Michigan AG Dana Nessel Does The Unthinkable: Argues The Truth About SORA

The following is a guest post, at my “request,” from Guy Hamilton-Smith.

Michigan’s Attorney General has entered the cultural and legal conflagration of how we reckon with sexual violence in our society with a remarkable (and compelling) argument: Michigan’s sex offender registries are not effective at stopping sexual violence.

It’s a remarkable argument. Safety and accountability have been the ostensible watchwords in our ongoing collective discussion of sexual violence, but strong (and understandable) emotion has tended to override those concerns and diverted discourse into negative-feedback loops of ever more brutal consequences for anyone who would even be perceived to stand in the way of that punitive impulse. Just ask Aaron Perksy.

For politicians, then, few bets have been as safe as wanting to punish sex criminals harsher than the last person who spoke. Statehouse legislation proposing new and harsher restrictions for the nearly million people now on America’s sex offense registries have been as perennial as the grass in a nationwide race-to-the-bottom, regardless of whether or not those proposals were grounded in any sort of evidence. Court decisions have favored a brand of results-oriented intellectual dishonesty to conclude that registration is non-punitive and designed to enhance public safety (though with some notable exceptions), even as they turn people into permanent nomadic pariahs wholly incapable of redemption.

And so, it is indeed remarkable that Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel made the argument that sex offender registries are exquisite punishments that undermine safety in important ways. The cases the briefs filed in People v. Betts, and People v. Snyder involve state constitutional challenges to Michigan’s sex offense registry in the context of a pair of people who were convicted of sex offenses in the mid-90’s, well before modern registration schemes were born.

The AG’s briefs make the case that Michigan’s SORA scheme is punishment, and therefore can’t be applied retroactively. That alone, that an AG would be making the argument that these laws are punishment, is remarkable enough. But these arguments go much, much further than that.

Nessel’s arguments forcefully and passionately highlight how modern registries are objectively bad public safety policy.

Modern social science research has shown that SORA’s extensive burdens are excessive in relation to SORA’s purported public safety goals. There are two salient points: 1) research refutes common assumptions about recidivism rates that supposedly justify SORA’s extreme burdens; and 2) regardless of what one believes about recidivism rates, registries are not good tools to protect the public.

The briefs essentially examine every feature of Michigan’s registration scheme and adroitly eviscerate the neutral public safety rationales they hide behind, laying bare an animosity that–even in America, the world leader in punishment–is unmatched.

For example, with respect to laws that banish those convicted of sex offenses from living or even being present in certain areas:

SORA’s geographic exclusion zones are affirmative disabilities and restraints, are excessive in relation to the expressed purpose of public health and safety, can lead to banishment of both the registrant and his or her family, and are contrary to the desired goals of rehabilitation, stability, and re-integration into community life.

On frequent and technical in-person reporting requirements:

The registry’s in-person reporting requirements are affirmative disabilities, and restraints, are comparable to the duties imposed on other convicted criminals while they are under supervised release or on parole, and are excessive in relation to the expressed purpose of public health and safety.

Pointedly, the briefs take pains to illustrate how the ways in which the Internet and technology have evolved have profoundly changed what registration means:

This dramatic growth in the Internet and the dissemination of its information has several consequences for a registrant. First, the registry’s reach is now widespread in the registrant’s community. And that widespread message is that all sex offenders are dangerous and should be shunned (“not in our town”). Second, registrants are no longer simply shamed in the public square of one’s own community; they are shamed in the eyes of their county, their state, their nation— and in our global economy, the world.

In the midst of these rapid developments, the context of the registry is hardly neutral and strictly factual. The inaccurate message is that all registrants are dangerous—because they have been singled out from other types of offenders. Indeed, by including individuals on a list of registered sex offenders, the registry “does more than merely disseminate information.”

On the ways in which the registry can undermine public safety:

Finally, there can be unintended consequences to offender registries. Registries may create incentives for judges and prosecutors to alter charges, and for victims to underreport. For example, a study of South Carolina’s registry law found that, after implementation of the state registry law, defendants were more likely to have charges reduced from sex to non-sex crimes over time, with greater predicted probability corresponding to the implementation of Internet notification. The same study found that an increased number of defendants were allowed to plead to non-sex-offense charges.

Inadequately supported and narrow views of recidivism, along with the possibility that registration might discourage rehabilitation and encourage future crimes, show that SORA’s burdens are an affirmative disability or restraint, promote retribution not rehabilitation, are not rationally connected to the Legislature’s asserted nonpunitive purpose, and potentially endanger the safety of the community.

The briefs both end with a request to the Michigan Supreme Court to find that Michigan’s 2006 and 2011 amendments to its sex offense registration scheme are punitive.

Reading the briefs, it is impossible not to be struck by their tone. When the government is forced to concede a point in a filing, it is usually done in the smarmiest, most back-handed way possible. There is no trace of that here. There is, instead, a forceful eloquence and a vision of what effective public safety could look like when it comes to sexual harms. Instead of signing off on the idea of registries being a fundamentally good policy, weaved throughout these briefs is a strain of skepticism as to their utility at all.

To state it differently, these are some of the strongest briefs written assailing public registration as public safety. That they came out of an AG’s office is astonishing.

It is much too early to tell what the extended impact of this will be. Now that an Attorney General, as opposed to a civil rights litigator (or even a judge) has called a spade a spade, one hopes that others will be willing to follow suit in the quest to earnestly, effectively, and humanely address the spectre of sexual harms in our society.

Or, more dimly, perhaps we will be unable to kick our registry habit, and simply endorse more restrictions, though on fewer people — those whom we are “certain” are dangerous and therefore “deserve” whatever ingenuous cruelties we can dream up. While risk assessments would certainly be an improvement over the system we have now, as the briefs note, it’s worth observing we used to be certain we could map one’s future criminality onto the contours of their skull. Skepticism as to our ability to tell the future seems warranted, and whether these educated guesses are a sufficient basis to burn someone at the digital stake a seems worthwhile question to ask.

Whatever the outcome, Dana Nessel’s arguments are not just well-researched, articulate and forceful. They are courageous. For an elected official to make these arguments, even as solidly grounded in reality and research as they are, evinces a courage and a commitment to justice and public safety that is as rare as it is needed amongst the political establishment.

And so, credit where credit is due. Kudos to Dana Nessel.

24 thoughts on “Michigan AG Dana Nessel Does The Unthinkable: Argues The Truth About SORA

  1. JorgXMcKie

    The guy she replaced was one of those awful ‘climbers’ who would do/say anything to win an election and gain more. He got defeated (justifiably) in his run for Gov. I did not vote for Nessel (I almost always vote third party) and certainly do not agree with a great many of her stances. But in this case, credit where credit is due indeed. I will read the whole brief, but your report is well-received by me.
    We have way too many laws based on emotional feel good arguments. Would that we could get rid of them.

    Reply
    1. SHG Post author

      Well, that’s obviously significant to everyone else. Sowhen you write a post, leave the Persky reference out. Problem solved.

      Reply
    2. David

      I thought the Persky reference was entirely appropriate, but then, why the fuck would anyone care? On the other hand, you might be persuaded if I bothered to explain why I thought that. But since you didn’t bother to explain why you fould it specious, why would I possibly waste my time on an asshole like you?

      Reply
    3. Guy Hamilton-Smith

      I thought about the Persky comment, and on balance, if you follow the link, the point is that Persky’s sin (if you can call it that) was more or less being in the wrong place at the wrong time. There was so much misnformation about the Turner case that finding someone with an (accurately) informed opinion about the case was neigh impossible.

      He was perceived to stand in the way of the punitive impulse (even though he really didn’t), and was sacrificed for it.

      I can appreciate that, as it is, it’s a little bit intriguing. Read the law review it links to — it’s an informative and engaging read.

      Reply
  2. Sandy Rozek

    We have always admired Guy’s writing and certainly his advocacy against myth-based sexual offense laws and practices, but he has outdone himself with this piece. It excels in its clarity, its primary points, and the sheer beauty of its prose.

    Thank you, Guy, and thank you, Mr. Greenfield.

    Reply
    1. SHG Post author

      Oddly enough, my view is that arguing for the registry is more akin to arguing for religion. Religion is a matter of faith and dogma, same as support for the registry.

      Reply
  3. Pingback: Guy Hamilton Smith: MI AG Dana Nessel “Argues the truth about SORA” – NARSOL

  4. Pingback: MI attorney general calls registries punishment and ineffective – NCRSOL

  5. MonitorsMost

    I was going to complain about the Attorney General taking the postition that state statutes are unconstitutional unless there is no good faith basis for doing so (and although wrong, there was a legal good-faith basis to do so). It’s ultimately the job of the court to role it’s eyes at the argument, not for the AG argue against its duties.

    But, the end of the amicus brief points out that 24 USC 20927 says a state doesn’t lose federal funds by failing to have a registration scheme if the “highest court of a jurisdiction has held the jurisdiction’s constitution in conflict with [SONRA].” Which means the AG is arguably protecting the State by arguing that the statute is unconstitutional.

    This might be the rare situation where the AG gets to be the good guys by arguing against draconian unconstitutional infringement of the rights of the convicted while still upholding their constitutional duties to defend the State and its laws. Extra kudos for Dana Nessel for threading the needle.

    Reply
  6. Dave

    This is just yet another example as to why I am so fucking happy to be under new management. Though even I was surprised to see these arguments. I mean, I could have made them, and I am considered a crazy, liberal fuck by most of my co-workers (well, those that know me well).

    Reply
  7. Simeon Hope

    Here in the UK, there isn’t even the beginnings of a public argument against the SOR. Thankfully, we don’t have the extremes of the USA, such as putting names on the internet or requiring registrants to display their status on their vehicles. But it is just as pointless unless you consider “getting re-elected” as the main purpose of supporting the SOR.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are subject to editing or deletion if I deem them inappropriate for any reason or no reason. Hyperlinks are not permitted in comments and will be deleted. References to Nazis/Hitler will not be tolerated. I allow anonymous comments, but will not tolerate attacks unless you use your real name. Anyone using the phrase "ad hominem" incorrectly will be ridiculed. If you use ALL CAPS for emphasis, I will assume you wear a tin foil hat and treat you accordingly. I expect civility from you, but that does not mean I will respond in kind. This is my home and I make the rules. If you don't like my rules, then don't comment. Spam is absolutely prohibited, and you will be permanently banned.