ARE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRIES WORKING?

The “Expressed Goals” Of Sex Offender Registries Are To Reduce Recidivism And Promote Public Safety. But Are They Working?

Contents Compiled By J.E. Kruska 11/2009

One need only hear the heartbreaking account of a child abducted and assaulted, or murdered by a registered sex offender to appreciate a community’s desire to protect its children from predators living among them. Sex offender registration and notification schemes are motivated by justified regulatory intentions; nonetheless, Legislators may be guilty of over-reaching. The result is a system marked by a net cast so wide that it captures offenders whose crimes were not predatory and/or completely devoid of criminal intent. Arizona statutes are careful to legally discern the difference between “predators” and those required to register as sex offenders. The general public however, mistakenly confuses the terms “predator” and “sex offender” as interchangeable or one in the same. The result in many cases, creates and undue and unjustified stigma upon those whose crimes were not predatory in nature. Predators, by definition, are confined and housed in Arizona’s state mental institutions – often times indefinitely or it can be proven they are no longer a danger to society. Being required to register as a “sex offender” stigmatizes offenders – which in Arizona is currently a lifetime duty, irregardless of the severity of the crime. Registration and public notification schemes are the single greatest obstacle former offenders face in their attempts to successfully reintegrate back into society. The recent case in Antioch California regarding the discovery of a young girl who was kidnapped and held captive for 18 years by convicted sex offender Phillip Garrido, serves as a shocking example of just how overloaded and resultantly, ineffective registration laws have become. The “system” is so overburdened that dangerous and predatory offenders often slip through the cracks – getting lost in a sea of former offenders whose crimes were neither predatory and/or were completely devoid of criminal intent. Most law enforcement officials charged with verifying addresses and updating the whereabouts of former sex offenders state they themselves do in fact make distinctions between “predators” like Phillip Garrido and those convicted of “consensual” crimes that have been registering and living offense free for decades. These same law enforcement agencies and officials also report that the current system is overloaded and understaffed. The result is both obvious and disturbing. The truly dangerous offenders-the “predators”whom we rightly fear and for which our dwindling resources should be focusing on, get lost in a sea of non-violent and non-predatory offenders often at the expense of the very children these laws are designed to protect. The National Conference of State Legislatures released a survey recently, indicating that Arizona faces the worst budget deficit in the

U.S.

– representing 24.2% of its general fund. Maricopa County alone faces an anticipated $138 million shortfall for fiscal 2009-2010 and has already laid off many employees, eliminated services. programs and vacant positions. The Sheriff’s Office alone could take a $7.6 million cut to its general fund which primarily pays for law enforcement patrol as well as a $10.1 million cut to its detention fund which covers jail operations. The result is an even greater challenge to our already overwhelmed law enforcement agencies and the ever increasingly overburdened registration schemes. Arizona must re-examine its current criminal justice priorities and objectively evaluate the effectiveness of our current approaches – especially when it comes to the issue of mandatory lifetime sex offender registration for ALL offenders. Arizona MUST focus its scarce financial and law enforcement resources where it is most needed to better protect our children and allow low level, non-violent, non-predatory offenders an opportunity to be relieved of the duty to register for life. Strict liability convictions for statutory rape have withstood constitutional scrutiny to date, but lawmakers must ask whether the same framework used for conviction should also be valid for the requirement to register as a sex offender. Without additional inquiry into the perpetrator’s propensity for future dangerousness, the uncharacteristically damaging label that cannot be defended and is based on a generalized notion of “assumption of risk”, which is hardly the language of predatory conduct. It offers no rational basis to justify mandatory registration for ALL sex offenders – especially for life. Doing so only highlights the disconnect between the “intended purpose” of the regulatory scheme and its actual effect. Currently, there are only seventeen states, including Arizona, that require lifetime registration for ALL former offenders – from the most minor offenders to the most serious. Two states, Alabama and South Carolina, do not provide any means by which a registrant might secure a release from the registry requirement. Arizona only recently made allowances for “certain” juvenile offenders to be relieved of the duty to register. The remaining majority of the states (32) do allow a registrant to petition for removal from the registry after “X” amount of years of living in the community offense free. One such state is the state of New Jersey which is where Megan’s Law (public registry and community notification laws) originated. Human Rights Watch recently released a major in depth study regarding registration and community notification laws –their effects and un-intended consequences. Human Rights watch asked a state law enforcement official in Minnesota whether the sex offender registry changed the way he investigated new sex crimes. He stated; “it gives us a place to start, but most suspects we arrest are not previously convicted sex offenders”. This clearly shows that the vast majority of new sex crimes are being committed by first time offenders and/or those NOT listed on any public registry. This also highlights the very urgent need and duty for Lawmakers to focus more of their efforts and legislation on education and prevention. With over 674,000 men and women listed on the sex offender registries – and growing, law enforcement officials cannot possibly actively monitor all registrants. The following are quotes gleaned from various law enforcement officials from around the Country and have been directly excerpted from the Human Rights Watch Report. The quotes are as follows:*“To be honest, it would be hard to go out and patrol every registrant on the list. We don’t follow the guys around on the registry. We don’t really check in on them, unless they failed to register and we have to try and find them.”*"The expansion of state sex offender registries to include more offenses and longer registration periods has really compromised our ability to monitor high-risk sex offenders."* The chief probation officer in an Arizona county told Human Rights Watch, "Lawmakers have no idea the kind of burden they put on law enforcement when they increase the number of offenders who must register." * If there are thousands of offenders on a registry, it is harder to keep track of the most dangerous ones. Budgets are tight. * The Georgia Sheriffs’ Association cites a man who was convicted of statutory rape two decades ago for having consensual sex with his high-school sweetheart, to whom he is now married. “It doesn’t make it right, but it doesn’t make him a threat to anybody,” says Mr Norris. “We spend the same amount of time on that guy as on someone who’s done something heinous.” From a public safety standpoint, this makes absolutely no sense!* “Those convicted of minor, non-violent offences should not be required to register nor should juveniles. Sex offenders should be individually assessed, and only those judged likely to rape someone or abuse a child should be registered. Such decisions should be regularly reviewed and offenders who are rehabilitated (or who grow too old to reoffend) should be removed from the registry.” * Literature addressing the accuracy of sex offender registry information may also cause some to question the utility of registries in their current form. Curtis (2003) reports that the state of California actually “lost” over 33,000 registered sex offenders in its tracking system. Levenson and Cotter (2005) report that in their study of almost 200 Florida registrants, more than one-half reported inaccurate information posted about them online. Tewksbury (2002) determined that enough information was incorrect on the Kentucky Sex Offender Registry that it could not be regarded as a legitimate tool for promoting public safety or increasing community awareness. * While the offender’s view of regarding the legitimacy and fairness of a sanction is important for public safety concerns regarding recidivism, offenders’ perceptions of specific sanctions can have a highly desirable impact on programmatic issues of sanction implementation and design.Ultimately, policymakers involved in design, implementation, and analysis of sex offender registries can gain highly valuable information from the registrants themselves about the effectiveness, utility, and legitimacy of current registration procedures and structures. * If Lawmakers cannot show by clear and convincing evidence by taking into consideration a former offenders past criminal and relevant non-criminal behavior that continued registration serves its intended purpose then registration can no longer be justified.

SOURCES:

http://www.uscourts.gov/fedprob/December_2006/sexoffenders.htmlCatherine L. Carpenter http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/PoliticalInsider/40672

http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices-regional/12417735-1.html

http://www.aclu.org/prison/gen/40083prs20090629.htmlhttp://www.hrw.org/en/node/10685/section/6http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/NewsEventServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=3951http://www.HRW.org

**In Arizona, all sex offenders classified as "predator" are housed at the State Hospital. Once an offender completes his sentence and is scheduled for release, the offender may be reviewed for violent sexual predator criteria. If it is determined that the offender is a violent sexual predator, Arizona law provides for a civil commitment to the Arizona State Hospital. The sex offender may request an annual review to determine if he is eligible for release into society, at which time the label "predator" is removed. Source: http://az.gov/app/sows/faq.xhtml#four

ARE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRIES WORKING?

Copyright 2009 operationawareness.com - All Rights Reserved