This Law Effectively Banishes People from New York City

The NYCLU recently filed a lawsuit challenging the misleadingly-named Sexual Assault Reform Act, or SARA. SARA is a New York law that prevents certain people required to register on the state’s sex offender registry from knowingly being within 1,000 feet of a school at any time and for any reason. It’s also been interpreted to prevent people subject to SARA restrictions from living within this 1,000-foot radius.

SARA is billed as a way to protect New Yorkers from people who could harm children. But research shows these types of geographical restrictions don’t increase public safety. And authorities have applied SARA to people who have never harmed children, and even people who have never committed a sexual offense.

In dense urban areas like New York City, where you’re almost always within 1,000 feet of a school, SARA restrictions force thousands of New Yorkers into homelessness and to the fringes of society, effectively banishing them.

We speak with Daniel Lambright, the NYCLU’s Special Counsel for Criminal Justice Litigation, M.G., one of the plaintiffs in our lawsuit, and Dr. Emily Horowitz, a sociologist who has spent nearly two decades researching and writing about sexual offense policies.

Please download, rate, review, and subscribe to Rights This Way. It will help more people find this podcast.

Resources

• The Nation and New York Focus exclusive on our lawsuit
• Research on the ineffectiveness of residency restrictions
• Previous NYCLU commentary on treatment of people convicted of sex offenses
• Our press release announcing our recent case, and case materials

Transcript

Simon: The NYCLU recently filed a lawsuit challenging the misleadingly named Sexual Assault Reform Act, or SARA.

[00:00:08] SARA is a New York law that prevents certain people required to register on the state’s sex offender registry from knowingly being within 1,000 feet of a school at any time and for any reason. It’s also been interpreted to prevent people subject to SARA restrictions from living within this 1,000 foot radius.

[00:00:26] SARA is billed as a way to protect New Yorkers from people who could harm children. But research shows these types of geographical restrictions don’t increase public safety. And authorities have applied SARA to people who have never harmed children, and even people who have never committed a sexual offense.

[00:00:44] In dense urban areas like New York City, where you’re almost always within 1,000 feet of a school, SARA restrictions force thousands of New Yorkers into homelessness and to the fringes of society. We will speak with one of the NYCLU lawyers who brought this case.

[00:01:00] Daniel: Anybody who’s been to Manhattan can understand and recognizes that in urban areas, especially dense urban areas, schools are everywhere. That means that effectively SARA is a banishment.

[00:01:12] Simon: As well as one of our clients who, despite never committing a sexual offense, is still trapped under SARA’s harsh restrictions.

[00:01:19] MG: Even though there’s, in my particular regards, there’s no offense, sexual nature, anything, against a child, it’s still being used to their advantage. In returning to my community, it I feel like I’m in this little bubble.

[00:01:31] Simon: We’ll also hear from a sociologist with extensive knowledge about the research that proves how ineffective laws like SARA are.

[00:01:38] Emily: Keeping people away from schools doesn’t do anything to truly decrease the incidents of sexual offenses or make anybody safer. The only thing they do is banish, humiliate, shame and subject people who’ve already served time in jails and prison. It just prevents them from being able to get better and return to our communities.

[00:02:01] Simon: Before we get started, just a quick note that outside guests on this show do not represent the NYCLU and their views are their own.

[00:02:11] Welcome to Rights This Way, a podcast from the New York Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of New York State. I’m Simon McCormack, senior staff writer at the NYCLU and your host for this podcast, which is focused on the civil rights and liberties issues that impact New Yorkers most.

[00:02:35] And now I’m joined by three guests. Daniel Lambright is the NYCLU’s special counsel for criminal justice litigation. M.G. is one of the plaintiffs in our lawsuit who, despite having never been charged with, let alone convicted of a sexual offense, is still under SARA restrictions. We’re identifying him by his initials for privacy reasons. And Dr. Emily Horowitz is a sociologist who has spent nearly two decades researching and writing about sexual offense policies. Daniel, M.G., Emily, thank you so much for joining us on Rights This Way.

[00:03:10] Daniel: Thanks for having me.

[00:03:11] MG: Yes, thank you for having me as well.

[00:03:13] Emily: Thank you so much for covering this important issue.

[00:03:16] Simon: Of course, it is truly great to have all three of you here. Daniel, I actually want to start with you. If you can just kind of lay out and explain what New York’s Sexual Assault Reform Act, or SARA, is and why the NYCLU is challenging this law.

[00:03:33] Daniel: Yeah, so I think it’s important here to give a little bit of background. So, in New York, people convicted of offenses that the legislature has deemed sexual offenses must register on the state sex offense registry. And prior to release, they must undergo a risk assessment where they’re assessed a risk level one, two, or three – One being the lowest, three being the highest. And it’s important to mention here that the risk levels are completely arbitrary, and they’re based on factors that are arbitrary, outdated, based on outdated science and are completely unvalidated. Nonetheless, when somebody is designated a level two or three, then they get placed on what’s known as a public registry.

[00:04:22] And on the public registry, their name, photograph, height, weight, car information, employment information, residential information are all put online for everybody to see. And for level two and three individuals, that’s for life. If you’re level one, you’re on the on the registry that’s held by sheriffs, and that’s for a term of 20 years.

[00:04:48] Still an incredibly long period of time. And there’s no real scientific evidence suggesting that even that regime has benefit for public safety. So in addition to that already onerous regime that people convicted of sex offenses have to deal with, there’s what’s known as SARA. And you mentioned it’s a sexual assault reform act.

[00:05:12] It’s a package of laws changing the way that the state dealt with sexual offenses. One part of SARA is Executive Law § 259-c [14]. And that prohibits all people designated level three and all people who have an offense against a minor from entering into schools, from entering into restaurants, stores, streets, sidewalks, parks, and parking lots located within a thousand feet of a school ground.

[00:05:48] And it’s also been interpreted by DOCCS and the state courts to prevent people from living within a thousand feet of a school ground. And this applies to people who have never used–the vast majority of people who have never used their proximity to a school to offend. It applies to people who have never committed offense against a stranger.

[00:06:14] It applies to people who have never committed offense against minors. It applies to people who have never committed sexual offenses but have committed offenses that are deemed sexual offenses by the legislature. And it also applies regardless whether schools in session, it applies regardless for whatever reasons that the person is entering into 1,000 feet of a school ground.

[00:06:38] It could be to buy a band aid. It could be to do any sort of numerous necessities of life. It still prohibits people and it’s still risks those individuals getting reincarcerated for really much innocent and activities. And that’s why we’re challenging this because we think it is completely unconstitutional and contrary to rehabilitation for all members of society.

[00:07:05] And especially many folks have served very long prison sentences if they’ve been convicted of a sexual offense and they need the help to reintegrate back into society and laws like SARA do not do that and are completely contrary to rehabilitation.

[00:07:23] Simon: Yeah thank you for that, Daniel. And I just want to quickly say. I know you mentioned DOCCS. DOCCS is the Department of Corrections and Supervision. Basically the state entity that is in charge of New York State’s prisons. And your answer kind of gets at this a bit, but I kind of want to draw you out a little bit more.

[00:07:39] What are some of the, like, broad impacts of this law? You’ve, it’s obviously quite broad. You’ve made that quite clear, and we’re going to hear from M.G. from his personal experience but what are some of the broad impacts that people facing these restrictions have to deal with?

[00:07:53] Daniel: Anybody who’s been to Manhattan can understand and recognizes that in urban areas, especially dense urban areas, schools are everywhere. That means that effectively SARA is a banishment law. It means that people cannot go through and do, you know, many daily activities without fear of being re-incarcerated.

[00:08:14] Now, when you additionally add the residents element to it, then that furthers the banishment and it furthers state imposed homelessness for individuals. So, you know, what has happened is that DOCCS, the entity that we just talked about, has decided that they’re not going to release people from prison unless they can provide a SARA compliant address, meaning an address outside of a thousand feet of a school.

[00:08:43] However in New York City, that’s nowhere, you know, there’s a sizable portion of the people who are returning back into society from prison sentences are coming into New York City or other dense urban areas. And what DOCCS has done is instead of releasing those individuals, it’s kept them in prison longer.

[00:09:06] And then once individuals are managed to get out of, and get out of prison, they still can’t find a SARA compliant address. So they get put in homeless shelters and these homeless shelters are not conducive to rehabilitation. They’re not conducive to reintegration and people are in a kind of constant state of housing instability and homelessness because of SARA. And additionally the DOCCS has also interpreted the law that even if you manage to find a residence, and a school opens up next to you, DOCCS will tell you that you have to leave your residence. So it’s completely destabilizing to individuals and the travel elements of the restriction, make it such that returning citizens have to constantly live in fear that if they go to various parts of their own communities, they’re going to be, for innocent purposes, they’re going to be violated and sent back to prison.

[00:10:15] It’s completely horrible and it’s completely contrary to letting all members of society reintegrate and join society again.

[00:10:25] Simon: And SARA has also been applied to people who have not been convicted of sex offenses and to those who have not been convicted of offenses committed against children. How do courts or whatever entity get to decide that? How does that, how is that justified?

[00:10:42] Daniel: Right, so it is, state courts have been very deferential to legislature’s determinations as to what is a sexual offense and who can be banned from entering into the banishment zones as we call them and this is part of the problem of why SARA is a nonsensical law.

[00:11:05] Because it applies to people who have no real risk of committing sexual offenses against children or using schools to do so. And let me state another thing that even people who have been convicted of sexual offenses against children, the vast majority of those people have offended against a family member or someone known to them, such that a residency restriction has no impact.

[00:11:37] And this is part of why, you know, we’re very confident in fighting this law and also confident that it won’t lead to any sort of increase in sexual offending against minors.

[00:11:51] Simon: Right. and now I actually want to turn to M.G – M.G., can you just kind of tell us a bit about your life before you were incarcerated back in 2019?

[00:12:02] MG: You know, I was a advocate actually against violence. I was a mentor in like five different schools. You know, I served my community in soup kitchens in different capacities, so I was a very social being when it comes to interaction with the community, good relationships with community members, and just, I have five children of my own, I have, a big family.

[00:12:24] So as far as that’s concerned, I was a productive citizen in the sight of how laws are considered of being a productive citizen. Now it’s just like, I don’t even have an answer for how this is impacting me, but I will go into that as you ask these questions.

[00:12:39] Simon: Let’s talk about that. Post your release, how has your life been, complicated, hindered, made more difficult by these SARA restrictions.

[00:12:48] MG: I mean, I’m gonna start off with um, when you’re in prison, you come up with these goals that you set for yourself and you have these counselors that ask you to set realistic goals for yourself as you’re progressing or rehabilitating yourself in prison. So part of those things was to, you know, reconnect with family and, you know, make amends for some of my wrongs and things of that nature.

[00:13:09] So as you’re going through this progressive stage and then you’re told later on that you can’t go to your family’s household, you can’t interact with your children, even though those things weren’t implemented while you’re in prison – it flourishes, your relationships flourish, you’re talking to people, you’re doing things that come to some level of normalcy from the prison perspective, of course, but you’re building up into something that’s going to be greater later.

[00:13:35] You’re hoping to anyway. So, when you’re told later on that you cannot return to a family member, or you can’t go to your own household, even though law says you can get married. Okay, you can be married, but if you’re married, There’s things that come with marriage, you know, community, being with them, you can’t even go into the household that you’re married in, especially if you have a child there.

[00:13:59] So, even though there’s, in my particular regards, there’s no offense, sexual nature, anything, against a child, it’s still being used to their advantage, and I didn’t intentionally or deliberately try to commit a crime against anybody. It was like a mental breakdown that turned into something. So this was like just it’s been that type of thing.

[00:14:20] So in returning to my community, it just, I feel like I’m in this little bubble that I’m scared to make mistakes. I’m scared to do certain things. Of course, if people know me in the community, I’m an activist, I’m a social being in my community. So if a kid comes to see, where are you doing, Mr. Such and such, like it’s natural for me to say, how you doing, and check on the kid’s well-being. But now I’m so scared to like, interact, because I don’t want him to be perceived as something else. So it’s like, I’m questioning myself as far as, should I talk to this kid, or if they need help, or whatever, am I supposed to let them, you know, fall into this path of destruction, or help the kid, if that presents itself.

[00:15:01] So, it’s very complicated.

[00:15:03] Simon: So it sounds like, you should correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like this has made, you know, your attempts to, get back on your feet to rehabilitate yourself, more difficult. Would you say that’s fair to say?

[00:15:15] MG: Definitely, because, I think for anyone, I speak for myself, having any standards for themselves, which I do have, I have morals, I have principles, so, it’s abnormal for me to not act normal. For me to not have certain interactions, and not have certain conversations, and not, for me not to be able to do the natural things I, I want to do, or was able to do, it just, it’s like I’m trying to find myself still. And bringing myself to some level of normalcy in my interactions as far as putting my stuff out there for jobs, it’s like, it’s embarrassing, you know, it’s like, I don’t want to be looked at as that type of individual because I carry myself to such a high standard, it’s very complicated.

[00:15:59] Simon: Yeah, absolutely, and it sounds stigmatizing. Can you talk about, even with these obstacles, you know, some of the rehabilitative work that you’ve been doing?

[00:16:08] MG: At this present moment, I’m in the shelter. So that in itself is a challenge dealing with people that have multiple things going on. And maybe some that may have the same things going on as me where they’re trying to get back to the household. So, you know, parole puts all these restrictions on you as far as, of course, where to go, like Daniel explained, but they make you do all these programs. So, I’m programming all day long, whether it’s I can accept the alcohol and substance abuse because that’s what was going on. Unfortunately, in the midst of this happening, you know, I was going through, burnout as a social advocacy, you know, being a social advocate, you know what I mean? I was going through, trying to empathize with people in the streets that I’m trying to serve, and then in turn I became a drug addict, so, it’s like, me dealing these mandatory stipulations, me trying to even reconnect with my own children and being hesitant at wanting to do so because I don’t know what type of scrutiny is going to be involved in that. It’s very difficult, and that’s just putting it lightly. Because trying to manage your own stress and trying to manage your own goals. I want to set realistic goals for myself, but I have people telling me that my realistic goals are not realistic.

[00:17:27] Simon: And what would you say to, to anyone who might hear this who might think it, makes sense to them to force people convicted of certain offenses to not be within a thousand feet of schools.

[00:17:40] MG: I think, like Daniel said, like we’re in a urban communities and we’re in New York City. Everywhere you go, there’s a school, a daycare, somebody, especially in this capitalistic society, everybody’s trying to make a buck, so people are popping up these little daycares or schools everywhere.

[00:17:57] Simon: And M.G., how have the SARA restrictions, impacted your family life?

[00:18:03] MG: I mean, my family, we’re very close but this has been difficult because they’re traveling back and forth trying to carve out a piece of time to, to share with them after doing time. It’s been very tough on everybody emotionally, these highs and lows that we’re trying to have. We’re trying to bring some normalcy in our lives as far as being amongst each other and having conversations for futuristic things and knowing that I can’t go to Disneyland, knowing I can’t go to certain places right now, maybe just to go across the bridge to Jersey or something like that is difficult.

[00:18:38] So it’s been tough on my youngest because she’s the one that’s mostly affected because the restriction of her being a certain age that fell in those guidelines makes it more difficult in interacting with her or I was having to hide myself from being out of prison because I wasn’t given the rights yet to go visit her and have conversations with her.

[00:19:01] So it was like I have my other children lying, my, my significant other lying to my younger daughter because I’m not really able to see her right now. My kids are looking at the whole situation. My real understanding, like, all they know me as is their father and anything else outside of that, like, they can’t understand. I literally have to travel two hours a day each way to visit my family. And if the buses or the trains are running a certain kind of way, it just makes it even more difficult. And, you know, I’m from, a different borough where I have to travel in the water. So that’s another thing, you missed something for one minute, that’s a 30 minute gap that causes technically an hour gap in between your travels. So it’s very difficult because I don’t know no other part of my life outside of the place that I live. You know, yes, I’ve visited, I’ve, went to maybe loungers or things of that nature outside of my borough, but that’s where my core and my life is.

[00:20:03] So, it’s, it makes it very difficult as far as managing time, because I still have other obligations to fulfill with parole.

[00:20:11] Daniel: And Just to make this, crystal clear, M.G. would live with his family, or would live close to his family, except that one, he has restrictions on him that prevent that, including SARA that he can’t find a SARA compliant place near his family. So he has to live in a shelter that’s hours away from his family.

[00:20:37] MG: I’d like to touch on that too, like, originally, I was approved to go to my family. Because within DOCCS, I was able to accomplish some things as far as rehabilitative wise as far as going to college, earning certain eligibility credits, and although parole allowed me to have this I was granted release, you know, DOCCS parole put these stipulations as far as me coming out.

[00:21:02] So, although my family member’s house, my wife’s house, fits the distance in compliance, and I was approved, other stipulations came down the line, I don’t know how or why, and then I was told now I can’t go there because I have an underage child, when I was able to get visitation from my children the whole entire time, incarcerated.

[00:21:24] So, this SARA thing is just, it doesn’t make any sense. It’s too many different contradictions.

[00:21:30] Simon: And M. G., what made you actually want to take part in, in this lawsuit?

[00:21:36] MG: I’m a person that was fighting for, you know, like I said, I’m a social advocate. I will fight for the rights for others and myself as well. So, to see anything wrong like this, especially done to a particular person like myself or anybody that’s being subjected to these restrictions, the way they can’t change their life if they want to change their life is reason enough for me.

[00:21:57] Simon: That completely makes sense. Well, we’re definitely very grateful for you for taking part in this case. Emily, I want to turn to you now. Can you talk about what the research shows with regards to how effective restrictions like SARA are in terms of whether or not they reduce the likelihood that people will reoffend?

[00:22:17] Emily: Well, as M.G. said what these laws do is create banishment. They create instability. They create barriers to reentry. We know the research is conclusive that the best way to help people reintegrate and rehabilitate themselves and not return to prison is to allow them access to housing, to services, to family support.

[00:22:43] And these undermine the very things that we know prevent recidivism in general for all offenses, and in particular, the research on sex offense recidivism is conclusive. People who commit sex offenses are not more likely to reoffend than anybody else. And the things that prevent reoffence for anybody else who’s been impacted by the criminal legal system are the same things.

[00:23:10] And housing stability is a huge predictor of success and it makes us all less safe when you deny people housing. M.G. said he’s in a current state of panic and anxiety. Those kinds of emotional impacts also undermine people’s ability to get jobs and remain stable and actually contribute to the likelihood of reoffence or as he discussed, he’d struggled with substance abuse putting somebody in a shelter who doesn’t have to be there, denying somebody access to their family and social networks, all of those are factors that lead to not only re offending, but returning to things like substance abuse and unhealthy behaviors. And one thing Daniel also pointed out that is truly crazy, I don’t have a more a better word for it about this law, is that most sexual offenses involve non strangers. Most sexual offenses do not take place in public parks or on school property. So, they fly in the face of everything we know about sexual offenses.

[00:24:19] So, keeping people away from schools doesn’t do anything to truly decrease the incidents of sexual offenses or make anybody safer. There’s been about 20 years of research on residency restrictions, proximity restrictions and it’s also very conclusive that communities that have these restrictions don’t have any decrease in rates or incidence of sexual offenses.

[00:24:45] They really do nothing and they don’t, I mean, the only thing they do is banish, humiliate, shame and subject people who’ve already served time in jails and prison. It just prevents them from being able to get better and return to our communities.

[00:25:01] MG: Can I piggyback on that part, if you don’t mind, Simon? Like Mrs. Harwood said, the shelter system, there’s people in there unfortunately going through mental health issues, they have, you know, other health issues, and they have drug addiction. So if you’re sitting there trying to manage your own mental health, right, and you’re coming up with these coping skills to not, get back into drugs, it’s definitely a danger because there’s drugs running rampant around there and through there, right?

[00:25:30] And then, the risk of other offenses, as far as somebody attacking you because you’re, you’re trying to defend yourself because somebody’s not in the right state of mind or whatever. That’s another thing that the risk of catching something on your feet if you try to use the shower. The risk of using the toilet if, the uncleanliness in there alone, and then the attitudes of some of the staff based on the fact they think you did dirt on somebody’s shoe, because you’re in the shelter system.

[00:25:59] It’s just a whole bunch of things that you have to go through in trying to just stay well and then come out to society and present yourself in a respectable manner. When you’re, when I’m constantly dealing with disrespectful things or inconsistencies all over the place, you know? So, it just reminded me of going to lunch with a cousin.

[00:26:20] He invited me to lunch in Manhattan, Harlem or something. And um, He was like, meet me over here. I’m like, okay. Now his, he was running late, so I stayed on the train for a second. I got out, I came out, and when I, as soon as I came around the corner, it was a school, so I’m in a state of panic.

[00:26:37] I’m like, oh, snap. Like, you know, I didn’t say, oh, snap. I said, oh, you know what I’m saying? So, first thing, I looked back, I didn’t know where to go. I just, I, So, I go around the corner, I call them like, yo, I’m like too close to these schools, I’m like I’m in a state of shock, I’m in a state of panic, I mean, anxiety is running high or whatever. So, he’s like, yo, just try to go another place. I walk two, three blocks down, another school. So what I do is I’m sitting there in step between two schools.

[00:27:07] I go into a store and just start buying stuff. I’m grateful that I had money, and I buy two cups of coffee, some type of donuts. It was terrible.

[00:27:24] Simon: Yeah, and given that we know these restrictions don’t work, Emily and then M.G., if you want to, add to this as well but I’m curious what, like, what would be helpful? What does the research say? And M.G., what would your personal experience indicate would be helpful like what could we do to help people get back on their feet?

[00:27:44] MG: First off, I think we’re a society that has too much access to information, right? For them to come up with these blanketed type of legislations. People are supposed to be judged by individual things, like if you committed a crime as an individual, judge me based on the crime and what the crime entails and things that I mentioned.

[00:28:05] You can do enough research, you can, you have enough information on me to say when it’s actually suitable for this particular individual. You don’t have to have this blanketed situation because it’s lazy technically. It’s very lazy. Because you’re sitting there, you have parole telling you one thing, the legislation is telling you this, victims are saying this, the DOCCS are saying that, and everybody’s sitting there with these decisions to make.

[00:28:31] And now that you may not fit into those categories, they pass the buck onto everybody else. Nobody wants to make these hard decisions and say, this is wrong. Because this guy don’t fit that. This guy doesn’t fit that. This shouldn’t be applied to him. I can assess this person differently. I can talk to this person differently.

[00:28:51] I can do different things for different people so they can become successful. Because of these places that you said are here to help. Where is the help at? Because the inconsistency is not good for anybody’s mental well-being. It’s not, at all. Because a person that’s trying to change their lives, they need consistency to maintain a certain standard of life.

[00:29:12] And if you don’t, if you place all these obstacles and pitfalls within that path, all you do is subject them to fail, or more chances to fail. You’re not creating environments of success. And it’s very disheartening because I’ve had conversations with individuals in each of these fields and they tell me that, they claim they’re telling me the truth only when you shouldn’t, but when it comes to actually speaking out, everybody’s silent, they’re on mute, nobody’s really saying anything, not saying nobody, but there’s a lot of people that have the views, but they’re really not sharing them, and I think they need to.

[00:29:53] Simon: And Emily, I’m curious what the research would say to what sorts of things help people rehabilitate help people you know, get back and contribute to their communities.

[00:30:01] Emily: Well, I mean, there’s all sorts of problems with how people who are impacted by our criminal legal system. There’s a lot of issues in general with reentry. There’s a lot of stigma and issues. People who are on supervision have a lot of barriers to reentry. I run a program for students who are coming out of jails and prisons. And there’s not a lot of support. They have a lot of issues with housing.

[00:30:27] They have a lot of demands for probation and parole and things like that. But speaking specifically about people who’ve committed sexual offenses, rolling back the special excessive punishment and the public branding would be very helpful. There’s no evidence that makes us any safer. All it does is create more barriers.

[00:30:49] It creates fear, panic, hysteria. It prevents people from finding jobs and housing even when they’re off supervision, just because being on a public list is something that, you know, most landlords and employers fear. They don’t want to hire somebody or house somebody who’s gonna have their address, as Daniel noted on the internet.

[00:31:08] And I think, you know, one of the things that is important to remember is that the research is conclusive. These excessive restrictions for people who, like M.G., are subject to them or anybody who has a level two or three sexual offense, they’re upheld because of fear, hysteria and political blowback if anyone questions them.

[00:31:31] So it’s really tough. So it’s really important that the NYCLU and people like Daniel file these politically radioactive lawsuits. They don’t do anything. But it’s really hard to think of somebody who’s, you know, running for public office. They can’t question them. There’s too much panic, fear, misinformation surrounding this issue.

[00:31:55] Simon: Yeah. That makes sense. And Daniel, as we wrap I just want to, ask you what is it that we’re asking the court to do? What are we seeking in our lawsuit?

[00:32:03] Daniel: Yeah, just to piggyback off of what Emily said, you know, this is an area where litigation is going to be important, politicians and the legislative means they don’t want to touch this issue. They’ve created this horrible, stigmatizing, system of SORA and SARA that’s contrary to all empirical evidence and then, you know, any efforts to kind of tear down that system will lead to the political blowback that we’ve even seen for just bail reform, that’s going to be tenfold.

[00:32:43] So, you know, what we are trying to do from the judicial route is to ask a federal court to look at this law, SARA in particular, and to find that it is unconstitutional and to prevent the state from enforcing it, so that individuals like M.G., and like, all the other individuals subject to SARA can try to successfully reintegrate and rehabilitate their lives after far too long prison sentences, in most cases.

[00:33:16] Simon: And with that Daniel, Emily, M.G., thank you for coming on Rights This Way.

[00:33:23] MG: And you’re very welcome.

[00:33:24] Daniel: Thank you.