Sex offender registration began with the passage of the Jacob
Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration
Act (1994), which required each state to create their own specific program by
which those who have been convicted of crimes against children or sexually
violent offenses will be registered.
Megan’s Law (1996), an amendment to the Jacob Wetterling Act,
additionally required community notification of known offenders. Those states
which do not comply with either the Jacob Wetterling Act or Megan’s Law are
penalized with a reduction of the amount of federal crime control grant money
they receive (Human Rights Watch [HRW], 2007, p. 36). The sex offender registration laws have
continued to evolve over time, with the continued passage of other acts and
laws, including the Pam Lyncher Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act
(1996), the Jacob Wetterling Improvements Act (1997), the Campus Sex Crimes
Prevention Act (2000), and the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
(2006) (Stevens, 2012). The purpose of sex offender laws is,
presumably, the safety of children and the community. Law enforcement agencies lead the general
public to believe that, if sexual offenders are required to register, they will
be less likely to offend another person in the future. In addition, the general public appears to
have a higher perception of safety in knowing who the registered sexual
offenders are in their communities.
Unfortunately, harm reduction and reduced recidivism may actually not be
the end result of sexual offender registration programs.
My first premise addresses what I believe to be the misconception
of safety. When citizens check the sex offender registry online (http://www.nsopw.gov/Core/Portal.aspx),
they only see those offenders who have been convicted. This serves to reinforce
a false sense of security since those who might have accepted a plea to another
charge and/or those members of society who could potentially commit a sexual
crime, but have not yet done so, are not on the registry. I can personally attest to this fact, since
none of the incidences of my own childhood sexual abuse was ever reported,
leaving my abusers, who were family members, free to commit other offenses. Contrary to popular belief, it is estimated
that up to 90% of those who abduct or sexually violate children are either a
family member or acquaintance (Ashmore,
2009). Even if there is truth to the
belief that one should fear such strangers, the ever-increasing number of
registrants is continually becoming difficult for law enforcement officials to track.
Particularly due to residency
restrictions, many are forced into homelessness or simply adopt a transient
lifestyle to avoid registration (HRW, 2007, p. 9). Therefore, it is my opinion that basing one’s
perception of safety solely on sex offender registries commits the fallacy of wishful
thinking, as these highly publicized non-comprehensive registries encourage the
general public to fear strangers more than those who might actually pose a
threat to them or their families.
My second premise challenges the idea that sex offender
registration laws reduce the recidivism rate for those violators who have
fulfilled the punitive obligations from their previous offense(s). Patty Wetterling, a child safety advocate and
mother of Jacob Wetterling (for whom the 1994 Act is named), is quoted as
saying, “I based my support of broad-based community notification laws on my assumption
that sex offenders have the highest recidivism rates of any criminal. But the high recidivism rates I assumed to be
true do not exist. It has made me
rethink the value of broad-based community notification laws, which operate on
the assumption that most sex offenders are high-risk dangers to the community
they are released into” (HRW,
2007, p. 4). Lawmakers would like
for the general public to believe that most sex crimes are committed by those
who have previously been convicted of sexual offenses, while rarely ever being
asked to provide the sources of their information. In reality, it is estimated that first-time
offenders account for 87% of those arrested for sex crimes (HRW, 2007, p. 25). Furthermore, there are many different
offenses, represented by varying recidivism rates, which fall under the
umbrella of “sex offender”, including acts such as public urination, consensual
sex between teenagers, mooning, streaking, rapists, child molesters, and those
child molesters who specifically molest boys.
The latter group of offenders, the men who molest boys, carry a much
higher recidivism rate (1 out of every 3) for sexual offenses than any of the
other categories (HRW, 2007, p. 27), thus increasing the recidivism rate
overall. Some recent studies have shown
that recidivism of sex offenders can be reduced by approximately 41% with
contemporary cognitive-behavioral therapy (HRW, 2007, p. 34). In my opinion, crime control funding would
achieve greater results if it was spent on rehabilitation rather than on futile
attempts to keep track of the numerous registrants, many of which do not even
pose a threat to society.
The third premise addressed in this paper is the effect of
stigmatization. Goffman’s labeling theory
states that once an individual has had a deviant label assigned to him, he will
begin to view himself as such and continue to perform deviant actions. Those who receive an extremely stigmatizing
label find it is easier to act in accordance with the label than to act in a
way which attempts to prove they have been reformed (Thio, 2010). According to Edwin Lemert (1951), the first
deviant act is the primary deviation, the continued action is the secondary
deviation, and the acceptance of the label, leading to a lifestyle of deviance,
is tertiary deviance. Those who bear negative
labels will suffer the effects of stigmatization, including ridicule, assault, humiliation,
harassment, imprisonment, dehumanization, and inability to find adequate housing
and/or employment. Having stated this, with the sex offender registration and
notification laws currently in place, I think it is fair to question where the
incentive is for the offender to change.
One of the major factors in reducing recidivism is societal
reintegration, which is made nearly impossible by the stigmatization of those
placed on sex offender registries.
While it is true that law enforcement agencies should be alerted
to those who may potentially commit violent sexual acts, we should be careful
to avoid committing the fallacy of the continuum in assuming that all who are
required to register as sex offenders are dangerous individuals. In recent years, politicians are using the
appeal to common opinion (bandwagon) in pushing for increasingly stricter, more
stigmatizing laws, as well as employing the appeal to fear, leading the general
public to believe that all who have committed what is classified as a sexual
offense are dangerous individuals and should be labeled as such.
In conclusion, the sex offender registration and notification
requirements are, in my opinion, counterproductive. The restrictions and stigmatization imposed
on those who are required to register strongly discourage societal
reintegration, a major factor in reducing recidivism. Furthermore, the current sex offender
registration laws create a false sense of security in leading the general
public to believe that only those individuals on the registry are a threat to
them. In reality, most sex offenses are
committed by those well-known to the victim rather than complete strangers. Education and communication is the best
defense the general public has against possible sexual or violent crimes. Parents should educate their children as much
as possible, while primarily relying on communication with their children to
identify whether any sexual violations might be taking place. Unfortunately, the profile of the families of
children who might be sexually abused is thought to be less cohesive, with more
dysfunction and disorganization than the families of non-abused children (Myers, 2011). There are no simple answers, but I truly feel
the sex offender registration laws will achieve results which are directly in
opposition to the goals of harm reduction, community safety, and reduced
recidivism.
References
To add to your second premise: There are illegal activities in each state that are completely legal in others. For instance, in Ohio specifically, they have THREE Adult with Adult fully consensual situations that are tier 3 offenses which are completely legal everywhere else in the world (Ohio Revised Code 2907.03 sub codes -A5, -A7, and -A11) It isn't just the registry, it's the actual laws on what consists a crime that add to all the problems also. How can one be deemed "the worst of the worst" (Tier 3) for something that everyone else (in the world) thinks is NOT A CRIME? Fear mongering and not thinking clearly of collateral effects is the cause of the problems. Take a closer look at Ohio and see how NOT to legislate correctly. SEVEN (not one or two, but seven,) different and discrete parts of their version of the AWA have been deemed either unconstitutional or inapplicable applied to offenders since 1/1/2008. All because it "protects the children," and also for not losing the Byrne Grant Fund (read: Federal Bribe) money. As you've pointed out, it is not doing the things it originally intended to do. Maybe still in part, but it is a minority of what it SHOULD have been doing vs the collateral damages to offenders families including their own children, and the public in general that it is currently doing. Megan's Law's method of recidivism potential was a lot more realistic in outcome as compared to studies by the USDOJ (1994-1997 their report page is searchable: rsorp94pr.cfm) and the State of CT document from this year. (From February 2012, searchable on the CT government website as this file: sex_offender_recidivism_2012_final.pdf)
ReplyDeleteIt's just kind of coincidental that these two reports are 15 or so years apart, from different sources and say basically the same thing. The USDoJ report was from even BEFORE Megan's Law was adopted. I am not for abolishing the registry completely, but for notifying us of those who would be an actual threat to society who are let out of detainment and probably shouldn't have been in the first place. Everyone does deserve a chance at redemption. So for those who are deemed probably, tighten the leash so to speak, but those who are not a threat to anyone, a non-child and non-violent offender, (as in consensual or non- use-of-force offenses,) leave the Scarlet Letter out of the equation for those, or leave it to a minimum time like when on probation for so many years after sentencing/detainment, and can have it removed sooner than later, or never as it is now.