home

Rethinking Sex Offender Branding

by TChris

The popular modern response to sex offenders was once applied to lepers: shun them, isolate them, treat them as outcasts. States and municipalities increasingly require the identities and photographs of sex offenders to be posted on registries that are available on the internet. Sex offenders are often required to report to local law enforcement agencies when they move, and the agencies notify their neighbors that an offender resides in the neighborhood. The newest laws prohibit offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools or parks, often forcing offenders to live outside of cities while depriving them of job opportunities.

These laws effectively cripple an offender's rehabilitative goal of becoming a productive member of society. Are they worth it? New research suggests they aren't.

"I would rather have someone who has committed a sex offense be going to work every day, come home tired, have a sense of well-being that comes from having a regular paycheck and a safe home, as opposed to having a sex offender who has a lot of free time on his hands," said Richard Hamill, president of the New York State Alliance of Sex Offender Service Providers. "You tell me: Who is at a greater risk of reoffending?"

In a study published this year, researchers surveyed 183 sex offenders in Florida and found 27 percent said they lost a job because a boss or co-workers found out about their crime, 20 percent had to move from their home because a landlord found out, 15 percent had to leave after neighbors complained, and 33 percent were threatened or harassed by neighbors.

The Scarlet "A" has been replaced by a scarlet "SO." Branding individuals as sex offenders may be counterproductive if the branding limits rehabilitative options. Even more importantly, not all sex offenders are at equal risk of reoffending, and laws that may be needed to protect society from the most dangerous offenders shouldn't be applied so sweepingly that they ensnare offenders who are unlikely to reoffend.

Christopher Uggen, a professor of sociology at the University of Minnesota, noted that "sex offender" is a broad term that can include both a child molester and an 18-year-old with a 15-year-old girlfriend. ... "I don't think that we really earn that much with these blanket, one-size-fits-all policies," [Jill Levenson, a professor at Lynn University in Florida] said. "They're going to be over-inclusive in some ways and not enough in other ways."

< The Texas Injustice System | Adelphia's John Rigas Sentenced to 15 Years, Son Gets 20 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#1)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    How about a list that includes a) violent offenders b) repeat offenders c) anyone younger than 13? Seems to me that lumping an 18 year old that had consensual sex with a 15 year old is ridiculous.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    (victim yoounger than 13)

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    This is the one area where I disagree with the view from the left, (of which I am a part, lol.) I don't believe that a 20 something who has consensual sex with a 16 or 17 year old should be classified as a sex offender, but there are real sexual predators out there, and I for one do not believe that they deserve a second chance, and they have no place in our society. I believe that there are some crimes that just put you outside of civilization and after committing them, you forfeit your right to be part of society. Preying on children and the innocent is one of those crimes. There are very few things that I think capital punishment should apply to, but sexual predation is definitely one of them.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#4)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    The "tough on crime" politicians are just capitalizing on the disproportionate emotion response people have to sex crimes, and the fact that sex criminals don't want to publicize their past (more than required by law) by complaining. Makes them an easy target. If the real goal is to protect people from repeat offenders, let's have registration and residency restrictions for all repeat offenders. Anybody ever convicted of two felonies has to register, and their house is highlighted on Google Maps. They can't live within 1,000 feet of potential victims -- pedophiles can't live near schools, embezzlers can't live near banks, and car thiefs can't live near roads. (65% sarcasm)

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#5)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    Face it anyone on the list is Toast. We have to find a better way.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#6)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    I wonder if I am living near a Convicted Murderer? How about including convicted Rapists after all I do have a wife. How about Catholic Priests after all my child is an alter boy. I'm sure we all could come up with our owm Pet Criminal offense we want to be notified of.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#7)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    Jl, LA County and perhaps all of CA seems to agree with you. Everyone I've seen on the Megan's Law database here seems to be a repeat offender, violent or a pedophile, or all of the above. I wonder how the databases of other areas compare? The two that live between 1/10 and 1/2 mile of my 6 year old son's grade school were convicted of: 220 ASSAULT W/INTENT TO COMMIT RAPE, SODOMY, OR ORAL COPULATION and 288(a) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH CHILD UNDER 14 YEARS 288a(c) ORAL COPULATION WITH PERSON UNDER 14/ETC OR BY FORCE/ETC

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    Good points Ed/Roy. I don't like the registries either as I do not believe they have prevented any crimes but any politician that goes against protecting children will be crucified, so what are they to do?

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#9)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    A few years ago a close friend’s fiancé was asleep in her apartment when a man broke in through a window, repetitively smashed her face with a metal pipe, then raped her. He was caught and served the sentence. His act is alien; completely abstracted from anything I can identify or sympathize with. I’m glad his crime is a mater of public record; I don’t want my family to live near him, I don’t want to work with him, I don’t want to do business with a company that would hire such a man. And to convince me otherwise I am told all he needs is an excess of free time to temp him to indulge his sadistic appetite? But he is rehabilitated; well, except when angry, frustrated, and bored.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    Sex offender branding is not as noble as it sounds...Most children are victimized by the adults closest to them - fathers, mothers, uncles, grandfathers. This kind of thing doesn't really protect them. It's more about making politicians look 'tough on crime.' When we really protect kids from domestic violence and incest, then we can talk about really being pro-family and tough on crime.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    Problem is that they need to be tracked. This is not a curable thing. Nor do they have any desire to control themselves around children. So we have to monitor their movements since they refuse to monitor themselves.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#12)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    "Most children are victimized by the adults closest to them - fathers, mothers, uncles, grandfathers." Um, yes and no. Yes, most children are abused by someone they "know," (or by someone who, malevolently, gets to "know" them) however, less than half of abused children are victimized by family members, according to the State of CA.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    They are not "monitoring their movements" what they are doing is posting their home addresses and photos online. And the list makes no differentiation between someone that was 20 and having consensual sex with a 16 yr old and someone that forcibly raped another.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    Sometimes the best medicine tastes the worst. Such is life, unless we want to live in our OWN prisons at home -- the argument that we already might be well on our way aside. But swallowing the instinct to ostracize is a hard bet with a good number of people. It's perceived as the easiest, safest way to "protect" your own.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    Jl, what "list" are you referring to? Cali's Megan's Law "list," for example, does indeed differentiate between sex crimes. I'd imagine other states do as well. In CA: "Not every registered sex offender will appear on this Internet web site. As explained on the Summary of the Law page, approximately 25% of registered sex offenders are excluded from public disclosure by law. Whether public disclosure is permitted is based on the type of sex crime for which the person is required to register."

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    ...and the specific crimes each was convicted of are on the website providing infinite differentiation.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    Not in my state SU...

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#18)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    Seems logical that different states would have different laws - what state are you in? In CA, in fact, you can get yourself removed from the database after a certain amount of time.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    I was once arrested for mooning my bandmates in a following car. The whole thing was silly, the cop was trying to 'teach the longhair a lesson', and the DA dropped everything because he had a sense of humor and real crimes to prosecute. This was a long time ago, but I fear that if it happened today the DA would have gone for the max and I would be a 'registered sex offender.' There are horrendous crimes committed in the sex offender category, but some logic needs to be applied to stimatizing people for life.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    "There are horrendous crimes committed in the sex offender category, but some logic needs to be applied to stimatizing people for life." Rocker, why don't you take a look at a couple Megan's Law websites? You might be suprised at how much logic is applied - in contrast to what you read here.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:17 PM EST
    Um, yes and no. Yes, most children are abused by someone they "know," (or by someone who, malevolently, gets to "know" them) however, less than half of abused children are victimized by family members, according to the State of CA. And the other half don't report it - or their parents don't report it. I meant people that children know -- as in love, trust, see on a regular basis as in member of family or close family friend. last I did any research, the numbers were around 1 in 4 girls were sexually abused. Not the kind who "gets to know them for benevolent reasons." Um, yeah.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:17 PM EST
    I am an offender who fits into the 20 something guy with the 17 year old consentual partner. Ironically I married her after going to prison for my actions for 5 years. Anyway all of you have great comments. I'd like to add a couple of points to it if I may. The "system" is designed to do one thing and one thing only at this point...that is to literally create recidivism. I know, I have been there. Most particularly in relation to sex offenders, again ironically the "system" fails. The media coverage of late makes it seem like there are more offenders and offenses than ever. It's not true at all. It is a fact that the U.S. Department of justice has reported between 6 and 7% true recidivism rates in sex offenders NATIONALLY. Year after year. What I mean by "true" is that an offender gets out and commits another sex crime. Many go back for petty violations that would boggle your mind to think about not for new offenses. I am one of the lucky ones, I got my act together, and I have work all the time, and my emplyers and close friends all know about my past. I am not proud of it, but I am sick to the very core of my soul for what the "system" is doing to people like me. It is wrong as h-e double hockey sticks. It is the most perfect scam in the whole world. Who really cares about sex offenders or what happens to them at all? Not many, and so state correctional departments can use these people as an easy plea for funds at the legislature & find a symathetic ear, they are easy to manage, unfortunately they just don't typically recidivate. To combate that problem correctional systems require "therapy" that is supposed to brainwash offenders into believing they are offenders for life! This therapy is called, "reintegrative shaming" and it is just as ucky and even more dehumanizing than it sounds. It doesn't work and 100% of the re-offenders when I did my research were guys who had completed the "therapy". Yup the "system" works!!

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:17 PM EST
    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#24)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:17 PM EST
    registeredandwronged- I think we can all agree that what you did likely shouldn’t be a crime (I’ve done the very same) let alone deserve public branding. However, there are two significant contradictions in your post. First, you need to show that low recidivism rates are not related to branding; otherwise it doesn’t support your contention that they are unnecessary. You can’t have it both ways; the system cannot be ‘designed to create recidivism' while recidivism rates are low. And second, if all reoffenders had the best therapy corrections currently offer, doesn’t it follow that the public should be aware of these folks at least until the efficacy of a new therapy is validated?

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:17 PM EST
    A tough issue. I don't think the authorities can guarantee w/ 100% accuracy that all those who end up on the lists deserve to be there, so I can't support them. I do think true child molestation (not the 18yr. old/15 yr. old scenario) deserves life in prison. It's the most heinous crime I can imagine, worse than murder.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:18 PM EST
    registeredandwronged, How can we know the “true” recidivism rates? We know that many of these crimes go unreported. brave says half are unreported. That effectively doubles the rates you give, making them 12% to 14%. Based on the recent “priest scandals”, I would guess that 90% or more might go unreported, putting the recidivism rates well over 50%. So again I ask, how can we know the “true” recidivism rates?

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:18 PM EST
    r&w, "It is a fact that the U.S. Department of justice has reported between 6 and 7% true recidivism rates in sex offenders NATIONALLY." It is also a fact that the DOJ's numbers are dead wrong. "True" recidivism rates are unknown and unknowable, but clearly much higher than what the DOJ reports. The DOJ only has info on only those that re-offend and are identified, charged and re-convicted. Like all criminals, there are many SO's who are able to evade conviction for their crimes and therfore are not included in the DOJ's numbers. If Dean Schwartzmiller is a relevant example, he was only convicted twice yet offended dozens, perhaps 100's of times. You were 20, she was 17. In CA, for example, that's not a crime. If there are injustices w/in each individual state's Megan's Law database, I suggest you agitate for the databases to be corrected. The databases are not going away and nor should they.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#28)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:20 PM EST
    If psychometry got good enough so that we could tell with precision who would re-offend and who would not, what do we do with those who would?

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#29)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:20 PM EST
    “ … what do we do with those who would?” Nothing, you simply cannot punish someone for something they might do. Before you all jump in, registering sex offenders isn’t punishment. Crime is a matter of public record and I see nothing wrong with having at my disposal the entire criminal record of whomever I choose.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#30)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:20 PM EST
    Ooookay, pigwiggle. There is the idea of involuntary institutionalization for those who are a danger to themselves or others. You would probably call this "punishment". Would it also be punishment to prevent them from working at day-care centers? It might make them feel bad, punished. You will note I said "with precision" and you said "might". The question is going to come around soon enough, with the abilility to scan the areas of the brain that react to various stimiuli. The step after that is unknown but will likely provide precision.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Branding (none / 0) (#31)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:20 PM EST
    While you may be able to predict dispositions and desires with precision you will never be able to predict future behavior. “Would it also be punishment to prevent them from working at day-care centers?” Well, that depends. If it is part of the original sentence, certainly. Further, I see no problem with a daycare using your device to screen potential employees. I believe employers should have the liberty to hire or not anyone they choose according to any arbitrary criterion they choose. But, should there be a law regulating who can work where based upon a brain scan and not their past actions? Certainly not.