home

National Sex Offender Guidelines Released

By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:25:23 PM EST
Tags: sex offenders (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Justice Department today released the final Sex Offender Registration and Notification ACT (SORNA) Guidelines. These are the guidelines for the Adam Walsh Act's sex offender registration and notification provisions. A copy of the guidelines is here (pdf.)

The Act is officially known as the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. The Guidelines are in Title I of the Act, named the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). The DOJ office that released the guidelines is the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing,
Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking (SMART).

The final guidelines incorporate changes to the intitial guidelines made following a period of public comment. SMART explains the revisions here (pdf).

Sex offenders are society's newest pariahs. Even those as young as 14 (pdf).

< Faith Based Discrimination And Federal Funding | Tuesday Afternoon Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    National Sex Offender Guidelines Released | 43 comments (43 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    "Sex offenders... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:43:41 PM EST
    ...are society's newest pariahs."

    As well they should be. Or, maybe better put, they should always have been pariahs, it's about time we're putting the emphasis on them that should have been there all along.

    "Even those as young as 14."

    Well, since this the definition of what a 14 y/o has to to become such a pariiah, is that such a bad thing?

    (a) knowingly caus[ing] another person to engage in a sexual act--
    (1) by using force against that other person; or
    (2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; [or
    (b) engaging in a sexual act with another by rendering unconscious or involuntarily drugging the victim; or
    (c) engaging in a sexual act with a person under the age of 12]

    Under the Final Guidelines, the definition of "sexual act" that jurisdictions are minimally required to use to determine whether a criminal offense is "comparable to" 18 U.S.C. §2241 is as follows:
    *
    engaging in a sexual act with another by force or the threat of serious violence (see 18 U.S.C. 2241(a)); or
    *
    engaging in a sexual act with another by rendering unconscious or involuntarily drugging the victim (see 18 U.S.C. 2241(b)).

    "Sexual act" for this purpose should be understood to include any degree of genital or anal penetration, and any oral-genital or oral-anal contact.
    So when does this registration expire? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:53:58 PM EST
    That's my issue.  Is this the equivalent of branding someone for life or can someone who is convicted prove themselves worthy of being treated as just another citizen by jumping through enough bureaucratic hoops?

    Which group of offenders should be singled out next?  Tax cheats?  Draft dodgers?  Domestic abusers?  (Kind of in favor of that myself.  Wondering if your new paramour's ex was really that bad?  Were they the victim or the perp?)

    Parent

    So when does this registration expire? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:11:39 PM EST
    XII. DURATION OF REGISTRATION
    Section 115(a) of SORNA specifies the minimum required duration of sex offender registration.

    It generally requires that sex offenders keep the registration current for 15 years in case of a tier I sex offender, for 25 years in case of a tier II sex offender, and for the life of the sex offender in case of a tier III sex offender, "excluding any time the sex offender is in custody or civilly committed."

    [...]

    Subsection (b) of section 115 allows the registration period to be reduced by 5 years for a tier I sex offender who has maintained a "clean record" for 10 years, and allows registration to be terminated for a tier III sex offender required to register on the basis of a juvenile delinquency adjudication if the sex offender has maintained a "clean record" for 25 years.

    [...]

    There is no authorization to reduce the required 25-year duration of registration for tier II sex offenders, or to reduce the required lifetime registration for tier III sex offenders required to register on the basis of adult convictions.



    Parent
    And who is paying for this? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:18:52 PM EST
    Or is this yet another unfunded mandate?

    Twenty five years?  And who gets penalized if an offender disappears from the system?

    Parent

    My understanding is that this (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:31:04 PM EST
    standardizes the existing SO data bases compiled by each state, so the cost is probably minimal but presumably funded by each state('s taxpayers).

    My understanding is that the offender (potentially) gets penalized if he/she "disappears from the system."

    Parent

    It's not always that simple (none / 0) (#11)
    by dianem on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:51:42 PM EST
    If a 12 year old touches an 11 year olds genitals they can be charged with child molestation. I don't know if you played "doctor" as a child, but I recall us being quite curious about anatomy and doing things that were completely innocent but would be classified as a sexual offense today. Heck... I did things when I was a young teenager that would put my boyfriend in jail today. Kids do stupid things, and often are curious about sex. I don't think that they should have to pay for these things for their entire lives.

    And it's not just kids. Adults do foolish things, too, but not all "sex offender's" are serial rapists. A lot are simply people who crossed an invisible line. If a woman gets extremely drunk and has sex with an equally drunk man, he can be charged with rape because she was too drunk to consent. If an 18 year old man has sex with a 17 year old girl he can be charged with statuatory rape, a sex offense.  And heaven forbid that an immature 18 year old has sex with a a girl just shy of 16.  That can be classifed as molestation, even if they are in the same high school class. Somebody who gets caught skinnydipping can be charged with indecent exposure, which may or may not be a sexual offense (depends on where it is and who sees them).

    If "sexual offender's" were all molesters who took advantage of children or men who break into homes and rape women, then the punishment's currently being doled out would fit the crime. But they aren't. There are a lot of things that qualify as sexual offenses, and many of them are simply mistakes in judgement or normal actions which are judged way too harshly by society.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#13)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:21:51 PM EST
    I think the point is that some states do indeed have incredibly harsh definitions of who is a "sex offender," but that this particular database is set up so that only legitimately awful people will get listed.

    Your concern is a valid one but it looks like they may have used some common sense for once in drafting this law.

    Parent

    I'll believe it when I see it (none / 0) (#28)
    by dianem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:56:11 AM EST
    I have yet to see any "common sense" in laws designed to punish people who violate sexual mores in our society. The very use of the terms "sexual offender" is ridiculous, since it groups together violent rapists and pedophiles with statuatory rapists and people who looked at dirty pictures of a 17 year old on the internet. Not that long ago, it was a sexual offense in many states for men to have sex with each other. Laws need to make sense, not be reactionary.  

    Parent
    But... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Rika on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:25:37 AM EST
    "As well they should be. Or, maybe better put, they should always have been pariahs, it's about time we're putting the emphasis on them that should have been there all along."

    But the purpose of the registry is not to create pariahs.  Nor is the purpose in any way connected to what an offender deserves, regardless of the severity of the crimes.  To claim otherwise means one either finds SCOTUS to have been in error when deciding the landmark SOR cases, or finds all state attorneys and supporting victim advocacy groups to be liars.  Those are all groups that have, in court documents, stated there is no punishment in registration and community notification.  SCOTUS even found there was no evidence registration and community notification would create a class of outcasts.

    So what is the purpose?  Protection of the public.  But...a federally funded study in NJ (under the AWA) found the SOR cannot be credited with any reduction in child sexual abuse.  The reduction began five years BEFORE the SOR existed, and the decline didn't speed up when the registry came around.  How about knowing your neighborhood?  Well, research in Minnesota indicated the offenders who did re-offend traveled between two and twenty miles to successfully find their next victim.  How about reducing recidivism?  Well, studies performed at state and national levels found statistically insignificant differences between pre- and post-registry populations.  In fact, a more recent national study found an INCREASE in recidivism among registrants subject to community notification.

    And as for the "important tool for law enforcement" part, I don't know if I'd be too vocal about it.  After all, the number of sex crimes solves has fallen by about 15% since registries showed up.

     

    Parent

    That is misleading (none / 0) (#24)
    by 1980Ford on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:12:19 AM EST
    Any sexual contact with a minor under a certain age, often under 12-14, is considered a crime of violence. It is deemed rape or aggravated sexual abuse based on age. While that may be a common sense policy we cannot be sure by the listing if the minors were actually violent or not. It will depend on how the states implement it.

    Parent
    I support sex offender registries... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Exeter on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:47:56 PM EST
    But feel that they should be incorporated into the punishment and, most importantly, I think only the worst of the worst should be listed. Right now, the list is somewhat watered down by all the 21 year olds turned in by their 16 year old girlfriend parents.  

    Can you show us some actual examples? (none / 0) (#7)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:03:42 PM EST
    Everytime this subject comes up on TL and I actually look at SO registeries, there are never any "hey, she said she was 16 and looked like she was 24, how should I know she was 14?" there.

    What are there are, in the main, are pretty ugly.

    Here are the first 5 offenders, alphabetically, from my business's zip code...

    1. f243.4(a) SEXUAL BATTERY

    2. 288(a) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH CHILD UNDER 14 YEARS

    3. 207 KIDNAPPING/TO COMMIT 261, 286, 288, 288a, 289
    261(2) RAPE BY FORCE

    4. 288(a) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH CHILD UNDER 14 YEARS
    288a(c) ORAL COPULATION WITH PERSON UNDER 14/ETC OR BY FORCE/ETC

    5. 288(a) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH CHILD UNDER 14 YEARS

    Parent

    Well, its tedious (none / 0) (#8)
    by Exeter on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:19:36 PM EST
    You have to look into what the person was charged with, which varies from state to state.  I'm not saying that the list is full of a majority of people that shouldn't be on the list, I'm saying that the 10-20 percent (or whaterver the number) of "questionable" listees clouds the seriousness of the more serious people on the list  

    Parent
    I figure that (none / 0) (#9)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:32:31 PM EST
    over time, we'll find out that there is a growing gap between the number of offenders who have current and accurate information kept and the number who should have that information but don't.

    IOW - it's entirely up to the authorities to keep tabs on the offenders, but only the offenders get penalized if they don't report themselves.  So the offenders are danged if they do and danged if they don't.  I expect some of them will decide to vanish off of the radar since there's precious little incentive for them not to.  For the worst of the worst, they'll be on the registry for a very long time.  Only the least of the offenders can get removed from the registry reasonably soon.

    (Still want my domestic abusers registry.  Think of all the women who would still be alive if they had found out their Prince Charmings were really right b@st@rds.)

    Parent

    That's the idea behind SARNA, (none / 0) (#10)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:41:02 PM EST
    it will standardize the databases so it won't vary from state to state.

    fwiw, and due to this topic on TL I've done a lot of research, I have never found even one "questionable" listee.

    The databases do not list all offenders, they generally list only the worst of the worst. I would put the "questionable" listees at less than 1%.

    Parent

    Here's one example (none / 0) (#14)
    by marisol on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:46:50 PM EST
    This article in the Boston Globe describes a double murder in Maine in 2006. http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2006/04/18/sex_crime_disclosure_questioned/

    Both victims were listed on the registry. One was 24 years old, charged with having sex with his underage girlfriend.  

    I heard a radio interview with his mother at the time.  She explained that her son was mildly retarded and had Asperger's syndrome.  When arrested, he panicked and followed the advice of the police to plead guilty, not understanding the ramifications.

    I have many disagreements with this law; this example is only one of the most extreme.
     

    Parent

    I don't for a second think that there are (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:51:19 AM EST
    zero "questionable" listees. As I said, I expect them to be less than 1%. Much less, actually.

    Remember, we're talking about listees, NOT all convicted sex offenders. Not all sex offenders are listed.

    Here are the two LISTEES in my town:

    Date of Birth: 05-25-1946
    288(a) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH CHILD UNDER 14 YEARS
    288a(c) ORAL COPULATION WITH PERSON UNDER 14/ETC OR BY FORCE/ETC

    and:
    Date of Birth: 11-13-1981
    f289(a) PRIOR CODE-SEXUAL PENETRATION WITH FOREIGN OBJECT BY FORCE

    Parent

    The charges always sound bad (none / 0) (#12)
    by dianem on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:56:48 PM EST
    For example, lewd or lacivious acts with a child under 14 years could apply to a 14 year old boy who is caught having sex with a 13 year old girl.  You don't know, and the database doesn't give you the circumstances or give the offender a chance to explain. It's like mug shots. Pick somebody up at 2 in the morning, don't let him shave or put on a tie, then take a photograph and post it for all the world to see. Anybody looks kind of shady (except Tom DeLay, who, brilliantly, smiled as if it were a campaign photograph - but he had shaved before he was arrested and been allowed to wear a suit).

    Parent
    The charges sound bad, often, (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:56:54 AM EST
    because they are bad. Shouldn't be too surprising.

    Anyway, I'd be fine with adding the date of conviction to the Megan's Law listing so we could see that the dude was in his 40's when he coerced the u/14 boy next door to do him.

    Parent

    I'd like to see more (none / 0) (#27)
    by dianem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:44:32 AM EST
    A brief description of the actual charges and a statement from the listee about the situation, if they so desire. This would give the person a chance to get their story out publicly. Right now, the system is set up so that all people see are charges which are deliberately designed to sound terrible.  When is the last time you saw somebody charged with "getting into a bar fight and hitting somebody over the head with a beer bottle"? Nope, the charge is "assault with intent to commit great bodily harm". All I want is for people to be treated fairly. If that means that they are rejected by society for doing something horrible, then so be it. But let's not pretend that every sexual offender is some middle aged guy who molested the kid next door or some creep who broke into a woman's bedroom. Life is not that simple.

    Parent
    The government wants you to know less (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Rika on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:04:35 AM EST
    SORNA is an effort to ensure states provide LESS useful information to the public.  Some states have for years performed individual risk assessments, subjecting registrants to reporting and notification requirements depending upon their risk of recidivism.  In order to comply with the guideliens, states must abandon individual risk assessments.  SORNA no longer permits the public to know who those folks are.  In the name of "standardization," the risk an individual offender poses is irrelevant.

    States that perform risk assessments--such as New Jersey--have recidivism rates roughly half the national average.  The supporters of SORNA knew that, and deemed it not only irrelevant, but any mention of it to be "supporting sex offenders."

    Isn't it funny how advocating for policies that reduce the number of victims has become "pro-pedophile"?

    Parent

    Oh, btw, (none / 0) (#18)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:02:25 AM EST
    you'll only see a 14 y/o boy on the lists if he:

    (a) knowingly caus[ing] another person to engage in a sexual act-- [by]
    (1) by using force against that other person; or
    (2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; [or
    (b) engaging in a sexual act with another by rendering unconscious or involuntarily drugging the victim; or
    (c) engaging in a sexual act with a person under the age of 12]
    Under the Final Guidelines, the definition of "sexual act" that jurisdictions are minimally required to use to determine whether a criminal offense is "comparable to" 18 U.S.C. §2241 is as follows:
    *
    engaging in a sexual act with another by force or the threat of serious violence (see 18 U.S.C. 2241(a)); or
    *
    engaging in a sexual act with another by rendering unconscious or involuntarily drugging the victim (see 18 U.S.C. 2241(b)).

    "Sexual act" for this purpose should be understood to include any degree of genital or anal penetration, and any oral-genital or oral-anal contact.



    Parent
    Not necessarily. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Rika on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:09:59 AM EST
    As with the original Jacob Wetterling Act, states are highly encouraged to expand upon the guidelines.  The Justice Department has repeatedly called the guidelines "a floor, not a ceiling."  States can choose to list whatever kids they wish.

    Same goes for the rest of the guidelines.  States can choose to list everyone for life.  Or expand the definitions of those required to register.  Or have them report every month.  Or require the registration of the names and contact information for their family members.  (Illinois has had that proposal twice, I believe.)  Or the states can have a civil registry--like Ohio--that does not require criminal conviction to be labeled and treated as a sex offender.

    Standardization is a joke.  Not even the DOJ is interested in seeing it.  It is, however, a great excuse to expand the role of federal law enforcement in local matters.

    Parent

    Fair enough, the states can do pretty much (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:40:45 AM EST
    anything they like.

    SORNA, though, would only list a 14 y/o as I indicated above.

    Parent

    Doubtful (none / 0) (#23)
    by Rika on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:09:10 AM EST
    SORNA will list what the state lists.  They will not screen 600,000-and-growing individual listings, request state clarification for questionable entries, nor de-list someone the state chooses to list.  SORNA was sold to some lawmakers (and the public) as a method of standardization that would save money via simplicity.  SORNA's supporters had different plans, as evidenced by the "floor not a ceiling" encouragements.  Without standardization at the state level, SORNA is a mishmash

    Parent
    pedophiles versus hebephiles (none / 0) (#15)
    by diogenes on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:08:57 PM EST
    In the field, being attracted to post-pubertal teens is seen as a variant of "normal" and is regarded as a bad choice to be counselled about.  Being attracted to prepubertal children is much more problematic.  Note how psychiatry once said that it could "change" the sexual orientation of male homosexuals, only to now decide that sexual orientation cannot be changed.  Pedophilia is also notoriously hard to change.  Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, and if someone who is attracted to children has crossed society's biggest modern taboo and had sex with a child once, the risk of recurrence is high.
    Also, forcible rape is such a taboo that it is a concern no matter who does it. I'd remove non-forcible "statutory" rape of a post-pubescent teen from being a crime requiring listing on an offender registry, though.  

    Of course the answer you will get to the (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:42:10 AM EST
    apparent conflict between "dudes that do kids" can be changed but "dudes that do dudes or "chicks that do chicks" cannot, is that "dudes doing kids" is wrong, but "dudes doing dudes" & "chicks doing chicks" is not.

    Honestly, I think most of us can accept that generally "dudes that do dudes" & "chicks that do chicks" cannot change, so why are we so opposed to accepting that generally "dudes that do kids" also cannot?

    Spare me the "we shouldn't try to change sexual orientation, but we should try to change whether they act on it or not (as long as it's not about homosexuality)," and/or the "oh, suo, you are SO unenlightened..."

    Parent

    Recidivism is highly exagerated (none / 0) (#25)
    by 1980Ford on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:23:15 AM EST
    Sex offender recidivism rates below expectations: more than 80% of sex offenders who underwent treatment did not reoffend. (15-Year Prospective Study).

    That is a study of the worst of the worst. That these laws are named after murdered children is like Bush saying Iraq had WMDs.

    Parent

    Doesn't matter (none / 0) (#26)
    by Rika on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:29:07 AM EST
    Whether recidivism is high or low is of no matter.  The question is whether SORNA--and the many years of registry laws leading up to it--had an impact on recidivism.  That must be the question because supporters of the law claim that is not only its intent, but its "common sense" outcome.

    The answer to the question is, registries have failed to deliver on the promises, and are now measured as "successful" if the database is accurate.

    Parent

    It does matter (none / 0) (#29)
    by 1980Ford on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:03:14 AM EST
    The laws are founded on exaggerated statistics and the fear mongering lumps offenders in with child murderers.

    The question is if the laws promote or subverts the intended goal. Laws based on exaggerated fear have a tendency to incite unintended consequences.

    RATING RELAPSE RISKS

    Reclassifying sexual offenders means more will feel public pressure

    Nevada currently categorizes the offenders by their risk of re-offending. Under the new law, they'll be categorized by the crime they committed.

    There are 166 Tier 3 sex offenders in Nevada, but authorities believe that number will jump to 2,515.

    Parent

    Why They Don't Matter (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Rika on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:19:51 AM EST
    I understand what you're saying.  However, no one will ever agree upon recidivism rates.  Legislative records across the nation are filled with policy makers, political members, and chosen advocates naming off recidivism rates in the 90% range.  When confronted with actual data provided by Departments of Corrections, those folks revert to "But that doesn't include unreported crimes!"

    Which is absoltely true.

    Which is why recidivism rates don't matter.  Any supporter of the law will always attempt to trump the conversation by building an emotional appeal upon an unknowable, unmeasurable, non-existent statistic.

    I say, more power to 'em.  Go ahead and state recidivism is in the 90% range, and that doesn't include secret sex crimes.  Fine.

    Now show me how the registry has, in over a decade, made the situation any better.  Show me the sudden surge of reporting of previously-secret crimes.  Show me the drop in victimization.  Show me the expansion of crimes solved.

    The usual reply is, "But parents feel safer!"  And that is political concern completely divorced from the safety of children.


    Parent

    Recidivism is not highly exaggerated. (none / 0) (#32)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:56:07 AM EST
    Results of this five-year follow-up study found that same-sex child molesters had the highest rate of previous sex offenses (53 percent), as well as the highest reconviction rate for sex crimes (30 percent).
    Your point, or rather the point of that article you cited, is that therapy, counseling and monitoring helps reduce the rate of recidivism. I'm not sure any one's arguing against that.

    2ndly, all such studies are NOT of recidism rates but rather of re-apprehension/conviction rates.

    We really have no idea how many SO's re-offend, all we have data on is the SO's who re-offend and are re-arrested/convicted.

    Fact: Only a fraction of those who commit sexual assault are apprehended and convicted for their crimes.[...]

    A 1992 study estimated that only 12% of rapes were reported (Kilpatrick, Edmunds, and Seymour, 1992). The National Crime victimization Surveys conducted in 1994, 1995, and 1998 indicate that only 32% of sexual assaults against persons 12 or older were reported to law enforcement. (No current studies indicate the rate of reporting for child sexual assault, although it generally is assumed that these assaults are equally under-reported.)

    Since only a small fraction of offenders are ever apprehended, it is logical that a similarly small fraction of re-offenders are ever apprehended.

    Parent

    You just proved Rika right (none / 0) (#34)
    by 1980Ford on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:59:15 PM EST
    But there are flaws in your argument.

    A 90% recidivism rate, often touted to support the laws, is an exaggeration even by your study. It also neglects the non-re-apprehension/conviction rates of non-sex offenders, so to compare sex offense recidivism by unreported crime but not do so with other offenders and their unreported crimes is misleading. That exaggerates the recidivism of sex offenders as The Most Likely to Recidivate.

    Where did you get your first paragraph? Why no link? The DOJ study contradicts it (5.3% after 3 years).

    Most telling is why wasn't there a sudden surge of arrests and convictions when the registry went public? If all those sex offenders were reoffending but the public didn't know who they were, wouldn't there be thousands of cases found when the public was suddenly aware of who they trusted with their children when they shouldn't have? Indeed, can you point to ONE CASE where the registry alone led to the arrest of a registrant who was currently offending? Just ONE CASE that proves awareness through the registry found the crime of on-going abuse? There are cases where the registry led to arrest, but that was like using it for a photo line-up and identification after the fact, like spotting someone accused of indecent exposure. The registry has not led to parents suddenly realizing someone trusted should not have been and that realization led to arrest for on-going abuse. Even if you could find one or two cases, if the under reporting is as you claim, there should be thousands of arrests like that by now. IOW, what the registry was designed to prevent appears to not be the problem as sold. If it were, there would be thousands of arrests after the registry went public. Indeed, if the 53% is correct as you claim, and since there are over 600,000 registered offenders, there should be over 300,000 arrests for new sex crimes due to the public registry. But find just 10 if you can.

    Just as important is the fact that 80-90% of sex offenders were never previously arrested for a sex offense and an Arkansas study found 83% were never previously arrested for ANYTHING. There are many sites now that dispel the rhetoric. Effective laws must be rational and evidence-based. See Sex Offender Statistics and other sites on the misleading statistics and unintended consequences. There are many more sites now that put the issue in perspective.

    Parent

    Who said anything about 90% recidivism rates? (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:42:07 PM EST
    Not me.

    Here's where the paragraph come from, plenty of fodder there for all sides of the discussion.

    I also did not claim that the registries lessen the undereporting of sex crimes, why would you say I did?

    Results show that over longer periods of time, child molesters have a higher failure rate--thus, a higher rate of rearrest--than rapists (52 percent versus 39 percent over 25 years).

    And, right, 80-90% of sex offenders were never arrested/convicted/whatever before. Why do you suppose that is? Well, it's because:

    Many Crimes Unreported. One cause of the continued public concern is that many serious sex crimes are never reported to authorities and thus result in no arrest or punishment of the offender. National data and California criminal justice experts indicate that sex offenders are apprehended for a fraction of the crimes they actually commit. By some estimates, only one in every three to five serious sex offenses are reported to authorities and only 3 percent of such crimes ever result in the apprehension of an offender.
    .

    Again, many of the studies can bolster more than one side of the argument. From Riko's link:

    We find evidence that registration reduces the frequency of sex offenses by providing law enforcement with information on local sex offenders.


    Parent
    In the details (none / 0) (#36)
    by Rika on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 03:04:56 PM EST
    "We find evidence that registration reduces the frequency of sex offenses by providing law enforcement with information on local sex offenders."

    I don't see a bolstering of both sides, but rather a distinction too often missed.  There is a difference between registration (information for law enforcement purposes only) and community notification (SORNA and other publicly available registries).  The former can indeed reduce sex offenses.  The latter increases recidivism.  


    Parent

    The distincion is that the latter increases (none / 0) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 03:08:30 PM EST
    arrests/convictions, which I would assume most of us would say, is a good thing. No one can claim to know that it increases re-offending.

    Parent
    In circles (none / 0) (#38)
    by Rika on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 03:35:33 PM EST
    Very well.  Let's say notification increases arrests--which is a good thing, because we know sex offenders are rarely caught.  Then it must follow that registration alone decreases arrests of active sex offenders because--which is not good, because sex offenders are rarely caught.  And since we know, because sex offenders are rarely caught, that 9 or 10 sex crimes arrests of previously un-convicted sex offenders, the above scenario could lead to nine times as many un-caught sex offenders than a scenario that assumes the study reinforces decades worth of research.

    Or we could divide up our assumptions and say under-reporting only exists among registered sex offenders.  Therefore the study must actually say registration REALLY decreases sex offenses but notification REALLY doesn't increase recvidivism.

    Incidentally, child advocacy groups such as The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Stop It Now! cite numerous data points that indicate the population that makes up the majority of sex crime victims are less likely to report today than before community notification existed.

    Parent

    You mean the British NSPCC? (none / 0) (#39)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 03:59:54 PM EST
    They say this:
    There is some evidence that victims of intra-familial abuse may be deterred from reporting crimes because of fears related to community notification.
    Makes some sense to me, although I'm not convinced these victims, which I would assume are mainly children, are generally cognizant of community notification - never mind what effect notification might have on "Uncle Perv."

    Perhaps they meant that some adult caretakers of the victims were deterred from reporting crimes against the children.

    Parent

    You just exagerated the recidivism rate (none / 0) (#40)
    by 1980Ford on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 04:14:56 PM EST
    even as you claim it is not exagerated! The statistic you cited refers to males who molest same sex victims and you touted that as proof the statistics are not exaggerated, but the statistic you cited exaggerates the recidivism rate for all offenders. But you knew that and knew it would sound effective.

    Who claims a 90% recidivism rate? Dutch professor Frenken and some politicians quote him.

    But see On average, the sexual offense recidivism rate was low (13.4%; n = 23,393).

    Certainly much lower than the statistic you cited. Indeed, MULTIPLE STATE'S SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM STUDIES EXPOSE FRAUD UPON THE AMERICAN PUBLIC BY LAWMAKERS AND MAINSTREAM MEDIA.

    Are you going to answer why there wasn't a sudden surge in arrests after the registry went public? Thought not.

    Parent

    Did I say that the registry going public did (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 04:25:19 PM EST
    result in a surge in arrests? I think they call your "question" a strawman.

    Parent
    Did you think you control the conversation (none / 0) (#42)
    by 1980Ford on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:33:59 PM EST
    and it's limited to what you say?

    It's not, and your answer is called Begging the Question.

    There is pre-registry, which is pre-public safety and there is post-registry, which is post-public safety. So there should be a surge of arrests post-public safety since the public was not protected before.

    Step away from your keyboard, don't make any sudden moves, and maybe you can figure that out.

    Parent

    Recidivism rates (none / 0) (#43)
    by LarryBud on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 11:39:52 PM EST
    I realize this is an old topic but thought I would respond anyway.

    I recently read where the DOJ states the Recidivism rate is 8%, which would mean that 92% do not re-offend.

    Also, there was DOJ funded research that not only proves this, but shows that the cost outways the registration necessity.

    http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/225370.pdf

    I liken sex offender registration requirements to the war on drugs. Its a good thing we are raging that war [on drugs], otherwise we may have crime spilling over our border with Mexico... oh wait, it is!

    Parent

    Just to follow up... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Rika on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:49:55 PM EST
    On the question of whether registries reduce recidivism:

    "Our results correspond with a model in which community notification deters first-time sex offenses, but increases recidivism by registered offenders due to a change in the relative utility of legal and illegal behavior. This finding is consistent with work by criminologists suggesting that notification may increase recidivism by imposing social and financial costs on registered sex offenders and making non-criminal activity relatively less attractive. We regard this latter finding as potentially important, given that the purpose of community notification is to reduce recidivism."

    From the paper "Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?" Feb 2008

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1100663

    National Sex Offender Guidelines Released | 43 comments (43 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment