Andy  0:00  
registry matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the hosts and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have a problem with these thoughts, FYI p recording live from FYI, p studios, east and west, we have a guest kind of somewhere north and in the middle a little bit transmitting across the internet. This is Episode 76. Larry 76 of registry matters. How are you tonight?

Larry  0:22  
Well, we've been doing a test law and they haven't run us out of the territory yet.

Andy  0:27  
No, I'm telling you. They haven't kicked us off. They haven't like shut us down yet. And none of that. We're good.

Larry  0:33  
That is amazing that and we were growing rather than shrinking.

Andy  0:37  
We are that. Yeah, our numbers are looking halfway decent man. You know, I told you a certain number when we started and we are we are we are good chunk higher than that without any extra push from any other marketing channels or anything. I'm pleased. Oh, well,

Larry  0:50  
let's make it a goal that we're going to double these numbers by January 1 of 2020.

Andy  0:55  
Sounds good to me. Do you know what I did last night, Larry?

Larry  0:59  
I have no idea. I

Andy  1:01  
have no idea. I'm a patron longtime Patreon supporter. He was driving sort of through my neck of the woods and we had dinner last night. So we had a that was kind of cool. I don't know other than at the conference. Have I met anybody from the podcast. And so it was good. Mike was a was driving up to visit and sister and Alabama and he drove through my way. And so we had dinner. That was good times.

Larry  1:23  
All right. Well, that sounds fantastic. Was was it one of our favorite patrons or Chris or all fade was?

Andy  1:28  
Yes, all of them are favorite. But this is longtime supporter. I haven't listed in my phone as Super patron. Also, this was super patron. All

Larry  1:36  
right. That's the one that's the one that gives us his gross pay, right?

Andy  1:40  
Yes, he put in the big fat numbers.

Larry  1:45  
Alrighty,

Andy  1:46  
um, so we we have a guest joining us tonight we have guy Hamilton Smith, and say hi, guy. Hello. Thank you for joining us very much. You are a Can you tell me what a legal fellow was before I even like go into this.

I don't know the term.

Guy  2:04  
Well, legal. So basically, it's a I work for. So I worked for the FX defense litigation and policy Resource Center at the Michel Hamlin School of Law. And I'm working on a legal fellowship, they're basically supporting the activities of the center. And also, you know, supporting, you know, legal and policy development in this sort of area of litigation policy more generally, as well. So, you know, it's essentially,

Guy  2:36  
it, I mean, legal fellowships can sort of run the gamut. And it really just sort of depends on where you are, where your fellowship is, and you know, who it's being funded through. But, you know, because I'm a son attached to the center. So pretty much all my activities relate to this, all my work is relating to this kind of area of the law, which is to say, you know,

Guy  3:00  
the development and of effective sexual violence prevention policy that also, you know, respects, you know, fundamental civil and human rights.

Guy  3:12  
And so that's where a lot of our, our work is.

Andy  3:16  
And then also, I put you down as a Twitter extraordinary because you have a truckload of followers, and you have a bajillion likes and tweets and all that.

And you're also going to be a speaker at Marshalls conference next month?

Guy  3:29  
Yeah, yeah, I, you know, well, my wife says, I tweet too much. And she's probably right.

Andy  3:35  
But I've seen battles go back and forth. I mean, you guys have public conversations back and forth.

Guy  3:40  
Yeah, we know she's on Twitter, too. And she?

Guy  3:44  
Yeah.

Guy  3:46  
And yeah, and I'm really looking forward to the opportunity to come speak at speak at Norris or not, you know, I'm not really going to be talking too much about like, you know, legal. I mean, I'll be talking a little bit about legal issues, but really, mostly what I'll be, you know, talking about is, I think the importance of people being willing to kind of be open and tell their story. And how that intertwines with, you know, good and effective advocacy when it comes to changing people's, you know, changing people's minds.

Andy  4:19  
Betcha there. We did get a tribute from from a column a fan of yours and says, this is Jeff from Kentucky. You know, me as Captain crazy on Twitter. I want to thank you once again, because I believe you saved my life. reading your story really helped me I'm so happy you're on the registry matters podcast tonight. And of course, FYI, p.

i P stands for

Guy  4:41  
i don't know if i P stands for.

Andy  4:44  
Larry, why don't you explain what if I

Larry  4:45  
friendly, friendly young people? No, that's not what it is. Stop that. So we we named our network as we build out we're are trying to have our own network like er be. So we're f1 it came about yeah Andy and he asked a question about what would happen. People think they have the right to know and we never challenged when they say Don't I have a right to know. And of course I say well, actually you don't have a right to know that who's living next to you. So once tried going up to your door, go to the next door neighbor knocking so I've got a clipboard here. I'd like to take a list of who's living here and see what does it say what's something about si P, and that's where that comes from.

So

Andy  5:27  
generally, it's somewhat of a laugh.

Guy  5:28  
I don't know. I'm just still F. So what does it stand for? I'm sorry.

Andy  5:34  
Someone came to your door and knocked on it and said, Hey, we'd like to know who lives here. What would your response be?

Larry  5:43  
If you take out the if you take out the P What would you think those words stand for?

Guy  5:47  
Oh, got it. Yeah. Okay.

Andy  5:49  
Take out the profanity. So we could say Frak, you PPA.

Larry  5:56  
So it's like, a push back on that. When someone says I have a right to know, you say where do you? Where's that? Right? And try and where do you have a right to know who's living at a personal place? Where do you what do you think you got that? Right. But we always say yes, I have a right to know. And and I don't say that I say absolutely. You do not have a right to know.

Guy  6:17  
I mean, it's such a powerful impulse to you know, that kind of drives a lot of these laws. That whole right to know. And

Guy  6:26  
yeah, I mean, figuring out how to talk to people about it, and how to get people to engage with it. I mean, it's very, it's difficult. It's tricky. But yeah, I mean, certainly someone came to my front door is like, No, we want to know about who's living here. And we want to know about your family. Yeah, my response probably wouldn't be very,

Larry  6:48  
we would probably say,

Guy  6:50  
I would probably say something. Yeah, something along those lines.

Larry  6:55  
that bugs me and other one bugs me is anytime an offender is on the registry as interview. They always, when a reviewer says Why aren't you ultimately responsible for your situation? But when they're complaining about unconstitutional laws, and all their friends was? And the person should say, No, I'm not. I'm only responsible for my behavior, which I own. The unconstitutional laws are not mine. I didn't make them. You know, I would ask you are you? Don't you feel responsible for these unconstitutional laws? But that was that way? Yes, I guess I am. It was kind of like, Yes, we have to have a right to know what a person says, I have a right to know who's living there. Say, where's that right? Can you can you recite to it? And they can't? Of course, you have no right to know who's living anywhere. Mm hmm.

Andy  7:35  
Larry, why don't you introduce this late breaking segment that you're trying to introduce?

Larry  7:40  
Alrighty, well, we're going to have a new segment on the podcast if it takes off from tonight. And it's going to be late breaking news. And we we've got some late breaking news. So we're going to cover tonight as a decision from the eighth United States, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in St. Louis. And we're going to talk about internet restrictions, and on appeal decided by date circuit, and it just came out Friday, thanks to Hank, one of our loyal listeners, he passed it on to us. But But the way we visualize the segment, is that something that that's newsworthy, and it's not just newsworthy, it's not defined because you like it. It's imagine that you're planning the program, and do use it someone else out there across the country since we have a nationwide and even I think somebody outside the borders, the United States, all things one listing, what would people want to know about? This is an example right now of what people would like to know about. So we're going to talk about this fantastic decision. And of course, it's not the way we'd like it to have gone. But it's building a body of case law, which may ultimately bring this issue before the Supreme Court, on on restrictions on supervised defenders, of course, and on federal supervised release. And so I think we we can leave it mostly at that, but this segment will be Please send us your suggestions, something that's breaking news worthy at the last day leading up to us recording on Saturday. And if you send it to us by whatever, what's the best password Andy who's our regular guy, you can

Andy  9:13  
you can email it, you could tweet it, you could send it through discord, voicemail, Adam, you know, we could cover it all kinds of all the usual communications channels that we would

Larry  9:23  
we would talk about it on the next day. But if it's something that's been out there for a month and a half, that's not really news. But this is truly late breaking news. So hopefully, we can have at least one, something that's late breaking in the in the day leading up to the podcast that we can talk about. So that's like breaking news. And stay tuned, we're going to talk about the main segment of the podcast.

Andy  9:41  
Very good. Very good. I don't think there were any voicemail messages this week either. But we did. We did excitingly, get two new patrons, and we got an A later a leader. And we also got an Aaron. And I would definitely like to say that patrons make the registry matters. podcast possible. That's a lot of peace. And thank you to the new patrons. And of course, thank you to all of the patrons. We also got a listener question coming off of Discord. I think it was underscored. A person said I have a question about federal probation. Do we have to take the polygraph test seems to me they make me sign a piece of paper that specifically states that I'm requesting to take it? What happens if I say no, I would ask my PO but I think that wouldn't be smart. Any thoughts or suggestions? Why don't you to both? tackle that one?

Larry  10:30  
I'm going to defer to Mr. Mr. Hamilton Smith first?

Guy  10:33  
Oh, you know, I mean, what I would what I would tell that person is that's definitely some question that you would want to, you'd want to talk to your attorney about anything that could potentially, you know, get you get you jammed up with your P o and, you know, get you into, you know, back before the court on a revocation proceeding. That's that's definitely a question for your attorney. What would happen

Andy  10:59  
if you said f5? p. You know,

Guy  11:01  
uh, you know, well, there's only one way to find out that I don't necessarily advise, I don't necessarily advise do

Andy  11:13  
well, would you suggest

Larry  11:15  
I would, I would expand slightly on it. But I agree with guy that you. If you have an attorney on on your speed dial this you should call them but I can say I know of no case law whatsoever that says you do not have to take a polygraph and the federal system, and this is what the person is asking about. Now, there may be some states, I'm not aware of them. But there may be such where there may be some case law that says you don't have to take a polygraph. But the polygraph the only case law that I'm aware of. It's a federal levels on the 10th circuit Miss United States versus Bob Baron. And that case does not stand for the for the proposition, you don't have to take the polygraph. What it does stand for is that you can invoke your fifth amendment rights not to incriminate yourself, if the danger of prosecution is really significant and not not not a bachelor and fanciful. I think the way I put the words but but you must take the polygraph test. Unless you can cite to something that says you don't and I don't know if any such authority that says you don't have to take the test. Is it right now? Is that the way the world should be? No, you could you couldn't say I refuse to take the whole thing. But you could refuse a specific question or something like that, right? If they ask you what your name is, you should answer it. But if they ask you Did you do this thing on this date, then you could refuse? Well, there are again, we're giving legal advice if we go too far, but but I could say I could say based on VOD bearing, if you read that, as a layperson, they did not say that you could refuse the polygraph. They said you could refuse to incriminate yourself if the danger of prosecution is there. And so the danger prosecution is not going to be there at all questions. So that would flow to to to a person like me, I would interpret that it means that you would have to answer questions that were not potentially incriminating, that would send you away and but but i would i would agree with guy if you have an attorney talk to them. But I can tell you saying I'm not going to come polygraph I think we have an incident Don't we have out of Georgia where God did that? that we know of Andy where he told us Bo was going to take a polygraph

Andy  13:13  
to like vaguely touch something but I don't remember much more of the

Larry  13:17  
data that In Hee hee hee he got one Okay.

Andy  13:20  
Now I know I totally remember his that one. Nevermind, I remember speaking to a person on his behalf. And she was saying that, yeah, he doesn't have to take one he basically said si P and they immediately put him behind bars. So it's not

Larry  13:33  
the world the way we would like to be but the case laws gotta develop more. And as long as this Voodoo science is accepted at the treatment community pushes it as being viable. And it's a necessary tools to keep the treatment honest and productive. As long as that mentality is there. And they've got the lawmakers and the policymakers on board with that. It's a big business and the calligraphers are not going to voluntarily come in and say we don't want to do this city. We don't want to charge three, four or $500 to give these little towns that's not

Andy  14:03  
gonna happen. So, so they're going to be around until they're stopped. I can't like i right up there with residency restrictions. The number two thing on my list is the polygraph because it's just such garbage, garbage. God, it bothers me so bad.

Guy  14:17  
Yeah, I do think that there is a sort of an increased awareness, though, that

Guy  14:22  
sort of the compulsory nature of a lot of these because I mean, polygraphs are tend to be used in conjunction with, you know, treatment programs. And, you know, I mean, of course, polygraphs are not really, I mean, therapeutic to begin with, I mean, who goes to their therapists office, and then their therapists are like, Well, before we, you know, start working on your, you know, your depression, your anxiety, I'm going to polygraph to you because I, like, I believe that you're lying to me. So it's not, I mean, to begin with, it's not really therapeutic. But of course, on the, you know, on the back end of that comes with, you know, if you've done, you know, if you don't take the polygraph, or, you know, if you're not, to whatever the treatment providers, you know, the treatment providers satisfaction, you're not complying with the polygraph or complying with treatment than your course at risk for getting revoked and, you know, additional sanctions being being levied on you. And there was a recent case of is that on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, that you all may have talked about last week, but where they did find that, you know, Indiana's treatment program, which I don't think they singled out singled out polygraphs specifically, but they did kind of illustrate this tension between the Fifth Amendment right against self, you know, compulsory self determination, and what, you know, treatment, quote, unquote, looks like and a lot of these all of these programs, and polygraphs kind of kind of fit fit right in there. You know, but as but as you said, is also big business. There's a lot of money, that's kind of Atlanta, which makes it I think, you know, if it's if there's a lot of money tied up in it, and if it's not best practices, then it's course even harder to kind of get, you know,

Guy  16:12  
get people to to come off of it.

Larry  16:16  
Just due to financial, you know, financial incentives. That was Lacey vs. But so we did talk about it. Yeah, fantastic, fantastic decision. That that, that's hopefully, I'm anxious to litigate that that issue of my state of these circuit court opinions, as you know, we're not binding, but they certainly are nice, persuasive authority to put in what they have a well written analysis. And so we're chomping at the bit to do that litigation in my state, because we were in the Pioneer states, in terms of jam and all that program, actually, in our statutory scheme. As far as I know, we're the only state that will allow polygraph to be admitted. And the guilt or innocence phase of a trial is a very, very strict admission. But will we accept a polygraph under certain limited situation? I don't think you know, the state does. But we have it in a sec federal supervision statutes that, that the polygraph is an appropriate tool, and that they've been blessed by the lawmakers to us.

Andy  17:19  
We ready to dive into these articles we are all right. The first one comes from reason. And, you know, this just goes up there with our criminal justice system is designed by assholes. But terminally ill wheelchair bound inmate applied for compassionate release, the Justice Department argued he wasn't dying fast enough to qualify. Um, I mean, I guess if you were bleeding out, they would determine that he's only got seven minutes to live. So they would open the gates. But if you've got maybe 10 years to live, that's not fast enough. I, the guy's already 55 years old or something.

Larry  17:53  
The reason why I put this in here, and I'm the culprit for this one, I put this in here because it demonstrate the importance of who controls the executive branch, the bureau presidents this, this is a VIP, that they have statutory authority to grant compassionate release in many states, including mine, we have the same authority, but under the previous state administration that they never granted it. And this is this is what we're seeing from the attitude of this current administration, I don't want anybody to say, well, they did this back in 19, 4700 Truman, because we're not under Trump. And Trump controls the Bureau of Prisons through the appointment of the Attorney General, and through the point as a director of the GOP, and how the senior management runs, but that they are they have the authority Congress has done all they can do because this is a discretionary decision that can be made based on circumstances. And the executive branch is choosing to take a very hard line that we don't let anybody out. So who you put in control, your executive branch has a lot to do with there's discretionary decisions to be made, how the discretion is exercised?

Guy  19:00  
Yeah. So I mean, the reason article, you know, sort of constructing, you know,

Guy  19:05  
compassionate release Center, the first step act, and I mean, the other thing that jumps out to me is that, you know, I mean, prosecutors, I mean, you have, you know, line prosecutors with the DOJ, you know, opposing this, you know, motion for compassionate release for this person had this, you know, brain tumor, you know, and in this, just it, what jumps out at me is, when you're a prosecutor, your your job is supposed to be doing justice. And I think a lot of times, you know, you have a lot of these cases where prosecutors are arguing things that are not, you know, it's not really in the interest of justice to, you know, keep this person, you know, in prison, you know, dying in prison, just like, you know, for example, prosecutors are all will all the time argue, against having inmates with culpable innocence claims, have DNA evidence tested, to either confirm or deny their claims of innocence, it's like, you know, why are you? Why are you arguing? That doesn't really seem to be in the interest of justice, it just seems to be in the interest of, you know, ensuring that the, you know, that the state wins. And that's what jumped out to me here, too, is just that. And I think that

Guy  20:23  
the end of the article, Kevin ratings, quote, just that, you know, you have DOJ, dia, the Department of Justice, and the Bureau of Prisons, you know, fighting unquote, tooth and nail to keep this guy in, it's like, is that really inappropriate? Or good use of, you know, resources? Um, of course, I would argue it's not a good or appropriate use of resources. But you know,

Guy  20:49  
it's but it also doesn't surprise me that this would be the you know, that they would find it very, from your experience, is it?

Andy  20:57  
Is it just about your team winning, regardless of what the larger picture is, is like, I've stake my claim to say that this guy is a monster, and he needs to serve as time. No other circumstances matter, they're just going to hold on to you forever, for until the sentence is over, they just going to dig their heels in and hold it.

Larry  21:17  
Well, as an oversimplification, I think that I mean, that that is the net result, yes. But I think it's an oversimplification. They have a lot of, they have a lot of pressures on them. When when, when you're when you start talking, we since we're the incarceration nation, of the world, I mean, and we talked about that, statistically, we're like, what, five times the next closest country, you've got a lot of you got a lot of people in prison. And fidelity is important when you run into the vast machinery. So you've got, you've got a lot of considerations when a person when a person is convicted, then the tables shift in terms of the burden whose the burden is on, the burden is no longer you don't want to present Denison where you got convicted by a plea or whether you did, where do you went to trial, the burden is now shifted to you. And the vast machinery is not staffed to continuously litigate those cases. So I don't think they've spent a lot of time determining whether they believe you're innocent or not. I think they spent more time on trying to keep the what they would see as the proverbial floodgates from opening. And the victims advocates, the person who got justice Finally, would be can you imagine the outcry? If the prosecutor said, Oh, well, you know, I guess there is a little bit of doubt there. We'd like to see this case reopened. And can you imagine the outcry that would ensue about how well they've jumped to the offender side. Now, they they actually do have a higher ethical duty isn't as an attorney, a prosecutor has a guide that you can attest to this that a prosecutor has, has an additional rule of professional conduct, to seek justice, but I don't think they conspire per se, or they stay awake at night just to be winning. I think it's it's the pressures of everything that goes into that, you know, it's like, my plate is already full, the cops have pumped all these to our office. If we don't take these cases forward, then we get blasted by the cops and by the victims. And I think the whole system is just it's it's it's misplaced priorities. I don't I don't quite see it as simplistic as our team has to win. But that is the result. Right?

Andy  23:16  
Right. Right, right. And then moving into an article from Ws bt, up in Michigan, it's about another, it's about another registry being created to fight for child abuse registry bills, were a woman, she was dating a guy and then her kid ends up with the Shaken Baby Syndrome. So she dates a guy that had other issues of some sort of like child abuse stuff. So now this mom is running around trying to get like she is saying that she's going to fight until she's no longer able to fight to create a registry that lists child abuse just in general. But at the very end of the article, an individual says that maintaining registries like the one proposed, White's lot can be very expensive. And she and the person said studies show that they do not keep the public more safe. Here we go with another registry. And then there's another one in Florida, we're going to talk about in a minute to silly man.

Guy  24:12  
Yeah, you know, I mean, I think that a lot of the times you have these bad, you know, these these difficult cases, and then a registry will get proposed as the solution as the fix. And, you know, it's it's kind of, they're always difficult to oppose kind of rhetorically right, because they're named after these really difficult cases. Like, you know, why it's law, Megan's Law, Jessica's law, you know,

Guy  24:39  
and so it kind of disarms critics. But, you know, if the goal is to prevent, you know, in this case, you know, physical abuse, you know, physical child abuse, then, you know, all available evidence is going to indicate this is not going to, I mean, much like sex offense registries, and other public conviction registries, this is a, you know, not going to do

Guy  25:03  
really anything to address the problem. And it will be expensive, you know, I mean, there's going to be a huge, you know, I mean, sex offender industries have turned into this huge outlay, or have required a huge outlay of expenditure, both terms of money and

Guy  25:22  
public safety resources, that could be better invested elsewhere, if we want to prevent sexual violence. So, you know, ditto here. I mean, if we want to, if we want to prevent, if we want to prevent child abuse, which I think is, you know, I think we should all agree that's a really good goal. You know,

Guy  25:42  
so then we should look at how we're going to do that in ways that aren't going to be, you know, that aren't going to be both ineffective and also inhumane. And, you know,

Guy  25:53  
registries are kind of the, the emblematic, I think legislative proposal, things that are ineffective and inhumane. But it's, but it's also like catnip for legislators to because they get to, they don't have to engage in any serious study or policymaking about an issue. And they can just sort of propose this legislation that is, would would, you know, more than likely just go through and then when their reelection comes up, they can say, you know, I care about, you know, I care about our kids, and look at this legislation that I passed. You know, so it's really, from a political perspective, it's kind of like a win win, it's just not actually going to do much to address the problems that, you know, we want them to address.

Larry  26:45  
Well, I don't have a lot to add, I would say that I'm not as comfortable, confident that this is gonna pass. I think in particular, Michigan, with with all the battle they've had with a registry or sexual offender registry, there's gotta be some hasn't let's see, with the with the Attorney General's Office taking the position that they took that the registry went too far and admitted that I think that this registry, it's easy for a lawmaker introduced a bill, you know, work in an office where I'll see the process, and it's really easy to have something drafted up. But passing, it may be a little bit more difficult. And, of course, against all the committee like I tell people something else to the floor. It's very difficult to vote no, you darn sure don't want this on your reelection opponents. Would you have a reflection upon it just on the radar that you voted against establishing a registry to protect child abusers for a kid that was beat up as bad as this one was? I went through what he's gone through. Right. But but but I would not, I would not share the belief that this is just going to magically sail through it would have five years ago, three years ago, but I think there's going to be at least be some serious discussion in committee. And it may not make it out of committee.

Andy  27:51  
Let me let me just throw this out there to both of you deep, like if you were to put your pulse or take the temperature of the nation on the idea of the register? Do you think that is it changing? Is it getting cooler, so to speak? Is it is there a some level of skepticism from the public at large, and the effectiveness of these things?

Guy  28:10  
I mean, in my in my experience, I think things are changing. You know, I mean, I don't think that this like I don't think this bill necessarily is going to is going to pass? Because I think

Guy  28:24  
Yeah, with everything going on in Michigan, the those vs. Snyder case and the ACLU, trying to kind of hash out an agreement with the legislature. But yeah, more generally, across the nation, I think that the public is more skeptical of registries, and as kind of like public safety. But, you know, it's also kind of, you know, I wonder, we have a lot of catching up to do, because I mean, even as the public is kind of getting more awareness about what these things are, and how they're not really very effective tools.

Guy  28:58  
registries have also produced rated, both in terms of just the number of people who are on sex offense, right, the streets, but then just the the number of other types of public conviction registries that states have adopted, that are, you know, sort of continuing to spread like the the one in Florida that I guess we're going to talk about later. So I do think that things are changing. But I, you know, I think that

Guy  29:25  
which I think is a really positive and hopeful sign that there is at least space for conversation about if we really care about problems like child abuse, or human trafficking, or for sexual violence, that we can approach this discussion in ways that are kind of grounded in

Guy  29:46  
sort of reason and evidence

Guy  29:48  
and not just

Guy  29:50  
go with what go with, like, what sounds good. And what everyone else is doing. So you know, but But again, we I think we have a lot of so long way to go.

Andy  30:01  
The way you put that as funny. Larry, what do you think?

Larry  30:05  
I don't I don't know how to thank you anymore Andy

Andy  30:09  
Well, let me tell you what to think. Just kidding. How about we talk about some people in Alabama that when they get transferred to this one particular prison that they get? Can I like I reading the article, I was like, Oh, I get why they're doing this. This article comes from truth. Excuse me, truth out.org. And inmates in Alabama are shackled to buckets for days on end. And if you're carrying contraband and they shackle you to a bucket, you can't relieve yourself in any place other than the bucket. And you're not gonna be able to hold on to any contraband for more than I can't imagine you would make it past the first cycle. But anyway, so now you have to like live in sleep near your bucket of poo for days on end, which I find to be over the top. Like we talked about the Eighth Amendment and cruel and unusual punishment stuff. This qualifies.

Larry  30:59  
I don't care ominous. And

Andy  31:03  
I know you're being tongue in cheek, let's just be clear, right?

Larry  31:06  
Oh, you know what, let me tell you, we've got to make being incarcerated in this country tough that way people won't be coming. I mean, the prisons are like a darn Country Club, they get they get better medical care, they have cable TV, they live in air conditioned luxury, people out there working to pay the taxes. And this is the I mean, Alabama's got this right, they need to make prison a place where they want to come back. By golly, you'll see the rate of crime plummeting in this country. If we do that we mollycoddle these criminals, that's got to stop. That sounds like a good conservative there.

Andy  31:42  
I think you are right on the money with with the thought process about this one, like, you know, freedom bread and water chain gangs, you know, 16 hour work days. So what do you think about that guy?

Guy  31:55  
Well mean, yeah, obviously, I think we have a real, you, you know, we have a real problem when it comes to punishment in this country. And it's not just that we incarcerate, you know, higher percentage of our population. And that we do it for, you know, longer, but also the conditions of confinement that we, you know, that we put people in

Guy  32:19  
our are, because, I mean, of course, you hear that argument all the time from people that we need to make prisons, you know, in hospitals, so that people won't commit crimes, it's like that, that, you know, I think that that doesn't really understand that when you take someone away from their community, takes them away from their family like that, in and of itself is punishment. And then, you know, many other first world democracies like that sufficient, you know, you don't need to make the conditions of confinement, you know,

Guy  32:47  
such that the person is going to be, you know, sort of suffering from PTSD or exposed to violence or, you know,

Guy  32:55  
be forced to eat, you know, you know, basically forced eat food that's going to adversely impact their health. You know,

Guy  33:04  
and I think it really all what a lot of the tracks back to is just that we have, we have a real problem with punishment. And we have a real problem, when we sort of consider, you know, people who are criminals, that we can treat them in ways that we really wouldn't treat our animals, we wouldn't treat our pets this way.

Andy  33:25  
These people have committed a crime against the citizenry against humanity, and they deserve to have the shit thrown at them for hours, days, months, years on end, until, I don't know, till they repent. They say they're sorry, until their whole life is destroyed, and they can't come back. I don't know, I, I started with this sounds so bad.

Guy  33:45  
Most people have committed the crime, you know, agreed. And that's, that's the reality of it, you know, it's just these are the people who got caught. And that doesn't necessarily make them any, you know, that doesn't necessarily make them good people or bad people. You know,

Guy  34:03  
I mean, but they need to be held accountable, of course, for crimes that they commit and harm that they cause. But I don't think chaining them to, you know, forcing them to dedicate into a bucket for, you know, days on end really accomplishes that, or, you know, does anything for, you know, anyone that they anyone that they harmed? You know, it really I think it all goes back to what do we want to do? You know, what do we want our policies to do? Do we want to create safer communities? Do we want people when they come out of prison? Do we want them to live law abiding and productive and meaningful lives? And if we want those things, and it seems we could adopt policies that would encourage and incentivize those things, but

Guy  34:45  
we don't?

Guy  34:48  
I'm not entirely sure. That's really sort of what we want. I don't think we really care that much about safety. I think there's other considerations, that sort of little larger in our cultural consciousness. And I think that's very much reflected in, you know, incidents like, you know, these kind of horrific prison scenes that are

Guy  35:13  
that bubble up to the surface, particularly out of Alabama, there have been several stories about Alabama prisons that have

Guy  35:20  
kind of been well, I would say, hard to believe, but of course, you know, this is very, very easy to

Andy  35:27  
America. What do you what do you think about the difference in the incarceration mentality? You know, nationwide, like, you know, taking pockets whether that be the South versus the north or east and west, Red vs. Blue, what is your Do you have a sense of, of which ones either are more effective, or are?

I'm feeling

Guy  35:51  
it? I'm not, you know, I'm not, I'm not sure about sort of read, I know that there are regional different course. But I'm just not well versed in that, to be able to really, you know, speak to it. You know,

Guy  36:06  
intelligently, but I, I will say that it isn't like I think everywhere is not, you know, is pretty punitive, I don't think that you're going to have much of a difference in, you know, between like Maine and Vermont, where you can even where, you know, interestingly you have, they don't ever take your right to vote away in Maine and Vermont, so you can even vote while you're in prison serving a sentence, which I think is a good thing, by the way. But you're but prison is still prison. You know,

Guy  36:39  
it's not it's not sort of transformed into something else. I mean, I think you have much, you have much bigger differences. If you look outside the United States, particularly, you know, like Germany or Norway. But, you know,

Guy  36:57  
the United States, I mean, we still have this very,

Guy  37:01  
we have a very punitive mindset. And, of course, some states in some regions, everything more punitive than others. You know,

Guy  37:10  
but generally, generally speaking, we're fairly punitive.

Larry  37:16  
Well, I would, I would say that, you know, having presented about the there is there are vastly different rates of incarceration. This is this nation, I mean, it's astronomical, the difference. And even the lowest state, of course, in this nation is higher than the civilized nations we like to compare ourselves to, but you'll find a far lower rate of incarceration New England than you will in the southern states of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and that deep south, and and it's not only just the rate of incarceration, it's the way the like, like, you wouldn't find a chain game, it Alabama brought back chain games and the 1995 record this article, and they had largely chain gangs had largely disappeared by the late 1960s, because we had evolved into a more light era of how we did dealt with offenders, you won't find a chain gang in Vermont, or New Hampshire, but you're able to find them all over Mississippi, Alabama,

Louisiana, although they might not change the inmates together. But they still put about all these horrendous work details with very minimal accommodations for the elements that they're working in a very, very rudimentary equipment. And they worked very long hours. And so there's, there's a vast difference, that prison is still prison. If you're in prison in Maine, you're not going to have the freedom. But you might get more visitation time, you might get more educational opportunity. There. But so there's significant differences in how we operate presidents and regions of the country. The South like Alabama, if you look at our inmate, first purpose expanding, you'll find it's it's very low in the south, because they don't, they don't, they don't have too many inmates. For one thing, and the mentality is we don't want to spend all your money on prisons, we've got important priorities. So they do everything they can to, to minimize the they spend them you have inadequate healthcare in an inadequate everything and Alabama Department corrections.

Andy  39:07  
There's an article coming from filter mag.org, Florida approves database to publish details of people who pay for sex, I just got to think that right off the bat that a good number of people on this list would be people that would have the power and money and resources to not be presented on a list. I mean, like it is, I guess, semi often reported that, you know, famous people, politicians etc, have paid for sex. So like the number of people on that list are going to be the people that are creating the list have voted on it, you think that they would have voted it down? Right off the bat?

Guy  39:44  
Well, I mean, you know,

Guy  39:47  
Florida is, you know, when it comes to when it comes to registries,

Guy  39:53  
Florida is sort of in a in a class of its own. And, you know,

Guy  39:58  
it's from what I understand, I mean, Lauren, you know, was this legislation? Was it sponsored by Lauren book?

Guy  40:06  
It was drafted by air.

Guy  40:10  
Yeah, you know, I mean, and that's sort of the thing is that the people who have money and resources and connections, you know, they can sort of avoid the most draconian consequences of, you know, pretty much any law, right.

Guy  40:25  
And so, these, you know, it's sort of like, you know, ramping up mandatory minimum sentences,

Guy  40:33  
that's really only going to that's really going to have the heaviest impact on, you know, defendants who don't have resources, or you can't work out a, you know, can't work out a plea deal to avoid a mandatory minimum, that sort of thing. But, you know,

Guy  40:48  
of course, I'm sure there are plenty of people in the Florida Legislature who voted this thing into into law, who would, you know, probably otherwise beyond this, you know, beyond this registry.

Guy  40:59  
And it's just really a unfortunate that it's just going to be going through, and it looks like it's going to be going to the governor's desk. And I know that there are people who are, you know, still engaged in in advocacy and organizing in Florida to try to, you know, do something with this with this law. But it's really unfair, it's, you know, I think it's really unfortunate, because it's just, like, I wish that senators like Lauren book would take their sort of considerable profile, and resources. And if they were really concerned about, you know, sex trafficking, which I think was the sensible rationale, like underneath this, underneath this legislation, to address it in ways that are effective, and not just slap another registry on it. Which, you know, like, why it's why it's law in Michigan isn't going to address the problem.

Guy  41:59  
Now, it's what's going to sort of create new problems.

Andy  42:04  
Certainly, what do you think?

Larry  42:07  
Well, I I'm not sure if this is going to the governor, I wasn't able to, it looks like that that house bills passed and Senate bills passed, I'm not sure that an identical Bill is passed both chambers, but that'll be sort of Floridians to tell us if it's actually going to the governor. But some of these things end up being gender equity. And the the, what they mean by that is that you have a hard time when when you're trying to figure out a strategy to deal with with with prostitution, there are those who believe vehemently that you should go concentrate on the on the provider of the service. And there are those who believe vehemently that you should concentrate your resources on the purchaser of the service. And the purchasers of the service are largely men, women, very few women pay for sex. I mean, there are some but but the the overwhelming sex, pay for sex is hard by man, whether they're hard man or where their heart women but but but but women just have a way of not able needing to engage in that that tactic to get sex. And so the pressure is on to decide, where are you, I happen to believe that demand is the source of the problem. And, and without demand, you won't have sex workers, if there's nobody out there trying to purchase sex. You said on the street, or you read your Craigslist, Craigslist ad at a time and you wouldn't have any business. So demand. But this is this is apparently one of those things where they're they're trying to make a statement that you people who create demand for this and cause humans to be traffic, you need to pay, and you need to pay with shaming. And that's what I see is going on here. And this was going to hit mostly on males. But if you're a male of the fort Florida simply, you can't vote no on this, because then you've got 50% of the population mad at you, because you don't care about the people who are being exploited sexually. And there's a lot of exploitation, sex and sex worker industry. It's not a glamorous life to live. You know,

Guy  44:04  
I mean, I think that if we, it's kind of like, Well, I mean, we've tried this kind of this approach, the sort of philosophy of trying to address like, you know, social harms, like sex trafficking, or, you know, we want to characterize it as, you know, sex work, or we know, whatever it is, like, we've had this war on drugs, for example, for the last, you know, several years. Yeah. And, and, you know, we've kind of had that same philosophy is like, well, we need to target, you know, we need to, you know, criminalize it and punish people. And, you know, but I don't think we've really won the war, it doesn't seem like we've won the war on drugs, it's, you know, not even close. You know, there's still people that have, you know, have addiction issues, and they're still drugs. And, you know, the same is going to be true with, you know, with a sort of with sex work, and I wish that we could take we could adopt a more a more public health or approach. You know, I mean, to the drug example, you know,

Guy  45:06  
Portugal, you know, I believe decriminalized all drugs and have just essentially treated drug addiction as public health as a public health problem, and they've had really fairly decent results. Although drug policy is not my not my area of expertise. But

Andy  45:23  
hey, and on that note, on that note, Joe decriminalized magic mushrooms yesterday.

Guy  45:28  
I did hear that.

Guy  45:30  
Yeah.

Guy  45:31  
And I

Guy  45:35  
but I but I haven't I don't know any of the details.

Guy  45:38  
Yeah.

Andy  45:40  
Moving on to an article from Arizona mirror AZ mirror calm sex registry bill defeated as senators protest failure to expand rights for sex abuse victims. This one, Larry, can you can you cover this one? In some level of detail? I wish we

Larry  45:57  
had an Arizona person but I can do my best the the there there's an effort to to do more for the victims of sexual abuse. And and and to do more for victims. You have to jettison the rights of accused and you have to expand the statute limitations are so many things that victims advocates lot and there was a there was a bill that would would have expanded the statute of limitations, Arizona apparently has a very narrow window. And that bill was was defeated. So this bill that would have would have provided relief was also killed at the process, because it was retaliation. If you're not going to do anything for the victims, by golly, we're going to kill your job bill, also. So that that's what I took away from it that the the Senate Bill 1255 would give childhood sexual abuse victims seven years after they turn 18 to sue, and that that bill died.

Andy  46:55  
Where do we go from here, then? I mean, then, I mean, and that just makes the whole thing dead. I assume that then they'll try to be consider the thing for the following year, or the least the next session, whatever?

Larry  47:08  
Well, I would I would not be at a position to say I would assume that. But the the the it was such a horrible removal bill was was deeply flawed to begin with the the the, I mean, Scott, like the California removal from registration bill, is that they technically have a process now. But it's so flawed that very few, if any, I'll ever get all of this bill from what the Arizona people told me was, was far from being big, broad enough to provide much relief but but for the narrowness, that it did it that it passed through the process. And it was almost ready for a final vote apparently, that

it didn't satisfy the needs to help people be removed from the registry. But But I don't know what they're gonna I don't know what they're going to do Andy

Guy  47:58  
it just seems it's me seems strange to me that I mean, the removal Bill 17, there were two bills, one to broaden the statute of limitations. And the other two that would allow for some people who are on the registry to be able to petition for removal, and they the removal bill was killed when the statute of limitations bill was also killed, as Larry is saying and retaliation. And, you know, and, you know,

Guy  48:26  
the rationale was, if you're not going to help, you know, help victims, and why should we help, you know, people who are on the registry, but that kind of misapprehensions like the whole, you know,

Guy  48:40  
rationale and purpose of the registry, if the registry is supposed to be about public safety and about, you know, ensuring that, you know, people don't, you know,

Guy  48:53  
cause additional harm. But if you have a mean, to the extent that the registry is a, you know, is a is a useful public safety tool, which I don't think that it is. But just for the sake of argument, if you have a bunch of people who are on the registry, who aren't a threat, and then you have legislation that can remove them, doesn't that also help, you know, that also helps victims, you know,

Guy  49:22  
at least in my mind, so I can

Andy  49:25  
get let me I can give an example from from like, an IT point of view that I have a bunch of systems that watch other systems, and I get notifications. And in the case of like, a massive outage, and my alarms just go start going off, and they repeat, and they repeat, and they repeat. I stopped caring about all the alarms, because it's just like, obviously, that's not important anymore. Because, you know, anyway, it just continues, and then I end up becoming numb to the whole thing, and I don't care anymore. You know, if there's one person on the registry, well, you know, no, you know, that that person is the danger. But if you have, you know, 80,000 people that they do it for 20,000 of them are dead, who are you looking out for? And and, you know,

Guy  50:03  
I shouldn't stress I mean, even when people you know, even if people do have high needs, you know, there are ways and sort of models of ensuring that, you know, their reintegration into the community is successful that, and the evidence base and not been don't rely on sort of, you know, shaming and stigmatizing them to death. But, you know,

Guy  50:25  
that's just an aside, but it just seems to me the framing of this article and this dispute between these two pieces of legislation, Arizona, I mean, really, the, it's, to me, it's all about helping ensure that, you know, it's it's really both helping to ensure that victims will about prevent, essentially about preventing sexual harms. And I mean, I think there's a lot, there's certainly a lot that I could talk about about, you know, why I think expansion, the statute of limitations is, in many respects, problematic, and this is the point. I mean, I think they're well intentioned. But I think that there's other ways to go about it without necessarily undermining, you know,

Guy  51:13  
undermining either constitutional protections, or I guess this is civil litigation in Arizona. You know,

Guy  51:20  
but but without sort of enlarging the power of the state? Oh,

Larry  51:25  
well, I can do a little bit better job setting it up, because I see a key paragraph in that article that I had overlooked the house bill that that would have made the registry mobile process, like slightly expanded the removal process are created, I thought Arizona already had some limited removal process. But anyway, that was House Bill 2613. And, and it only expands eligibility to be removed from the sex offender registry for certain crimes, and it has several stringent requirements offenders must be 35 years old, and must have been clean for 10 years and their victims couldn't have been cannot have been over 15 years of age. And so it was it was like a very, very limited, but but it when it got to the Senate side, it failed on an 18 to 11 vote because of the the sex abuse childhood sexual abuse bill, bill, Senate Bill 1255, the committee chair would not give it a hearing. And so since since the committee chairman, Eddie Farnsworth declined to give it hearing, this was over to tally Tory strike you, you the members of power of the committee chairs have a lot of power, but the members also have power. And they said, Well, we can't make you have it here, but we sure can kill something you like. And they did.

Andy  52:39  
just doesn't seem like any of the I mean, guy, you keep bringing up evidence based and so much of our like, I mean, there's nothing there's nothing in our in the way our laws are drafted that says that they must be evidence based. They're just complete emotional. You know,

Guy  52:55  
there's nothing, there's no requirement. Yeah, there is no requirement that legislate use enact good policy. You know,

Guy  53:03  
and if the word that it be evidence based, which isn't, you know, which is, of course, unfortunate, and a lot of this, you know, in a lot when we're talking about registries, a lot of the problem, you know, a lot of the problems with these policies, not really being evidence base can kind of be laid at the feet of the Supreme Court. But, you know, way back in 2003.

Guy  53:27  
But yeah, I mean, if we really, you know, if we were really concerned about having a good and effective policy, I think that we would be a lot more responsive to data, we would be a lot more responsive to evidence. But But these areas are there. So, you know, I mean, there's, there's a lot of pain, and there's a lot of there's a lot of anger, and there's a lot of fear. And those emotions, you know, I think well, really under understandable. Also don't make, you know, they don't make it easy to really deal in, you know, evidence when you're when you're talking about these issues. So, of course, we have just a whole tangle of policies that are not, you know, they're not really evidence based, but are extremely politically difficult to get rid of.

Larry  54:20  
I'm glad to hear glad to hear you say that guy because people say that things ought to be evidence based, but I get to thank my favorite Well, that's not the way it is be. And And beyond that, you said that, that bad public policy can be made. And just because something is bad public policy that does not in and of itself, render it unconstitutional.

Guy  54:41  
Yeah, right.

Larry  54:42  
Now we have the right to enact bad public policy. Yeah, there you the ropes are not there to protect you from things that you do by electing people who will enact bad public policy. That's the gift of democracy of representative government, people were in it or an acting policies don't agree with the reaction you should have is to remove them from office, but you don't go whining and crying to the judges to say, save me from myself. We we made a boo boo, you could only be saved from yourself when you've convinced the judges that they did something that violates the Constitution, not because they did something that wasn't evidence based, it could be bad, but that doesn't render it unconstitutional.

Guy  55:27  
But there I will. I will say that there are I mean, there are

Guy  55:32  
you know, I think courts also can't just

Guy  55:37  
in this area of law courts tend to want upon, which I'm sure you all have also seen a lot of and what I mean by that is, you know, when they're confronted with sort of the evidence that these policies like not only these policies, effective at their stated goals, but they're, you know, arguably harmful. courts will say, well, that's really, you know, we're not going to get into any of that stuff.

Larry  56:00  
I just thought their role, that's not our role to save you from bad policy.

Guy  56:04  
Well, that there is I mean, but there is a check on that. That the court, you know, the court does still have, you know, the judiciary does still have the they have an obligation to review factual findings were constitutional rights are implicated. Correct.

Larry  56:19  
But But just because you don't like a policy, we could make the 50 mile an hour speed limit, right to be the law of the land, again, turn that public policy, but it's not unconstitutional.

Guy  56:28  
Sure. I mean, it's not it's not, you know, it's not unconstitutional. I mean, you have to identify a legal argument.

Guy  56:37  
That is that beyond just, you know, why, you know, well, this is bad, you know, bad policy. But, you know, getting courts to engage with sort of the evidence and the facts is also a sort of constant struggle.

Larry  56:52  
Well, but But again, the the courts are not there to decide what's the best policy, that it's not the rollers society, that there if you're willing to have prisons that are so now that you could have cruel and unusual punishment to take it on. But if you're just determined not to educate prisoners, because you don't want to spend the money, that's not the courts role to come in and say you must provide educational opportunity, because it would be a better public policy, because we'd have a better society, because these people would be better individuals. That's not their role to do that.

Andy  57:29  
And then the recruitment?

Larry  57:31  
Yeah, no,

Guy  57:32  
I totally. I mean, I totally get that. My point is just saying that the court can't win constitutional rights are at stake, the court can't advocate its role as a, you know, in terms of reviewing factual finding,

Larry  57:45  
I agree with that constitutional rights. But But just because something is it's not a good policy doesn't implicate a constitutional right. And our people struggle with that. The the lot of stuff that we do in public policy is not good public policy, not good public policy, that we waste 1819 20%

of our GDP on healthcare, and have an inefficient delivery system that leaves a whole lot of people uncovered. But that's our right to do that. And the courts can't come in and say, Well, I want to design a better health care system that are consumed less GDP, it'll, it'll provide more equitable distribution of resources. That's not their role. Hmm. That's what we elect people to do to determine how to distribute the resources and what the best way to go is. And if we don't like it's our job to make that change. But the courts are not save us from our own bad decisions, and less the constitution that has been infringed on and it's our job to show by the clear stuff proof that that has happened. Otherwise, the presumption of constitutional ality rules.

Andy  58:47  
Ready to be a part of registry matters, get links at registry matters dot CEO. If you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters cast at gmail dot com. You can call or text or ransom message to 7472 to 744771. To support registry matters on a monthly basis, head to patreon.com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron, give a five star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher or tell your buddies that your treatment class about the podcast. We want to send out a big heartfelt support for those on the registry. Keep fighting. Without you, we can't succeed. We're going to move on to an article out of the Washington Post. Larry, we talked about people doing pro se litigation and how bad of an idea it is. But this guy did it. And he had been in prison almost 14 years. And he fought his case. And he's now a free person doing completely and he went to court in his department of corrections outfit. He had whatever armbands he's supposed to have, it looks like he's got tats all up and down his arm. He's, you know, forgive me for the way that this is being put, but he looks like a thug. And he went into the courtroom looking that way to identify himself this way not to try and put on like the suit and be all prim and proper, but to show the people that he was being held didn't deserve to be there. And this was like cruel and unusual punishment, I guess maybe you could say, and after, what, 7081 minutes, the jury deliberated. And they let him go.

Larry  1:00:29  
So I can say I don't advise that course of action. But

Andy  1:00:33  
I mean, you know, if you're sitting there for that many years, and like, you could just spend all of your time reading the law books and stuff. And if you, you know, if you are truly innocent, it's, I really, I really hate the idea that anybody is behind bars. That shouldn't be. And I would, I do believe that I'm on the side of the equation that says that we should let or guilty people get off, instead of locking up one person erroneously, I believe, I'm pretty sure I believe in that actual statement. And so here's a guy that was gonna serve a lot of time and fought back.

Larry  1:01:13  
Well, congratulations.

Andy  1:01:15  
Go, what do you think about something

Larry  1:01:16  
I don't want to say because because because it's usually a horrible practice. But yeah, no, I totally Well, if you blind squirrel finds, not once.

Guy  1:01:27  
So,

Guy  1:01:28  
I mean, you know, I think a lot of

Guy  1:01:31  
you know, I've met some very talented pro se litigants. You know, in my,

Guy  1:01:38  
in my sort of time in the legal field, as you'd say. You know,

Guy  1:01:45  
prior to taking this job, I worked for Criminal Defense Law Firm where we worked. We did state and federal criminal defense strong on appeals. And I met a lot of pro se litigants who actually had, you know, seem to be doing pretty well.

Guy  1:02:04  
There's also someone in my, so I'm also adjust leadership fellow. For 2019 just leadership fellow in in my cohort. there's a there's a gentleman that I met who essentially got his own case overturned on the habeas corpus petition, and he did it all himself. So yeah, I mean, I think that there are certainly some very talented pro se, you know, pro se lawyers out there dealing jailhouse lawyers. And, I mean, there's a lot of bad ones to that tend to, they tend to be more. But just because someone is representing themselves doesn't necessarily mean that they're, you know,

Guy  1:02:46  
what's the old saying? Yeah, not qualified or, you know, not intelligent, or that the old saying is, you know, the lawyer who lawyer who represents himself as a has a full for a client. So representing yourself, you know, it's, I don't think it's generally advisable. And I think it's generally, court staff and judges, they tend to regard it skeptically, because they see a lot of it. That doesn't go, you know, very well, but, but there are some very talented, very smart, you know, proceed per se litigators out there, too.

Larry  1:03:25  
Oh, I agree with that completely guy, I've met some very smart. So the problem is, you don't have the access to that you're not treated the same way. Regardless of your skills. As a non admitted person, you don't have the access to go to the judge's chambers very easily. You don't have the access to run down the prosecutors office and say, What do you think about my case? You know, what do you have on me? How would you feel if I filed a motion to get me off probation? You know, it's just it's it's a system that doesn't lend itself to a pro site person. If you're predictive, you're incarcerated. You'd be very gifted writer, what you don't have the access to move about into communicate. But But yes, I don't question that there are that there are some very good skilled litigators. I've seen some very nice writing because I come to me on a regular basis from people behind the walls, but the systems just not designed for for for you to be successful that stacked against you. This is one of those cases where it where it worked. But but the system is not very friendly toward Imagine you're trying to get off the sex offender registry in a state that allows a petition process with the first step is down to the prosecutor's office to see how how, how the office is going to respond to the petition, because generally, that's where you have to serve them. So you go in and say, Well, how do you feel about me, Mr. Prosecutor? Well, they they don't want to talk to you. They want to say, where's your attorney? Well, well, well, you know, if they do talk to you, well, well, you know, you were real dickhead, because you did so and so took no, I didn't do that. You just can't engage in the conversation with the prosecutor about well, I've actually got help you did? You know, how have you recovered? You see how that conversation goes? The same thing? If you take your jury trial, but you're examining when you're doing cross, you're going to save it now. You saw the defendant do? Well, you're the defendant. So you saw me do that? Right.

It puts you in a very awkward position, you know, when you're representing yourself, but but I didn't mean to say that the people are not qualified. Some of them are. I'd say the majority of them were not, but but the system doesn't doesn't welcome them into the process.

Andy  1:05:26  
Where did you just say, dickhead? I did. You said Richard cranium on a family oriented show.

Larry  1:05:32  
Well, I don't think because the name so. So.

You see where I'm where I'm coming from? Yes. About the system. Yes. Okay. But But no, it's not to diminish the debate. Obviously, he had he had some significant skills to navigate. And accomplishment he did. Soda soda. Clarence Gideon.

Andy  1:05:58  
That name sounds familiar.

Larry  1:06:00  
Let's say Gideon versus Wainwright from what was it? 1963 or somewhere about the right to an attorney. Okay, all right. Yeah. So yeah, he

was at Arizona, Florida. He was he was from a very conservative state always getting confused, but he was he he took his case to Supreme Court on a handwritten cert petition.

Guy  1:06:20  
I want to say Florida

Larry  1:06:21  
maybe it was Florida. I'll look it up real quick. But yeah.

He he he certainly had persistence and and stayed with it and establish some great case law that's big weekend today. Little by little chipped away up. But yes, former pro se litigant we have Gideon versus Wainwright.

Guy  1:06:40  
Although, although forever Gideon, you're gonna have you know, a couple hundred, you know, a couple hundred not getting him.

Andy  1:06:51  
Yeah. You know, Larry, this next article, I think we should have done as the late breaking news because this one just someone just said that this one.

Larry  1:07:00  
Let's turn on the news. Oh, yeah. Hang on here. We can't do it without

Andy  1:07:06  
this comes from Logan, Utah. And there is a 60 year old 62 year old man. He's a bus driver. And he was getting off the bus. And he was struck down by a bunch of teenagers who were called by the one of the persons younger sister that said the bus driver had assaulted them. So then I mean, then the brother gets all of his gang buddies together. And I shouldn't say gang, but 17 year old teenagers and they go beat the bus driver, literally to death. They go playback the closed captioning TV system on the bus. And the bus driver walked by the female student, the one that alleged the the the inappropriate behavior. And there was nothing there. So the guy is now dead because of a false allegation. That's the news.

Guy  1:07:54  
Yeah, I hadn't I hadn't heard about

Andy  1:07:57  
this is this. I can't, I can't, Adam, how we got here. So you know, maybe the bus driver, like district one day and Custer out for not being on time or something. So here's the retaliation. And because of that.

Guy  1:08:12  
Yeah, I mean, I'm just looking at the article now.

Andy  1:08:17  
Yeah, I just put it in there a little while ago. I apologize for not being there sooner.

Guy  1:08:21  
No, that's.

Guy  1:08:25  
Yeah, I mean, that's, you know, really? I mean, that's obviously tragic. You know,

Guy  1:08:31  
and I mean, there are Yeah, I don't know, really, what would this obviously possess anyone to, you know, make make an allegation like that. And then it's, of course, it's tragic. how this turned out. I mean, it looks like he at least according to the article, he suffered injuries when he hit the sidewalk. Yes.

Guy  1:08:52  
which that happens. So I mean, that can happen so easily. In a fight with you. You just hit your head the wrong way.

Andy  1:09:01  
He's also a 62 year old guy. I mean, Larry, you remember, like, 100 years ago, what it was like to be 62?

Larry  1:09:07  
God, that's gonna go way back.

Andy  1:09:08  
It's like when I was, I know, right? Can you remember that far? It's hard. I just, you know. And it's not like you get paid a truckload of money. So I mean, I'm just going to assume or suggest that the guy is probably not, you know, he's not making a bunch of money. He's not sitting on a $10 million pension fund. And he's just doing this out of the goodness of his heart to transport some kids around to make sure they get to school safely. I, you know, I just so that's that's where we have come is that the people that are listed as sexual predators or anything like that they are so vehemently hated that the immediately jerk reaction is some sort of retaliatory response. And then in this case, it's a false allegation.

Larry  1:09:52  
And what are they going to do about it that we haven't information? Yeah, well,

Andy  1:09:54  
that was going to be my next question. What do you do with a 16 year old girl who made the allegation in the 17 year old brother, and then all of this little buddies that came out and killed the guy?

Larry  1:10:02  
Oh, well, you in this day to treat them under the 10 200

the juvenile system, which would result in whatever punishment they have would end when they turned 21? I don't know what Arizona is going to do there. They're quite a bit. But

Andy  1:10:18  
isn't that Utah? Or did the case it's out of Utah Zito Excuse me? Well, I know,

Larry  1:10:23  
they're both every state around us as more harsh than we are. So where the tutorials on a day there? They're far stricter.

Guy  1:10:31  
Yeah, I mean, you know, if I think course, when you have, you know, saying bad facts, make bad lawn, whenever you have a case that has bad backs, and, you know, people want to clamor to to treat them, you know, to treat treat these people harshly. And, you know, I think there's a growing sort of movement and recognition that that sort of harsh treatment doesn't really produce good outcomes for anyone, even the, the victim, or in this case, the victim's family. You know,

Guy  1:11:00  
so I think that there are, you know, sort of wider and more encouraging movements within sort of criminal justice and how we approach by even, you know, violent crime, which this is obviously a violent crime, and how to fold that into a restorative justice framework, where people who cause that harm are held accountable,

Guy  1:11:24  
and are able to, you know, sort of make amends for, you know, for their crime. Like, I think, you know, the redemption project on CNN is, you know, sort of bringing restorative justice for violent crime into the mainstream among, you know, several other different outlets. So, you know, in cases like this, you know, especially, you know, where you have a bunch of young people who made a really bad decision, and something terrible happened. Because of that, because of that decision. I mean, they killed someone. You know,

Guy  1:12:00  
I think that, you know, situations like these can potentially be ripe for, as opposed to just saying, well, we need to, you know, try them as adults and give them the death penalty. You know,

Guy  1:12:10  
I don't think that that's necessarily going to produce outcomes that anyone is really going to be, it's really going to help anybody. So but of course, I don't know what they do. Can you talk?

Andy  1:12:21  
Um, I guess we can then go on to this final article, Larry, you get the you get the job and the privilege of setting this whole thing up? I do. Absolutely. Because this is this, you move into this whole legal propeller head stuff and and my eyes roll in the back of my head, I started drooling. And I have no idea what's going on. So

Larry  1:12:42  
bad. Alright, so we're so where's my teletype?

Andy  1:12:45  
Oh, you want that again? Oh, yeah.

Larry  1:12:47  
All right. I'll give you the. So we have, we have hot breaking news from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Andy  1:12:53  
All right, there you go.

Larry  1:12:57  
So now we have that breaking story from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, a case comes forth to us that we're going to talk about tonight dealing with what are reasonable and unreasonable conditions to impose in a period of supervised release. And supervised release. For those who don't know, the terminology is a is a term used in the federal system. When a person is it, as soon as they are given a usually a prison sentence, but sometimes appropriate, it's installed by by if it's appropriate sentence, it wouldn't be supervised release. But if they go to prison, which 90% of the Federal offenders do, then you're going to come out on a period of supervised release called called, that's what they refer the period. Well, during that period of supervised release, which can be relatively short all the way to lifetime, there are conditions imposed. And this deals with a number of special conditions that were imposed on an offender who was convicted of a sexual offense related to possession of an attempted distribution of child pornography. And the the the conditions of probation restricted him from, from having access to internet to devices, I don't need to understand but but he he, he has has significant restrictions, which he challenged because he did not want those restrictions on him for the remainder of his life. And and this decision from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals says that the conditions that he challenged, asserting that the packing ham case would be a Supreme Court covered him or not applicable because he's not in the same posture packing home was in Paki how old society no debt, this person is serving his debt, although it goes for the remainder of his life. So the case as it's titled comes to us as United States of America versus Kevin Carson.

And I think that I think that I'd like to engage a little discussion with with guy here about these conditions, because cause he objected either two or three, particularly of the conditions and and I'd like to go through special conditions number 16, restricting social media access, access, and then it was a special condition 14, which

bands any possession of depictions or of nudity already, that merely alludes to sexual activity? Did I miss it? Oh, there's a special connection dish dish and six, that he that he was in opposition to what was special condition? Six guy?

Guy  1:15:33  
Oh, let's see, it looks. special conditions six.

Guy  1:15:39  
Let's see he challenged special conditions six, to the extent that it prohibited possessing or having under his control, any matter that is pornographic slash erotic was that condition that he was challenging?

Larry  1:15:55  
and very good. And special condition 14.

Guy  1:15:59  
Yeah, special conditions, 14, which prohibited him from possessing or using any computer or electronic device without prior or with with access to any online computer service, without prior approval of the probation office. And then also a condition that was essentially, I mean, essentially, the law that was struck down and packing him, but prohibited prohibiting him from maintaining or creating a user account on any social networking site that allows access to persons under the age of 18. Or allows for the exchange of sexually explicit material chat conversations or instant messaging. So pretty, really a pretty broad ban on a wide variety of websites. And,

Larry  1:16:46  
and he was shot down on all three, correct?

Guy  1:16:51  
Yeah, I mean, he was so yeah, he appealed from the district court. And the attorney did not to any of these conditions, at his sentencing. And the significance of that is when the attorney doesn't object, then that makes it much more sort of difficult to overturn them on appeal. And and yeah, so the court basically said that, the Eighth Circuit basically said that, you know, we're going to affirm we're not going to reverse on on these conditions, because

Guy  1:17:30  
and they discussed at length, the packing him decision, and North Carolina versus packing him which is 2017, United States Supreme Court decision, that basically said that, for people who are not serving a criminal sentence, the government can't say, you can't use any kind of social media, because social media is they referred to him as the modern, public square.

Guy  1:17:57  
But in this case, he's challenging the condition that will be applied when he is ultimately released from prison. And he'll be serving a criminal sentence, he'll be on supervised release, which is kind of federal. Well, there isn't really federal parole, but it's kind of like probation or parole, if you have an officer and you have conditions you have to abide by.

Guy  1:18:23  
But the importance of that in this context is because the Eighth Circuit basically said, well, it's not really like packing him, because in packing him, he wasn't serving a criminal sentence. Whereas in here, you're serving your criminal sentence. So therefore, packing ham doesn't, you know, doesn't apply. So the circuit is basically saying that, if you're going to be serving a sentence, then the government can and say that you can't use any kind of social media, the importance of social media, to modern life not standing. This kind of my understanding,

Larry  1:19:00  
attend, I tend to agree with you that this is something that we've struggled since packing, how because people who are getting these exceedingly long periods of supervision, and we've got listeners who are subject to first date convictions, community supervision for life for, or in my case of period, amended mandatory period of five to life, they, there's no end of this. So it's like you never, you never can do those things are essential to modern life. And the Supreme Court did tiptoe around with a little bit of runaway dicta that they found those conditions troubling, which were the issues of the restriction of North Carolina statute that kept anyone from being able to download registry to access the internet. But they said, we find these conditions troubling, particularly for those who've who've paid their debt to society that might be a direct quote, or have served that will tell their sentences, well, that suggest if their particular really concerned about them, for those who've paid their debt to society, that they are also generally concerned or somewhat concerned, or at least mildly interested in the people who, who are still paying their debt to society. So there was a lot of optimism. But I did not see that as broadly, because I've watched the courts become more restrained in their behavior, because they've been hearing society lecture them for the last three, four decades about runaway activism for the judiciary, we need courts who interpret the law, and not try to make the law. And that's not a vehicle to achieve your goals. You can't speak through the legislative process. So I've seen courts become much more tolerant and things that used to shock the conscious of the court no longer shock the conscious of the court. So I was a little bit less optimistic that this was going to have the effect that people wanted, which was to extend to people under supervision. Having said that, I don't believe that that means that there's no bona fide claim there. I believe that in a modern society, the essential usage of the internet, such that I believe that the Supreme Court might would based on that dicta, entertain this and help us realize that there are there are limitations. Where you could even not go with a person. It's kind of like prison censorship. prisons have brought the authority to censor materials coming up, but they don't have unlimited authority. Prisoners do have sub rights.

Guy  1:21:25  
Yeah, I mean, you know, I think that social media and First Amendment freedoms, in particular, if you're, if we're considering that in the context of someone who is going to be on, you know, supervision for the entirety of their lifespan.

Guy  1:21:44  
Yeah,

Guy  1:21:44  
yeah. I mean, I think that there is a possibility that courts could, you know, look at, look at that, and give it a little bit of a different analysis than just saying, like, the Eighth Circuit did well, you're on supervision. So, you know, packing up doesn't really apply. Because, you know, I think it's social media has become so ubiquitous, and is it only seems to becoming more more and more ubiquitous? It's a little bit like saying, well, we're going to ban you from using the telephone. Like, you can't, you can't use the telephone, because of course, you might use, you know, you might use the telephone to, you know, to call a victim. And well, yeah, I mean, you could, you know, of course, you could drive a car to go find a victim. But that doesn't mean that you can ban someone from using our So yeah, I think that as we have more and more people who are on these sort of lifetime, parole lifetime, you know, you know, supervision arrangements, it could be that we're going to see opinions start to, you know, I guess, question their constitutionality. You know,

Guy  1:22:52  
but certainly not this opinion, though.

Larry  1:22:56  
Well, there was a descent, there was a descent guy, and that's, there's a good thing. Good thing, you if you're following a cert petition, you're going to hammer on that descent and you're going to social Well, this is all this is a split opinion, that not so so there is a there's a pretty well written dissent.

Guy  1:23:13  
Absolutely.

Andy  1:23:14  
How do I get the internet to apply? Like just, you know, like air, you can't say someone can't have air, but you could restrict them from a particular place? How do we get I mean, I'm, you know, I'm a huge fan of the internet. I'm on it all the time. And it freaks me out when I go buy a Burger King, and it says, apply at BK jobs. com or something like that. And then I think of how many of our people are just outright restricted from how are they supposed to get a job if they would require to use a computer and the Internet to then apply for any of the jobs? And we just said, Nope, FYI, P, you can't use a computer.

Guy  1:23:48  
Well, I mean, I mean, that's sort of exactly that's sort of exactly the way I I mean, this has been an issue that's been very

Guy  1:23:56  
young, but I've been very interested in for many years. And, you know, my, you know,

Guy  1:24:03  
my under my perspective on it is this, I mean, that these tools are essential for reintegration. And if we want people to reintegrate into society and to live healthy and productive and law abiding lives, then they should have access to them. Because I mean, the becoming essential for modern life. And if someone you know, if you can say, you know, we're going to ban these people from these platforms, but if someone wants to commit a crime, right, the healing, you're going to commit a crime, they're not going to, you know, are going to say, Well, I can't you know, I can't use the internet. So I guess I can't get on the internet and commit a crime.

Andy  1:24:45  
You have I mean, little cats guy, or a cat.

Guy  1:24:47  
Yeah.

Guy  1:24:52  
Yeah, no, I said, I locked one out of the office. She's

Andy  1:24:59  
happy about it.

Guy  1:25:00  
She's not happy about it.

Andy  1:25:03  
I didn't mean to mess up your train of thought.

Guy  1:25:05  
No, no, it's, it's, it's totally fine. But it just essentially, I mean, that. Yeah, these are these are essential tools for reintegration. And if we, you know, we want people to succeed, right? I mean, we want them to succeed, we want them to live productive lives. Because if you, you know, if you're someone who has, if you have a home, if you have a family, if you have a job, if you're going to school, like these are all reasons to stay out of prison, and that should be what we want. But to the extent that we continue to isolate people, you know, I don't think that really works for the benefit of the of the goals that we, you know, that we want, we shouldn't want. But, you know, that's my that's my two cents. And I'm sure Mike, my categories with me.

Larry  1:25:53  
See, the the possibility exists, that he can help limit controlled access to the least of the internet? Well, I think the condition said what is approval, the probation office put them that's a lot of hurdles to jump through. And then the the condition on the on the social media, it seems like that's blanket.

But But even social media, although I'm not a big user of it, it's becoming more and more central for, for predictive, you have an independent business. So social media is how you connect with customers nowadays. Yeah. So so it's becoming it's becoming a fact and a necessity of modern life. So I think that this body of case law, although the circuit courts appear to have come consistently the same way date circuit has those who have rules like the fifth or the 11th to the DC Circuit have, I've had several decisions. And they've come down the same way as the eighth did. But I would not give up I mean, somebody somebody should follow a cert petition. But I thinking maybe if you look at the facts of this guy, he may not be the ideal candidate to follow that sort of petition because of he's a very unsympathetic individual, when you look at what constituted the facts of his offense. And, and that's going to weigh heavily.

Guy  1:27:16  
Sure. Yeah. I mean, it's it's also not a, you know, and also procedurally because this attorney didn't object. You know,

Guy  1:27:26  
it makes it it makes it a heavier lift. See, I mean, there are certainly some defendants who are, you know, more or, you know, more or less sympathetic than others. You know, but I mean, and also, you know, I mean, it is, it also seems, seems worth pointing out that I mean, he is, you know, I mean child pornography, defendants in the federal system are the most heavily punished defendants out of, I think of any class of offender in the federal system. Like he received the 20 year sentence, and then lifetime supervision. And then even on that 20 year sentence, the bottom end of his advisory guideline range was 30 years. He got a downward departure.

Larry  1:28:11  
He got he got list of what what he should have gotten what it should have gotten outlines recommended.

Guy  1:28:17  
But I mean, it's just a 30 year, you know, the bottom end of the guideline or anything 30 years is, you know, I mean, astonishing. You very risky, very outside of child pornography offenses, you very rarely see recommended guideline ranges like that.

Larry  1:28:35  
Just Just for those who want to read the opinion, we're going to link will have that in the show notes. And it's only 13 pages, but the officer have seized and we've highlighted some of the relevant elements are seized Carson's electronics, and hard drive, which they discovered 593 still images, 99 videos mostly depicting child bondage, and based reality, including a horrified image of a female infant being raped by an adult male. Wow, that that is going to be somewhat.

It's got a discombobulated on average human being to want to dig into this issue. Because of the visceral reaction you're going to hear to child bondage based reality and an infant being raped the it's just going to be hard for a human being which all these judges are going to be mortal humans, they're gonna have a hard time dealing with that.

Andy  1:29:31  
Understand why you said not a very sympathetic whatever, plaintiff I guess,

Larry  1:29:36  
yeah, they're gonna thought the world the way it should be.

Andy  1:29:42  
Right Chacha said I threw up in my mouth a little bit.

Guy  1:29:46  
I mean, sure. Like, that's the he didn't he didn't produce that minder, at least my understanding the cases that he doesn't he didn't produce that image. I mean, that was an image that he had on his computer, which, obviously, yeah, then that's a tear. I mean, that's all a terrible, you know, that's a terrible image. You know, but I think there are a lot of these prosecution. And I think in this case, he also, you know, the defendant also engaged in I think he was engaged in a, some sort of a sexual relationship with a 16 year old and was also sending pictures to other like,

Guy  1:30:24  
other teenage girls. So I mean, there was like, more than just more than just, you know, child pornography possession here.

Guy  1:30:34  
But it's still I mean, you know, it's still a remarkable sentence. I mean, you don't really see sentences like that. Even for, you know, abuse cases or homicide offenses or, you know,

Guy  1:30:47  
other other types of cases. I mean, I mean, a lot of it comes down to a lot of it comes down to X Factor. And also the way that the Federal sentencing guidelines will really hammered defendants who hammer federal defendant to get in trouble for, you know, possessing or distributing child pornography.

Andy  1:31:08  
Well, on that note, Larry, is there anything else that we have to hammer out?

Larry  1:31:14  
Well, it, we were gonna just remind people that if you want to submit some late breaking news to do has to be of interest to more than just a small group of people, but something that would be appealing knowledge that others would like to know, throughout the land, send it to us, and we will, hopefully continue this segment of late breaking news.

Andy  1:31:37  
Good. Guy, I can't thank you enough for spending an hour and a half with us. And you've been very generous, and I can't thank you enough and appreciate you coming on.

Guy  1:31:46  
Yeah, no, thank you all so much for having me. I hope it was. I hope it was in enlivening discussion for for your listeners.

Andy  1:31:55  
Absolutely. And so let's close out the show and let you go on your way. Unless you want to hang out and talk to some of the people in chat after we're done to.

Guy  1:32:04  
Uh, yeah, I don't mind hanging out for just a few minutes. And sure.

Andy  1:32:09  
Larry, I'm just going to knock these out really quick. What was that? Let's do it.

Larry  1:32:13  
How do we make this podcast grow?

Andy  1:32:15  
Well, we have people like I Hamilton Smith on and he's going to tweet it to us 4000 people and then we will have 4000 listeners. That's one.

Hey, visit the website at registry matters dot CEO, if you want to call in for a voicemail message, it's 747-227-4477. That's bunch of sevens, fours twos and sevens.

Email is registry matters cast at gmail. com. The best way we love you forever, all of our patrons patreon.com slash registry matters. And I think that's it. So with that, Larry guy, thank you very much. And I hope you guys have a great Saturday night.

Guy  1:32:53  
Good night. Thank you to push it

Andy  1:32:56  
away.

Larry  1:32:57  
Thank you for listening to the IP IP network.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai