The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionShould we reform the sex offender registry?
by Mary Ann McGivern on Feb. 20, 2012
The Missouri legislature is debating a bill, HB 1700, that would end restrictions on where convicted sex offenders can live. It would remove juveniles from the public registry. It would create four tiers of registrants, ranging from those least likely to re-offend to those who are assessed to be a continued threat to public safety. It would publish the top two tiers on a website, but not their workplace addresses. It would provide paths to get off the registry, which right now, is a lifetime listing.
Missouri's registry, like most across the country, has grown large. It has 16,000 names, including the foolish who urinated in the vicinity of a parking lot security camera, enraptured high school partners (one of whom is 18) and dangerous predators. The sheer number as well as the range of crimes makes the list as it is useless.
The Crime Prevention & Public Safety committee has held numerous hearings and meetings about the registry in the last year. Committee members agree that neither housing restrictions (like living no closer than two blocks from a school) nor public website listings enhance public safety.
While the intent of Congress in creating the registry was to inform the public instead of extending punishment on the offender, the registry is a continued public shaming, an enormous burden to families and a severe obstacle to employment. What business wants to be listed as a place where a sex offender works?
The assessment to place persons in tiers would rely on counselors trained to use assessment tools to measure the likelihood of future behavior. It would use risk, not past behavior, to determine rank.
One of the consequences is that Missouri could lose $500,000 in federal money. States not in substantial compliance with the Adam Walsh Act (SORNA) will lose 10 percent of highway patrol aid. Whether the feds would consider the above to be substantial compliance is the question. Another consequence could be that legislators are accused of being "soft on crime" and voted out of office.
Good idea. Let's let the sex
Good idea. Let's let the sex offenders get lost on our streets. They're just molesting children, after all. What right do we have to protect our kids?
The problem is that law tends
The problem is that law tends to paint with a broad brush and in interpersonal matters that is sometimes not the best for individuals or society. As an example, requiring a person to register and thus be stigmatized for life because they were sexually involved with their in high school with another student who happened to be under some arbitrary "age of consent" does not seem to me to be a productive use of the law.
Bob
These laws are poorly
These laws are poorly structured. As pointed out, they treat the guy who relieved himself in the parking lot, and the guy who raped a child in exactly the same way. The guy whose only crime was public urination will have his entire life ruined by one act of stupidity or drunkenness that had no real consequences (unless stinking up a parking lot is material). Is this what we want? Do we as a society want to treat these people the same?
The REAL solution, in my mind, is to redefine what constitutes a sex crime where the person needs to go on the registry. Rapists of children -- exactly. That is where they need to be. Idiot relieving himself in the parking lot? Nope... An idiot 18 year old who did not ask the age of his partner? Maybe -- it depends on the context. If it was consensual, they are BOTH idiots but neither is served by one going on the Registry if that is the case.
These laws were passed under great pressure from very tough cases, and too quickly -- without enough rational deliberation. I don't know if this tiered system is the answer. I honestly think is likely to complicate the issue further. That said, it shows someone is actually thinking about this from the proper perspective.
--Andy Jo--
Well said. Maybe the
Well said. Maybe the categories of offenders should be reexamined and redefined so that the nutcase who pees in the parking lot does not suffer the same fate as the child rapist. I frankly don't have much sympathy for the latter.
I agree with RJK and
I agree with RJK and Anonymous and I think Carolina is showing a knee jerk reaction without much thought put into it. All sex offenders will still be registering and accounted for.
Sex Offender Registries (and
Sex Offender Registries (and in Particular the ill-conceived Adam Walsh Act) are problematic in many areas. Registries may have a use for people who are unable or unwilling to change their behavior. But the vast majority of former offenders do not recidivate. The U.S. D.O.J. pegged the overall recidivism rate at about 5% over 5-15 years, for all former offenders. More recent studies (State of Connecticut) put the recidivism rate for former offenders at under 1% over a similar time frame. Indeed, some offenders are higher risk, which makes the recidivism rate for lower-risk offender much lower than the 1 to 5% range. 97% of new sex crimes are committed by persons not on the registry. Registries provide a false sense of security at best.
Furthermore, psychologists and other trained professionals have developed a very accurate system to predict who should be in the high, medium, and low risk categories and assign notification and monitoring levels accordingly. Unfortunately, the Adam Walsh Act (SORNA), has eliminated this tool by mandating that the participating states assign risk level according to the crime of conviction. A person who in reality constitutes little to no risk often becomes a 'violent tier 3 predator' under Adam Walsh. This can be the case even if the person did not commit a violent or forced act. A person who pleaded down to a lesser crime, or had charges dropped for other reasons, might be considered a 'low-risk level 1'. An example would be the man who abducted Elizabeth Smart. He had a lengthy history of disturbing behavior, but would have at-most been a tier 1 Adam Walsh offender because he had been convicted of nothing 'serious' (under AWA).
Another issue is the financial one. While MO. might lose $500,000 in Federal funds, the cost of implementation and monitoring legions of so-called high-risk offenders far outweighs the Federal Funds. Chasing around ten thousand-plus persons rather than focusing on the one or two thousand who are actually high-risk is very expensive. The risk is that you end up losing track of the small percentage who really are a danger, at which point the registry has lost all effectiveness.
Finally, from the Catholic persective, do you believe it is right or fair to permanently ostracize someone from society for a long-past mistake? Certainly, where mental illness or lack of ownership/remorse indicates that a person is likely to re-offend, precautions must be taken. The innocent and vulnerable must be protected. But to cut someone off from the community forever because of a past action is the polar opposite of what Christ called his followers to do. Make no mistake, this is what the registry effectively is designed to do. Adam Walsh Act, where there is never any way to redeem oneself, no matter how hard one tries, is not fair, moral, or Christian by any stretch of the imagination.
An emotional, knee-jerk and
An emotional, knee-jerk and unfortunate response. There is nothing in any reform being looked at that results in "sex offenders get[ting] lost on the street." It is an effort to put some sense in what the politicians have made a total mess of. Not all sex offenders are child molesters. I don't think you read the article, Carolina. There is an attemp to sort out the real offenders (of adults as well as children), those that are clearly dangerous (rapists) from those who have committed low level offenses (sex between consenting high school students who are underage and the parents of one press charges) and those who committed no real sex offense (public urination) but only bad or intoxicated judgement. It's the hysteria, such as yours, that allows politicians to exploit public fears that in the end do not really protect us well. Go back and read the article in hopes that you may learn from it, and I suggest you even search for information on the actual reforms being proposed.
They're not "your" streets to
They're not "your" streets to get "lost" on. Furthermore, you don't reserve the right to safety and security in your own home at the expense of circumventing and exploiting the privacy security and safety of others -- which the sex offender registry unconstitutionally does. Start taking ownership of being a parent and the responsibility that goes along with it.
And the problem is also that
And the problem is also that those on the registry are not the ones molesting our kids. This is the true situation.
For every child, there is a risk of sexual molestation. According to the DOJ Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, if the child is six or under, 58.7% of that risk comes from family members. 39.7% of that risk comes from family acquaintances. 1.8% of that risk comes from strangers, and the registered sex offenders who are in that stranger pool is so low that it is incalculable. As the age of the child increases, the figures alter, but only a little. The risk to children ages 12-17 is 94.3% from family and acquaintances, 5.7% from strangers, and, again, the percentage of registered offenders in the stranger pool is minuscule.
The media and politicians have done an excellent job of playing up that minuscule percentage--Gardner, Girrardo, Couey,--to the point that whenever the words "sex offender" are uttered, that is who the public sees and panics over.
The sad part of this is that we spend millions upon millions "protecting" the public from that minuscule percentage and virtually nothing on programs that could and would make an impact on the 90+ percentages.
Your comment is one that we
Your comment is one that we get a lot. We are not trying to put those who are actually and medically determined to be predators back out walking amoung our children. The majority of offenders just want to do thier time and then get on with their life. With any crime it is embarrasing for them and their families. Like the article said, many young adults who have consensual sex with some one who is only a few years younger get caught up in this. With technology, you can have a 16 year old girl take naked pictures of herself and send them to her 18 year old boyfriend. She has created and distributed "CHILD PORNOGRAPHY". Those who are deemed likely to offend again will still be on the registry. The one error in this article I do see is that they are not recommending changing the Residential Requirements at this time. They will remain the same. If they are registered they have to follow the 500 and 1,000 ft zones. Ironically, sex offenders have the 2nd lowest -reoffending rate of 5%. Only murder has a lower rate of reoffenders. Just wanted to set the record straight.
Since when does it boil dwn 2
Since when does it boil dwn 2 just a "Certain Type" of offender 2 hurt... or impair a child.. Any 1 person has more than the capability 2 do as much... If ur so emphatic on protecting your child.. Maybe you should begin @ home.. And start with your mechanism of protectonism There!!!!
well as a parent it is your
well as a parent it is your responsibility to watch over your chilren. How you protect your children is to be involed in your childs live and watch over them and not just let them do as they please. Most re-offening sex offenders are or will be in prison for there acts. Not all sex offenders are out there molesting children,or out there searching for a child to molest. The problem with people is they tend to rank all sexoffenders as the same catigory. This is wrong,dont judge a person until you know them or know the reason for there conviction. Not all convicted sex offenders have acually molested a child or thought of molesting a child or minnor. My thought and the way I was raised is that, watch your own chilren dont let the schools, teachers and other people in your life to do your job as a parent, watching your children. This country is going to Heck in a handbasket, When our government can pass a law that goes against or even breaks the law of the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. This registry does nothing to protect your children. Because if your child is molested it will be by someone not on this registry list by someone that has never been cought.So I say do your job as a parent and quit blaming other people for things that happen to your children. This registry list is a waste of taxpayers money. It a disiese just as drug addiction, alchohol, and smoking and should be treated as one. Even murders are either kept in prison for life or released, Why should a life sentence be put on a sex Offender and not a murder, or a person that continues to beat and abuse a child.
I think HB 1700 is a useful
I think HB 1700 is a useful and humane way to go. people who have been labeled sex offenders may as well have leprosy as in the days of old. There are people I know who could not prove their innocents and are stuck with this label for the rest of their lives. This usually happens when there is a he said she said situation. There is no proof except verbal accounts. They can not get work in most places and soon the persons labeled fall into poverty and homelessness and are a heavy burdon to themselves, their family and society. There is no chance for redemption.
It would seem if a person has not offended in 10 years they could be considered safe to live a regular life.
I fear that MONEY NOT MERCY will be the defining factor. I pray otherwise. Thank You
Sis,
I agree
I agree
This is a very good bill that
This is a very good bill that people should support. While some of the posts have stated that this bill will leave children at risk, what the posters don't take into consideration is that those with multiple convictions, those who have committed the worst types of offenses and those who are deemed likely to reoffend will remain on the public registry and can only come off if, after registering for 15 to 20 years, they can show a panel they no longer remain a risk. Limiting those on the public registry to those who present the greatest threat actually helps protect society as the public is only given information on the highest risk offenders. What this bill will do is it will allow men and women who don't pose a high risk a chance to move on with their lives.
This bill is also good because it comes from the recommendations made by a Missouri House Interim Committee on Criminal Justice who heard from over 20 witnesses on the subject. The evidence they heard is that the sex offender registry does not prevent sexual crimes but can cause serious hardships to former offenders who no longer pose a threat.
I have written my State Representative letting him know that I want him to vote for the passage of House Bill 1700 and others should follow suit.
This is a good bill that
This is a good bill that people should support.
Congratulations, Missouri!
Congratulations, Missouri! This is a huge step in the right direction. Those of us in California have a long way to go to keep up. In addition to the pros mentioned in the article in support of a tiered registry, another important point is that it frees up government resources now spent on low risk offenders for those who are high risk offenders.
An eye for and eye makes the
An eye for and eye makes the whole world blind - Ghandi
There is another problem;
There is another problem; registrants are not who are molesting our kids.
For every child, there is a risk of s-xual molestation. According to the DOJ Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, if the child is six or under, 58.7% of that risk comes from family members. 39.7% of that risk comes from family acquaintances. 1.8% of that risk comes from strangers, and the registered s-x offenders who are in that stranger pool is so low that it is incalculable. As the age of the child increases, the figures alter, but only a little. The risk to children ages 12-17 is 94.3% from family and acquaintances, 5.7% from strangers, and, again, the percentage of registered offenders in the stranger pool is minuscule.
The media and politicians have done an excellent job of playing up that minuscule percentage--Gardner, Girrardo, Couey--to the point that whenever the words "s-x offender" are uttered, that is who the public sees and panics over.
The sad part of this is that we spend millions upon millions "protecting" the public from that minuscule percentage and virtually nothing on programs that could and would make an impact on the 90+ percentages.
It's an excellent idea, but
It's an excellent idea, but one that has the proverbial snowball's chance in an election year for the very "soft on crime" excuse you mention.
Just look at how every possible sexual misconduct by priests against any person no matter how old is quickly equated with the forcible rape of children.
The Catholic Church is one of
The Catholic Church is one of the worst offenders when it comes to using the registry. Read the church's policies on individuals on the list. An individual on the list for public urination 20 years ago
Can not serve or any parish boards
Can not participate in ANY social justice ministries (including ministries that don't involve children)
Can not serve as a confirmation sponsor
Can not be a Eucharistic Minister
Can not attend events outside of Mass
Can not attend church ministry programs
So someone on the list can not serve meals to the homeless, can not attend church fundraisers and can not attend bible study classes.
Here is the Archdiocese of St. Louis policy for individuals on the registry.
http://archstl.org/files/field-file/INTRODUCTIONANDPOLICIES06232011.pdf
So much for All Are Welcome. The Missouri legislature in more like Jesus than the church founded by Jesus.
It would be great if the NCR would run a story on how the Catholic Church abandons its members who are on the list even for non-sex crimes. Congratulations to the Missouri legislature. Shame on the Catholic church.
I understand what you are
I understand what you are saying. One of our duties as Christians is to minister to the prisoner.
That said, I absolutely can understand WHY the Church would put such restrictions in place. They are aggressively trying to reduce the risk of getting sued should something happen to a child. The last thing that they need is another scandal. In the current climate, with the current history of the bad apples that have poisoned the whole priesthood, I can't say that I blame them. What this means, of course and as you point out, is that the parking lot urinator will end up being one of those who cannot really be a member of the community. This argues for a reform of the categories of offense that land a person on the Registry.
It would have to be a VERY brave priest or bishop who would act any differently. It is sad, but it is the way that they have to behave in order to prevent lawsuits.
--Andy Jo--
I guess we have entered into
I guess we have entered into an era of sins beyond forgiveness and sinners beyond redemption.
I appreciate many of the
I appreciate many of the comments and I wish the negative people would educate themself. The politicians only play games, "how many votes will I
get?" They too need to educate themselves regarding just who is a "sex offender." I'd love to hear about their backgrounds to see if they would have ended on the SO registry.
The Long Arm of The Law At
The Long Arm of The Law
At times, the long arm of the law is far to overreaching, and at others not stretched enough. Should a stupid kid who had consensual sex with their partner be punished for the rest of their life? The laws in this country state, that once a person pays for their crime they are given a chance to prove reform has worked. This is done for murders, drug dealers, and thieves yet sex offenders are held apart from the rest. Granted there are some individuals who should be carefully monitored, and yes if a pedophile lives nearby citizens have every right to know. However, the same information should be available for violent offenders such as murders or for drug dealers who may attempt to corrupt our children, and hey, who would not want to know if a thief lives next door. Still with all this information available, what happens when normal everyday citizens make assumptions, jump to conclusions, thereby taking the law in their own hands, and becomes a vigilante? Information is power and in the wrong hands leads to injustice.
This country was founded upon the rights of the individual, and though by committing a crime these individuals gave up their rights, once they have paid for their crime the debt has been paid. The same morals and beliefs that formed and founded this country, also afford individuals a second chance to become productive citizens and contribute to society. With the current laws, offenders do not get this chance, having to inform potential employers, property owners, and property managers of their offense creating prejudice and discrimination. Where do we draw the line, at your front door, your brothers, or perhaps your mothers? These laws do not take into account treatment and therapy and yes, offenders can learn from their mistakes as any other and reform.
The sex offender registry is
The sex offender registry is not all effective, it gives people a false since of security. the people that are out there molesting and being preditory, are not on the registry at all. Because they have not been cought. People that are on the registry have had there lives turned upside down. Once those people that had a job or owned a buisness, are now fighting for there lives, by people that are hunting down people on the registry. Of course there is the fact that, being on the registry, It is mostely impossible to find, or even get a job,a roof over there head, or food to eat. Why dont we just round them all up and run them through a gas chamber, as Hitler did to the jewish people. Well I find this wrong. We as American citizens have not been tought to act like this. I find it sad that our Government can pass a law that breaks the constitutional law of the united states of retroactive aplication of this law. I feel that people and parents should start the protection of there children right in there own home, The American public has become lazy and just plain dumb when it comes to protecting there families and understanding of the laws. They expect the police, teachers and other people to do there job for them. A life sentence that is just so bizzar that the American government could and would do something this stupid and perposterous. Sex offenders are not allowed to do anything with out notifieying the police before they go visit family in a nother state or just go on a vacation. People that have not committed a crime or re-offended after they have DID THERE TIME after 10 to 20 years should not be on this list or any list. As do murders, thefs,and corrupt polititions. They all get off at some point and time. Frankly I am ashamed of our Government and to be an American. Our corrupt government is destroying the American way of life. Just wait people till they declair martial law on everyone, then everyone will be in the same boat, Hope you know how to swim people.
I have been classified as a
I have been classified as a level 2 sex offender for 11 yrs. I can honestly say that my life has been destroyed. I didn't do anything that I would consider violent or dangerous, but I got classified as a tier 2 anyway. The registry prevents employment. It prevents an individual from having money, having choices, and enjoying his life. Now the real question is will taking my name off the registry make kids unsafe? Of course not. I learned my lesson the hard way and have not re-offended in 11 yrs. So I am not a danger or harm to anyone but do the current laws enable me to enjoy my life now? Of course not. I can't work in the field of my choice which is accounting. I can't get a job now at 10 million places. I have no money. I have been poor or broke for 11 yrs now. I haven't met or dated anyone in the last eight years because I had no money to ask anyone out. People with good intentions passed laws that prevent sex offenders from going to parks, residency restrictions which banned them from 98percent of the map in that area. The laws have gone too far. They don't make kids safer and they destroy the lives of people who have already paid their dues. The laws need to be stopped immediately. No registry. No public notification. no residency restrictions. no anything. people need to be able to work when they come out of prison. they need money to buy food, clothing, shelter, recreation, medicine. None of these things are possible with the current laws. If a person does a bad thing twice he usually goes to jail for a long time. there is no reason to destroy this persons life with not being able to make a living and choose where he lives, and where he goes in his recreational free time. enough is enough. people are safe now and we dont need to prevent ex felons from starting their lives over. privacy used to be a guaranteed right and i think its time we bring it back as a guaranteed right for all people including sex offenders. thank you.
yes its right. stray animals
yes its right. stray animals have more opportunities and rights and privileges than most sex offenders now. its time to take our country back from these vigilantees called politicians and public safety misfits. sue them and sue them now. it costs $450 dollars in most states.you can sue on yhour own and if youre successful u can get your legal fees back. the legislature does not have the power to pass out punishment. its a violation of separation of powers clause in the constitution or amendments. anyone convicted of failure to register or failure to do anything can state that the laws cant be enforced because you can only be punished by judges and juries and not the clowns who work in the legislative branch. dont even waste your time obeying any laws now since they are all 100% illegal and unconstitutional. you have no representation in govt now. its time to start dumping the tea back into the harbors. stray pets are being treated more humanely than anyone convicted of a sexual offense dating back to 1901. there is no statute of limitations for sexual offenses but there are statute of limitations for anything related to your constitutional rights. stand up and let your voice be heard in this country. fight these people where they have no strengths in federal district court. you cant be punished twice in this country once by a judge and once by the legistlature. the sex offender registry and all of its rules are as remedial as the dropping of the atomic bomb was remedial to nagasaki and hiroshima. dont let public safety and the legislature tell you how you can live your life. its yours and not theirs. kennedy v. martinez-mendoza. remember that case it may save your life. dont vote for any politicians that passed megans law. get them ousted and replaced by people who arent more sympathetic to dogs than sex offenders. contact me at diehard25fl@yahoo.com and tell me how you can help in removing these laws permanently. thanks.
Post new comment