HuffPo: Sex Offender Laws May Do More Harm Than Good

[varkam]

Huffington Post
October 12th, 2007
Sarah Tofte
Link

Sex offender laws may be doing more harm than good. That is the conclusion Human Rights Watch came to after two years of intensive research into sex offender registration, community notification, and residency restriction laws in the United States. Our research convinced us that politicians failed to do their homework by enacting popular laws without seeking expert advice on how best to prevent sexual violence.

Instead of an informed debate about how sexual violence ravages this country, politicians and the media have largely focused on child victims of truly horrific crimes by previously convicted sex offenders -- like the murders of Megan Kanka, Polly Klaas, and Jessica Lunsford. Horrific yes, but uncommon, which means the laws are designed to tackle only a tiny minority and fail to address the full picture of sexual violence.

A growing number of child safety and rape prevention advocates agree that current laws are not working. For example, the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CALCASA), a state-wide coalition of 84 rape crisis centers and sexual assault prevention programs, had this to say about residency restriction laws: They "waste valuable resources on sex offenders who are unlikely to reoffend, while leaving a deficit of treatment, supervision, and focus on offenders who we know should be receiving more intense scrutiny."

Two popular myths about child abusers underlie many of our sex offender laws: first, that our children have most to fear from strangers, and second, that sex offenders will inevitably repeat their crimes. But the data tell a different story. More than 90 percent of child sexual abuse is committed by someone the child knows and trusts. And recidivism rates for sex offenders are far lower than most people believe -- authoritative studies show that three out of four do not re-offend within 15 years of release from prison.

Much more at the link.

[varkam]

1. Kick for comments?

[Truthiness Inspector]

2. Comments?

This sounds like a giant load of bullshit. I also suspect that most people who would "lobby" for a weakening of laws against sex offenders have their own personal (and disgusting) agenda.

[varkam]

3. Care to address any of the points made in the article? eom

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Heidi]

5. The last line of your post is absolutely uncivil and uncalled for.

Just because one may have opinion different than your own, why must you insinuate that he's a child molester? Is that all you've got?

[Truthiness Inspector]

6. No, it's not all I've got.

But I do wonder. Who defends sex offenders?

[Heidi]

7. Nowhere did the OP defend sex offenders.

And for you to imply that looking at alternatives to a system that clearly is not working or even worthy of discussion is absolutely uncivil. I have to wonder about people who defend a system that isn't working.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

30. Lawyers defend them.

And according to our Constitution, they have a right to defense.

Perhaps you'd like to move to Iran where you will be amongst persons more like yourself?

[varkam]

54. Silly BMUS.

Everyone knows that lawyers are worse than sex offenders :D

[beam me up scottie]

63. D'oh!

I am literally stunned by the attacks on you in this thread. And I've been attacked by the best.

I hope the mods catch up on their alerts, this is completely unacceptable.

Kudos to the rational DUers who prevailed.

[varkam]

66. I was a two-term mod, and I've never seen attacks like that.

I guess what made it so astonishing wasn't their vulgarity or anything, but that I did absolutely nothing to provoke it. Blew me away.

[OzarkDem]

88. Their rights are protected

they get fair trials, my taxes pay for their attorneys.

So what's the beef? Why do they need more rights? My suggestion to them would be to quit molesting children. End of story.

[OzarkDem]

87. Agree, child molestors aren't worth defending

don't be surprised if you find a lot of other people who feel the same way.

[datasuspect]

91. high-priced defense lawyers

if you can get a dismissal in a case like that, you might really make a lot of money.

[varkam]

9. Wow.

Well, I see that you really don't have anything useful to say - otherwise you would of said it instead of resorting to pretty low-brow ad hominems.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[varkam]

11. That's uncalled for.

It's a shame you seem incapable of a civil discussion on this topic.

[Truthiness Inspector]

13. Right

You kicked your own thread, which is all about an attempt to weaken sex offender laws.

Civil, my eyeball.

[varkam]

14. Because I think it is a topic worthy of discussion.

And, bear in mind, I never defended sex offenders - let alone accused other DUers I disagree with of being a sexual predator.

[Heidi]

15. If you think the thread is inappropriate, why not just alert on it?

I don't understand why you're so intent on stifling this discussion.

[Truthiness Inspector]

18. Stifling?

Is that what you call it? Do you agree with weakening laws against sex offenders?

I disagree vehemently with the OP.

Instead of fighting me, address the issue here. My comments have been on topic, including my suspicion about any attempts to make the unacceptable acceptable. My opinion. Very strongly stated, I will grant you that.

[varkam]

19. "My comments have been on topic..."

:rofl: Does that include accusing me of being a predator?

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Heidi]

23. That "garbage" comes from the US Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/rsorp94.txt

Before being released from prison in 1994, most of the sex offenders
had been arrested several times for different types of crimes. The
more prior arrests they had, the greater their likelihood of being
rearrested for another sex crime after leaving prison. Released sex
offenders with 1 prior arrest (the arrest for the sex crime for which
they were imprisoned) had the lowest rearrest rate for a sex crime,
about 3%; those with 2 or 3 prior arrests for some type of crime,
4%; 4 to 6 prior arrests, 6%; 7 to 10 prior arrests, 7%; and 11 to
15 prior arrests, 8%.

[Truthiness Inspector]

25. 13 year old stats, and a faulty premise too

Being rearrested doesn't mean additional crimes aren't committed.

[Heidi]

26. Are you evading my question downthread? Do you think our sex offender laws are working?

Do you think our sex offender laws are working?

[Truthiness Inspector]

27. Yes I do.

Are they perfect, of course not. But they work.

[varkam]

28. And what is your rationale for that?

[varkam]

24. Uh...

Well, that stat is not garbage - it's actually from the Center for Sex Offender Management which is an adjunct of the Department of Justice.

Again, in case you missed it, I will spell it out for you here in big, bold letters. I'll type slowly so you can follow along:

I feel that this topic is worthy of discussion

That's why I kicked my own thread up for comments. Not something that I normally do, but I wanted to see some discussion on it. Moreover, you accuse me of being uncivil for kicking my own threat (which is perhaps in bad taste, but I fail to see how it qualifies as uncivil) and yet you launch vicious ad hominems at people that you perceive to disagree with you. I don't see how the two relate.

As far as having a dog in this fight...you seem to be much more emotionally invested in the subject than I what with refusing to address the substance of the article and accusing me of being a sexual predator. Or, perhaps everyone over at Human Rights Watch is a sex offender.

[Heidi]

20. Do you believe our sex offender laws are working?

Do you?

I don't, and I believe discussion of the reasons they aren't working is worthwhile. Further, I can state that without implyng that those who disagree with me are sex offenders.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lumpy]

46. Just discovered that the judge is allowing my little granddaugher

to be in the company of her mother's father and brother, unsupervised, who sexually abused and raped her. I am in agony.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lumpy]

44. Close to my heart. I just posted a case regarding sexual abuse.

Following

[Warren DeMontague]

17. If a law calls a 17 year old who had consensual sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, or a drunk who

got busted for taking a leak behind a dumpster a "sex offender", then it's a problem.

Too often these draconian laws end up laying ridiculous punishments on the wrong people. The three strikes law is designed for the guy who killed Polly Klaas, and ends up locking away the dude who stole a piece of pizza... for the rest of his life. Same with the "sex offender" laws. If they're really about "Sex offenders", great. If they're about the high school senior whose high school junior girlfriend's parents call the cops about their relationship, that's something else.

I have no sympathy for anyone who actually harms a kid- in fact, I think we should stop wasting prison space locking up millions of non-violent drug offenders, pot smoking cancer grannies, etc. and reserve our cells for the truly dangerous among us. Separate them from society. For good. All I would ask is that they are all treated equally.. no matter whether the child molester is a creepy guy in a van or kindly old Father McFondlefingers down at the Catholic Church.

Frankly, any other organization that engaged in the widespread documented conspiracy to aid, abet, and cover up for pedophiles that the Vatican has would be brought up on racketeering and conspiracy charges, and run out of every respectable community in this country by torch-wielding townsfolk.

But, as usual, the church gets to play by "special rules".

[varkam]

21. That is a big problem with these laws.

They are overbroad in their application. IIRC, in five states adult prostitution can land you on the sex offender registry. So there are a multitude of crimes that can get one labeled as a sex offender without any attention paid to it on a case by case basis. The end result is that you have a whole bunch of people on the registry who are not really threats at all - and a few who are. The problem is, if the registry is designed to protect themselves from predators, who do they focus on?

Even people who commit crimes such as rape and molestation may not pose future risks, depending on the specifics of their case. For instance, recidivism rates for offenders are already lower than for any other class of criminal. Those rates drop even lower if you focus on intra-familial offenders (e.g. fathers who commit incest) as they tend to be more situational offenders than dispositional offenders. Bottom line being, if someone is not a threat, why put them on the registry?

The question of what to do with offenders that truly are dangerous is a vexing one. Several states have civil commitment programs, that essentially incarcerate people until they are deemed not to be a threat (though there are problems with that, as well, that I won't get into here). For people who simply cannot stop, then civil commitment or extended incarceration is a possible solution (despite problems with the way it is currently administered) but they should be released if they are found to no longer pose a threat.

[beam me up scottie]

29. Thanks for the info.

I've got it bookmarked.

It's not as black and white as people like to think, is it?




oh, and props for retaining your composure and acting like the gentleman I know you are, varkam. :thumbsup:

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Truthiness Inspector]

34. That says a lot

I scare you more as a citizen who does not want sex offenders anywhere near kids, you do. Why are you ok with that?

[beam me up scottie]

35. I know nothing about you.

Other than the fact that your uninformed ignorance illustrates much of what is illiberal and wrong with this country, that is.

[Warren DeMontague]

95. What would you say about someone who used their considerable power to cover up for pedophiles?

What would you say about an institution that engaged in decades-long conspiracy to not only HELP known pedophiles escape justice, but also moved them around to allow them continued and easy access at kids to molest?

Such an organization should be roundly vilified, right? Any people who engaged in ANY sort of conspiracy to help pedophiles escape justice should be in prison.. right?

Seriously, an institution with such widespread, documented guilt pertaining to these despicable crimes ought to be thoroughly investigated, and its leadership brought up on conspiracy and racketeering charges...



















...right?

[Sandaasu]

41. Interesting assumption

I personally know a convicted and registered sex offender that I'd sooner trust with children of mine than some babysitter I just heard about. You may call me crazy. All I'm doing is judging people by their individual merits, rather than stamps put on them by draconian laws.

[varkam]

53. He/She/It will probably call you worse than crazy....

Your view is no surprise though, given that most offenders aren't your stereotypical "sexual predator" who are waiting under the bridge to snatch your children up.

[beam me up scottie]

32. They can't even keep records on former offenders because they've become our society's "untouchables"

Residency restriction laws, in place in 20 states, are based on another popular belief about former offenders -- that keeping them away from places where children gather will reduce their risk of re-offending. But there is no evidence these laws diminish crimes against children and some to suggest the opposite.

A recent study by the Minnesota Department of Corrections analyzed 224 sex offender recidivists to see if where they lived had an effect on their crimes. The study found that residential proximity had very little impact on a recidivist's opportunity to re-offend. Many took pains to drive far from their neighborhoods in order to re-offend. More than half (113) came into contact with their victims through "social or relationship proximity" to the child. The most common example was that of a male offender who found his victim(s) while socializing with their mother.

The main impact of residency restrictions may be to drive former offenders underground, away from families, police supervision and the help that can stop them re-offending. As an Iowa sheriff pointed out, "We've taken stable people who have committed a sex crime and cast them out of their homes, away from their jobs, away from treatment, and away from public transportation. It's just absolutely absurd what these laws have done, and the communities are at greater risk because of it."

[Heidi]

36. Don't say anything rational! You'll be called a "defender of sex offenders."

[beam me up scottie]

38. Too late!

I've been spotted!

I've been accused of "enabling child molesters" on DU because I don't think they should be gang raped in prison before being anally electrocuted.

It only shocked me the first time.

Someone sure has issues on this thread, though.

[varkam]

55. We have a winner.

That's another major problem with these laws. Due to the increasingly punitive restrictions on employment, residence, and community notification, many offenders simply abscond from supervision all-together. I fail to see how that makes communities any safer.

[divineorder]

64. That's the dilemma of these laws.

The offenders either become homeless, making them harder to track, or end up living in neighborhoods that are too transient and poor to notice their comings and goings. Also, many sex crimes have to do with offending sensibilities than protecting the public, like prostitution or that 18 year old boy sleeping with a 17 year old girl. I remember that someone who ran a whorehouse locally was labeled a "sex offender". Whatever you think about whorehouses, I doubt if pimps are dangerous to the average passerby.

Of course, we couldnt possibly pay for a place for these people to go and support them so they wouldn't work near our kids. That's socialism! In one sense I've always believed these notification laws are less than useful. Predators have cars, and could simply go to another neighborhood, the woods, or the next town to offend. Notification doesn't take that mobility away. And unless the predator works in isolation, kids can sometimes hang around a business too or live nearby.

[varkam]

72. As the HRW report identified...

most offenders who reoffended found their victims through social contacts, not physical proximity.

[beam me up scottie]

67. You know it's bad when law enforcement personnel are complaining about the current system.

They've given offenders no choices.

Underground or ostracized, living in legal limbo indefinitely.

Where's the incentive to stay in the system?

[varkam]

70. None, really.

The only incentive to comply is that, if you don't, you can be charged with another crime. That doesn't do a whole lot to deter people.

[OzarkDem]

89. Keep studying

I'll need a lot more evidence than one study quoted in the article to approve letting sick perverts live close to schools.

Bring us several peer reviewed scientific studies next time. Til then, I'm on the kids side, not the pervert's.

[varkam]

99. Did you read the article? eom

[Sandaasu]

37. Amen

I'm getting tired of the rampant insanity when it comes to this issue. It's shocking though to find so many Americans that favor this kinda of "scarlet letter" treatment of our own citizens.

ABC's 20/20 did a very good piece on "To Catch a Predator" that revealed the truly frightening issues with it. This is something that could undermine our judicial system, but it was met with claims that they're just jealous of NBC, and general comments along the lines of "whatever it takes to catch these horrible people." It's despicable to have people so willing to sacrifice judicial fairness and purity for a type of crime that just happens to be getting way too much attention at the moment. It's a way for the media folks to make money, blowing this kind of thing out of proportion, and the politicians can claim to be doing good by throwing insane bills at the subject with no real thought about it at all.

[beam me up scottie]

40. A belated welcome to DU, Sandaasu.

And kudos to you for posting about this issue. You are brave as well as wise.

You should post more often.

[Sandaasu]

42. Thanks :)

I'm trying to!

[varkam]

56. Welcome to DU, Sandaasu!

You've summed up many of the points that have caused these laws to jump the shark. There is an effective way to deal with this sort of thing, but I'm honestly not sure if that's what society is really interested in.

[OzarkDem]

90. Victimizing children is a difficult lifestyle to defend

You're not likely to find many people sympathetic to perps rights over victims, especially when there appears to be no evidence in this article to make the case.

I don't find it difficult to choose sides in this issue. Children need to be protected.

[varkam]

100. Strawman.

No one is defending a lifestyle of victimizing children, nor is anyone arguing that children do not need to be protected.

[ourbluenation]

39. I work at one of the 84 agencies of CALCASA and I have to agree...these laws are well intended but

not always practical and helpful to certain situations. It does waste resources.

[lumpy]

43. My 2 &1/2 year old granddaughter is allowed to be in the

company of her grandfather and uncle who sexually assaulted and raped the child's mother; visits would be unsupervized, mind you. The child's other grandmother was also raped by her father and he also would be able to have contact with my granddaughter.
So much for the justice system and concern for child welfare.
It so happens that early on yesterday I was able to read the court decision of Oct.11th, 2007 in regards to a custody case between the mother of the child and my son,the father. I was devistated because that was mainly what the case was about,that the child should not have contact with these sex offenders. The fact that the father and brother had sexually assaulted and raped the mother was verified in court and on record by the mother, who is 33 years old: these assaults happened to her when she was between the age of 6 until 13 years old. It was never reported to the authorities and she has never received counseling other than praying with an unnamed man of God; she refuses to obtain counseling because she fears her love for her father might be diminshed.
Needless to say I am outraged with such a decision was made by a Judge. My son is attempting to remedy the decision, but that can only be done by contacting a prosecuting attorney who might be interested in pursuing charged against these preditors. My son has run out of funds to even consider further legal action. This will continue to be a battle to keep my granddaughter in a safe environment from these monsters. This family is outraged and depressed by the decision of a judge who appears to be ignorant of the devious workings of sexual preditors.

[ourbluenation]

45. sweet jesus - what state are you in?

[lumpy]

48. Washington state. Snohomish County

I am really depressed, sorry.

[ourbluenation]

96. no need to apologize at all. I dont blame you - that's totally wretched.

your son is doing the right thing.

[beam me up scottie]

47. If a crime isn't reported, how can anyone be prosecuted and convicted?

To be fair, anyone can accuse another of committing crimes in order to win custody of a child.

And many of them do so falsely.

I'm not saying that your claims aren't true, of course, I don't know all the details.

[lumpy]

50. It is in the court records, acknowledged by the mother in

court; in a legal deposition; told by the mother to an ad litem and acknowledged by the judge as refered to in his decision. My son's lawyer advised him not to bring the case to the attention of the media, however to pursue the matter with the prosecuting attorney in the city of Ellensburg, where the assaults took place. It would take a lot of money to have this appealed; I, my son and his brother have taken out loans to the tune of over $38,000.00 dollars in lawyer and court costs. We are broke trying to prevent this child having contact with these horrible people. Easier said than done, but will continue to try.

[varkam]

51. Allegations of a crime...

appearing in disposition records and an actual criminal conviction are two different things entirely. You shouldn't have to cough up any money to the DA for him/her to file suit.

[beam me up scottie]

52. I wish you well and will keep your granddaughter in my thoughts.

varkam makes a good point, maybe it's not too late to go after them. It may be the only way to keep them away from her.

[lumpy]

61. Thank you for your well wishes. God knows I need them.

We'll keep trying to do the right thing. I see it is over 3:00 in the morning, haven't been able to sleep but I must try. Thank you.

[beam me up scottie]

62. Your granddaughter is lucky to have you.

Don't let yourself get run down - I know how horrible depression is. If you need help, get it. See your doctor. Please take care of yourself.

And pm me, varkam or someone else if you need to talk. We know how important it is to vent.

[varkam]

71. Ditto what BMUS said. My PM box is open.

I know what depression is like, and I also know what impossible situations like yours are like. I know this is cold comfort, but try to remember that certain things are going to be out of your control. That is not to dissuade you from doing what you can, but understand you can't do everything. When all else fails, I find sleep to be an excellent cure all.

[varkam]

49. In the judge's defense

the allegations were never made public and charges were never brought, is that correct? I'm not challenging the veracity of what you say, nor the difficult situation that you describe - rather that the judge cannot go on allegations AFAIK. Also, AFAIK, there is no statute of limitations on cases like rape in many states (or it is very long in others, such as decades in length). Perhaps it may be wise to persue charges against these individuals.

[lumpy]

57. Read my post # 67. It is a matter of record that The mother

has related the sexual assault against her to the court judge hearing the case, to the ad litem involved in the case, in a legal deposition examining the mother, verified and documented. We have all the documentation. I first heard of the sexual assaults related to me by the child's mother soon after she came to live in my home at the behest of my son. She also told of this to my son, my daughter in law, and otherfriends.

[varkam]

58. I've already responded to that post - #68

But, again, allegations and convictions are two different things. A judge is not allowed to curtail someone's rights on the basis of allegations, as that circumvents due process of law and is consequently unconstitutional. A conviction, however, is a different matter entirely.

[lumpy]

59. True, the allegations were brought by the child's mother.

The mother's mother also acknowledged that the assaults took place while she was not present. She just didn't do anything about it, except pray.. I suppose the daughter could recant but she would then be in contempt of court I would think. I do believe this should be pursued by the prosecutors, if they are interested. God only knows what other children have been harmed; the brother of the child's mother has a long list of felonies and violent assaults. I have very little faith left in our legal system however. We are convinced that these events did take place and the only concern is for the welfare of that child.

[varkam]

60. You should contact the DA.

Give him or her all the information that you have, and see if they will press charges. That's about the only way I can think of to prevent anything else from happening. If they will press charges, then perhaps the judge would be willing to postpone the custody decision pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

[trumad]

65. As a parent, I'd kind of like to know if a Child Predator just moved into the neighbohood...

as a Progressive Democrat, I kind of get bothered by the Scarlet Letter dimensions of the current law.

PLUS--- many are being labeled Child Predators for minor incidences...Such as being 18 and having sex with your under aged girlfriend.

It definitely needs to be discussed to find the right balance and if the inspection of Truthiness is to much to handle for some to handle---tough shit!

[beam me up scottie]

68. You know, I wondered what happened to all the sane people.

You guys keep some weird hours.

Every time I've seen this subject approached in prime time, the threads were taken over by truthiness inspector-ish types and eventually locked.

I vowed to avoid them like the plague, but I'm impressed with the posters in this thread.

Some more than others, of course.

[varkam]

69. Well, there are several issues at play.

Probably the biggest one is does a certain individual pose a threat? Past behavior is not necessarily indicitave of future behavior, especially when treated - so then if someone is deemed to not be a threat by professionals, do you have a right to know? I would say no, but it is certainly open to discussion.

Also you raise the point that the registry is overly broad, and so people who have done things like public urination are branded as sex offenders - thus creating numerous problems for communities and law enforcement.

And finally, I assume you are not defending the TruthinessInspector's accusations that I am a child predator - correct?

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

73. A few thoughts.

:-Using the same designation for a 19-year-old who has sex with a 17-year-old and a genuine child molester or rapist is absurd.

:-If I knew that there was a 1-in-4 chance of someone committing at least one sexual offence within 15 years, I would regard it as a bona fide reason not to trust them.

:-However, I'm willing to bet that by categorising sex offenders you can observe that the fractions of some categories that reoffend are much lower than that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. I Suspect The Reason The Recidivism Rate Is So Low

has more to do with lack of opportunity than lack of motive...

[varkam]

76. Any evidence to support that notion? eom

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. I Suspect If You Were A Half Decent Car Thief

You could steal lots of cars before you got caught...

I suspect if you were a ped there's a pretty high probability the first child you tried to sexually abuse would drop the dime on you...

And the reason peds should be a separate class is because of the damage they do...If i have my car stolen I am going to be really pissed off and really inconvenienced but if a ped steals my innocence I can never get it back...

That's why in prison, peds are the bottom of the pecking order...They are the "worst of the worst."

[varkam]

81. How is this relevant to recidivism rates...

and low rates being related to lack of opportunity versus lack of motivation?

And, as far as why sex offenders tend to fare poorly in prison, I think there are many other reasons aside from the damage that they do. Ostensibly, murder is a far more damaging crime than rape is, though murderers aren't nearly so vilified.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

83. I Suspect Child Rape Brings With It A Greater Chance Of Apprehension

And, yeah, I think child rape, can be worse than some instances of murder, especially manslaughter...

[varkam]

98. I still don't understand.

Even if child rape has a greater chance of apprehension than other crimes, how is that relevant to your original claim of opportunity versus motivation?

[OzarkDem]

92. The article you link to

has no evidence, either. If you want to advocate for the rights of child molestors, you should start by getting more studies done.

Let the scientific evidence make the case, not abstract argument or speculation.

[varkam]

101. For data...

check out the HRW report "No Easy Answers" as well as the Center for Sex Offender Management, which is run by the Department of Justice.

[varkam]

75. A response

Using the same designation for a 19-year-old who has sex with a 17-year-old and a genuine child molester or rapist is absurd.

Agreed.

:-If I knew that there was a 1-in-4 chance of someone committing at least one sexual offence within 15 years, I would regard it as a bona fide reason not to trust them.

Well, that all depends on the offense. The overall rates of recidivism are in the teens AFAIK, broken down by offenses then approach pedophiles who have a same sex preference tend to be the highest on the recidivism scale, but I think they top out at 40% given treatment.

But to use your example, if a class of offender has a recidivism rate of 25% does that then justify punishing the remaining 75% who will not re-offend? Just food for thought.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

78. In answer to your last question: yes, I think it does.

Because you're not punishing them for what they might do, you're punishing them for what they've done.

That's not, by any means, to say that all or even most examples of such punishment are justified.

But there's nothing wrong in principle with taking the recidivism rate for a class of offence into account when determining the punishment for that class of offence, I think.

[varkam]

80. Here's the rub.

Once the registry stops being viewed as a regulatory scheme and is applied as a punitive measure, then it becomes unconstitutional.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

84. Why - is it cruel and unusual, or what?

NT

[varkam]

97. Depending on circumstance...

but it can violate ex post facto clauses in the constitution, also it is essentially being punished twice for the same crime and thusly can be considered double jeopardy. The registry enters some pretty shaky ground when it enters that arena AFAIK (which is why legislatures around the country are often very careful to call it regulatory in nature).

[TheMadMonk]

77. Children take their cue from how adults respond to a situation.

Think about it.

[aikoaiko]

85. mixed feeelings on this blog entry

True enough that we could be doing more useful things to prevent sex offenders from repeating their crimes. I'm open to other laws that may be more useful, but the blogger didn't really mention any.

And I am open to narrowing the criteria for inclusion on registries. I think most people agree that some people don't really deserve to be there.

Using recidivism rates is the absolute minimum, most conservative estimate of repeating sexual offenses. I can't take any writer seriously who doesn't acknowledge that in his/her report.

If a sex offender finds registration too difficult to live with, then I am not convinced this person appreciates the gravity of his/her crime. There is a subtle cause and effect relationship implied by the blogger -- that the registration is shameful, this causes the offender to stress and fails to comply, and the offender re-offends. Maybe the offender is stressed because being on the registry makes it more difficult to re-offend and leaving the registry is just the first step in the process of re-offending.

Perhaps life imprisonment is the answer for adults who have sex with pre-teens or who are violent offenders. Then they won't have to worry about registration.

And finally, I wish serious bloggers would reference articles of research or quotes.

[varkam]

103. Tofte should of made this more clear...

She worked with the Human Rights Watch in crafting their report "No Easy Answers" which was recently released and available on the HRW website. That report includes relevant references.

Using recidivism rates alone isn't really useful, being that most estimates put recidivsm between 11-18% (lower than any other type of criminal). What needs to be done, IMO, is to use the registry on a case by case basis after the offender is assessed by a mental health professional using risk-assessment instruments. If someone is found to be a high threat, then they should be put on the registry and periodically have their risk level re-evaluated.

I think that people can simultaneously appreciate the gravity of their crime and find the consequences difficult to bear. But remember part of the issue is not that these laws should be reduced to make it easier, but if people are absconding from supervision because of the punitive nature of these laws then that is not going to serve the public at all.

I don't think life imprisonment is the answer, either. Perhaps for some people, such as repeat offenders or offenders who rape and then murder their victims it is justified - but those cases are exceedingly rare. The vast majority of sex offenders never repeat their crimes, especially after given treatment. Consequently, it doesn't seem logical to put everyone away for life on the first offense.

[OzarkDem]

86. WTF? Sorry, not buying the argument

This is just a lot of talk about protecting the rights of child molesters that offers zip in the way of evidence or concrete examples to make its case.

How does forbidding dangerous perverts from living near schools, etc. put a "burden on the system" or cost money. It doesn't, except perhaps for the perv.

The legal standard for being labeled a sex offender is pretty high. Its highly unlikely any nice innocent people are being inconvenienced by the system

Focus on rehabilitation? How? Child molesters don't think that their crimes are wrong. They think children want to have sex with them and that its natural and healthy. That can't be fixed.

Better to keep the focus on protecting children. The cost, which is minimal unless this article can offer some concrete example, isn't prohibitive.

Human Rights Campaign will be costing itself some credibility if it tries to go to bat to protect child molesters. I can't think of too many people who are interested in expanding perverts rights under the justice system.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

93. Small Point

It's Human Rights Watch...

The Human Rights Campaign is not crazy enough to step in this briar patch...There's a reason most folks don't want to come to the aid of pedophiles or being seen as coming to the aid of pedophiles...

[varkam]

102. A response.

This is just a lot of talk about protecting the rights of child molesters that offers zip in the way of evidence or concrete examples to make its case.

It's actually talking about sex offender registration laws and how they have jumped the shark, not "protecting the rights of child molesters". Many people are on the registry for things other than child molestation.

How does forbidding dangerous perverts from living near schools, etc. put a "burden on the system" or cost money. It doesn't, except perhaps for the perv.

Well, if you read the article...

The legal standard for being labeled a sex offender is pretty high. Its highly unlikely any nice innocent people are being inconvenienced by the system

Not really - you can go on it for things like adult prostitution, public urination, streaking, etc.

Focus on rehabilitation? How? Child molesters don't think that their crimes are wrong. They think children want to have sex with them and that its natural and healthy. That can't be fixed.

Recidivism among sex offenders is pretty low, and goes even lower after treatment. I would think that the evidence seems to contradict you there.

Better to keep the focus on protecting children. The cost, which is minimal unless this article can offer some concrete example, isn't prohibitive.

Believe it or not, examining registry laws and seeing where they need to be fixed is actually one step towards better protection for society. For example, if the registry is limited to people who are bonafide threats, then it makes it much more useful for the public as well as law enforcement - but that's not currently how it is used.

Human Rights Campaign will be costing itself some credibility if it tries to go to bat to protect child molesters. I can't think of too many people who are interested in expanding perverts rights under the justice system.

It's actually Human Rights Watch, but never-mind. Again, you're conflating child molesters and sex offenders. Bear in mind that not all sex offenders are child molesters.

[rasputin1952]

94. I am the last person that would "defend" a pedophile, they are

despicable creatures, but there have been times when people have been wrongfully accused.

That is just part of the problem. Most rational people would look at a study, and decide if it deserves merit. In this article, the argument is made "...designed to tackle only a tiny minority and fail to address the full picture of sexual violence.", this appears to me to be a valid assumption. Just a little further down, another statement jumps out, "They "waste valuable resources on sex offenders who are unlikely to re-offend, while leaving a deficit of treatment, supervision, and focus on offenders who we know should be receiving more intense scrutiny." Looks to me this is a serious problem as well, in fact, more serious because it happens more often.

ALL sex offenders need to be prosecuted, I think we can agree on that. I want to see those convicted behind bars, but, as usual, only those that receive the most press seem to get the laws thrown at them, some of those laws are arcane and ineffective.

No rational individual would defend a convicted "sex offender", especially one who preys on children. But our society is not perfect, and FWIW, we need to look at studies that have been done and come to a conclusion based on reality and now sensationalism or fear. The Constitution requires that all defendants receive a fair trial, and with counsel; it does not require, nor does it imply, that certain people be treated differently.

[varkam]

104. It's not so much about defending pedophiles.

Though I wouldn't refer to them as despicable creatures, rather they are people with a pretty serious pathology that need some serious help. I don't think there's too much controversy there. But rather than defending pedophiles, this issue is about crafting these laws so that they are (a) not punitive and (b) serve the public safety. The way that the law is currently administered, neither of those goals are being met.

ALL sex offenders need to be prosecuted, I think we can agree on that. I want to see those convicted behind bars, but, as usual, only those that receive the most press seem to get the laws thrown at them, some of those laws are arcane and ineffective.

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. I think anyone who commits a crime should be prosecuted for it, sex offender or no. Most people who commit sexual crimes end up in prison for them, not just the few who get media attention. Also, anyone who commits an offense that triggers the registry goes on it; again, not just those that receive media attention.

And no one, not I nor HRW is defending the practice of child molestation. I think what's trying to be pointed out here is that the hysteria and sensationalism over a minority of cases have led to crafting nation-wide laws that, at best, don't work and, at worst, do more harm than good.

[rasputin1952]

105. I was trying to stay w/in the context of the OP. There are

some things that are crimes that I don't think should be crimes. Prostitution and non-violent drug offenses come to mind.

It is hysteria that drives these types of laws, government and media walk hand in hand as far as these things pan out.

As for those who molest children, there are cases where an act is commited and it may never be committed again, while despicable in my eye, it should be taken into account that there is no previous offense, and therefore, punishment can be minimal. For those who have more than one count, or offense, I cannot think of much more than jailing them for a long period of time. Yes, these people are "sick", but children must be protected, and we count on the law to aid in protecting them.

I do readily admit that I have no sympathy for anyone who would attack a child. In my view, there is no "excuse", rhyme or reason to destroy a child's future. We could say that a serial killer is sick as well. While the two do not equate, I see no reason to have society suffer at the hands of either.

[varkam]

106. Right.

As for those who molest children, there are cases where an act is committed and it may never be committed again, while despicable in my eye, it should be taken into account that there is no previous offense, and therefore, punishment can be minimal. For those who have more than one count, or offense, I cannot think of much more than jailing them for a long period of time. Yes, these people are "sick", but children must be protected, and we count on the law to aid in protecting them.

Well, there are different issues at play insofar as the criminal justice system is concerned. Probably the least prevalent should be an issue of retribution - merely visiting upon the offender suffering as if that somehow makes everything okay. Instead you just take someone who is already damaged and damage them further. But other issues should take center stage, like rehabilitation, general and specific deterrence, and in some cases incapacitation. For repeat offenders then lengthy sentences are often handed out on the rationale that they are not going to stop unless given some extended segregation from society - in other words, they are incapacitated.

I do readily admit that I have no sympathy for anyone who would attack a child. In my view, there is no "excuse", rhyme or reason to destroy a child's future. We could say that a serial killer is sick as well. While the two do not equate, I see no reason to have society suffer at the hands of either.

I guess I have a hard time not having sympathy for people, though I do not have sympathy for some of the things that people do. I guess maybe I know enough people who are criminals (or rather, ex-criminals) that my personal position is that people are more than their crime. That doesn't mean that I am sympathetic towards their crimes, however. Punishment is obviously appropriate and even demanded in certain circumstances to fulfill our ideals of justice, and I have nary a problem with that.

But pedophilia is not a reason, rhyme, or an excuse for child molestation. It is simply an explanation. Mental illness mitigates the severity of punishment insofar as retribution is concerned, but it does not come into play when you are talking about other considerations such as deterrence and incapacitation (which, again, is why there should not be a reliance on retribution).

Would that there were no such thing as child molesters and serial killers, as people should not have their lives destroyed and taken away from them - certainly not even before they begin. That's one of the reasons I like to raise this issue, because I think it is quite clear that the current laws are broken. Only through an informed and reasoned discussion on the topic can be identify appropriate reforms that will, ultimately, benefit society.

[Ms. Toad]

107. The study does not surprise me at all.

Many of us in the rape crisis field predicted it when the laws were beginning to be enacted.

Teaching Jane to avoid the registered sex offender down the street leaves her with a false sense of security - and with her guard down around Uncle Jimmy or the sweet little old lady next door who are far more likely to molest Jane. Most child molesters/rapists are known to their victims. Children need to be taught to identify behaviors, not people, which are troublesome and need to be taught coping skills to respond to those behaviors in the way best designed to stop the behavior.

It is natural, as parents, to want our children to be safe, when the reality is that they are not. Depending on which statistics you are used, between 1/3 and 1/7 children are raped or molested before their 18th birthday. That's overwhelmingly frighting - so as a parent, I can (subconsciously) make my fears manageable by focusing on the identified bogeyman down the street. The result is that my children are less prepared to cope with the unidentified bogeymen who are statistically far more likely to molest them.

Apparently, the study bears out that prediction.