Monday, January 2, 2023 Annual Report 2022 Annual Report 2022

Summary: This year, I had more new contacts than any other year. Many were prisoners, which is unsurprising since I respond to prisoner inquiries and print out some materials for them. 

Most of the activism performed by OnceFallen is either the maintenance of the website, responding to inquiries, or through prisoner outreach. When needed, OnceFallen is willing to attend activist events, conduct media interviews, and legislative meetings addressing sex offense laws when necessary. OnceFallen runs on a shoestring budget but rarely needs donations unless the need involves travel. 

OnceFallen major accomplishments in 2022:

1. Offered assistance to, and attended, a rally against Civil Commitment in Austin, Texas

2. Completed the 3rd Edition of Your Life on The List. 

3. Wrote four articles for The Crime Report. No media contacts were made this year, however. 


Total New Contacts 2022 – 710 (667 in 2021, +43, a 9% increase over 2021)

Reasons for initial contact, in order of most to least common reasons for first contact. Please note, this is only for INITIAL contact, and in the case of prisoners, it may begin with a “general info” contact followed by a later resource request: Housing Leads (165), Legal info or referrals (90), General Info (89), ICoN prisoner newsletter (62), State Law questions (50),  Probation/Parole issues (28), Prisoner/Jail issues (25) Book/Your Life on The List (23), Activism (23), ARM surveys (14), Harassment (11), Thank You notes (10), and Employment issues (10). The rest were specific questions not listed. 

New contacts were spread across 44 US States, DC, and the USVI, in addition to at least one contact from Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, and Singapore. I made no known contact with anyone from AK, HI, ID, MT, MS, and RI in 2022. 

States ranked from most to least inquiries: Wisconsin (70); FloriDUH (56); Ohio (35); Texas (29); Georgia & Missouri (20 each); Illinois & California (17 each); New York (15); Michigan (14); Pennsylvania (13); Virginia (12); Kansas (11); Arkansas, New Jersey, & Washington (10 each); Colorado, Indiana, & Tennessee (9 each); N. Carolina & Oklahoma (7 each); West Virginia (6); Arizona & Oregon (5 each); Kentucky (4); Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, & Minnesota (3 each); DC, Delaware, Louisiana, Nebraska, The Netherlands, Nevada, and Vermont (2 each); Denmark, Germany, Maine, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Singapore, Utah, US Virgin Is., and Wyoming (1 each). 228 ever mentioned location

Initial Contact Type from most to least common: Corrlinks (212), email (216), letter/postal mail (133), phone (91), text (39), Facebook (12), LinkedIn (1), Twitter (1)

New contacts by month; January (106), February (52), March (73), April (50), May (43), June (52), July (46), August (64), September (61), October (64), November (38), December (61)

Corrlinks Informational Newsletter (ICoN) subscribers: At the end of 2022, I had 1315 total Corrlinks subscribers (up from 1196 in 2021), but of those, 392 are state prisoners (slightly up from 385 in 2021), and because it costs extra to send email to state prisoners, these 392 do not receive monthly newsletters. That leaves 923 federal and CCA prisoners receiving the newsletters. In 2021, there were 811 subscribers, so this is an increase of 112 subscribers, or 8.7%.

Letter Stats: OnceFallen received 286 total requests by mail (note: many were repeat requests), which is 51 (15.1%) less than last year. 

Financial Resources & Expenses

Financial support decreased over 2021 numbers by about 18%. Since OnceFallen typically operates on a shoestring budget, donations, particularly large donations, are generally not needed. I was invited to take part in a rally against Civil Commitment in Texas, which was the only action that required significant funds, and thus significant fundraising efforts. Typical expenses include supplies related to prisoner outreach, including envelopes, stamps, printer toner, phone expenses, the occasional free book to prisoners, etc. I do not expect to take part in any public awareness events in 2023 so I expect even less financial support due to a lower need to raise funds in 2023. 

In 2022 the federal government decreased the amount of money individuals can collect from online transactions from $20k to $600, so OnceFallen suspended all online transactions. This is likely the reason behind the decline in donations. But since I have no plans to participate in public events in 2023, this is nothing to worry about. 

Thursday, September 22, 2022

ARM 2023 DC VIGIL on 3/7/23 and WAR's Conference: "Teamwork Makes the Dream Work" 3/5/23 to 3/6/23

Anti-Registry Groups are staging a vigil commemorating the terrible landmark ruling of Smith vs Doe, decided in March 2023, which declared the registry is not punitive. There is also a conference preceding the vigil. See details below. 


Once Fallen encourages those who can only attend one event to make that event the vigil. We need a strong PUBLIC showing. 


The vigil that will take place at the steps of the US Supreme Court building on the morning of Tuesday, March 7th 2023, marks the 20th anniversary of the controversial SCOTUS ruling Smith v. Doe which concluded the public sex offense registry is not punitive (punishment) and constitutional safeguards do not apply. There is a large sidewalk in front of the SCOTUS building we can gather without a permit. The boundary is the lowest step leading to the SCOTUS Plaza (the large over shaped area before the steps to the SCOTUS Bldg.) This still gives us ample space for hundreds of people. 

We cannot stand on the grounds/plaza, but there is ample room on the public sidewalk. 

There are a few regulations regarding protest/vigil signs allowed near the SCOTUS building in regards to size and construction (not content). See these rules at:

For further discussion on protests at SCOTUS you might want to read this:

You do not have to sign up for/attend the conference to attend the vigil, and you are not required to attend the vigil if you only wish to attend the conference. However, I encourage you to attend both if possible. 

WAR is planning on using arranged transportation for visits to Capitol Hill and the vigil. However, if staying away from the hotel and are traveling independently to Capitol Hill and/or the vigil, you might want to consider leaving your car at the hotel and taking the METRO subway system. The “Capitol South Station” subway stop is a mere 2.5-block walk north to the SCOTUS building, and the Blue, Silver, and Orange subway lines make this stop. (If taking a different line you’ll have to transfer to the aforementioned lines.) For details on using the METRO rail system, go to:

Weather in DC can vary greatly. In 2022, March 5-7 saw mostly sunny weather with a high temperature between 55 degrees and 75 degrees and lows in the 40s and 50s, followed by rain and a cooldown with highs in the 40s. You may wish to plan for both a warm day and a cold day (and even a wet day) if you plan to attend the vigil. 

Start making your plans today to attend this historic event!


See this link for more details and to sign up for the conference. WAR has a special hotel rate at a hotel in Alexandria VA:

If you are a Person Forced to Register and you are staying in VA or in DC to attend these events, you do not have to register if you are just visiting and are returning home after the events. 

WAR is hosting a two-day conference preceding the vigil. The conference runs Sunday, March 5th, 2023 and Monday, March 6th, 2023. Keynote speakers include Virginia Representative Bobby Scott, one of the few legislators bold enough to speak out openly against the registry. On Monday afternoon, conference attendees will engage a visit to Capitol Hill and meet with our elected officials.

Monday, August 22, 2022

WTF happened to our desire to fight opressive registry laws? GET YOUR ASS TO DC!

December 1, 2022 marks the 15th anniversary of the first SUCCESSFUL public awareness event, the "Silent No More Rally" in Columbus, Ohio. It was a two hour event in a cold late fall day, and we were heckled by members of an online vigilante group and Bikers Against Child Abuse (BACA). (The online vigilante group was "Absolute Zero United", a extremist affiliate of the group "Perverted-Justice", the original online vigilante group best known for their involvement in the controversial Dateline NBC "To Catch a Predator" TV show. )AZU But we outnumbered them over 2-to-1 (there were about 50 of us but maybe 20 of them if even that) and we even confronted them after the event. 

See the rally video HERE:

We certainly had more to fear back in 2007. On the morning of June 16th, 2007, the five brave activists, representing Oregon, Texas, Arizona and Florida, met to begin operations on a project a dozen weeks in the making. The activists paid the Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce for space to hold a press conference, and a number of media representatives were expected to attend. However, the local police were tipped off about the intended protest, and the activists were met with a heavy and hostile police presence. The activists were closely watched and a plain-clothes officer told one of the rally attendees if he so much as jaywalked or spat, he would be arrested. The activists were denied entry both at the Chamber of Commerce (the place for which they paid in advance for the press conference) and at the Jewish Holocaust Memorial Park, just across the street from the Chamber of Commerce. 

The scheduled event in Miami was the first attempt at a public awareness campaign and it was met with consorship threats of arrest. In Ohio, the event wasn't censored, but this online vigilante group and biker gang tried to deter us from attending. And it wasn't like there was universal support for the Columbus event, either. The largest anti-registry group in 2007, SOHopeful, declined to participate and even condemned the event. But back then, people got so upset with SOHopeful they left en masse and joined SOSEN and some other website that in 2007 was nothing more than an online petition, "Reform Sex Offender Laws" (RSOL), which is known today as NARSOL. 

Excitement was in the air following the event. On the SOSEN forum (which in 2007 was public so anyone, including the vigilantes, could see the comments), people applauded this Ohio rally and looked forward to future events. Here are some of the comments:

"Just back from the Ohio rally!  Pumped up, inspired and motivated!!  Agree with everything *** said.  Dr Davidson was very good as were all the speakers!! I have to comment on Ali's speech.  She bravely spoke to the crowd about her brother and how the laws have affected her.  You should have seen her turn on several occasions and face the PJ crowd as she directed some comments to them.  You go girl!! There was so much planning involved; the space and equipment, inviting/confirming the speakers, brochures, the HRW report, travel arrangements, fundraising.  There are others areas of planning, I am not aware of.  The event was a success from the planning standpoint; it was a well executed event.  Congratulation s to every one invloved in planning the event! I was so glad to meet *** as I had worked with him when he mailed over 500 letters to Ohio RSOs.  I also met *** who had hand delivered letters.  Feedback for those who sent letters:  I met one RSO who had rec'd one of our letters.  Naturally he had a tragic personal story of injustice.  *** said she knew of several who were there.  Of course, she was on stage and identified, whereas I was just out in the crowd.  So it would make sense that an RSO would have sought *** out.  Thank you to all of you who mailed letters!  It did make a difference!! At one point, 2 PJers came and stood on our side.  After a few minutes, a cop came up and told them they'd have to move back behind an imaginary line... Any Indiana families out there who want to work on a rally for our state?  Write me back.  We need to start planning now.  Or is there already a planning committee for Indiana and I missed it?  Committee, if you already exist, let me know.  I will help."

"I'm SO thrilled it went well today!!! I wish so bad I could have been there!!!  Everyone was on my mind all night last night and all day today I kept checking the news and google... I couldn't wait to read the message board!!!  I was telling EVERYONE about this and reminding them to watch the news!  I can't help but to smile when I think about what everyone is doing.... what a wonderful group of people!! I am in Pennsylvania.. .. I can't wait to get a rally going here .... I am VERY close to Harrisburg (Lebanon) and  I am anxious to get a rally going here.  If anyone is planning one, please contact me... and if nobody is.... contact me and lets get one started!!!"

"WHERE is the NEXT rally going to be??? How about OKLAHOMA???? We're in prison here. 2000 feet from everything. 78% of all RFSO on Tier III, etc. etc"

"After speaking with a few that have been there, I am particularly interested in seeing the counter demonstrators. I understand they were unkept in appearence and looked like trailor park druggies who either  grade school or high school drop outs."

"I loved the rally's message and I really loved that it never became the 'Cry Me A River' plead that the opposition expected.  It really took away their fuel.  I can't say I disagree with some of the protesters, though.  One woman had a sign saying that 1 in 7 women in Ohio will be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes.  That is tragic.  I believe their concern for children is genuine.  Their execution is what is f---ed up.  I roared in laughter when I saw the woman carrying the sign "Sex Offenders have the right to remain Silent!".  The irony of a counter protester using her 1st amendment rights to say that someone else shouldn't be allowed their 1st amendment rights must have eluded her because she glared at me when she realized I was looking at her.  The bikers tried to do the whole bully thing when a few friends of mine went to the coffee shop to get something to drink, but they didn't actually say anything.  They just followed them and tried to loom a little.  My friends were not overly impressed."

"you want more?  :idea1: which state should we go after?  any suggestion? should we make a bid to so clear on what state should have a rso rally on?"

"Tennessee, please.  :)  I will go to OK, though, if and when it happens there!"

"I think, at some point, we should work on the tri-state regions, e.g. VA/MD/DC. I know there are other tri-state regions, but I don't live there! I especially think DC is a good idea because that's where the president is and all the important people who can change these laws. I say, at some point, because I think it might be better to focus on one project at a time since it took so much money and effort for the first one. I don't think we should be spreading ourselves thin."

Three months later (March 2008) a SOSEN forum post entitled, "100,000 SO's and family march on Washingtom DC" was made. The energy from the Ohio event was still high:

"We have in our power, all 300 or 400 members to plan such an event as Martin Luther King did.  We have the ease of being able to send mailers to everyone on the registries.  We have the passionate mothers, wives, brothers and sisters, daughters and sons, now numbering, I guess, 400 on this forum.  If I tell a secret, or rather 400 people do, how long would it take to make a million.  How much organization would it take to draw 100,000 of that to Washington. Ohio was a great event for us.  It showed courage and determination.  Now, let's plan for the big one.  Why all this stuff and energy about tracting what states are passing what laws and which newspaper is saying this or that.  Are we action oriented?  Are we determined to take a stand.? Do we have the tools and orgnizational facilities amounst us to accomplish what Martin Luther King did?  I believe so."

"I agree with everything you say, and the passion as well.  And I think that was my message too.  What I am saying is that it is time to mobilze it!  It can be done.  The time is now!"

But the voice of caution and worry started to creep in. From the same thread:

"I mentioned in a staff meeting lately that our next "rally" or better yet "symposium" should take place in Washington DC. I agree that it should take about a year to plan.. A HUGE concern would be money.  People would need to plan and save for the trip.  We should have money available to pay transportation and lodging for some high power speakers.  Money for written informational handouts, music, skits, Media announcements. ..the list goes on and on. We COULD do this.  I would caution everyone about getting former sex offenders to attend. We have not had sucess at this in the past.  We would really need to brain storm about HOW to effectively get them involved and willing to attend.  It may sound easy but it is NOT.  WE thought we would have many in Ohio.  They sure had incentive!!   Many SAID they would come, few did. We would want a good showing of former offenders, and loved ones.  We would want Victim Advocacy groups.  We would want Legislators.  We would want John Q Public.  We MUST have the media."

None of this came to fruition. Sure, RSOL had a closed door conference in DC, but it wasn't an open air rally. There were other plans to hold public events in the 2010s but planning fell 


It has been at least an entire year since the first "behind the scenes" discussions about the a vigil and conference in Washington DC took place. We are now, at the least, a year into the planning. 

And last month, one of the main organizers of the event, Janice Bellucci, and her group, the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL) chickened out of the event. Citing fears of assault and the political unrest following the violent insurrection attempt on January 6, 2021, Bellucci stated, "I no longer believe it is safe to conduct a vigil in Washington, D.C.  I no longer believe it is safe for individuals required to register or their families to gather at or near the U.S. Supreme Court.  That is why with a heavy heart I have made the difficult and personal decision not to conduct or participate in the planned vigil."

In 2007, when SOHopeful chickened out of the Ohio rally, people left in droves. By the time SOHopful dissolved in 2008, the forums were a ghost town. That did not happen quite as much with ACSOL. While a few people voiced disapproval, any of the members applauded the decision, and even defended this act of cowardice and attacked those who criticised the decision:

"I don’t call it cowardice – I call it a tactical withdrawal. But if you are really feeling frustrated about all this – then put your money where your mouth is and stage your own – if you’re willing to take the risk – more power to you."

"This site and organization was not founded to be a protest rally point. It is founded by attorneys who every day protect and advocate for our rights and protections. This site also is not designed to be an “outreach” program for living resources. Maybe you can post in forums for such things but that is not ACSOL’s mission."

"Janice works her ass off for us, how dare you even say we need new leadership, if you want to start a new organization just do it and see how much good you can do. This whole registration problem is very complex, we need to make sure everything we do is safe and going in a forwarded motion. Please cut everyone some slack here, we are all in this together and with good will we will succeed."

"The Best thing ACSOL and all of us can do as a group isnt protest. It’s support those in this community who need Legal Help, Housing, Employment, Mental Health help, and LOW COST help with the Applications to be removed from the registry when we are allowed to do so. THATS what this group should be!! Not a sad bunch of protestors standing outside a bldg. I dont care about a Vigil, i care about getting off this damn registry and living my life. And thats what this group should be helping to facilitate!!"

"Thank you Janice for this recap. You made the right decision. It’s a heartbreaking situation. Thank you for your tireless efforts."

"Janices job is to act as a legal representative for us not as a foot soldier. She has expressed concerns regarding safety issues for attendees and their families, as such she has decided not to attend the event she does not have skin in the game. You are all being hunted, and safety concerns shouldn’t stop any of you from attending the vigil and acting as peaceful protectors. That’s a choice that you all have to make individually, Respect existence or expect resistance." 

"I think it was meant to be. I wasn’t too keen on it in the first place. I can only imagine what the headline would have been. For those who were imagining themselves in an a-la Martin Luther King Jr. scenario, I think you would have been sorely disappointed. I think when we, as opposed to our allies, like Janice for example, try to win our case in the media or by doing something public, it does more harm than good. Yet whenever Janice is on the TV or in the newspaper speaking on our behalf it’s always a win. But I’m from Florida, so I realize my perspective can be completely different than you guys kicking butt in California."

"And where would you go Spyro? Name another organization that has done more for Registrants in California than in any other state...So, there is a little bump in the road and you’re ready to throw your arms up in resignation? Have heart my man!"

Perhaps that last one hit close to home for me as a Cincinnati Reds fan. Earlier this year, when Reds owner Phil Casellini faced strong backlash for trading off fan favorite player and assuring another losing "rebuild" season, he said in an opening day interview, "Where are you gonna go?" The team was demoralized, and ended the month with one of the worst monthly records in history at 3-18. In fact, they only won 1 game in after the comment was made, as the Reds had split a 4 game series against the defending MLB champs Atlanta Braves before "opening day" in Cincinnati. The Reds lost the opening day game on a blown save. They lost 11 in a row before beating St Louis (The Dirty Birds), then lost 9 more games. 

Fans were so frustrated, one guy made headlines for threatening to take a crap in the bed of the Toyota Tundra the Reds give away as a promotional item. That game that was to take place on May 6th was rescheduled due to the weather (the baseball gods, maybe?). The next Day, the Reds split a doubleheader with the Pittsburgh Pirates (Rat-pies), then beat the Pirates on Sunday to win their first series of the year, The Reds took 2 of 3 against the Pirates, took 2 of 3 against the stinkin' Brewers (Boozers), and swept the Cleveland Guardians (the roller dercy club?) in a 2 game series. 

WTF happened to our movement? What happened to the fire? It seems the larger the movement has become, the more afraid we've become. The pioneers of this movement took bigger risks. Today we're content with closed door events where sermons are preached to choirs. 

I care enough about the cause of abolishing the sex offense registry and the other hateful laws it produces that I'm willing to go the house of our fearful leaders and defecate in their pickup trucks in hopes it will light a fire under their asses. 

Before I close, I must address the mentality that has grown within our movement that we should sit back and just send money to the big groups in hopes of one big fat lawsuit, get Smith v Doe back in front of SCOTUS, get it overturned, and we live happily ever after. Easy-peasy, right? (I've already discussed why a conservative-run SCOTUS derails any hope we have of this pie-in-the-sky dream coming true.)

This exchange can be found in the comment section on an FAC article posted after the Brevard County Commission meeting:

Poster: "I think we have proven to ourselves that we are not going to win this in the newspapers, at county meetings or by appealing to the public. We are going to win this thing in the Courts. We can’t force people to like us but we are going to have to force the application of our Constitutional Civil Rights."

My response: "This statement is the biggest problem with our movement. Too few Persons Forced to Register have the guts to stand up to our oppressors. Instead, we have entire groups of Eeyores who come to FAC and elsewhere to grumble and wait for that one magical Court case that just gives us our rights back.

There are two things you need to realize.

Judges have the same biases and get their facts from the same place everyone else does.

The courts of the civil rights era were very liberal; today’s courts are largely staunchly conservative. And conservatives vote to uphold these laws far more often.

In a perfect world, every event one of our groups puts together, be it a county commission meeting or a vigil in DC, would attract hundreds, or even thousands, of Registered Persons and their loved ones.

The REAL reason little gets accomplished is too few people come out to any of our events and participate, whether it be out of fear or selfishness or the Eeyore mentality. Over the years, the hardest part of organizing events is just convincing our own people to support AND PARTICIPATE, which is harder to do at times than trying to convince Ron/Lauren Book or John Tobia or Barney Bishop they’re clearly in the wrong.

Change starts with YOU. If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem."

Poster's Reponse: "I used to think as you do Derek, that if enough people would just stand up and be willing to say, 'enough!' But then I witnessed Occupy Wall Street, the Black Lives Matter movement and the January 6th event and how ineffective those protests were at actually changing anything – and those events were about issues that were popular with millions of people! I’ve seen how the media twists and turns our appearances on TV news. So yes, I believe it will be that “magical case” and that’s what I am waiting and working for. In regards to our current focus (ex post facto) one case did it (Smith v Doe) and one case can undo it. All the Court has to do is revisit that case, declare sex offender laws punishment and ‘poof’ the main sting of what a group like Brevard County is trying to do is gone. Yes, moving forward, we still have issues and yes getting rid of the registry entirely is the ultimate of our wishes, but we can cross those bridges when we get to them. I speak for myself when I say that once the Court says punishment, this nightmare is over for me. And many people are in my same shoes. No, it won’t necessarily save all of us, but wow what a difference that would make. It just takes one case and it will be magical!"

I'm just an average person. I don't have any magical powers. I can't make miracles for you. I don't have all the answers. I'm not a "professional." But, I've devoted my life to changing the laws and I am doing my part with the talent I have. While not everyone can be a front-line activist, we can ALL do something. But sitting around waiting for rainbows and unicorn farts from our political courts is not working. 

There is still 6 months to plan to come to Washington DC. If you are coming just for the vigil, or just for the WAR Conference, or if you are just get your ass to DC. Stop making excuses! 


Tuesday, March 8, 2022

Minnesota’s "Shadow Prison" for "Sex Offenders", report published in The Crime Report

 UPDATE: It seems there was a glitch in the system at The Crime Report that got fixed, so it is back online. But, just in case, the article is a few months old now so i'll keep this here. At first it was suspected the MSOP had something to do with it but apparently not. Still, since it is been up a while, I'm reporting it here.

Minnesota’s ‘Shadow Prison’ for Sex Offenders

By Derek W. Logue | September 28, 2021

In a landmark 1997 decision, Kansas v. Hendricks, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld civil commitment for those convicted of sexual offenses while allowing lower commitment standards used in the past.

In his concurring opinion, then-Justice Anthony Kennedy stated:

We should bear in mind that while incapacitation is a goal common to both the criminal and civil systems of confinement, retribution and general deterrence are reserved for the criminal system alone…If, however, civil confinement were to become a mechanism for retribution or general deterrence, or if it were shown that mental abnormality is too imprecise a category to offer a solid basis for concluding that civil detention is justified, our precedents would not suffice to validate it.

In the years following Hendricks, states have turned civil commitment centers into expansions of state prisons, detaining people long beyond the end of their court-issued sentences and detaining them indefinitely.

Many stay incarcerated until death. Nowhere is this more evident than in the state of Minnesota.

The Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) was initially established in the early 1990s as a civil detention program for anyone convicted of a crime diagnosed with a “psychopathic personality,” but the program shifted focus specifically to those convicted of sexual offenses within a couple of years.

Following the high-profile murder of Dru Sjodin in 2003, the program was expanded from 100 beds to roughly 700 across two facilities in Moose Lake and Saint Peter. Governor Tim Pawlenty symbolically passed a moratorium in 2006, but for the first 20 years of the program, no prisoners had ever “graduated” and earned a conditional release from the MSOP.

A class action lawsuit against the MSOP struck an early victory in the 2015 Minnesota District Court ruling Karsjens v. Jesson, Judge Donovan Frank declared the program unconstitutional in an as-applied challenge and ordered many changes to the program, including providing a clear pathway to release.

This ruling was overturned on appeal to the Eighth Circuit, but it opened the door for a handful of releases from the MSOP. Between 2012 and 2021, Minnesota has granted only 14 full discharges and allowed 28 former MSOP prisoners to live outside the walls of the program on conditional release.

At least 88 prisoners “graduated” by death.

Minnesota has the highest per-capita civil commitment population. California, a state with seven times the population of Minnesota and the largest civil commitment program in America, only detains about 200 more prisoners than Minnesota does.

Not content with the trickle of releases and an unclear path for release, the civil detainees at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program and their loved ones have tried many innovative ways to raise awareness of their plight. A coalition of MSOP prisoners and their loved ones formed “Voices of OCEAN” (Overcoming Corruption Encouraging All Nations) to coordinate protests and awareness campaigns both inside the and outside the confines of the MSOP.

In 2021, MSOP conducted two hunger strikes while their loved ones organized a series of “Honk-Ins” in front of the Moose Lake and St. Peter facilities in a show of solidarity, and protesting at the residence of Department of Human Services (DHS) Commissioner Jodi Harpstead.

OCEAN members have derided the program as “Minnesota’s Shadow Prison” or “M$OP.”

On July 18, OCEAN hosted a conference and rally at the State Capitol building.

While the event attracted legal reformist groups like Women Against Registry and Once Fallen and representatives from five Midwestern states, the message of reform was largely ignored by lawmakers and the Minneapolis/St. Paul news media.

The Voices of OCEAN and other legal reformists were also largely excluded from the August 2, 2021 legislative hearing on the direction of the MSOP; victim advocates and civil commitment advocates were invited to the event while OCEAN was relegated to pre-submitted written testimony.

The mainstream media seems only interested in the shock value of the protests, and the Minnesota legislature only seem interested in treating the plight of the OCEAN members as a political football.

The price of speaking out against the injustices of the MSOP has come at a price for those still detained within the MSOP. As noted on the #EndMSOP and Voices of OCEAN Facebook pages, the detainees have been punished in many ways in efforts to deter the prisoners from participating in peaceful demonstrations.

The MSOP staff would only consider those rejecting water as well as food to be “hunger strikers,” which led to a faster decline in the health of the hunger strikers. Staff members have labeled engagements in protest activities or possession of protest materials as “counter-therapeutic,” leading to disciplinary hearings, banishment to the punitive “Omega Unit,” and implying protesting conditions of confinement will lead to a revocation of treatment progress. Often, these actions come without warning and without explanation.

A 2011 evaluation from the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor concluded that the program was costly, lacked reasonable alternatives to civil commitment at a high-security facility, unnecessarily detains people who are actually not considered a risk to society, experienced frequent disruptions in staff and leadership, and lacks a clear pathway for progression in the program.

The Auditor recommended exploring lower cost alternatives, changes in commitment standards and sentencing policies, and providing actual treatment. Ten years later, little has changed.

There has not been an endgame to the embattled “Minnesota Sex Offender Program.”

Minnesota will spend $96 million on the MSOP in 2021, or $393 per day per inmate ($143,445 per prisoner in 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent economic crisis should make the legislature reconsider its unwavering support of this controversial program.

The MSOP is not sustainable as it exists today. There is no better time to take the message of MSOP reform seriously than right now.

Derek W. Logue is a Nebraska registrant and activist for the rights of returning citizens, and founder of the sex offense education and reform website

Saturday, February 26, 2022

Sticks and Stones part 2

Last weekend, I wrote a brief rant about how trolls attacked a fellow anti-registry activist group. These trolls flooded the page with insults while demanding we speak with them on our position. 

It is funny how people have the audacity to attack someone then demand their victims sit down with them and discuss why they oppose the attackers' viewpoints. They obviously are too STUPID to realize their trolling, making threats, and making harassing messages in violation of real-world, existing cyberharassment law is one of the key reasons why we fight against the registry. 

So in desperation, the trolls try to appeal to personal ego. 

1. "What are they hiding?" 

Nothing. Every anti-registry group and advocate with a public website prominently displays our mission statement. Many of us also use our real names, and even if we don't, we have the right to free and anonymous speech, much like the trolls who mostly use screen names to hide their identies. (I assume it is because tey KNOW that what they have been doing can land them in prison.) My name is on my website, yet the trolls make a spectacle out of trying to reveal my identity, because they're so stupid they didn't realize for days that I had a contact page on my website. 

2. "Why won't they tell us what they stand for?"

First, see Question #1. Second, you're too lazy to research. It takes more than a 45 second TikTok video to learn about a complex subject. Third, most in the opposition cannot carry a rational debate and resort to name calling. I'm not going to waste my time debating someone who calls me foul names and expects me to take their abuse. No, fuck you. 

Trolls lack even basic reading comprehension. One such troll, for example, was in an interracial relationship, so I merely asked how she'd feel if someone used racially insensitive language regarding her or her significant other after repeatedly asking her to stop disrepecting me, and the obvious response was "OMG ur a rassis." Trolls are incapable of critical thinking. This is the "No Child Left Behind" class all grown up. 

You come to one of my pages to make stupid comments, I flag it for spam and move on. I don't like arguing with idiots. 

Oftentimes, this is accompanied by claims of cowardice. It is not cowardice to block idiots who waste my time. I'm only interested in talking with intelligent people. No one, not even the trolls, would like conversatioms where the only remarks are insults. 

I've heard it all before. Over a decade and a half of hearing the same lame comments from mentally deficient people has desensitized me to your words. It does, however, motivate me to continue my work to ABOLISH the registry. 

I am tired of professional victimhood being used as an excuse to lash out at others. Get some therapy and GTFOH. 

PS: I see my personal stalker is still crying at my latest victory over the Book Crime Family. Ha ha, keep seething, loser!

Saturday, February 19, 2022

"Sticks and Stones"

 Remember as children, we often heard the expression, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me?" As children, we never really believed it. 

As an adult, however, I grew to understand that words hurt only so long as you allow them to hold power over you. 

I was reminded of this as I volunteered a clean up a troll attack on the social media page this past week. While the barrage of trolling comments were new to this group, it ws nothing new to me. As a vocal advocate of abolishing the public sex offense registry and a person on the registry myself, I've endured numerous attacks over the years. I've dealt with many vigilantes, both individually and entire groups. I've had my share of 3am phone calls, death threats, people who create websites dedicated to me, and personal stalkers. I've had specific threats, and I've even had trolls publish maps and pictures of my residence. And most of thse vigilante douchebags know they will face little to no repercussions. 

If you are going to be a bold activist, you must develop thick skin. I spent a few minutes each day for a week deleting comments and banning the offenders. I take pleasure in it, too, because over the years, the worst thing you can do to an online troll is delete their messages, since trolls revel in responses. They believe if you respond to them in any way, they are "winning."  

It takes less time to ban someone that it takes for that person to spend hours spamming a social media page. Nasty emails get flagged for spam. Nasty messages get ignored and swept away. 

It gets easier to do in time because there are honestly few new comments. Here are a few examples (not verbatime but many comments sound more or less like this):

"Woodchipper go brrr" -- And lame, uneducated trolls go "Durrrr." 

"If you are against the registry you must be on it." -- Well, in my case, I am, so "No Shit Sherlock", but many activists are not, and a growing number of legal experts oppose the registry, and they don't have loved ones on the registry. I guess it must take a working brain to figure out that a government blacklist 

"Pedifile" -- The least you cabn do is spell the term right. Idiots spell this term like it is something you pull out at the mail salon to scrape callouses. 

"I hope you get raped" -- Sometimes said in conjunction with prison "Gen Pop" or "Bubba" comments. It seems a bit ironic that people promote rape to say erape is bad. Did I say ironic? I meant MORONIC. 

**posts picture of my registry flier** -- Not that it is ever enforced, but the registry does state misusing the registry to harass, threaten, intimidate, or attack those on the registry, so they are engaging in criminal activity, so it is the same as the "I  hope you get raped" comments. 

**speaks in memes, emojis, and the same lame, highly overused GIFs like blinking man or girl with goofy confused expression** -- They cannot form their own opinions and speak like a human. Not worth my time.  

"Accept your punishment" -- You are admitting the registry is punishment. That actually benefits us since the ultra-conservative SCOTUS feels otherwise. 

"You'll never see me coming" -- You're right, because you never show up. 

"Expect Us." -- Anonymous isn't even a thing anymore. At best, these losers will try a DDOS attack that'll get fixed within a few minutes since ISPs have improved detecting attempted DDOS attacks. 

People have been led to believe that if they say mean things to me, I'll quit opposing the registry. Well, it hasn't happened in the 16 years. Far more powerful people, like the Ron and Lauren Book Crime Family, tried and failed, and now they're about to get sued into oblivion. 

Trolls, don't waste my time. I've heard it all before. Insulting dead members of my family, or my manhood, or my sanity, or encouraging suicide, or calling me names, or attempting to annoy me into submission is simply fueling me to press on with my message of total abolishment of the sex offense registry. 

And when the current gang of internet gangsters finally tires of being deleted and move on to the next gripe of the day, I'll still be here, just like the internet, "doing my thing," just as I have done since 2004. So the trolls can kiss my ass. 

Friday, January 7, 2022

The Annual Report 2021 Annual Report 2021

New Contact Statistics

Summary: This year, I had more new contacts than any other year. Many were prisoners, which is unsurprising since I respond to prisoner inquiries and print out some materials for them. Around March, I was added to the FairShake network’s list of resources, which caused a massive spike in new contacts in 2021. 

OnceFallen major accomplishments:

  • Your Life on The List: Edition 2 released: It took longer than expected by the 2nd Edition made many improvements over the 1st edition and is up for sale at
  • St. Paul MN, Rally Against the MSOP Civil Commitment Program: Helped organize and volunteered at the outdoor event at the Minnesota State Capitol in July
  • New, more mobile-friendly website: I had to raise money to pay someone to create the new website but now it is more user-friendly. 
  • Most ever new contacts: New contacts in 2021 shattered the previous records set in 2020. 
  • Media appearances: OnceFalen got three OpEds in The Crime Report, and was feaured in the Voloch Conspiracy (WaPost legal blog) in March (in regards to my victory over the evil Florida State Senator Lauren Book), as well as CBS4 in Denver (regarding the SOMB proposed rule change), the latter of which led to inclusion in numerous media outlets. 


Total New Contacts 2021 – 667 (476 in 2020, +191, 40%)

Reasons for initial contact, in order of most to least common reasons for first contact. Please note, this is only for INITIAL contact, and in the case of prisoners, it may begin with a “general info” contact followed by a later resource request:

  • Housing Leads (132): Requests for housing information
  • Sex offense Laws (96): Inquiries about many aspects of sex offense laws, from registration to residency restrictions to fees to GPS and related laws. 
  • Assorted questions (91): Various topics including resource sharing, website issues, harassment issues, and even contact from vigilantes
  • ICoN Inquiry (84): Requests for being added to the Informational Corrlinks Newsletter (ICoN or various questions about the ICoN)
  • General Info (73): This category is for people who have inquiries that are broad in nature (“what can I expect as a Registered Person?”) or those who were not sure what they needed when making initial contact. These are usually handled by phone calls. 
  • “Your Life on The List” Book (34): First contacts asking specifically about the book, including requests for a free copy.
  • State-Specific Laws & Resources (34): Requests specific to a specific state
  • Activism advice (31): General discussions on activism or specific discussions of activism projects 
  • Legal Advice/Lawyer referrals (26): I don’t provide either, (advice is only lawman advice and I make them aware of that), but I try to offer advice when I can find it. 
  • Supervision/Probation/Parole Issues (24): Issues related to being “on paper”
  • Prisoner Needs (15): I don’t offer certain services to prisoners; in some cases I can merely provide a list of prisoner-specific resources. 
  • Various 50 State Guides printouts (12): I have offered prinouts of the AtwoZee 50 state travel guide and the relief from registry spreadsheets from the CCRC to prisoners, but with the release of my registry survival guide, I receive fewer initial requests for these guides than in the past.
  • Employment issues (10): Various issues regarding finding and keeping a job 
  • Media contacts (4): Requests for interviews

Locations: 483 of the 667 inquiries gave a location. Six were outside the USA (3 UK, and one each from Ukraine, Germany, and another nation he did not specifically state for privacy reasons)

Because Fairshake added me to their prisoner resource list, there was a massive spike of new inquiries from a single state—Wisconsin. 42 US States, DC, and Puerto Rico had at least one contact each—I made no known contact with anyone from AK, HI, ME, NM, ND, RI, VT, and WY in 2021. 

States ranked from most to least inquiries: Wisconsin (129), Florida (41), Texas (38), Ohio (33)Illinois (20), California (19), Pennsylvania/Virginia (14 each), New York (13), Georgia (12), Minnesota (11), Louisiana (9), Alabama/Missouri/Washington State (8 each), Arkansas/Tennessee (7 each), Arizona/Colorado/Michigan (6 each), Indiana/Kansas/Kentucky/Oregon (5 each), Deleware/Iowa/North Carolina/New Jersey/Oklahoma/South Carolina (4 each), Connecticut/Massachusetts/Utah (3 each), Idaho/Nebraska/Nevada/Puerto Rico/West Virginia (2 each), DC/Mississippi/Montana/New Hampshire/South Dakota (1 each)

Initial Contact Type from most to least common: Corrlinks (265), email (211), letter/postal mail (114), phone (79), text (19), Facebook (6), LinkedIn (2), Support forum (1)

New contacts by month; January (66), February (73), March (87), April (50), May (65), June (69), July (39), August (54), September (48), October (34), November (48), December (43)

Corrlinks Informational Newsletter (ICoN) subscribers: Stats for this were complicated by a new development. At the end of 2021, I have 1196 total contacts in Corrlinks, but of those, 385 are state prisoners (nearly all from Wisconsin), and because it costs extra to send email to state prisoners, these 385 do not receive monthly newsletters. That leaves 811 federal and CCA prisoners receiving the newsletters. In 2020, there were 637 subscribers, so this is an increase of 174 subscribers, or 27.3%.

Letter Stats: OnceFallen received 337 total requests by mail (note than many were repeat requests), which is 52 (18.25%) more than last year. 

Financial Resources & Expenses

OnceFallen did conduct a fundraiser to pay for a new, more modern and mobile-friendly website in March 2021. The expense for this new website plus the cost of converting the website to a new server totaled about $1200. However, the new service costs just under half of the old Yahoo Small Business service I was using, so annual website fees are now only about $60 a year, a far more manageable amount than the $144 a year Yahoo was charging me. 

The only other major expense was the trip to St. Paul MN as part of the July rally against the MSOP civil commitment program, but since St. Paul is a relatively short distance from Nebraska and the hotels were reasonable, travel expenses were under $700 for two representatives. Other typical expenses for include stamps, envelopes, paper, and other office supplies. 

Financial support increased slightly over 2020 numbers, and ends the year with enough to cover any immediate needs in the coming months, and the website fees are paid through September, so there is no need to fundraise. Furthermore, with ACSOL planning a major event in 2023 in DC, is not currently planning any major event for 2022 unless something I feel is an emergency situation arises. 

Website Data: I can no longer accurately report website usage data. However, with the site now mobile friendly, usage likely went up as the site became more accessible. 

Thursday, November 25, 2021

The need to change the offensive term "sex offender" is gaining traction, but Registered Persons need the guts to rise up against the hate

My name is Derek Logue, and I refuse to accept the offensive label society tries to force upon me. 

For the past few days, I've taken a bit of heat over a comment I made at the Colorado SOMB meeting on 11/19/2021, which was republished  by CBS 4 Denver. I had stated, “Referring to me by a label for something I did half my life ago is inappropriate and downright offensive.”

First, a message to my haters -- Let me be clear, I don't care if you are upset by my statement or my existence, or, to use the Internet vernacular, IDGAF. Furthermore, using my past or the various derogatory labels in an effort to cause me distress or harm isn't going to work. After 15 years of speaking out against the offensive label, I've seen and heard it all from Internet gangsters, trolls, right wing horse-paste lickers, QTards, and folks trying to be the next viral sensation, so it is going to take more than a few nasty emails, calls, and social media posts to silence me. 

What the haters ARE doing is proving my point AND the point of the Colorado SOMB made at last week's meeting, i.e., the negative impact of the label of "sex offender." 

Those of us who are on the registry need to be more vocal, however. It takes bravery. It takes guts. It takes the willingness to defend yourself even if the words aren't "safe for work." 

A few years ago, legendary boxer Mike Tyson was conducting a routine interview when this reporter decided to throw up Tyson's registry status in his face. Tyson wasted no time expressing his feelings about the reporter's actions:

I think those of us on this government blacklist needs to be more like Iron Mike when it comes to dealing with idiots who continue to try to throw the past up in our faces. Of course, based on my 15 years of experience, most of those who say nasty things online don't take it any further. 

For starters, you can go to the Colorado SOMB and tell them why the phrase "Adults who commit sex offenses" is not really an improvement over the term "sex offender." (Personally, I chose client" as the alternative.) Let the haters waste their time whining on social media while we work on actual change. Stop relying on NARSOL and ACSOL to do the talking for you. Stop cowering in a corner. We ALL have a responsibility to do our part. 

Friday, October 29, 2021

"Registered Persons" and "Registered Citizens" or a similar term should be in the dictionary

 The Cincinnati Enquirer website's headline story of the morning is, "Merriam-Webster (finally) recognizes Goetta, adds word to the dictionary." 

For the sake of those who have never been to Cincinnati, Goetta is a food item as unique to the Cincinnati Metro area as the famed Cincinnati Chili. Goetta is primarily composed of ground meat (pork, or sausage and beef), pin-head oats and spices. It is often served up into patties, primarily at breakfast, but could be served in sandwiches, burgers, or even pizza. Goetta even gets its own "Glier's GottaFest" every year around late August. 

It seems silly to finally recognize a food item that that has been around for well over a hundred years (the idea was brought by German immigrants in the 1800s), while also adding more recent inventions like "dad bod", "copypasta", and "FTW" (although they failed to mention the more vulgar and favored use, opting to claim it means "for the win" rather than "F**k the World.")

But when it comes to ways to define those convicted of sexual offenses, most people still use the derogatory phrase "sex offender" or one of the more offenseive "P" words. 

In my own writing, I've currently settled on using the terms Registered Person, Registered Citizen, or simply Registrant. Over the years, we've also used ex-sex offender, former offender, or Persons Forced to Register (PFR). It would be to our benefit to come up with a consistent word or phrase to describe people forced to register and listed on a publicly accessible registry. That term must be used consistently and added to the dictionary. 

Unfortunately, when I write letters to the editor, terms I use are sometimes changed to "sex offender," which I feel detracts from the message. 

So what term do YOU prefer? Comment below. 

Saturday, September 25, 2021

Kansas Supreme Court Justice Eric Rosen issues scathing dissent of ruling that upheld lifetime registration for juvenile registrant

Dissenting opinions rarely make headlines, but the dissent by Kansas Supreme Court Justice Eric Rosen is an amazing read and worth sharing. This judge gets it. You may it useful in future battles against the registry. It is more amazing given the fact that while KS Supre Court Justices are appointed, voters elected to retain Rosen in the 2020 election. 

ROSEN, J., dissenting: For more than 15 years I have been a proud member of a court that has historically taken an unyielding stand against the degradation of rights guaranteed by our Constitution. See In re Adoption of Baby Girl P., 291 Kan. 424, 242 P.3d 1168 (2010); In re Adoption of G.L.V., 286 Kan. 1034, 190 P.3d 245 (2008) (protecting rights of natural parents); State v. Ryce, 303 Kan. 899, 368 P.3d 342 (2016), adhered to on reh'g 306 Kan. 682, 396 P.3d 711 (2017) (striking down as unconstitutional statute criminalizing refusal to submit to testing of bodily substances  deemed to have been impliedly consented to); In re L.M., 286 Kan. 460, 470, 186 P.3d 164 (2008) (upholding juveniles' constitutional right to jury trial). Even in the era of Jim Crow and Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed. 256 (1896), this court protected civil rights against forces of discrimination. See, e.g., Board of Education v. Tinnon, 26 Kan. 1, 22-23 (1881) (power to divide city into districts does not include power to divide city according to race, color, nationality, or descent); Webb v. School District, 167 Kan. 395, 403-04, 206 P.2d 1066 (1949) (creation of special school district carved out to exclude African-American children was impermissible subterfuge for segregation). 

Today, I feel none of that pride. Today, the court eschews the United States Constitution and the citizens it stands to protect for reasons I cannot comprehend. Today, I dissent. 

I agreed with the majority of the court in Doe v. Thompson, 304 Kan. 291, 327-28, 373 P.3d 750 (2016), when we concluded lifetime registration constituted punishment for adult offenders. And I certainly believe it constitutes punishment for N.R., who was 14 years old when he committed the acts for which he was adjudicated an offender and placed on probation—not an adult convicted of a high-level felony and sent to prison—and for which our Legislature has retroactively imposed a life sentence. 

I will initially consider the requirements and burdens that the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA) places on individuals and the negative impacts that ensue from registration. I will then explain why I do not consider this court's opinion in State v. Petersen-Beard, 304 Kan. 192, 377 P.3d 1127 (2016), a case with which I disagree in any event, to be constraining precedent in the present appeal. I will point out the differences between public access to juvenile adjudications and public access to sex-offender registries. I will point out the dramatic imbalance between the public benefit of offender registration for juveniles and the lifetime punitive effect that such registration has on juveniles. And I will reiterate the special circumstances of juvenile behavior that distinguishes it from similar behavior committed by adults. I will conclude that registration is plainly punitive in nature, even if not in intention, and the registration statute, as applied to this appellant, is an unconstitutional ex post facto violation.

The Ex Post Facto Clause in the United States Constitution prohibits states from "pass[ing] any . . . ex post facto Law." Article I, section 10. A law violates this prohibition when it "'increase[s] the severity of [the] punishment'" after the crime was committed. State v. Todd, 299 Kan. 263, 278, 323 P.3d 829 (2014) (quoting Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 29, 101 S. Ct. 960, 67 L. Ed. 2d 17 [1981]). The first step in analyzing whether legislation violates this constitutional directive is determining whether it constitutes punishment. In making this assessment, this court applies the "intenteffects" test. Under this framework, we deem legislation punishment when it is punitive either in purpose or effect—even if the Legislature intended a "regulatory scheme this is civil and nonpunitive." To assist with this analysis, this court has turned to the factors utilized by the United States Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168-69, 83 S. Ct. 554, 9 L. Ed. 2d 644 (1963):

"the degree to which the regulatory scheme imposes a sanction that: (1) has historically been regarded as punishment; (2) constitutes an affirmative disability or restraint; (3) promotes the traditional aims of punishment; (4) is rationally connected to a nonpunitive purpose; (5) is excessive in relation to the identified nonpunitive purpose; (6) contains a sanction requiring a finding of scienter; and (7) applies the sanction to behavior that is already a crime." Petersen-Beard, 304 Kan. at 198 (citing Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. at 168). 

The United States Supreme Court has noted that the first five factors are the "most relevant." Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 97, 123 S. Ct. 1140, 155 L. Ed. 2d 164 (2003).

The State alleged that when N.R. was 14 years old, he committed acts that, if he had been an adult, would have supported a charge for rape. N.R. pleaded guilty and was adjudicated an offender. A magistrate judge then suspended the imposition of sentence and placed N.R. on probation. The court also ordered N.R. to register as a sex offender "locally" for a period of five years. Shortly before this time expired, the Kansas Legislature enacted legislation requiring N.R. to register for life. N.R. acknowledges that the Legislature intended KORA be civil and nonpunitive but argues the requirement he register for the rest of his life is punitive in effect when applied to him. 

KORA requires N.R. to register—in person—at least four times per year. When he is experiencing homelessness, he must register every 30 days and describe every place he has slept and frequented since the last registration and every place he intends to sleep and frequent until the next registration. K.S.A. 22-4905. He must also register in person anytime he moves, experiences a change in employment status, alters his school attendance, uses temporary lodging for seven or more days, or if any of the following things commence, change, or terminate: name, telephone number, identifying physical characteristics, occupation, employer, driver's license, identification card, vehicle information, professional licenses, designations, certifications, treatment for "mental abnormality or personality disorder," email addresses, online identities, personal web pages, travel documents, or name and telephone number of probation officer. K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-4905(h); K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-4907. If N.R. manages to keep up with these requirements, much of this information is posted on an easily accessible offender registration website that members of the public may peruse at their leisure. K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-4909. If N.R. fails to fulfill the requirements, he can be prosecuted and sentenced to years of prison time, even though he was never confined in a juvenile correctional facility when he was adjudicated an offender for the underlying offense. K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-4903; K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6804

N.R. presented evidence that these onerous requirements have wrought havoc on his attempts to move beyond his adjudication and function within his community. To be brief, registration has caused him to experience homelessness, created barriers to substance abuse treatment, forced him apart from his family, created insurmountable financial strain, severely compromised his mental health, and put his life in danger. Countless jurists, scholars, and social scientists have confirmed how common these burdens are to those required to register. See E.B. v. Verniero, 119 F.3d 1077, 1102 (3d Cir. 1997) (registration causes registrants and families "profound humiliation and isolation," jeopardizes employment and housing, destroys relationships, and spurs "'vigilante justice,'" frequently enough "that registrants justifiably live in fear"); Tewksbury, Exile at Home: The Unintended Collateral Consequences of Sex Offender Residency Restrictions, 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 531, 533 (2007) (offender registrants report several collateral consequences, "including employment difficulties, relationship problems, harassment, stigmatization, and persistent feelings of vulnerability"); Prescott, Portmanteau Ascendant: Post-Release Regulations and Sex Offender Recidivism, 48 Conn. L. Rev. 1035, 1056-57 (2016) (registration causes difficulty with finding employment, securing housing, and maintaining relationships); Zevitz & Farkas, Sex Offender Community Notification: Assessing the Impact in Wisconsin, 9 (Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, 2000) (77% of offender registrants reported "being humiliated in their daily lives, ostracized by neighbors and lifetime acquaintances, and harassed or threatened by nearby
residents or strangers").

The suggestion that these requirements and their effects are not punitive is simply wrong. But today's majority shrugs its shoulders and tosses these realities aside. It points out that a previous majority of this court held mandatory lifetime registration for adult offenders did not constitute punishment for purposes of a cruel and unusual punishment analysis. Slip op. at 8 (citing Petersen-Beard, 304 Kan. 192). It takes the untenable position that, although the State action may be burdensome, it is not technically "punishment" and is therefore permissible. This position is at odds with authority holding that State action need not be intended to be punitive in nature for it to violate constitutional protection. See, e.g., Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1976) (indifference to prisoner needs may create constitutional claim); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 95, 78 S. Ct. 590, 2 L. Ed. 2d 630 (1958) (even clear legislative classification of statute as "non-penal" does not alter fundamental nature of plainly punitive statute); see also Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 684, 97 S. Ct. 1401, 51 L. Ed. 2d 711 (1977) (White, J., dissenting) (state actions that are so cruel that they are
not permitted as penal acts must not be permitted in non-penal contexts). 

The majority avoids mentioning that, instead of meaningful analysis, much of the Petersen-Beard decision consisted of string cites to federal cases in which courts considered whether other state registration schemes were punitive. See Petersen-Beard, 304 Kan. at 214 (Johnson, J., dissenting) (observing that majority looks to federal caselaw even though "[o]rdinarily, any analysis of a Kansas legislative act would not begin with a consideration of merely persuasive federal authority when there are decisions of this court on point"). Then, it considers whether there is anything different about N.R.'s circumstances that would make mandatory lifetime registration punitive for him. It ultimately concludes the registration requirements are not so onerous as to constitute punishment for N.R. Slip op. at 17. Such a stunning conclusion leaves one at a loss as to what, if any, condition KORA could create that the majority would consider onerous. 

In its first point, the majority rejects N.R.'s claim that the registration requirements cause an affirmative disability or restraint by making it difficult for him to find employment and housing and subjecting him to shame and ostracization in his community. The majority reasons that these consequences come from his juvenile adjudication, and those court records are already public, so the registration adds no disability or restraint. Slip op. at 12. The majority relies entirely on the United States Supreme Court decision in Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 123 S. Ct. 1140, 155 L. Ed. 2d 164 (2003), to come to this conclusion. Slip op. at 11. In Smith, the Court concluded that mandatory lifetime registration requirements under Alaska's registration scheme for an adult offender added no affirmative disability or restraint because the offender's conviction was already public. 538 U.S. at 101.

There is a glaring oversight with the majority's reasoning: it pays no attention to the difference between N.R.'s juvenile record being "open for public inspection" and registration on a sex offender database. There are, in fact, very consequential differences. To discover that N.R. was adjudicated for a sex offense through his juvenile record, one must travel to the courthouse, pay a fee, and look up his file on the public database. Alternatively, one can enter personal information into the Kansas Bureau of Investigation's (KBI) website to create an online account, pay a fee, and then look up N.R.'s record. In either case, one must at least know N.R.'s name to complete the search. The KBI website will also ask for N.R.'s birth date. I suspect most people are unaware they can do either of these things. In contrast, any person with internet access can look to see whether N.R. is on the sex offender registry without creating an account and without cost. In fact, one need not even know N.R.'s name to find him on the registry. Anyone can plug in an address and see the names and locations of registered sex offenders in any area they wish. People can find N.R. without looking for him. 

In Thompson, this court noted the problem with relying on the 2003 Smith decision to hold that registration is akin to having a public criminal record. We observed that the Smith Court described the Alaska registration system as a "passive" one and compared it to "physically visiting 'an official archive of criminal records.'" Thompson, 304 Kan. at 321 (quoting Smith, 538 U.S. at 99). Such a description, we explained, is "antiquated in today's world of pushed notifications to listservs and indiscriminate social media sharing." Thompson, 304 Kan. at 321 And we pointed out that, since Smith, the Supreme Court has "recognized the vast amount of data that is currently available to most citizens on their smartphones and that 'a cell phone [can be] used to access data located elsewhere, at the tap of a screen.'" (Quoting Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 397, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 189 L. Ed. 2d 430 [2014].) Other scholars have advanced similar criticisms. See, e.g. Carpenter, A Sign of Hope: Shifting Attitudes on Sex Offense Registration Laws, 47 Sw. L. Rev. 1, 25 (2017) ("[w]hen Smith was decided in 2003, the Internet's impact may not have been as well known or understood. So much so that the Court in Smith concluded that providing a name, address, and conviction on a public registry was tantamount to that same information being made available in a court-created public document"). 

It is clearly much simpler to get to N.R.'s adjudication from his registration than from his public record. But, even more disabling than this easy access is the fact that, once N.R.'s name is registered, he is officially on the list. To the public, being on the sex offender registry is a severe and serious marker; the government has deemed the people on this list so dangerous they need to be accounted for and identified to those around them. A law review article opines that "[s]ex offenders have supplanted insanity acquittees as the most despised segment of the American population." Cucolo & Perlin, "They're Planting Stories in the Press": The Impact of Media Distortions on Sex Offender Law and Policy, 3 U. Denv. Crim. L. Rev. 185, 207 (2013). The authors note that people so labeled are "[r]egularly reviled as 'monsters' by district attorneys in jury summations, by judges at sentencings, by elected representatives at legislative hearings, and by the media" and that "correctional officers rate sexual offenders as more 'dangerous, harmful, violent, tense, bad, unpredictable, mysterious, unchangeable, aggressive, weak, irrational, afraid, immoral and mentally ill' than other prisoners." 3 U. Denv. Crim. L. Rev. at 207-08. Another article explains "[a]s a result of the media's depiction of a one-dimensional 'sex offender' in broadcast news and newspaper articles, the general public has conceptualized what it believes to be the prototype of this 'monstrous imminent evil'—a male who violently attacks young children who are strangers." Cucolo & Perlin, "The Strings in the Books Ain't Pulled and Persuaded": How the Use of Improper Statistics and Unverified Data Corrupts the Judicial Process in Sex Offender Cases, 69 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 637, 644 (2019). This kind of stigma is debilitating; N.R. attested to the ostracization and death threats to which he's been subject since his registration. 

These shocking barriers to N.R.'s ability to move beyond his juvenile adjudication and live a life outside the shadow of that event undoubtedly add an affirmative disability and restraint to N.R.'s life beyond what "public access" to his juvenile record does. The Legislature has constructed a scheme that equates to an effective banishment. This court has acknowledged this before. State v. Myers, 260 Kan. 669, 695, 923 P.2d 1024 (1996) (KORA imposes affirmative disability or restraint because "[u]nrestricted public access to the registered information leaves open the possibility that the registered offender will be subjected to public stigma and ostracism" making it "impossible for the offender to find housing or employment"). And scholars have noted this reality for other registrants. See Prescott, Portmanteau Ascendant: Post-Release Regulations and Sex Offender Recidivism, 48 Conn. L. Rev. 1035, 1055 (2016) ("most agree that carrying the label 'sex offender' is an order of magnitude more difficult to surmount" than "[c]riminal records alone"). The majority's quick dismissal of N.R.'s arguments—without any actual analysis of what registration means for him against the internet of today and the instantaneous access to information via social media—is callously dismissive and grossly blind to realities of the present day. 

Next, the majority summarily dismisses N.R.'s argument that "public dissemination of his information" is excessive in relation to its purpose. It concludes that the analysis regarding whether the public dissemination adds an affirmative disability or restraint resolves this claim, too. Slip op. at 12-13. In doing so, it ignores the crux of the question this factor presents: Is there an acceptable balance between the punitive effects of registration on N.R.'s life and registration's contribution to public safety? The answer is no. 

The majority notes that the requirements N.R. faces are imposed in the name of public safety. But studies have shown that, in contrast to what the Supreme Court said in 2003, the risk of recidivism among sex offenders is not "frightening and high." Smith, 538 U.S. at 103 (quoting McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 34, 122 S. Ct. 2017, 153 L. Ed. 2d 47 [2002]). It is, in fact, remarkably low. A Department of Justice study looked at the criminal records of 272,111 released prisoners in 15 states over a designated period of time. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 1 (2003). It found that only 5.3 percent of sex offenders in the study were arrested for a new sex offense and only 3.5 were convicted. Bureau of Justice Statistics at 1, 2. In contrast, the overall rearrest rate for non-sex offenders was 68 percent. Bureau of Justice Statistics at 2. 

As scholars could have predicted, the registries appear to have had little effect on recidivism rates. A 2011 study found "little evidence to support the effectiveness of sex offender registries." Agan, Sex Offender Registries: Fear Without Function? 54 J.L. & Econ. 207, 208 (2011). Many commentators have written about the failings of these registries. See, e.g. Huffman, Moral Panic and the Politics of Fear: The Dubious Logic Underlying Sex Offender Registration Statutes and Proposals for Restoring Measures of Judicial Discretion to Sex Offender Management, 4 Va. J. Crim. L. 241, 257 (2016) ("a
large majority of lawmakers acknowledge that strict legislative initiatives have led to no appreciable reduction in sexual misconduct"); Caldwell et al., An Examination of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act as Applied to Juveniles, Evaluating the Ability to Predict Sexual Recidivism, 14 Psychol. Pub. Pol'y & L. 89, 91 (2008) (citing multiple studies to support the notion that "[e]xtant research has not supported the effectiveness of sex offender registration and notification at reducing recidivism with adults").

And research reveals that registries, by and large, give us information we do not need. In his article "Sex Panic and Denial," Corey Rayburn Yung explains that "[f]amily members, friends, or other persons known to the victim commit approximately 93 percent of sexual offenses against children . . . ." Yung, Sex Panic and Denial, 21 New Crim. L. Rev. 458, 465 (2018). Thus, "[t]he prototypical fear-based myth . . . that there are a plethora of convicted sex offenders lurking in the bushes ready to attack any passing child or other victim" is false. 21 New Crim. L. Rev. at 465. If nearly all former juvenile offenders are not lying in wait to accost a stranger, then I can see no reason to publicly brand all of them for the rest of their lives as if they are. 

Finally, N.R. argues that KORA's registration requirements are excessive because they were imposed as a result of a juvenile adjudication. N.R. claims that, as a juvenile, he was "less culpable and less predatory than adults," and "less likely to reoffend and more amenable to treatment than adults." Consequently, he argues, imposing the same registration requirements to him as the scheme would impose on a convicted adult offender is excessive. For support, N.R. cites cases from this court and the United States Supreme Court that identify differences between child offenders and adult offenders. See State v. Dull, 302 Kan. 32, 52, 351 P.3d 641 (2015) (juvenile offenders have a "diminished moral culpability" compared to an adult offender); Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 471, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012) ("juveniles have diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform"); Graham v. Florida., 560 U.S. 48, 69, 130 S. Ct. 2011, 176 L. Ed. 2d 825 (2010) (same); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569-70, 125 S. Ct. 1183, 161 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2005) (juveniles have "'lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility,'" "are more . . . susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures," and "character" "is not as well formed" so "personality traits . . . are more transitory, less fixed"). 

N.R.'s argument brings the punitive effect of his lifetime registration requirement sharply into focus. If he is less culpable than his adult counterpart, and he is less likely to endanger the public, treating him as if he is just as menacing is indefensible. Social scientists and scholars have confirmed that juvenile offenders are distinct from adult offenders. A report compiled by Human Rights Watch explains:

"It is axiomatic that children are in the process of growing up, both physically and mentally. Their forming identities make young offenders excellent candidates for rehabilitation—they are far more able than adults to learn new skills, find new values, and re-embark on a better, law-abiding life. . . .
. . . .
"Adolescent thinking is present-oriented and tends to ignore, discount, or not fully understand future outcomes and implications. Children also have a greater tendency than adults to make decisions based on emotions, such as anger or fear, rather than logic and reason. And stressful situations only heighten the risk that emotion, rather than rational thought, will guide the choices children make. Research has further clarified that the issue is not just the cognitive difference between children and adults, but a difference in 'maturity of judgment' stemming from a complex combination of the ability to make good decisions and social and emotional capability.
. . . .
"MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) images of the anatomy and function of the brain at different ages and while an individual performs a range of tasks reveal the immaturity of the portions of children's brains associated with reasoning and emotional equilibrium. . . .
. . . . 
"Moreover, the fact that young people continue to develop into early adulthood suggests that they may be particularly amenable to change. . . . Both criminologists and development experts agree that '[f]or most teens, these [risky or illegal] behaviors are fleeting. Only a relatively small proportion of adolescents who experiment in risky or illegal activities develop entrenched patterns of problem behavior that persist into adulthood.'" Human Rights Watch, Raised on the Registry: The irreparable Harm of Placing Children on Sex Offender Registries in the US 25-27 (2013), available at

A recent study confirms this assessment. It considered 106 different analyses of recidivism rates among juvenile sex offenders between 1938 and 2014. The most recent data set, captured between 2000 and 2015, reported a mean recidivism rate for juveniles of 2.75 percent. Caldwell, Quantifying the Decline in Juvenile Sexual Recidivism Rates, 22 Psychol. Pub. Pol'y & L. 414 (2016). A 2008 study assessed the effects of federal registration requirements on juvenile offenders. It observed that they were "based on the assumption that juvenile sex offenders are on a singular trajectory to becoming adult sexual offenders." But the authors of the study concluded "[t]his assumption is not supported by [the study's] results, is inconsistent with the fundamental purpose of the juvenile court, and may actually impede the rehabilitation of youth who may be adjudicated for sexual offenses." 14 Psychol. Pub. Pol'y & L. at 105. 

The research demonstrates that lifetime registration for a juvenile offender has no rational connection to its purported purpose. This is true for N.R., who committed acts when he was 14 years old for which he was adjudicated an offender—not criminally prosecuted and convicted of a high-level felony, as an adult would have been—and placed on probation. Our justice system did not deem N.R. too dangerous to be outside the confines of a correctional facility; based on the facts before it, the court treated him like the developing, reformable juvenile he was. But the Kansas registration scheme takes no heed of this detail. It subjects N.R. to lifetime registration, which amounts to potentially 80 or so years of quarterly (at least), in-person registration that has and will continue to wreak havoc on N.R.'s life. For the rest of his days, he is branded a sex offender for all to see. This is in light of the reality that N.R. is highly unlikely to reoffend. This means that lifetime registration for N.R. is unrelated to a nonpunitive
purpose, and, consequently, grossly excessive. 

These observations provide more than enough to establish that lifetime registration has a punitive effect on N.R. The remaining Mendoza-Martinez factors that the Supreme Court has considered significant in deciding whether legislation is punitive strengthen this conclusion. Blasting N.R.'s name, identifying characteristics, and location across the internet with a bright red "sex offender" designation is akin to historical public shaming and humiliation tactics. See Smith, 538 U.S. at 116 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) ("public notification regimen, which permits placement of the registrant's face on a webpage under the label 'Registered Sex Offender,' calls to mind shaming punishments once used to mark an offender as someone to be shunned"); People in Int. of T.B., 489 P.3d 752, 767 (2021) (registration for juvenile resembles traditional punishments of humiliation and shaming, especially in "era of social media").

Although not part of the majority analysis, this factor demands our collective attention because the impact of shame and humiliation cannot be overstated. As one set of authors have explained, "'Shame is bordered by embarrassment, humiliation, and mortification, in porous ways that are difficult to predict or contain," and is one of the most important, painful, and intensive of all emotions.'" Perlin & Weinstein, "Friend to the Martyr, a Friend to the Woman of Shame": Thinking About the Law, Shame and Humiliation, 24 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Soc. Just. 1, 7 (2014) (quoting Massaro, The Meaning of Shame: Implications for Legal Reform, 3 Pyschol. Pub. Pol'y & L. 645, 648 [1997]; Svensson et al., Moral Emotions and Offending: Do Feelings of Anticipated Shame and Guilt Mediate the Effect of Socializing on Offending? 10 Eur. J. Criminology 2, 3 [2012]). And "humiliation is the emotional experience of being lowered in status, usually by another person. There is the associated sense of powerlessness." Cucolo & Perlin, Promoting Dignity and Preventing Shame and Humiliation by Improving the Quality and Education of Attorneys in Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) Civil Commitment Cases, 28 U. Fla. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 291, 292 (2017). It is "'the rejection of human beings as human, that is, treating people as if they were not human beings but merely things, tools, animals, subhumans, or inferior humans.'" Bernstein, Treating Sexual Harassment with Respect, 111 Harv. L. Rev. 445, 489 (1997) (quoting Margalit, The Decent Society 121 [1996]). I cannot ignore such a punitive effect. 

The registration requirements also serve the traditional punitive aims of retribution and deterrence. As I've noted, the registration scheme offered no individual assessment of N.R.'s risk of recidivism or general danger to society. Because these requirements "punish a juvenile for his past conduct without regard to the threat—or lack thereof—that the juvenile currently poses," they are, by nature, retributive. People in Int. of T.B., 489 P.3d at 768 (citing Smith, 538 U.S. at 109 [Souter, J., concurring]); see also Thompson, 304 Kan. at 325 ("such arbitrariness is inherently retributive"). As far as deterrence, even the Supreme Court in Smith acknowledges that the registration requirements could have a natural deterrent effect. 538 U.S. at 102. This court noted the same in Myers. 260 Kan. at 695 ("Registration has an obvious deterrent effect.")

My colleagues may be comfortable to keep their heads in the sand and blindly "follow" a 2003 Supreme Court case that considers a different registration scheme and offers an outdated analysis. But when I look at the research and the arguments, I see the truth before us: lifetime registration for a 14-year-old offender is, unmistakably, punishment. My conclusion is not out of line with caselaw from other parts of the country. Across the nation, courts are creeping out of the shadow of Smith and declaring registration requirements punitive. See Does #1-5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696, 705 (6th Cir. 2016) (Michigan's registration scheme punitive because it "severely restricts where people can live, work, and 'loiter,' . . . categorizes them into tiers ostensibly corresponding to present dangerousness without any individualized assessment thereof, . . . requires time-consuming and cumbersome in-person reporting" and is "supported by—at best—scant evidence that such restrictions serve the professed purpose of keeping Michigan communities safe"); People v. Betts, No. 148981, 2021 WL 3161828, at *12 (Mich. 2021) (Michigan registration requirements punitive because they publicize wealth of information, encourage social ostracism, impose state supervision, serve to deter, are retributive because they offer no individualized assessment, and are excessive because their efficacy is unclear at best); Starkey v. Oklahoma Dep't of Corr., 305 P.3d 1004, 1030 (Okla. 2013) (Oklahoma's registration scheme punitive because its "many obligations impose a severe restraint on liberty without a determination of the threat a particular registrant poses to public safety"); Doe v. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs., 430 Md. 535, 568, 62 A.3d 123 (2013) (registration scheme as applied to offender violated state constitution's ex post facto clause because it had "essentially the same effect . . . as . . . probation" and imposed "shaming for life"); Wallace v. State, 905 N.E.2d 371, 379-84 (Ind. 2009) (Indiana's registration scheme punitive in effect because it creates "significant affirmative obligations," and "severe stigma," encourages "vigilante justice," resembles shaming punishments, probation, or parole, sometimes requires a finding of scienter, promotes deterrence and retribution, applies to already criminal behavior, and is excessive in relation to purpose because there is no individual assessment of risk). And in a case that is notably reminiscent of the one before us, the Supreme Court of Colorado recently held that lifetime registration for a juvenile offender, who was twice adjudicated an offender for sexual offenses, was punitive and violated the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. People in Int. of T.B., 489 P.3d 752 (Colo. 2021). The court was particularly swayed by the reality that "lifetime sex offender registration for juveniles does not bear a rational connection to, and is excessive in relation to, [the registration scheme's] nonpunitive purposes of protecting the community and aiding law enforcement." T.B., 489 P.3d at 768. The court came to this decision after noting that juvenile offenders have a high capacity for reform. T.B., 489 P.3d at 768. 

I do not suggest that N.R.'s offense was inconsequential or should be overlooked. But I do suggest that we must follow our constitutional imperatives. N.R. is—very clearly—being punished by the Legislature's "civil scheme." The majority's refusal to acknowledge this is inexplicable. To put it plainly, in the words of my recently retired colleague, the majority's holding is "wrong-headed and utterly ridiculous. . . . [I]n the real world where citizens reside, registration is unequivocally punishment." State v. PerezMedina, 310 Kan. 525, 540-41, 448 P.3d 446 (2019) (Johnson, J., dissenting).

Consequently, I would hold that N.R.'s lifetime registration requirement violates the Ex Post Facto Clause because it was enacted and imposed after N.R. committed the actions that led to his adjudication.


State of Kansas v. Davidson, No. 119,759 (KS Sup Ct, 9/17/21) -- This ruling was issued the same day and involved an adult registrant, and is also worth noting:

ROSEN, J., dissenting: Consistent with my longstanding opinion that the Kansas offender registration requirements are punitive, I dissent from today's decision. My observations regarding the punitive aspects of KORA are once again explained, this time in greater detail, in my dissent in State v. N.R., 314 Kan. __ (No. 119,796, this day decided).

As I pointed out in my dissent in State v. Stoll, 312 Kan. 726, 737-38, 480 P.3d 158 (2021), I stood with the majority of this court and its position that the registration requirements constitute punishment in State v. Redmond, 304 Kan. 283, 371 P.3d 909 (2016), State v. Buser, 304 Kan. 181, 371 P.3d 886 (2016), Doe v. Thompson, 304 Kan. 291, 373 P.3d 750 (2016), and State v. Charles, 304 Kan. 158, 372 P.3d 1109 (2016). When this holding was overturned, I joined two of my colleagues in dissent in State v. Petersen-Beard, 304 Kan. 192, 377 P.3d 1127 (2016). In State v. Shaylor, 306 Kan. 1049, 1053, 400 P.3d 177 (2017), State v. Meredith, 306 Kan. 906, 914, 399 P.3d 859 (2017), and State v. Huey, 306 Kan. 1005, 1010, 399 P.3d 211 (2017), my colleagues and I reiterated our fervent opinion that these requirements are punitive. See also State v. Perez-Medina, 310 Kan. 525, 541, 448 P.3d 446 (2019) (Johnson, J., concurring and dissenting); State v. Marinelli, 307 Kan. 768, 796, 415 P.3d 405 (2018) (Rosen, J., dissenting); State v. Rocheleau, 307 Kan. 761, 767, 415 P.3d 422 (2018) (Beier, J., dissenting). 

I opine in N.R, and emphasize it here, that it is time for this court to join the ranks of the many other courts that have rightfully recognized the punitive nature of registration requirements. Slip op. at 38 (citing Does #1-5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696, 705 [6th Cir. 2016]; People v. Betts, No. 148981, 2021 WL 3161828, at *12 [Mich. 2021]; Starkey v. Oklahoma Dep't of Corr., 305 P.3d 1004 [Okla. 2013]; Doe v. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs., 430 Md. 535, 568, 62 A.3d 123 [2013]; Wallace v. State, 905 N.E.2d 371, 379-84 [Ind. 2009]).

Today, I dissent alone. But I stand firm in my belief that the oppressive and onerous requirements of offender registration are punitive. This case presents just another prime example. Consequently, I conclude the retroactive application of the registration requirements to Davidson violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. See Shaylor, 306 Kan. at 1053 (Beier, J., dissenting). I would reverse Davidson's conviction.