If It’s About Public Safety, Then Who Exactly Is It Protecting?

In our work with families of registered citizens, FAC has been contacted hundreds of times by spouses, children, social workers and others trying to solve a problem that should never have to exist. How do you find a place for an elderly or profoundly disabled person who needs assisted living or nursing care when the registry makes him unplaceable?

One call came from the son of a registered citizen. His father was in his 80s and could no longer live anywhere near his family because of residency restrictions. His only realistic option was to move to Orlando and live in an offender housing home with five other men. It wasn’t ideal for him. It certainly wasn’t ideal for his children, who now had to drive four hours to see their father. But at least he had a roof over his head.

Then, earlier this year, he suffered a massive stroke. He spent weeks in a coma. He survived, but was left permanently incapacitated and immobile. He would never again be capable of caring for himself (let alone repeating his offense from decades ago). His family, hospital social workers and FAC volunteers desperately searched for a nursing home that would accept him. They couldn’t find one in Florida. His status on the registry made placement impossible.

And this isn’t an isolated story. We’ve encountered this problem hundreds of times. People who are so old, so sick, so disabled or so medically incapacitated that they cannot possibly carry out the conduct the registry is supposedly designed to prevent are still treated as though the only relevant fact is what appears next to their name on a government website.

Which brings us to this week’s controversy in Michigan. More than 20,000 people were removed from Michigan’s registry after the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that applying later versions of the state’s registration law retroactively violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto punishment. Among those removed was notorious US Gymnastics physician Larry Nassar.

Understandably, that name produces a visceral reaction. The crimes were horrific. But here’s a question that will be unpopular to ask, but relevant: If the registry is a public-safety tool and not punishment, what public-safety purpose is served by keeping Larry Nassar on Michigan’s registry? Nassar is 63 and currently incarcerated at FCI Lewisburg in Pennsylvania, serving a 60-year federal sentence. His projected federal release date has been reported as 2068. He’ll die in prison.

He’s not living in a Michigan neighborhood. He’s not walking around Michigan. He’s not reporting his internet identifiers or travel plans – the guy is not going anywhere, ever! So what, exactly, does keeping his name on a Michigan registry accomplish ? The answer cannot simply be, “because he deserves to be shamed on the list.” That’s punishment, and governments go to great length to make clear that the registry is not punishment.

If the purpose of the registry is to identify people who pose a public-safety concern, then there has to be some mechanism for recognizing reality and making individualized assessments. Age matters. Physical condition matters. Incapacitation matters. Incarceration matters. Location matters. Present risk matters. Otherwise, the registry isn’t really a public-safety tool. I know Larry Nassar is probably not a good example to use in this argument, but at least let’s be honest about this.