Thanks Guy, this was well written and easily digestible. Not only is this disinformation repeated in courts, it is also repeated to law enforcement. The US Marshals (who are the lead agency in enforcing the registry) in particular are trained using false data, and they in turn train local law enforcement when they partner for “compliance checks.” Officers are told that sex offenders will be recidivists and will offend again unless there is constant monitoring and intimidation. This makes law enforcement inherently more aggressive and dangerous. They believe the lies embedded in their training.
Thanks Erik -- this is a good point that I hadn't thought of. I was having a discussion elsewhere about probation officers, and how so much of a probationers experience is dependent on the individual officer. If an individual officer believes that his caseload is full of people who are proverbial ticking time bombs, their approach to supervision is likely going to be very different. It's worthwhile to consider how things like this will impact training and, as a result, the actions of individual officers in the field.
Thank you for taking the time to defend the "peer-reviewed research published in current periodicals and scholarly journals". It is very prideful of the reviewers commissioned by the SMART Office to think they know better than the scholars in the field.
Excellent piece, Guy. Thank you for supporting the plethora of research that clearly shows the sex offense registry as ineffective, wasteful, and harmful.
Thanks Guy, this was well written and easily digestible. Not only is this disinformation repeated in courts, it is also repeated to law enforcement. The US Marshals (who are the lead agency in enforcing the registry) in particular are trained using false data, and they in turn train local law enforcement when they partner for “compliance checks.” Officers are told that sex offenders will be recidivists and will offend again unless there is constant monitoring and intimidation. This makes law enforcement inherently more aggressive and dangerous. They believe the lies embedded in their training.
Thanks Erik -- this is a good point that I hadn't thought of. I was having a discussion elsewhere about probation officers, and how so much of a probationers experience is dependent on the individual officer. If an individual officer believes that his caseload is full of people who are proverbial ticking time bombs, their approach to supervision is likely going to be very different. It's worthwhile to consider how things like this will impact training and, as a result, the actions of individual officers in the field.
Thank you for taking the time to defend the "peer-reviewed research published in current periodicals and scholarly journals". It is very prideful of the reviewers commissioned by the SMART Office to think they know better than the scholars in the field.
This is appalling but not surprising.
Excellent piece, Guy. Thank you for supporting the plethora of research that clearly shows the sex offense registry as ineffective, wasteful, and harmful.