Two weeks ago, NPR ran a print and audio story about people with past sex offense convictions that was so poorly researched and interrogated that I felt compelled to write a lengthy response to the article’s many problems.
The registry should be used as intended: for the worst of the worst, i.e., predators, to be on a searchable list for law enforcement. An offender was charged with one crime. A predator was charged either with multiple crimes at once or two in succession. If someone has done their time (it's called paying your debt to society for a reason), then so be it. For no other crime is someone with the lowest recidivism rate of ANY crime group, which is actually at 5.3%, doomed to serve a sentence AFTER their sentence is completed and usually for life.
Even for "the worst of the worst" we could ask whether the registry is actually helpful in reducing incidences of sexual violence and...research shows that it's not! Registries actually increase re-offense rates, presumably due to the fact that it makes it impossible for people to be anything other than a criminal and not have access to the things that we know make people successful (such as stable housing, employment, belonging to a community etc).
Recently in Florida, a judge changed a man's status from offender to predator as punishment just because of a technical violation. In Florida, all you have to do is touch a child under the age of 12 over their clothing one time inappropriately, and the prosecutor can label you as a predator for life. And this one-time offense could have occurred 30 years ago with no additional offenses.
The term predator says to most people that the person is violent and highly dangerous. Unfortunately, it is now being used on people who are anything but that.
In Illinois, all newly convicted sex offenders are classified as sexual predators. This policy waters down the definition of sexual predator to include a fully paralyzed man whose wife brought home a used computer with a single image of a nude child from the previous owner who ran an internet cafe.
At this point what would really help is to simply call the registry PUNISHMENT. For reasons that defy common sense and reek of "judicial avoidance" many judges do not consider the registry and all of the restrictions that come with it as punishment. That is the only reason why this unconstitutional scheme is allowed to continue.
Having a registry gives parents the opportunity to look up a potential partner and see if they are registered for child molestation, it isn't full proof, but it's something. Not sure how this perpetuates a stranger danger myth, it's common knowledge how men prey on the children of single mothers.
Easy: because research shows that out of all sex offenses that are reported to police and cleared by arrest, 95% of the time the people responsible aren’t on a registry and have no prior record of offending. It might give people a sense of security, but it’s a false one, and at tremendous cost. If we were concerned with preventing sexual harm, there are other ways to go about it.
Recidivism is a completely different metric from first time offenses. All that data says is that most people who are on registries don’t go on to commit more sex crimes, which is *also* true!
Other studies have shown recidivism rates anywhere from 15% to 20% over a lifetime. There is also the problem of what is being used for the definition of recidivism, even by the federal government. Additionally, the state registries started off in the 1990's with approximately 30 sex offenses. Now there are over 100 sex crimes that are included. As Patty Wetteringly, the mother who helped jumpstart Congress into mandating state registries, has been quoted saying: The registry has been hijacked. She only intended for it to include people like the man who abducted, raped, and killed her son. Very few people on the registry fit that description.
In Florida, the registry is for life. Those who continue to commit sex crimes need to be monitored, but there are hundreds of thousands of registrants in this country who are not re-offending and deserve a second chance at life free from our punitive registry.
If SMART really wants to help prevent future sex crimes, you will help this country change the focus to prevention, education, more services for victims, and the use of research-based best practices. Punishment, punishment, punishment is not the answer as our country is finding out. There is so much that could be done if there was a greater emphasis on prevention, particularly since the majority of perpetrators are by people the victims know. Currently, prevention is not even being considered as a more cost-effective and viable method of stopping future sex crimes.
SMART, having just gone to the link you provided on the definition of recidivism that your organization is using, I found what I so often find: Recidivism is the reversion to criminal behavior by an individual who was previously convicted of a criminal offense.
If you are recommending registries for people who have committed a past sex offense so that others can find a list of people who might commit another criminal offense (selling drugs, robbery, etc.), then ALL released inmates need to be put on such a registry. Research has shown that people with a past sex offense are far less likely to re-offend (commit another sex offense) than any other group, with the exception of murderers. All other crimes have a recidivism rate (committing the same crime) anywhere from 60% to 80%.
This definition of recidivism that the government uses is very confusing to the average citizen. If someone is going to be placed on the sex offense registry, please reference research that shows the likelihood of committing another sex offense -- not the likelihood of committing just any type of crime, because the public thinks you are only referencing future sex crimes.
There is so much misinformation out there on people who have committed a sex offense. There is an hysteria based on myths, and your organization is helping to fuel the fire. Research what Karl Hanson, Judith Levine, Lisa Anne Zilney, Emily Horowitz, Jill Levenson, the Illinois Sex Offender Management Board, the California Sex Offender Management Board (check out their video at casomb.org), and many others are finding through research.
So that the public understands what SMART is saying, please use data on the re-offense rate of committing another sex offense for those forced to be on the registry, not including other criminal offenses.
Great point! Registered sex offenders have a difficult time finding housing on their own as potential landlords bar those on the registry from living alone. This forces registered citizens who would rather live alone to move in with single mothers. This is how the registry causes more potential problems.
Hi Alex, I get what you are saying but men who prey on the children of single mothers are not 'stranger danger'. That would be abuse by someone known - moms new boyfriend. Stranger danger is being abused by someone with no connection to the victim - like a kid is walking home alone and doesn't make it cause they were picked up. Stranger danger. The truth is that stranger danger is a VERY small % of these (think less than 5%). So all these other men who's lives are mad extremely difficult after having served their time for their mistake are being publicly shamed to try and stop maybe 5% of these perpetrators. Add to that the statistics on stranger danger - the real guy - not moms boyfriend or uncle bob - show that stranger danger isn't already on the register. The point is you are looking in the wrong direction. The registry only does damage - it does not help kids or the public it was made to keep safe.
My point was I don't agree that registries promote a stranger danger myth. So I think we agree re that. The stats show that recidivism is higher than 5% and that actual reoffense is likely even higher. It's fine to oppose registries, there's plenty of legitimate reasons to, but facts matter.
The registry definitely promotes the stranger danger myth. If you find someone molested a family member of yours they ARE NOT on the registry. They know you, you know them. Additionally recidivism and 'actual reoffense' are the same thing, unless you are referring to not getting caught. But we can't know what we don't know. I am sure there are many more murderers in the country that we have on record. The Bureau of judicial statistics states 7.7% recidivism. Only lower rate is murderers. Facts do matter, and I know its hard to get accurate ones. I asked a law professor where she got her numbers from and she is the one who sent me to this bureau.
The registry should be used as intended: for the worst of the worst, i.e., predators, to be on a searchable list for law enforcement. An offender was charged with one crime. A predator was charged either with multiple crimes at once or two in succession. If someone has done their time (it's called paying your debt to society for a reason), then so be it. For no other crime is someone with the lowest recidivism rate of ANY crime group, which is actually at 5.3%, doomed to serve a sentence AFTER their sentence is completed and usually for life.
Even for "the worst of the worst" we could ask whether the registry is actually helpful in reducing incidences of sexual violence and...research shows that it's not! Registries actually increase re-offense rates, presumably due to the fact that it makes it impossible for people to be anything other than a criminal and not have access to the things that we know make people successful (such as stable housing, employment, belonging to a community etc).
There is another way -- https://theoutline.com/post/8006/cosa-program-minnesota-sex-offender-recidivism?zd=2&zi=x3pmhk55
Recently in Florida, a judge changed a man's status from offender to predator as punishment just because of a technical violation. In Florida, all you have to do is touch a child under the age of 12 over their clothing one time inappropriately, and the prosecutor can label you as a predator for life. And this one-time offense could have occurred 30 years ago with no additional offenses.
The term predator says to most people that the person is violent and highly dangerous. Unfortunately, it is now being used on people who are anything but that.
In Illinois, all newly convicted sex offenders are classified as sexual predators. This policy waters down the definition of sexual predator to include a fully paralyzed man whose wife brought home a used computer with a single image of a nude child from the previous owner who ran an internet cafe.
Doxxing anyone here is going to get you banned. Bye.
At this point what would really help is to simply call the registry PUNISHMENT. For reasons that defy common sense and reek of "judicial avoidance" many judges do not consider the registry and all of the restrictions that come with it as punishment. That is the only reason why this unconstitutional scheme is allowed to continue.
Of course the registry is punishment, e.g. https://littlereddots.substack.com/p/millard-v-rankin-v-reality
Having a registry gives parents the opportunity to look up a potential partner and see if they are registered for child molestation, it isn't full proof, but it's something. Not sure how this perpetuates a stranger danger myth, it's common knowledge how men prey on the children of single mothers.
Easy: because research shows that out of all sex offenses that are reported to police and cleared by arrest, 95% of the time the people responsible aren’t on a registry and have no prior record of offending. It might give people a sense of security, but it’s a false one, and at tremendous cost. If we were concerned with preventing sexual harm, there are other ways to go about it.
From smart.ojp.gov :
"Sexual recidivism rates range from 5 percent after three years to 24 percent after 15 years"
"Different types of sex offenders have different rates of recidivism"
"researchers widely agree that observed recidivism rates are underestimates of the true reoffense rates of sex offenders"
https://smart.ojp.gov/somapi/chapter-5-adult-sex-offender-recidivism
Recidivism is a completely different metric from first time offenses. All that data says is that most people who are on registries don’t go on to commit more sex crimes, which is *also* true!
Other studies have shown recidivism rates anywhere from 15% to 20% over a lifetime. There is also the problem of what is being used for the definition of recidivism, even by the federal government. Additionally, the state registries started off in the 1990's with approximately 30 sex offenses. Now there are over 100 sex crimes that are included. As Patty Wetteringly, the mother who helped jumpstart Congress into mandating state registries, has been quoted saying: The registry has been hijacked. She only intended for it to include people like the man who abducted, raped, and killed her son. Very few people on the registry fit that description.
In Florida, the registry is for life. Those who continue to commit sex crimes need to be monitored, but there are hundreds of thousands of registrants in this country who are not re-offending and deserve a second chance at life free from our punitive registry.
If SMART really wants to help prevent future sex crimes, you will help this country change the focus to prevention, education, more services for victims, and the use of research-based best practices. Punishment, punishment, punishment is not the answer as our country is finding out. There is so much that could be done if there was a greater emphasis on prevention, particularly since the majority of perpetrators are by people the victims know. Currently, prevention is not even being considered as a more cost-effective and viable method of stopping future sex crimes.
SMART, having just gone to the link you provided on the definition of recidivism that your organization is using, I found what I so often find: Recidivism is the reversion to criminal behavior by an individual who was previously convicted of a criminal offense.
If you are recommending registries for people who have committed a past sex offense so that others can find a list of people who might commit another criminal offense (selling drugs, robbery, etc.), then ALL released inmates need to be put on such a registry. Research has shown that people with a past sex offense are far less likely to re-offend (commit another sex offense) than any other group, with the exception of murderers. All other crimes have a recidivism rate (committing the same crime) anywhere from 60% to 80%.
This definition of recidivism that the government uses is very confusing to the average citizen. If someone is going to be placed on the sex offense registry, please reference research that shows the likelihood of committing another sex offense -- not the likelihood of committing just any type of crime, because the public thinks you are only referencing future sex crimes.
There is so much misinformation out there on people who have committed a sex offense. There is an hysteria based on myths, and your organization is helping to fuel the fire. Research what Karl Hanson, Judith Levine, Lisa Anne Zilney, Emily Horowitz, Jill Levenson, the Illinois Sex Offender Management Board, the California Sex Offender Management Board (check out their video at casomb.org), and many others are finding through research.
So that the public understands what SMART is saying, please use data on the re-offense rate of committing another sex offense for those forced to be on the registry, not including other criminal offenses.
Great point! Registered sex offenders have a difficult time finding housing on their own as potential landlords bar those on the registry from living alone. This forces registered citizens who would rather live alone to move in with single mothers. This is how the registry causes more potential problems.
Hi Alex, I get what you are saying but men who prey on the children of single mothers are not 'stranger danger'. That would be abuse by someone known - moms new boyfriend. Stranger danger is being abused by someone with no connection to the victim - like a kid is walking home alone and doesn't make it cause they were picked up. Stranger danger. The truth is that stranger danger is a VERY small % of these (think less than 5%). So all these other men who's lives are mad extremely difficult after having served their time for their mistake are being publicly shamed to try and stop maybe 5% of these perpetrators. Add to that the statistics on stranger danger - the real guy - not moms boyfriend or uncle bob - show that stranger danger isn't already on the register. The point is you are looking in the wrong direction. The registry only does damage - it does not help kids or the public it was made to keep safe.
My point was I don't agree that registries promote a stranger danger myth. So I think we agree re that. The stats show that recidivism is higher than 5% and that actual reoffense is likely even higher. It's fine to oppose registries, there's plenty of legitimate reasons to, but facts matter.
You’re not understanding what the 5% statistic is referencing!
The registry definitely promotes the stranger danger myth. If you find someone molested a family member of yours they ARE NOT on the registry. They know you, you know them. Additionally recidivism and 'actual reoffense' are the same thing, unless you are referring to not getting caught. But we can't know what we don't know. I am sure there are many more murderers in the country that we have on record. The Bureau of judicial statistics states 7.7% recidivism. Only lower rate is murderers. Facts do matter, and I know its hard to get accurate ones. I asked a law professor where she got her numbers from and she is the one who sent me to this bureau.
Yeah, doxxing anyone here is gonna get you banned. Bye.