper, tent, motel room, shelter, or couch surfing home is where you should feel welcome, comfortable, and safe.

quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus unusquisque civium?
What more sacred, what more strongly guarded by every holy feeling, than a man’s own home? —Cicero

Upon visiting the doorsteps of others, there is often a welcoming greeting mat awaiting your either expected or unscheduled arrival. The welcome is clear that you are valued as a person with the freedom to engage with others unrestricted without the need of chaperon or assistance. However, society has turned from its welcoming mats to a sorted inquisitive band of uncertain litmus tests using a scoring mechanism only they understand. It is as if people that are supposed to be our trusted friends and allies have suddenly become narcissists?

There are plenty of narcissistic people on the planet (perhaps you know a few on Twitter?). But a home whether permanent or temporary shouldn’t be subjected to emotional strain and narcissistic behaviors in the forms of businesses sharing guest information with police.

A few years ago the hotel chain Motel 6 began a voluntary program sharing hotel guest information with police. Police would then run the guest information by national criminal computers to check for outstanding warrants, immigration, and sex offenders perhaps staying on its properties. Many of those snared took the issue to court and won massive legal settlements against the hotel chain.

Motel 6 will pay $12 million to settle lawsuit after sharing guest info with ICE

Recently the state of Florida introduced a legislative bill mandating that hotels or forms of lodging check all guest information for potential sex offenders visiting the state or seeking shelter. Florida already has the worst conditional restrictions for those visiting or living in the state. But to go a step further creeping into the privacy of a business to share its guest information with police is far reaching into dangerous territory. Sooner or later the police checks will expand into other sensitive details allowing firms to cherry pick who it chooses to allow as guests. We can see it now that as an example of the story of John Smith. John Smith is visiting Orlando on business. Back home in Texas he has a lovely wife and two wonderful children still in school. However John planned a discreet rendezvous with a lovely lady he met through a phone app. He checks into the hotel; the hotel runs a check and police come busting in because John Smith shows as a registered sex offender from Texas! However, it is the wrong John Smith. Now his embarrassment surfaces on a TMZ Odd Storys TV segment. His marrigage is instantly shattered placing his infidelities in public light. His future to mend ways with his wife and family are in peril. Rather than quickly blaming John for his poor choice of action or blame upon the police, the hotel is the key responsible party for sharing his mandated data. Sure, Mr. Smith was in the wrong for cheating, but his rights to privacy and his castle was violated. If Florida wants to check guests staying for 30 days or more, then that may be a bit more reasonable than staying overnight or a few days? Mr. Smith may have a civil claim with some very interesting litigation potentially placing a hotel chain in bankruptcy from the settlement he could receive? Nevertheless, the business has a duty and responsibility to protect consumer data, its property, and its guests. The hotel didn’t call the police. Instead, the law supersedes the business ability to act within autonomous actions by making a warrantless searches much easier.

Apartheid (segregation; lit. “separateness”): a system of institutionalized segregation characterized by an authoritarian political culture. It entailed the separation of public facilities, social events, housing, and employment opportunities. Complex laws are created to suppress and punish both individuals or supporters.

All this unnecessary panic legislation has taken liberty and freedoms this country embraces into a practicing police state. The nation and states already have a public sex registry tied into schools, employment, apartments, and volunteer organizations. It is frustrating enough to pay extra fees to the government to take part in PreCheck amenities to prove I’m not a flight risk to go through airport security. But laws similar to Florida are opening a door to only the privilege that PreCheck styled services or data sharing between businesses and police will extend to hotels, car rentals, U-Haul, gyms, hospitals, and perhaps to retail stores with fitting rooms.

For decades Americans have tried every method possible to rid of policing within bedrooms or homes. It is one thing when a person commits a criminal offense. But to begin a trend instructing a person where, when, and how they may live is unAmerican. When any government branch instructs by policy a business to share user data for a paid services without consent and expectation of reasonable privacies, it endangers free movement and prohibits choice. Services aren’t the same as purchasing bullets, dynamite, drugs, or restricted materials. The castle that we choose to make our home will always be a human right. The defense of that castle is a government facilitating registrant apartheid no different than blockbusting tactics and a revision of sundown towns.

Sundown towns, also known as sunset towns or gray towns, were all-white municipalities or neighborhoods in the United States that practiced a form of segregation—historically by enforcing restrictions excluding people not white via some combination of discriminatory local laws, intimidation, and violence.

There are many sex offense laws on the books with residential restrictions, employment exclusions, public space constraints, social media limitations, and the list goes on. If someone made a smartphone app to provide legal information to registrants or the curious, it would be inconceivable to develop. It is perhaps why there won’t be an app for that particular purpose because updates would have to occur daily to keep up with legislation, legal decisions, and refined interpretations. Pretty much the future of iPhones would require a Tesla vehicle battery pack to keep up with sex offender laws on any given day!

America is no longer the home of the free. Instead, it may reconsider changing it to Home of the Fee. There is nothing more disgusting than watching America with a populist agenda sway from the governance of law to experiment with socialist criminal law, embracing utilitarian principles. We are a society on a pathway towards the destruction of individual liberty but for the beginning of government interference upon capitalism and autonomy thanks in part to states such as Florida leading the way to mandate sharing consumer information without any probable cause.

Surely the utilitarian must admit that whatever the facts of the matter may be, it is logically possible that an ‘unjust’ system of punishment—e.g. a system involving collective punishments, retroactive laws and punishments, or punishments of parents and relations of the offender—may be more useful than a ‘just’ system of punishment?H. J. McCloskey

Sure, the notion of every man’s home is his castle is undoubtedly questionable as America continues its quest to legislate freedoms. Perhaps it should say, every man’s home was once his castle.

Criminal Records Reforms: Questionable Outlook

Let’s suppose that you are an American and want to view a criminal record from a long time ago. Some states enacted Sunshine laws that allow anyone to see a criminal record typically located by the state agency that oversees incarceration, probation, or criminal convictions. Other states may not have an open source of documents and require a few simple steps for requests. But there are plenty of information hubs on the internet that track citizens down quicker than a boy puttin’ on pants at a girlfriends’ house when her dad pulls up in the driveway.

Sunshine law (noun): a law requiring certain proceedings of government agencies to be open or available to the public.

But with all the talk and noise about justice reform, and it is a very valid argument, there must be room to discuss the bigger picture. Our nation is made up of laws that we as citizens must abide by. In contrast, as a nation founded upon capitalism, it is businesses that have a differing set of policies and regulation. For example, many towns and municipalities have begun implementing the “ban the box” initiative for job applicants with a criminal conviction. Just because it passes doesn’t mean that companies will follow it. Before ban the box, some policies automatically waivered criminal convictions over ten years old. Yet, companies continued to skirt its implemented plan just because it could. Companies have the prerogative to act any way it chooses as long as it follows the law. But companies well aware of undetected methods embracing the at-will employment clause as its permanent and unchallenged safety net.

Ban the Box is the name of an international campaign by civil rights groups and advocates for ex-offenders, aimed at removing the check box that asks if applicants have a criminal record from hiring applications.

If justice reforms miraculously passed tomorrow by the legislature of the State of Anywhere, it could never be useful towards a real clean slate. The internet, search engines, databases, unofficial registries, mugshots, news articles, social networking, tax records, and transparent sunshine laws will forever keep a tarnish on most measures in real criminal records reforms.

If the registry somehow became a police only tool, it would manifest similar to how Colorado provides a printout to anyone that asks. Additionally, the U.S. SMART office maintains a federalized database linked to state, federal, and international sharing platforms. As long as these tools remain in effect allowing third parties to capture, query, or possibly exploit information, then justice reforms will somewhat be stuck in the mud for decades to come.

The Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART) provides jurisdictions with guidance regarding the implementation of the Adam Walsh Act, and providing technical assistance to states, territories, Indian tribes, local governments, and to public and private organizations. Individuals found responsible and sanctioned for university or college campus sexual misconduct policy violations will begin importing information even if no criminal charges are assessed.

If you are against the sex registry or public criminal records exposing felony convictions from decades ago, I support your efforts and stand by you. But ridding of the public registry and/or criminal databases has a major stuck point. Our nation has allowed tax records, social security information, job applications with sensitive family information, genealogy networks, credit reporting, banking records, and police records to be stored on cloud networks and collocation servers with data continually exposed and maintained without applicable laws to protect it’s present or future. If a telemarketer from a foreign country can call home with all your relevant information today leaving you with few options to stop spam calls, imagine a world where those same calls become services providing avenues of information no longer available if a registry or criminal database is closed to the public. Inevitably society and companies will find a workaround.

The days of “do the crime, pay with time” are long gone. They have been replaced with “we keep a list, so you won’t be missed.” I have repeatedly suggested that crime does pay in America. Criminal justice and the legal system will always be an enterprise state monopoly creating layer upon layer of bureaucracy. Yes, there are bad people out there that do bad things — but eliminating a specific stigma to discover data resides elsewhere will remain a constant issue as long as information connectivity of warehoused data remains infinitely searchable.

While transparency will undoubtedly be contentious in justice reform legislation so will discussions on how to address criminal records reforms. The lobbying of many well-funded businesses, victim advocacy organizations, and corporations that partner providing sale and services certainly will be armed and ready to viciously defend justice reforms is an attack on companies. Currently, the analytics of law and social policy do not align nor will in the short term. To rid of a mammoth service with ample support backing the current conditions combined with the complexity of laws, safety provisions, and states rights has disaster written all over it. It is not to suggest throwing in the towel. Instead, it should be interpreted with the discovery of a practical method of middle ground of compromise allowing a format for diplomatic discussions to continue.

Perhaps a cautionary warning is what I am suggesting. There is a common adage of “be careful what you wish for” to be applied here. Bellowing out the injustices of registries or criminal records without an alternative may allow the rearing its ugly head of something much more catastrophic. As smart device applications, facial recognition software, vehicle telematics, augmented reality, RFID, NFC, and other technologies surpass traditional web-based platforms, the registry and similar criminal records databases may be headed towards a new frontier that could arguably evince registry styled platforms as practical for the time being.

Dwayne Daughtry is a Ph.D. student of Public Policy and Research Fellow at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. Dwayne graduated with a master’s degree of public policy from The University of South Dakota where he was a research analyst assigned to the federal government for compliance and ethical review. He is a graduate of Arizona State University and has certifications in database, archival, non-profit, and “white hat” vulnerability systems administrations.

Immoral Majority: How NC Law Allows Sex Registrants to Vote; But Not Vote.

States have disenfranchised felons and now include sex offenders. The number of convicted in the US creates a concern for politicians that their vote that may be a vote against them. People are demanding reforms, but politicians fear losing power to those that have voting rights restored. But it gets more complicated as lawmakers create unnecessary hurdles to vote.

There has always been an assumption in America that voting is a right and privilege of its citizens. While the spirit of that argument may be meaningful, it’s not entirely accurate. The United States Constitution, when it was initially drafted and ratified, didn’t define who was eligible to vote. It left that decision up to states. On April 19, 1792, Kentucky was the first state to ban voting for anyone convicted of bribery, perjury, forgery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Soon after many states followed suit by prohibiting voting rights for those with conviction creating a term commonly known as “criminal disenfranchisement.” As the centuries passed and more Americans were becoming casualties of the prison system, the disenfranchised and advocates pushed to reform voting rights. Those affected by states refusing to allow voting of those convicted was gaining momentum in part by allowing a voice of the repressed. On June 24, 1974, The US Supreme Court ruled in the case Richardson v. Ramirez that disenfranchising convicted felons does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. On April 16, 1985, the US Supreme Court ruled that criminal disenfranchisement Is legal in the case of Hunter v. Underwood.  The courts say voting standards are the responsibility of each state as long they do not discriminate against race, sex and those that reach the age of 18 on the day of voting. The state can rid of the homeless from voting if it chooses because they have no address to report. It is just how the law sometimes works without much sympathy for how it may impact the disenfranchised. 

Today justice reforms and voting rights have been hot topics of controversy delivered with undertones of mysterious voter fraud and gerrymandering redistricting planning that suggests disenfranchisement.  Election boards are often tasked to identify and disqualify those with felony criminal records. It is up to the voter to prove their rights have been restored if the state allows such a request. But what if voting rights are restored allowing those not confined to prisons or jails to vote freely? That would surely indicate the freedom to arrive on election day to cast your vote at your assigned polling place.  Absolutely not!  In North Carolina, all you have to be is on the sex offender registry, and the act of voting could mean spending five years in prison.  Why? Nearly all of the polling locations in North Carolina are at schools or places where registrants are prohibited. The 1000-foot rule ban for registrants applies to public or private schools. Registrants are forbidden to live, work, or loiter in these invisibly marked far-reaching areas protected by unforgiving and harsh penalties. The loosely written 300-foot law was added later preventing registrants anywhere a daycare operates (private home or business) and where minors “frequently congregate.”  A minor by state law is 18 years of age. Examples of restricted locations include, but not limited to libraries, arcades, amusement parks, recreation parks, swimming pools, museums, shopping malls, and fairs. The law also suggests that restaurants, businesses, and places of worship with play spaces or care services specifically intended or scheduled for minors are off limits and subject to immediate arrest. (G.S. 14-208.18) Basically, forget trying to eat at a McDonald’s without fear of someone reporting a sighting of a sex offender sitting at a table far from the play area. Therefore, don’t stop to eat at McDonald’s, then drive to the library to pick up the newest book available on your way to vote in the next election before treking home. That registrant perhaps just added 20 years of prison time for all those offenses.

However, there is a workaround allowing registrants access to voting in person. First, a registrant with voting privileges must contact his/her County Board of Elections. Usually, there is a form to request an absentee ballot. Once the form is submitted and approved a ballot will be mailed weeks before an election. It is that moment an individual can vote in the privacy of their own home. However, that person will need two required signatures from relatives or acquaintances as proof that they are who they claim to be. If registrants have no family support or available friends,  the voter must locate and pay for a Public Notary to officially stamp and certify the ballot. Lastly, the absentee voter, once again, has to pay for postage to mail the excessively large envelope back before the voting deadline. It is safe to say registrants must pay $6 each time they vote

If you are that rare and daring registrant that chooses to vote in person on election day, then you may test your luck. There is an unusual step, according to law, that loosely allows voting registrants to appear in person. First, the registrant must call the school where the voting takes place. Second, speak with the principal of the school and disclose the full name of the registered sex offender assigned to that location to vote. Third, if the principal agrees, then they must contact the County School Board of its decision to allow and escort at all times an offender on the property. Fourth, the School Board office contacts the Sheriff for guidance. Fifth, the offender is eligible to vote with police and school staff shooing families away until the registrant casts a ballot and leaves. But this tested method in practice never really works. Voters and principals don’t coordinate well with polling stations filled by long lines and the ill-timing of when registrants can arrive to vote.  Early voting has its limitations too. Many satellite polling stations are at community colleges, public libraries, and YMCA locations. All of these places are off-limits or have a policy that forbids registrants.

People often ask, “why not just sneak in and out to vote?” One, it is unlawful and a public record that a vote took place in person. Two, deputies and police often patrol school grounds as resource officers keeping the schools safe in addition to voter security during high voter turnout. If an officer recognizes a registrant, then they are subject to immediate arrest for being on or near school property.  A person can exclaim the principle has been notified in advance, and no children are present. It doesn’t matter because registry compliance laws are all felonies. There are limited protections within the law that allowing voting rights to registrants. However, officers typically say, “tell it to a judge.” It will always be the discretion of an officer should they choose to arrest or not. Cases in North Carolina Sex Offender Arrests for compliance violations usually say somewhere in police reports “loitering around an area minors frequent.” If minors are not present, it doesn’t matter if an arrested individual is sitting in jail only to have the case dismissed. The arrest and waste of taxpayer time, resources, in addition to crafting a charge that isn’t true but indirect significantly shakes the core of “letter and spirit of the law” of those affected. The state is the body of government that decided to use schools for polling locations but perhaps deliberately did so to keep a sex offender from voting? Nearly twenty-thousand registrants are intimidated, discouraged, and effectively banishes from reasonably accessible voting, educational, public, and right to purchase property in North Carolina. 

When California introduced its version of a state sex offender registration program, its primary target was to criminalize and shame homosexuality. By the mid-’80s, the registry grew to other states targeting the worst possible repeat sex offenders. It also somewhat targeted homosexuals entangled in sexual acts with boys or consensual adult sex in public restrooms. If caught police would put into action a shaming campaign to large print media agencies and publicly mentioning them by name in community awareness meetings. Officers would describe in graph detail laced with description what transpired at the scene facilitating a sensation for others to change the story to uncontrollable measures. During that period there were no restrictions, no websites, no laws interfering with registrants. Instead, it was a carefully coordinated effort to identify and isolate a group found undesirable and highly promiscuous – as portrayed by police. Naturally, the stories police, politicians, and in the name of religion were a continual targets to purge gay life.

A couple of years later California fundamentalists and a powerful lobby group known as the Moral Majority began a campaign to insert a highly charged conservative agenda to change what were perceived by the group to be threats to society. Ronald Reagan was not elected President just yet.  The mission of the Moral Majority was to mobilize a conservative political force for judgeships, Congress, and ultimately making Reagan the 40th President of the United States. It succeeded to do just that. It’s behind the scenes mission was to influence its agenda to the presidency, media, politics, businesses, and grass-roots communities.  A part of that agenda was to mobilize others to support traditional family values, condemning homosexuality and the responsibility for the AIDS crisis, and sexual perversion.  As the AIDS epidemic became a nightly news controversy, the Moral Majority would take to the airwaves, congregations, and radio stations across America suggesting that those with HIV or AIDS be listed on a registry. Public panic directed fear of homosexuals because they may be infected with HIV. There were awful slurs uttered that being gay also meant they are pedophile tendencies and have an agenda to infect children. It’s not uncommon to hear today that gay men are attracted to boys. It is an irrational charge that not only perpetuates lies and innuendo but extends to other groups, mainly registered offenders.  The footprint of the now-defunct Moral Majority continues to linger with fundamentalist rhetoric. It continues to lay claim that “we must tighten and purge any forms of deviant sexual behaviors because there is no cure for this sickness.” As the fundamentalist’s voices become louder, so will the influence and persuasive theme that “if you say it enough, people will believe it.

Today the registry is far incredibly beyond the visions of the Jacob Wetterling Act of 1994, Megan’s Law of 1996 and the Adam Walsh Act of 2006.  The registry has become a state’s rights shaming tool adding anything in any way it sees fit. The registry has evolved into this societal human data dumpster where anyone can be listed for life and unable to do anything to stop it. Three major federal acts working in concert with individual states, municipal, and town ordinance makes the registry a conundrum nearly impossible to absolve in our lifetime. Law enforcement, politicians, and fundamentalists sell and absorb it to distribute to the masses. It is when politicians create laws that restrict any form of a consistent voice is where the war on sex offender reform must begin. That discussion must include false labels, hysteria, sensationalism, lack of facts, and it’s compulsive-obsessive must-have access without any idea what to do with the information provided. At some point, the registry will become so massive that it will not only surpass jail and prison populations but will trickle into travel, insurance, health, and financial agencies as forms of approval creating black market services that will allow other criminal networks to flourish.

When North Carolina passed its comprehensive child congregation law, it made it impossible for registrants to visit his/her elected official in the state legislature. Because school groups, children, and other youth programs take place on legislative property, it disallows registrants being on the property. If representatives from NARSOL were to request a city demonstration permit to protest at the N.C. Legislative Building, it perhaps would be approved. However, all of the participants on the registry would be arrested. Merely engaging in legal, civic, and public space creates unreasonable and unconstitutional methods. If the state proceeds with plans to kick registrants off the internet, then it will add to the impossibilities to email an elected official to protest current or future legislation. The right to demonstrate, right to use libraries, pools, public parks, churches, access to voting, loitering, damaging mischaracterizations, banning registrants from use of the internet to contact his/her elected officials are “nails in the coffin.” The intent of the registry today is to uplift disenfranchisement to an insurmountable level where reforms and rehabilitation will never be allowed to have a voice. 

Assessing LGBT issues in contrast to registered sex offenders is essential. While many may disagree with similarities, the laws that once restricted and intruded upon gay life, suspicion, and rumor are strikingly similar to that of registrants. Gays were fired from jobs for suspecting to be gay. Accesses to lawmakers was always a closed door to gay advocates. Pools didn’t want gay people fearing that AIDS would infect the water. Street gangs would beat up gays on the way to polling to intimidate and frighten. Churches didn’t want gays and if they did insist, they attend conversion therapy (similar to sex offender treatment). Gays were often subject to arrests just for being gay. Thanks to the Stonewall Riots in New York, the intimidation suddenly stopped. I’m not suggesting registrants’ riot or commit acts of violence. But all of these acts didn’t require being on a registry. LGBT citizens have been erroneously mislabeled, arrested for protesting, arrested for consensual actions, wrongly accused of misconduct, and the list is nearly identical for registrants.  What the gay community did to change that was come together and unify, much like NARSOL and other organizations. It is safe to say that the message often isn’t unified or in agreement. That is completely okay.  But it is ultimately crucial that a message from all walks of life, backgrounds, genders, religious affiliation, identity, political influencers, age, race, and disabilities become a louder and amplified voice for how legislation, restrictions, and promotion of the culture of fear standard hurt families, commerce and a create a pathway towards socialism. Being told where to live, where to work, what’s off limits, no accesses to God or religion, told where and when to shop, to ask permission to attend school, standing in food bank lines to get a loaf of bread and report to the police periodically when requested. It has the smell of communism but branded as socialism.  

This very moment, registrants are the newly rebranded “Immoral Majority“. Its mission to engage with media such as radio, print, or television. Contact politicians, support businesses that hire registrants or formerly incarcerated, actively vote, and speak about how family values have been disruptive and an impact to self and others because of the registry. Be persistent, professional, to the point, thankful for the opportunity to be heard, and unafraid of constant rejection. Lastly, pray for self and others. The message to lawmakers is that “voting rights of a million registrants and growing aren’t disenfranchised anymore.”  As American citizens, there must be equal access under the law and spirit of independence without fearing our neighbor. The silence attempt by legislation is clearly an attack on democracy, freedom, and justice.  The registry is an un-American tactical product disguised as an act of safety but delivered as a Ponzi scheme. Registrants may be the swing vote to turn the next election? 

NC House Bill 596 Doesn’t Protect Children. It Injects Fear.

When it comes to sex offender restrictions, some legislatures have taken unusual steps to either ban registrants entirely from the internet or restrict access to various social platforms. Convicted sex offenders aren’t allowed to use Facebook, Instagram, or Snapchat as per terms of service. As Facebook acquires, monopolizes, and removes registrants from its platform, it will have attributed a significant increase in national unemployment numbers of registrants and their families by millions. Denying a right to social media is equal to not providing the tools in a modern age required for industry or the resources of livelihood to pay bills or other online needs. If that isn’t bad enough, some registrants are listed for a lifetime depending on the crime. Some may argue that “removal from the registry will restore accesses to social media because requirements are no longer applicable.” However, Facebook and other company policies that align with banning sex registrants from its platforms are permanent and not subject to state or federal laws and guidelines. This argument extends to juveniles released from sex offender requirements and those pardoned, expunged, or sealed by judicial systems. Facebook and other companies policies are vividly clear that a news article is enough incrimination to remove an individual.

The war on sex offenders and compliance requirements is an easy sell by politicians, victim organizations, and community groups. When it comes to crime legislation, there will be a contemptuous and unfactual way to identify sex registrants in neighborhoods and suburbs as the most deviant and scheming to harm children. Police resources are no longer able to target meth labs, organized crime networks, or child victims of disturbing home abuses. Its officer priorities are socially motivated and influenced by media and civic crazed panic. There will always be highly charged rhetoric about stopping opioid, recreational drugs, guns, heroin, and meth creeping into neighborhoods accessible to youth and destroying families. But registrants are falsely portrayed as a threat to communities, social media, and public spaces are the modern day monster story with dishonest messages that raise unnecessary alarms.

The State of North Carolina recently passed Senate Bill 199 named Child Sex Abuse/Strengthen Laws. The bill passed the Senate overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. However, the bill criminalizes citizens and organizations that fail to immediately report a suspicion that a juvenile is or could be abused. (§ 14-318.6) Listed in the bill directs any person that suspects or witnesses an act where a child could be at risk for physical injury to be notified and identified by law enforcement immediately. That’s right. There are no anonymity provisions for those that initiate reporting to authorities. Witnesses are required to provide full name, address, and telephone number. Therefore, if at a local big box store an individual witnesses a spanking of a child then it’s either the responsibility of the store or witness to contact law enforcement immediately because of the suspicion rule mentioned in the bill. While the bill is attempting to target dangerous conditions, its ambiguous wording allows an opening for many scenarios to be weaponized either by law enforcement or people. Essentially the bill, if it becomes law, will arm businesses and people to act on suspicion or it may criminalize those that fail to become involved if discovered during an ongoing investigation. It creates an attack on the Good Faith law and muliplies situations similar to “BBQ Becky” reportings.

In part three of the bill, (§ 15-1) it increases the statutes of limitations from two years to ten years for misdemeanor crimes against children. This is where the law while intended to target serious offenses becomes diluted to include adults that feel or believe they were physically abused or felt in danger as a child. This will lead to prosecution of family members, coaches, educators, bullies, former friends, or anyone accused of abuse. This portion of the bill generates a possibility by the defense exploiting an emotionally filled victim impact statement whereas defendants are unable to recognize or contribute plausible evidence. The amendment provision appears to be driven by social media and external influencers to align with the popularity of timetable expansions for statutes of limitations in an ex post facto manner. There is no proof or data to suggest an urgency to amend this part of the law by citizens of North Carolina. It facilitates an avenue to further clog the legal system with frivolous actions of child disciplining by parents viewed as criminal behavior.

Part Four, (§ 14-202.5) bizarrely named Protecting Children Online From High-Risk Sex Offenders is perhaps the most negligently researched bill introduced in the history of North Carolina legislative cataloging. The bill mentions High-Risk sex offenders who are not a classification to be found within North Carolina law. (§ 14-208.6 Definitions of Offender Types). That implies the state must introduce a new tier rating system to separate high-risk from low-risk. But with this law, it would eliminate the tier system by classifying all registrants as high-risk without any due process. According to the bill, a High-Risk offender is those found guilty of sex with anyone under the age of 18 or other sexual offenses requiring registration. Should the bill become law it would include nearly 92% of the 17,840 or more registrants listed on the North Carolina registry.

Let’s be crystal clear that the bill is a sleight-of-hand tactic to eventually deem anyone on the North Carolina Sex Offender Registry as a High-Risk offender.

Part Four also includes provisions that would prohibit high-risk offenders from contact with a person believed to be under the age of 16. There are several dilemmas about that particular part of the bill in direct conflict with current North Carolina law. First, there are several laws on the books covering contact with a minor for exploitative purposes. (§ 14-190.13) However, those particular laws clearly state that a minor is anyone under the age of 18. Additionally, it says, “Mistake of age is not a defense to a prosecution under this section.” For example, a 17-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old would not constitute grounds for criminal prosecution under North Carolina’s statutory rape laws because the state’s Romeo and Juliet clause pertaining to sex between consenting minors. But sexting is another issue vigorously pursued by law enforcement. But any communication by a juvenile registrant could be charged with a felony for contacting someone his/her own age. There are no statutes of limitations for any felony committed in North Carolina. “The internet is forever” chat logs with allegations twenty years later by a victim will keep not only registrants but the public afraid to use the internet or phone for fear of unintended reprisal.

Current Facebook policy requires its members to be at least 13 years of age. However, other native mobile apps require enrollment age at 18 based with little to no verification processes. Some apps are sexually suggestive in nature and are accessed by youth for reasons of curiosity or an aura of imaginary maturity. The uncertain risk that youth undertake with electronic devices isn’t the same as attempts to purchase alcohol, cigarettes, or other age restricted materials. It’s more serious and states do very little to address the issue. Society has quickly evolved in an online world where all facets of daily life surround around technology and electronic communications. While there are current laws that prohibit the manufacturing of fictitious identification (§ 18B-302(e)), there are equally laws with provisions that prohibit accessing a computer by false or fraudulent pretenses. (§ 14-454(a)(2)). It appears that lawmakers are adding confusion by creating choices for law enforcement and bargaining chips for prosecutor plea deals.

If a person under the age of 16 engages on the internet, application, or smart device with someone that happens to be a registered offender, regardless of age, there are no laws that require that individual to identify themselves as a registrant. Just as there are no laws requiring a person to state his/her age. However, if the parties engaged are in communications without voluntarily disclosing age, it becomes a vague statute. An example, highly likely to occur, could be where a parent or concerned individual intercepts a device of a young person. That individual discovers nothing illicit but learns the other person is a registrant and notifies authorities. During a preliminary investigation, all relevant age information is visible on another restricted or banned website registrants are unable to access to determine age verification. Is the registrant in violation because he/she believed the other person was of age with no way to verify it? It leaves many open-ended questions and serious concerns for anyone subject to this particular portion of the law. If the state lays claim to protect children and strengthen laws, then why not create a provision where online businesses must confirm and verify birthdate data? This is no differently than physical businesses that require ID for cigarettes, alcohol or other age-restricted materials? This is an attempt by lawmakers to intimidate registrants from being on the internet.

Finally, part 4 of the bill section will criminally charge a felony to any high-risk offender that uses a website where its policy specifically bans sex offenders. Let’s go back to the drawing board for this one. Who on earth reads the fine print of a service agreement when accessing an account? Not many. It is usually a quick click through. However, what will occur if a popular website or application determines that those on the registry are no longer welcome and updates silently its user agreement? How will registrants be notified? Better yet; will registrants be hauled in by police without knowledge of either the law, existing policy or future policy and its consequences? This isn’t an attempt to protect children. This is a blatant action by the state to reclaim its stinging loss in the United State Supreme Court case Packingham v. North Carolina. It is nothing more than creating a constructive action against registrants creating confusion and intimidation tactics.

Part 4 Section 4(c) of the bill may become confusing to some and disturbing to any business, corporation, or educational institution. It requires all internet protocol (IP) address by residence or employer within three days. Additionally, Section 4(e) requires all IP addresses for registrants attending a college or university within three days. It should be essential to mention that failing to do so in three days will result in felony charges against the registrant. Here are several problems with this particular part of the bill. First, what average person understands how to capture an IP address? Is the information requirement an IPv4 address or IPv6 address? Second, most subscribers have high-speed internet services which use a DHCP process. That means an internet IP address called dynamic IP addressing is commonly used. Therefore, if a registrant using, let’s say Spectrum Internet, reports to his/her local sheriff a particular IP address it won’t be the same when they return home. That is because dynamic IP addressing can change or often changes. The only way to capture a correct and valid reportable IP address is to purchase a static IP address from a service provider. Not many people can afford, in addition to Internet Service Providers (ISP) sometimes do not offer static IP addresses. It will be a nightmare for both law enforcement and registrants to maintain information that doesnt offer stability or simple methods to report accurately with often will raise a Forth Amendment challenge to probable cause. Once more, there are no instructions provided to registrants in how IP addressing or online identifyers are supposed to be reported. Each of the 100 county sheriffs in the state has their own “homemade form” often creating a forced signature of complance statement and violation of Fifth Amendment rights. (see form below)

Current North Carolina law directs law enforcement that anyone listed on the sex offender registry is required to physically verify the home and workplace address of a registrant bi-annually. What is currently deemed by law as a Sexually Violent Predator are verified every ninety days. Some Sherrif Departments in North Carolina responsible for the registrants living in their county increase the number of required visits from monthly to when as necessary depending on how that department utilizes and budgets its resources. It is terrible enough for registrants to endure embarrassing situations where a deputy repeatedly arrives in a neighborhood to knock on the door of a home to physically check if a registrant lives there. Neighbors often are curious if something additional has occurred. But when a deputy checks a business, then a majority of employees are equally interested in why deputies arrived at a workplace to ask questions about a fellow employee. This law will create not only another embarrassing way but add an additional check to verify IP internet addresses every six months or more. This isn’t a model where deputies confirm with human resources, coworker, or neighbor. These are physical checks by deputies in full uniform on a premise where no crime has been committed. It presents a method of extended guilt of past, current and future criminal activities of any registrant utilizing costly and unnecessary law enforcement resources.

If you know nothing about Virtual Private Networks (VPN), then you may be in for a quick education. VPN’s are widely accessible and allow individuals to mask IP addressing for cybersecurity reasons. The premise for VPN is to enable employees to telecommute while the network “thinks” the computer resides at the company or organization. Additionally, VPN’s are easy to install and highly encouraged by cybersecurity professionals. If a business or family use a VPN then the IP information may show the user in Germany, California, Istanbul, or anywhere the VPN continuously relocates to avoiding hacking detection. Does that imply that if authorities stumble upon an investigation of a registrant that they are out of compliance for being in a country without notifying movement but never left home? VPN data is often top secret and proprietary by companies. Relinquishing VPN based IP data will eventually harm businesses that rely upon its secrecy of where cloud servers are maintained and located in various nations. Businesses will ultumately not allow this information to be shared with governments. Will companies, because of North Carolina IP rules, begin banning sex offenders or other crimes from hiring opportunties down the road? The law provides a certain opening for that to occur.

There is also a little wording in the bill that says, “law only applies to registrants with an ISP account in their name.” That is very important because it may relieve families from having to disclose IP addresses. But don’t count on it. Law enforcement will find an interpretive way to intimidate families or roommates into submitting information they don’t have to provide. Why the double standard that businesses must provide IP data when registrants don’t pay for company internet services? To add more complications what if a registrant lives in a metropolitan area that offers free-wifi because he/she due to unemployability cannot afford internet services? Does this law suggest that registrants go to the city IT department and suddenly begin asking for municiple IP addresses? It may sound like a stretch of the imagination. But these are the very requirements that law enforcement will weaponize to discourage registrants from the internet. Law enforcement has a long-standing practice to disregard the spirit of the law to frighten and control others, mainly registrants, with jail or prison. It is wrong, but often nobody listens to the families of sex offenders.

If you are a business, hold on to your hats. Giving up your business IP addresses isn’t as simple as you may think? For example, if a registrant works as a network server technician, then count on a minimum of 20 or so typed pages of IP addresses – for that particular day only. It gets more complicated for registrants that work in the telephony field. If they work with optical carriers, then deputies will surely be angry when they see a stack of papers with 400 or more pages of IP addresses per page – front and back. It may sound like a far fetched theory, but it is highly possible. Imagine a deputy in a small county with limited resources entering IP data from a handwritten form filled with IP addresses to enter one by one? Whoever wrote this bill, couldn’t have had any input from law enforcement or knowledge about how internet protocols work? Perhaps there was an influence on lawmakers by a state agency that wants a backdoor opening to target the poor? All this part of the bill does it target the poor and those without technical knowledge to navigate basic computing.

But what happens to those massive amounts of IP data stored about people and businesses? What are the liabilities the state is willing to assume if those IP addresses are compromised because of a law it drafted without protections? What if a business identifies a threat, but it is the state attempting to peek into a computer without a warrant? If the company alerts The National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) which is under Homeland Security? Naturally, there will be many lawyers and legal filings for breach of networks without authorization not to mention men in dark suits with federal badges and guns asking state agents lots of questions. Or is there a constructive method allowing human resources employees conveniently discharging anyone convicted of a sex crime because it would be a burden to report IP requirements continually to law enforcement? What implications are businesses responsible for allowing sensitive IP addresses to a government agency for a registrant not on probation and where a company refuses to relinquish saying, “no warrant, no search?” It puts the registrant in the crosshairs of potentially severe felony charges; not the business. Many scholars suggest that North Carolina asking for business cybersecurity information may violate the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Addionally, it may be violating a significant amount of laws both state and federal.

Overall, this is a bad bill and an awfully confusing law for many. It does nothing to protect children. Instead, it harms families, businesses, employment opportunities, and job statistics. Harming 17,000+ registrants from the internet also suggests 85,000+ or more families could be impacted by this carelessly written and crudely researched law. If passed, it will ultimately return to the courts and rendered far overreaching as it was once before. It creates new legal challenges from cybersecurity providers, businesses, municipalities, AT&T, Verizon, Spectrum, satellite companies, router manufacturers, computing companies, and perhaps Google, Apple, and Microsoft. This bill, if passed, could cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in legal fees also a significant impact on the future of attracting and retaining businesses to the state. Essentially, companies can exclaim they are the ones being molested without consent!

Lastly, this bill harms law enforcement and the people of North Carolina. Additionally, it demonstrates a significant injustice for an inconsequential offense that may have occurred decades ago where both sides have agreed to move on. This law serves just the beginning as a threat to the future justice reforms legislation. If sex offenders are the target today, who will be added as time progresses? While it may have good intentions to protect children, it didn’t provide a data-proven comparitive analysis that it works. Instead, the bill was introduced from external influencers and outside fear based organizations blackmailing politicians rather than listening the people of North Carolina. If passed into law, this will undoubtedly create hostilities for businesses, citizens, and law enforcement to engage together. Its vague language establishes a police state where people are mandated to report under the face of being hauled to jail for not relaying his/her suspicions. It is bad enough that citizens fail to engage in civic duties. This law ensures they stay far away from it or other situations.

Official Sex Offender Registration Online Identifier Form. (accessed 2019)
Registrant Certified Letter Mailed Every Six Months Requiring Mandatory Appearance Within Three Days From Date Accepted And Delivered By U.S. Post. ( Form CISS-90)

For general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice

Justice Reform Must Include Mental Health Reforms

Recently there has been an increased awareness of Justice Reforms in America. According to the Brookings Institution, it reports that we are spending $80 billion a year on incarceration. However, according to the U.S. government, we spend on average $3.5 trillion on health care annually. I raise the two separate issues to pinpoint a severe flaw that both systems are broken and in disrepair.

To help find a solution, some lawmakers have introduced policy allowing the privatization of prisons systems suggesting a reduction burdening taxpayers. Yet, these private prisons profit $7.4 billion annually. Let that sink in for a minute. If a private prison can turn a profit, then why isn’t our national corrections system rolling in surplus? Trillions of dollars on health care spending or roughly $10K per person and we should be the most mentally and physically fit people in the world? But that is not even an actuality in comparison to other nations with free health care. But it’s more complicated than that – because we choose to make it complicated.

Some could argue that jails and prisons provide health care, mental health assessments, and medication to inmates. While true, it holds two temporary but critical flaws. First, the inmate must volunteer and often establish a co-pay payment while incarcerated leaving many in additional debt when released. Second, once an inmate has been set free, there is no continuation of health services of any kind. While there may be low-cost municipal services to the formerly incarcerated the stigma of finding a job, housing, transportation, food, and reassimilation into a skeptic and often hostile community serves no real purpose or plan for successful outcomes. A practical reason for high recidivism rates is that the mentally ill are the most likely to return to jail or prison because they will have housing, food, reassimilation of structure, and medicine. However, somewhat like the perception of registered sex offenders is viewed as all-encompassing violent criminals. The same could be said in how we label those in the mental health community as criminals when in the judicial system.

The reality is that for justice reforms to deliver a sustainable solution the legal system it must collaborate and establish a strategy. A part of that strategy is to include health care and free easy to access proven mental health programs. A reason our health care system is broken because of the lack of accessibility and wage to pay for preventative health services. That same argument extends towards mental health both post and preventative. When an individual pleads for help, but no resources are readily available then there begins the problem in how we should be addressing it. However, if that same individual commits a crime because the bureaucracy fails to establish relationships with health care providers, then it will always be a win-win for prisons and recidivism.

Nobody will claim that justice reform is an easy task. Ultimately, it will be an expensive endeavor both politically, financially, and with strong emotional discourse. But if we make an attempt to focus on a long term strategy regulated by nonpartisan individuals its success may be achievable and results driven. If American society can experience sizable shifts in capitalism where factories that once monopolized the world were replaced with higher skilled and improved conditions why can’t we create and collaborate a rational plan to reduce incarcerations and a clogged judicial system with health organizations that understand data proven methods that will deliver immediate results? If we can invest in soldiers to train them to be leaders on a battlefield, train college students to create inventions to change the world then we can certainly change the dynamic of our outdated judicial and prison systems by reinvesting in proven and life-saving methodologies with long-term cost savings visible in the horizon.

Sex Offender Driver License Ineffective

Recently I had a meeting with a representative of a state house. The reason for the meeting was he wanted to introduce legislation that would require an identifiable designator for registered sex offenders on a driver license. To be candid, I was caught off guard because I had not adequately prepared to answer his questions and perhaps needed a bit more data to deliver a case. However, I took a professional route by providing the best optimal argument against such a plan.

A driver license is not by federal standards a truly legal form of identification. Yes, it is produced by a state government but not issued by a federal government. Therefore, there is a gray area that its intended purpose is for motor vehicle standards. A state-issued identification card is, in fact, a state-issued ID but also falls under particular rules that it too is not a federal ID. The Real ID Act of 2005 modified U.S. law after 9/11 to increase security for state-issued ID cards targeting immigration and terror-related issues. There is nothing that requires or prohibits states allowing them to add anything to a driver license they wish. Essentially, it is the states that have created a defacto identification card that has morphed into this massive data sharing scheme.

The Commonwealth of Virginia recently added fishing and hunting icons to its driver license for registered hunting and wildlife programs. Many states have added veteran status among a string of added organ donor icons. Some states have introduced and are actively using the sex offender stamp on its driver license. My argument is “when does it stop? As a concerned driver, I am more concerned about habitual drunk drivers or those with serious motor vehicle matters being quickly identified at a car rental counter or borrowing a car than a sex offender behind the wheel. Why not target the driver license with a DUI stamp to the very people that are a hazard to our roads?” The representative paused for a minute and said, “I never thought of that?” I went on to say that the registry is enough and a driver license will eventually become out of control allowing information overload. There is no data to prove its success nor data to disprove it. Therefore, it must be a waste of money and effort. The representative agreed and terminated the idea.

The significance of this issue is that states already have an expensive endeavor maintaining driver records, security, authentication, and standards a driver license program. Additional resources such as insurance, collision reporting, traffic infractions, vehicle titles and registrations, social security numbers, medical reporting, voter ID, and other traffic-related factors somewhat overload a system that requires consumer updates each expiration period. Adding additional information such as sex offender, wildlife permits, other sensitive information shouldn’t be a part of the driver license policy. There is an active registry for that. It may appear convenient, but at some point, the system is bound to collapse, become compromised and too costly for an agency to undertake. Eventually, it will become outsourced and cost taxpayers and states a hefty fee in the long term. Additionally, getting out of the program will require significantly more resources and funding.