Illinois Voices

A summary of fact-based research and reports showing the negative consequences of our current sex offender laws. The following topics are covered below: [click here for PDF printable version for distribution]

Recidivism
Residency Restrictions
Community Notification
Romeo and Juliet Laws
Sexting and Social Networking
Juveniles
Pornography
Treatment
GPS Monitoring
Civil Commitment
False Accusations
Employment
Vigilante Violence
Recommendations
Various Quotes

Various studies conducted over the years have found a consistently low number of sex offenders who re-offend. The simple question of recidivism has a rather complex answer. However, the general consensus is our worst fear, namely the number of sex offenders committing new sex crimes, is much lower than believed. Still, the recidivism myth runs deep and proponents of sex offender legislation have given many excuses regarding the consistently low numbers of sex specific recidivism. Some claim sex offenders "learn not to get caught again" (Hopkins 2007), others look at the concept of unreported crimes, misread and misinform the public on research findings (whether intentional or not), or simply reject the findings altogether. Regardless of the criticism, the fact remains that sex offenders have a low recidivism rate, are less likely to commit crimes than other offenders, vary greatly by offense type, are less likely to re-offend the longer they are out of prison, and make up only a fraction of sex crime arrests. As long as the recidivism myth remains, there is little hope for progress in addressing the root causes of criminal sexual behavior.

US Department of Justice, "Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released into the Community in 1994." Three-year follow-up period [source]

9,641 sex offenders released in 15 states
262,420 non-sex offenders released in same 15 states in 1994
517 sex offenders (5.3% of all sex offenders) were arrested for a sex crime within 3 years
3,228 non-sex offenders (1.3% of all no-sex offenders) were arrested for a sex crime within the same three year period
3.5% of sex offenders re-convicted

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, "Ten Year Recidivism Follow-up of 1989 Sex Offender Releases." [source]

8% of sex offenders were recommitted in the 10-year period
3% of sex offenders committed a sexually-related violation of probation/parole
Half of recidivists re-offended within two years of release
2/3 of recidivists re-offended within 3 years of release in the 10-year period
Treatment found to reduce recidivism (16.7% w/o treatment, 7% w/ treatment)

Michigan DOC Parole Board Stats for Parolees 1990-2000 (3-year follow-up). [source]

4762 SO paroled, 993 total failures, 702 technical violations, 291 returned to prison, 117 committed sex crimes (2.46%), 6.11% total recidivism (apparently based on return to prison)
Lowest total (general) recidivism: Homicide (6.03%), Sex Offenders (6.11%), Embezzlement (8.44%), Arson (8.64%), Motor Vehicle Offenses (10.75%)
Lowest same crime (specific) recidivism: Embezzlement (0.44%), Murder (0.99%), Arson (1.49%), Sex Offenses (2.46%), Assault (2.83%)

Harris and Hanson, "Summary of Canadian Recidivism Studies" (averaged percentages of recidivists after 5, 10, and 15 years respectively) - 2004
[source]

All sex offenders - 14%, 20%, 24%
Rapists- 14%, 21%, 24%
Incest molesters - 6%, 9%, 13%
Girl victim molesters - 9%, 13%, 16%
Boy victim molesters - 23%, 28%, 35%
First time sex offenders - 10%, 15%, 19%
Repeat sex offenders - 25%, 32%, 37%

Center for Sex Offender Management - Fact Sheet dated December 2008

About 12 to 24% of sex offenders will reoffend. When sex offenders do commit another crime, it is more often not sexual or violent.
[source]

California study: Recidivism of Paroled Sex Offenders, 10 year study 1997 to 2007 [source]

Recidivism after 1 year of release: 2.21%
Recidivism after 2 years of release: 2.94%
Recidivism after 5 years of release: 3.3%
Recidivism after 10 years of release: 3.38%

NOTEWORTHY FINDINGS:
The total of sexual recidivists is lower than some might have believed. Most re-offenses and parole violations occur in the initial period of reentry after release. Sex offenders are more likely to commit some other type of offense than to commit a new sex offense.

Risk Factors for Recidivism Among Adolescent Sexual Offenders - Gregory A. Parks, Abstract (January 2006)

Based upon both juvenile and adult recidivism data, 6.4% of the sample reoffended sexually and 30.1% reoffended nonsexually.
[source]

Sex Offender Sentencing In Washington State: Recidivism Rates (5-year +1 year for adjudication, based on conviction rates)

General SO Recidivism 13%; Sex Offense Recidivism 2.7%; among child victim offenders, 2.3%; among rapists, 3.9%
[source]

Arizona Dept. of Corrections Follow-Up of SO Released from 1984-1998 (up to 12 year follow-up period) [source]

3,205 released SO; 25.2% general recidivism;
5.5% sex crime;
9.3% indecency SO recidivists;
5.9% rapists;
5% sex abuse;
3.5% sex conduct with minor

Alaska three year recidivism study (2007) [source]

SO specific recidivism rate, 3%;
SO arrested for any crime (gen. recid.) 39%;
All criminals general recidivism, 60%.

Factors correlated with higher recidivism: Youth, substance abuse, mental illness, poor.

New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives - Sex Offender Populations, Recidivism and Actuarial Assessment (May 2007)

Research on a sample of 917 sex offenders on probation across the U.S. in 17 states from 1986 to 1989 indicates that while under probation supervision, 11.7% were arrested for a non-sex offense during a three year follow-up period, and 4.5% were arrested for a new sex crime within three years (Meloy, 2005). Another study involving sex offender probationers revealed that after five years, 5.6% were arrested for a new sex offense (Krutschnitt, Uggen and Shelton, 2000).
[source]

State of New York Department of Correctional Services [source]

6% of sex offenders were returned to prison for a new sex crime (1986)
2.1% of sex offenders were returned to prison for a new sex crime (1985 - 2003)
8% of sex offenders were returned to prison as a result of a conviction for a new crime. Most were returned for parole violations.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

There is no research to support the idea that residency restrictions prevent repeat sex crimes.

Following a decade or more of increasing public awareness of the magnitude and severity of sexual assault, reports of rape and child sexual abuse began declining during the early 1990s. Nonetheless, this period saw a remarkable and continuing increase in sex offender legislation aimed at augmenting the penalties for sex offenses and monitoring convicted offenders. Motivated by public outrage over sensationalized sexual crimes and murders, governments at the federal, state, and local levels enacted sweeping new legislation.

Sex offender residence restriction laws, now the center of much attention in the United States, are one such legislative attempt to track, identify and control sexual offenders in order to reduce the risk that they might victimize anyone in the future. Residence restriction laws came to be the center of current focus as the culmination of a sequence of preceding policies which paved the way. In almost every case, these policies have emerged in an effort to provide some response to specific, emotionally disturbing, widely publicized crimes and have been named for the victims of those crimes. [source]

Collateral Consequences of Sex Offender Residence Restrictions
(Jill S. Levenson, Ph.D., LCSW, Lynn University)

Residence restrictions appear to interfere with social support and stability for most registered sex offenders. Many reported transience as a result of housing restrictions, including multiple moves and homelessness. Residence restrictions were especially detrimental for younger offenders. They experienced more transience and homelessness, probably as a result of being unable to live with their families in residential neighborhoods near places where children gather.
[source]

Residency restriction policies are based upon some basic assumptions:

Persons not previously connected to or with ready access to the victim – "strangers" – pose the major threat of sexual assault.
Previously identified sex offenders who commit repeat offenses are responsible for most new sex crimes.
Where a sex offender "lives" (sleeps at night) has some direct relationship to any new sex crime he may commit.

The accuracy of each of the assumptions concludes, based upon solid information, that none of them match the reality of what is now known about sex offenses.

In only about 20% or less of sex crimes is the offender a stranger.
Nearly 90% of new sex crimes are committed by individuals who had no previous sex offense history and 75% or more of registered sex offenders do not commit another sex crime.
The available research shows no relationship whatsoever between where a registered sex offender lives and the pattern of any new sex crime he commits.

No Easy Answers
(by Human Rights Watch)

Registered offenders may be hounded from their homes by angry neighbors or denied housing by private and public landlords. But their right to establish and maintain homes in which they can live with their families is also threatened by a growing number of state and municipal laws that expressly forbid them from living near places where children gather. At least 20 states have enacted laws that prohibit certain sex offenders from living within a specified distance of schools, daycare centers, parks, and other places where children congregate.

In addition, hundreds of municipalities (in states with and without residency restriction statutes) have also passed similar ordinances prohibiting registered sex offenders from living within specified distances of places where children congregate. The least restrictive distance requirement is in Illinois (500 feet), but most common are 1,000- to 2,500-foot boundaries.

The inability of convicted sex offenders to find housing when they are released from prison has become a significant barrier to their successful reintegration into society. This is particularly problematic for registrants who have limited resources, or for those who because of work, community, or family obligations want to live in particular locations. Residency restrictions prevent offenders from living in the areas closest to jobs and public transit, since schools, daycare centers, and parks are often built in the center of main residential areas of cities and towns.

Registrants and their family members have found that in some cities there is literally nowhere they are allowed to live. For example, a study in Orange County, Florida, which has a 1,000-foot restricted buffer zone around attractions, bus stops, daycares, parks, and schools, found that only 5 percent of the city's residential areas were outside the residential restriction zone. Max C., who is on the Georgia sex offender registry, told Human Rights Watch that because of that state's residency restrictions, "I can honestly say that I have nowhere to live in the community I have lived in for 30 years." An Iowa sex offender was found living with his family of three in a car on an abandoned farm property because residences in the small farm towns were either off-limits or too expensive. In Florida, a 2004 survey of sex offenders found that half of the respondents reported that residency restrictions had forced them to move from a residence in which they were living, and 25 percent were unable to return to their residence after their conviction. Nearly half reported that residency restrictions prevented them from living with supportive family members. Recently, newspapers have reported that in Miami, five sex offenders are living under a bridge-with the state's approval-because the residency restrictions in their county made it impossible for them to find housing.
[source]

Most Sex Offenses Are Committed by Perpetrators Who Had Not Previously Been Convicted of a Sex Crime

Residence restrictions are based on the erroneous belief that future sex offenses can be prevented by imposing highly restrictive conditions on those sex offenders who have already been identified. Yet a comprehensive survey by the United States Department of Justice found that 87% of the individuals arrested for sex crimes had not been previously convicted of a sex offense. The unsettling truth is that the vast majority of the sex offenses of the future will be committed by offenders who have never before been convicted of a sex crime.

Residence restrictions are proposed and enacted to create a firewall between the children in our communities and a predatory stranger who has already been identified as a sex offender, when the vastly greater threat is posed by someone inside a potential victim’s family or social circle, someone who has never been convicted of a sex crime. Thus, residence restrictions could have no possible effect whatsoever on preventing the most common circumstances where children are sexually abused. And such restrictions are quite unlikely to have any impact on preventing a previously known sex offender – stranger or not – from committing another offense should he have the intent of doing so.
[source]

Minnesota Dept. of Corrections, "Level Three Sex Offenders - Treatment Placement Issues" - 2003

"Enhanced safety due to proximity restrictions may be a comfort factor for the general public, but it does not have any basis in fact." Case studies failed to find any correlation between proximity to schools and recidivism.
[source]

Colorado Dept. of Public Safety, SOMB, "Report on Safety Issues by Living Arrangements for and Location of Sex Offenders in the Community" - 2004

Researchers failed to find any correlatoin between proximity to schools and recidivism.
[source]

John Q. LaFond, American Psychological Association, "Preventing Sexual Violence: How Society Should Cope With Sex Offenders" - 2005

The laws have had many adverse consequences, such as vigilantism; loss of employment, residence, and relationships; difficulty in obtaining suitable housing; and incentives to violate existing registration laws.
[source]

Minnesota Dept. of Corrections, "Residential Proximity and Sex Offense Recidivism in Minnesota" - April 2007 [source]

Study: offenders who met a criteria that included a previous offense to the offender’s residence and had a minor victim; "Not one of the 224 sex offenses would likely have been deterred by a residency restriction law."
Recidivism correlated to "social or relationship" proximity rather than residential proximity; 49% committed offense 1+ miles from home.
Deterrent effect "slim" due to rarity of the offenses it was trying to protect; they found housing restrictions detrimental.

Monica Davey, New York Times, "Iowa’s Residency Restrictions Drive Sex Offenders Underground." - March 2006 [source]

140 sex offenders were unaccounted for before residency laws were enforced
400 sex offenders were unaccounted for after residency laws enforced in 2005
350% Increase in one year (2004-2005)

Jill Levenson and Leo Cotter, "The Impact of Sex Offender Residency Restrictions: 1000 Feet From Danger or One Step From Absurd?" - 2005 [source]

I have had to move out of a home that I owned because of the 1,000-ft rule - 22%
I have had to move out of an apartment that I rented - 28%
When released from prison, I was unable to return to my home - 25%
I have been unable to live with supportive family members - 44%
I find it difficult to find affordable housing because of the 1,000-ft rule - 57%
I have suffered financially because of the 1,000-ft rule - 48%
I have suffered emotionally because of the 1,000-ft rule - 60%

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Community notification of sex offenders through public Internet registries gives the community a "false sense of security." Non-registered individuals commit ninety-five percent of all sex offenses. Registration requirements, therefore, have the potential to prevent only a very small fraction of future sex offenses. Community notification allows any individual, corporation, or organization access to sex offender registration information. In many cases, activists discover offenders’ addresses through Internet sex offender registries. Offenders receive threatening mail and phone calls. Even worse, activists burn and vandalize offenders’ homes. Some offenders move and fail to update their registry information and vigilantes mistakenly target innocent homeowners because their addresses appear on the registry.

Furthermore, readily available personal information about former offenders allows neighbors, colleagues, classmates, employers, and others to shun and ostracize the offenders. Offenders cannot find employment and, when they do, employers fire them when the employers discover their employees are former offenders. Homelessness and joblessness not only makes the offenders more difficult for law enforcement to supervise, but also create recidivism and threaten public safety. The stigma and harassment of former offenders diminish the likelihood of a successful transition back into society.[source]

Vera Institute of Justice, "The Pursuit of Safety: Responses to Sex Offenders in the U.S.

Many people say that when notified that an offender is moving into their neighborhood, they take action to keep their families safe. However, evidence is mixed on whether notification is effective in reducing sex offenses because a majority of sex offenders are known to their victims. Community notification policies have drawbacks, too. Administering these systems can be a burden for law enforcement and parole officers. In addition, notification has a destabilizing effect on offenders, reducing the likelihood of their attaining housing or a job. This drives offenders underground, pushing them further from the services they need and putting public safety at risk. Finally, in some cases notification has resulted in violence and acts of vigilantism against offenders.
[source]

Jill Levenson, Ph.D., Study: "Collateral Damage: Family Members of Registered Sex Offenders" [source]

My family member, the RSO, had a very hard time finding a job because employers don't want to hire a registered sex offender, and this has created financial hardship for my family - 82%
My family member, the RSO, lost a job because a boss or co-workers found out that (s)he was a sex offender, and this created financial hardship for my family - 53%
I have had to move out of a residence that I rented because my landlord found out that a sex offender lived there - 22%
I have had to move out of a residence that I rented because my neighbors found out that a sex offender lived there - 17%
I have had to move out of a home that I owned because my neighbors found out that a sex offender lived there - 12%
I have been threatened or harassed by neighbors after they found out that my family member is a sex offender - 44%
I have been physically assaulted or injured by someone who found out that my family member is a sex offender - 7%
My property has been damaged by someone who found out that my family member is a sex offender - 27%
A person who lives with me (who is not a RSO) has been threatened, harassed, assaulted, injured, or suffered property damage because someone found out that my family member is a sex offender - 30%

The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers

There is no evidence that community notification reduces sex offense recidivism or increases community safety. The only study to date found no statistically significant difference in recidivism rates between offenders who were subjected to notification in Washington (19% recidivism) and those who were not (22% recidivism). Sex offenders who were subjected to community notification were, however, arrested more quickly for new sex crimes than those not publicly identified. It was found that 63% of the new sex offenses occurred in the jurisdiction where notification took place, suggesting that notification did not deter offenders or motivate them to venture outside their jurisdictions (where they would be less likely identified) to commit crimes. Based on these findings, the authors concluded that community notification appeared to have little effect on sex offense recidivism (Schram & Milloy, 1995). Interestingly, most results have indicated that citizens report increased anxiety due to notification because of the lack of strategies offered for protecting themselves from sex offenders (Caputo, 2001; Zevitz, Crim, & Farkas, 2000).

Research suggests that about one-third to one-half of sex offenders subjected to community notification experience dire events such as the loss of a job or home, threats or harassment, or property damage (Levenson & Cotter, 2005b; Tewksbury, 2005). Physical assault seems to occur in 5-16% of cases. About 19% of sex offenders report that these negative consequences have affected other members their households.

It has been suggested that notification may, ironically, interfere with its stated goal of enhancing public safety by exacerbating the stressors (e.g., isolation, disempowerment, shame, depression, anxiety, lack of social supports) that may trigger some sex offenders to relapse. Such dynamic factors have been associated with increased recidivism (Hanson & Harris, 1998; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004), and although sex offenders inspire little sympathy from the public, ostracizing them may inadvertently increase their risk.
[source]

Human Rights Watch

Despite the rationale for community notification, online registries are not limited to offenders who have committed serious crimes, or are assessed to pose a significant risk of reoffending in the future. Nor is access to the registries limited to those who have a legitimate "need to know."

Some people insist that community notification via online registries does not invade a registrant's privacy because the registries contain information already in the public domain. This is an argument US courts have adopted in upholding community notification. It is true that criminal records are available at courthouses for those who wish to inquire. But, as noted above, the online registries pull together, in an easily accessible fashion, information that is not usually part of one's criminal record. A few studies have sought to determine whether community notification reduces the reoffense rates of former offenders; none have established that they do.

It is difficult to overstate the impact of community notification, particularly online registries, on the privacy of registered individuals and their families. Community notification makes readily available information that would otherwise be difficult to obtain. The lack of "need-to-know" restrictions on who can access the registries means registry information is available to all, regardless of why they want to see it and how they will use it. The breadth of information and extent of access all but eliminates the possibility that a former offender can move into a community and rebuild his or her life without notice.

Community notification does not just obliterate a registered person's privacy. Publicly identifying someone as a registered sex offender brands that person – in many people's eyes – as a dangerous and particularly loathsome person. The branding – which can last for a lifetime – has the entirely foreseeable result of making it very difficult (if not entirely impossible) for former offenders and their families to live peaceful, safe, stable, and productive lives.
[source]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[Click here for more information regarding Romeo & Juliet laws]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[Click here for more information regarding Sexting laws]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[Click here for more information regarding Juveniles]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[Click here for more information regarding pornography]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

TREATMENT WORKS - by Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy

For those who are claiming sex offenders can't be treated are wrong. Treatment while in prison dramatically reduces the risk of recidivism.

So hold the cries for longer sentences and instead demand that sex offenders be given treatment while in prison. For those that refuse treatment, parole boards likely will keep them in jail. Many states allow for civil commitment of sex offenders after their prison terms are up.

Barry Maletzky, MD and Kevin McGovern, Ph.D. of The Sexual Abuse Clinic of Portland Oregon followed about 5,000 offenders treated in their clinic and similar clinics between 1973 and 1990 using behavior oriented methods. About 3,700 of these were pedophiles -770 were exhibitionists. The remainder were referred for a variety of other paraphilias. Criteria for "success" included:

No re-arrest
Self report of no maladaptive sexual behaviors
Reduced deviant arousal maintained post-treatment as verified on penile plethysmograph
"Significant other" ratings of patient behavior

Using these stringent measures to follow some men for as long as 17 years post treatment, success was achieved with 94.7% of heterosexual and 86.4% of homosexual pedophiles. Rapists showed 73.5% success, exhibitionists and public masturbators about 92% , with men referred for various other paraphilias ranging from 100% for zoophiliacs to 80% for frotteurs. These data do not represent a controlled study, but the sample is large and with success criteria as stringent as they were, the data gives strong indication that treatment is effective for a great many offenders.

Hunt County, Texas strongly advocates treatment, including placing some sex offenders on probation so they can obtain treatment that is not always available in jail:

The bottom line is that many offenders are just not appropriate for community supervision. For offenders that have a long history of sexual abuse or violence, indicate high risk, or show no interest in changing their behavior or thinking, prison may be the only way to adequately protect the public. But for those deemed appropriate by the courts, community supervision can benefit the public.

Hunt County CSCD believes that the history witnessed with the SOAP and other programs like it across the nation demonstrates that it is possible to properly supervise offenders in the community without sacrificing public safety.

Hunt County concludes:

After spending five or more years in the Texas prison system without treatment, would anyone expect that they would emerge more responsible, more empathetic, and less sexually deviant?

....a reduction of just 1% in recidivism pays for the treatment of all treated sex offenders by reducing costs related to investigations, prosecutions, and incarceration (and research shows that sex offender treatment is more effective than that). [source]

Best Practices in Sex Offender Treatment
by William D. Murphy, Ph.D., Professor in the Department of Psychiatry

The majority of convicted sex offenders are eventually released back into the community. Consequently, effective treatment interventions that can lower the recidivism rates of sexual offenders are needed. Cognitive behavioral interventions based on the principles of risk, needs, and responsivity are the most common form of treatment used with sex offenders. To date, there is preliminary evidence that suggests that treatment using cognitive behavioral techniques decreases subsequent sex offender recidivism. This article reviews the current research on cognitive behavioral techniques for the treatment of sex offenders and provides guidelines for treatment providers.

During the last 30 years, there have been significant advances in our knowledge about the characteristics of sex offenders, methods for assessing their risk and treatment needs, and elements of effective programs for this population. The purpose of this article is to identify current best practices in sex offender treatment and to highlight how these practices have been implemented in England and Wales.
[source]

Sex Offenses: Facts, Fictions and Policy Implicationsby: National Center on Institutions and Alternatives, Inc.

Although there is a great deal of skepticism, and research is not yet conclusive, there is considerable and growing evidence that deviant sexual behavior can be reformed by treatment. Available research indicates that quality treatment can reduce recidivism by more than one-third.

Margaret Alexander’s 1999 meta-analysis of nearly 11,000 sex offenders from 79 separate studies found that people who participated in treatment programs had a combined rearrest rate of 7.2% compared to 17.6% among untreated individuals (a reduction of 59%).
Karl Hanson’s 2000 comprehensive metaanalysis found 10% of treatment subjects reoffended, compared to 17% of untreated subjects (a reduction of 41%).
The Campbell Collaboration meta-analysis of 69 studies of 22,000 individuals found that treatment reduced recidivism by 37%.
Gordon Hall’s 1995 meta-analysis found that treatment reduced recidivism by 30%.

There is no downside to treatment and growing evidence that treatment reduces the risk of reoffense. It follows that treatment should be extensive and ongoing. [source]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Strict new laws call for sex offenders to be electronically monitored for life. Critics say the technology won't stop crimes but is fueling hysteria -- and is even counterproductive.

The crackdown on residency applies to all registered sex offenders, including those convicted of a misdemeanor, such as indecent exposure. Most notably, felony sex offenders will now be tracked 24 hours a day, seven days a week, via GPS (global positioning system), even after they're out of prison and off parole.

The California measure makes no distinction between habitual offenders at high risk of striking again, worth having their every move tracked electronically once they're out of prison, and the felons who have served their time and present no apparent threat to public safety in the eyes of the court. Just put a GPS device on all of them, voters said, forever. Now, the state's government and the courts are puzzling out how to bring the voters' sweeping mandate to life.

The broad California measure is symptomatic of a national tide of fear about sexual predators lurking in the bushes by the playground, at the mall, just on the other side of the elementary school fence, and skulking about on MySpace. A sort of boogeyman come to life, sex predators even have their own gotcha TV reality show masquerading as a news program, Dateline's "To Catch a Predator." Every state in the nation now has a sex offender registry, tracking where offenders live.

But as states rush to impose harsher penalties on sex criminals, critics -- legal and criminal analysts, and even some victims of sex crimes themselves -- state that the punitive new laws violate civil liberties and are ineffective. And while a technological fix like fastening GPS devices to former felons may make the public feel safer, it will do little to protect the children who are the victims of most sex crimes.

But now several states have decided: Why should 24-hour electronic monitoring end with parole? Even after offenders have legally paid their debt to society, the states still want to track their every move, regardless of their risk for recidivism. "We're finding ways to use technology to create what is a permanent deprivation of liberty," says Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "It raises some very important issues about what the state may do to an essentially free person."

Critics declare that sexual crimes committed by predators are a serious problem, and they don't mean to underplay them. But most sexual crimes, especially those committed against children, they point out, happen closer to home and involve somebody whom the victim knew and trusted, like a family member or a neighbor. The incessant emphasis on the boogeyman, the sexual predator in the schoolyard or on the Internet, can be counterproductive, as resources to fight sexual crimes, and public perception of them, are misplaced.
[Few full report here]

GPS units fail to protect public from sex offenders
Recent cases show that the perception of GPS doesn’t match reality. Even California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spokesman Gordon Hinkle acknowledges a "false notion" surrounding the protective power of GPS tracking.
[click here for full article]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Civil commitment laws, as currently practiced, open up many concerns beyond the medical community. One article criticizing the New York civil commitment laws posed the question in light of a state study on recidivism asked how exactly we determine which 8% of the sex offenders released from prison will re-offend in the next eight years and commit them accordingly. The article also cites numerous concerns of civil commitment, including:

Promoting and basing decision-making on mass hysteria
The high probability of committing innocent people
Inability and overconfidence in ability to determine risk
Mistakes in assuming what works or doesn’t work in reducing recidivism
Gender inequality in sex crime convictions [source]

Doubts Rise as States Hold Sex Offenders After Prison

The decision by New York to confine sex offenders beyond their prison terms places the state at the forefront of a growing national movement that is popular with politicians and voters. But such programs have almost never met a stated purpose of treating the worst criminals until they no longer pose a threat.

About 2,700 pedophiles, rapists, and other sexual offenders are already being held indefinitely, mostly in special treatment centers, under so-called civil commitment programs in 19 states, which on average cost taxpayers four times more than keeping the offenders in prison.

But in state after state, such expectations have fallen short. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the laws in part because their aim is to furnish treatment if possible, not punish someone twice for the same crime. Yet only a small fraction of committed offenders have ever completed treatment to the point where they could be released free and clear.

Even with the enthusiasm among politicians, an examination by The New York Times of the existing programs found they have failed in a number of areas:

Sex offenders selected for commitment are not always the most violent; some exhibitionists are chosen, for example, while rapists are passed over. And some are past the age at which some scientists consider them most dangerous. In Wisconsin, a 102-year-old who wears a sport coat to dinner cannot participate in treatment because of memory lapses and poor hearing.
The treatment regimens are expensive and largely unproven, and there is no way to compel patients to participate. Many simply do not show up for sessions on their lawyers’ advice — treatment often requires them to recount crimes, even those not known to law enforcement — and spend their time instead gardening, watching television or playing video games.
The cost of the programs is virtually unchecked and growing, with states spending nearly $450 million on them this year. The annual price of housing a committed sex offender averages more than $100,000, compared with about $26,000 a year for keeping someone in prison, because of the higher costs for programs, treatment, and supervised freedoms.
Unlike prisons and other institutions, civil commitment centers receive little standard, independent oversight, or monitoring; sex among offenders is sometimes rampant, and, in at least one facility, sex has been reported between offenders and staff members.
Successful treatment is often not a factor in determining the relatively few offenders who are released; in Iowa, of the nine men let go unconditionally, none had completed treatment or earned the center’s recommendation for release.
Few states have figured out what to do when they do have graduates ready for supervised release. In California, the state made 269 attempts to find a home for one released pedophile. In Milwaukee, the authorities started searching in 2003 for a neighborhood for a 77-year-old offender, but have yet to find one. [source]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[Click here for more information regarding false accusations/charges]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"Time to Work: Managing the Employment of Sex Offenders under Community Supervision" by Center for Sex Offender Management

Structured, full-time employment is a cornerstone of nearly all community supervision programs for offenders, especially for sex offenders. Most offenders who are released into the community after their conviction are required to find and maintain suitable work. However, acquiring appropriate employment for sex offenders presents formidable obstacles. Many employers are reluctant to hire sex offenders because of the stigma that follows them, and most sex offenders are restricted by special conditions of their supervision. Community supervision officers also face difficult challenges; they must monitor carefully sex offenders in their work-related activities to ensure they do not have opportunities to reoffend. This monitoring is a demanding task as job activities can account for nearly 60 percent of an employee’s waking hours each week (when factoring in preparation and travel time). A substantial amount of time and effort therefore is required to supervise effectively sex offenders in their employment. Supervision agencies must determine how to manage sex offenders on the job in a way that adequately restricts offenders, protects the public, and simultaneously promotes successful offender reintegration. [source]

No Easy Answers by Human Rights Watch

Being publicly identified through online registries as a sex offender restricts employment in several ways. With some employers mandated to check the sex offender registry, and many others implementing the checks as part of their private business policy, many sex offenders are finding themselves unable to secure and maintain a job. Our research shows that private employers are reluctant to hire sex offenders even if their offense has no bearing on the nature of the job. Offenders who tell prospective employers they are registered sex offenders are usually denied employment; those who fail to tell are eventually fired when employers find out – often through fellow employees who found the information through searching online sex offender registries.

Some state laws place employment restrictions on sex offenders, prohibiting them from working in schools, childcare centers, child-oriented non-profit organizations, and other places where they may come into regular contact with children. These laws are typically directed at individuals who committed sex crimes against children. Laws barring persons convicted of sexually abusing children from working directly with children may be reasonable. For example, Virginia prohibits sex offenders convicted of sex crimes that involved children from working or volunteering at a school or daycare center. But state employment restriction laws that bar all registered sex offenders – regardless of the nature of the crime – from employment where they may inadvertently come into contact with children effectively bar registered sex offenders from employment in large sectors of the economy.

Members of the community can also react so strongly to the presence of a registered offender on the job that employers will end up firing them. One employer fired his employee, a registered sex offender, from an office job involving no interaction with children, despite his good performance, because of the community's reaction.

The termination letter stated, "Several neighbors and the sheriff have brought to my attention the criminal extent of your past. It is with regret that I must inform you of the loss of your job with us as of today. I hope you understand. You have put in a lot of valuable hours and have been a good hired man, and we appreciate that . This was a hard decision for us, but we feel we have no choice in the matter. We will have no problem giving you a good recommendation in your quest for a new job."

Parole officers supervising former sex offenders also testify to the difficulty registrants have in finding work. An officer in Michigan told Human Rights Watch that "most employers, whether they are required by law or not, refuse to employ sex offenders, even if the crime the individual committed was not violent. They say it's bad for business. So now, I have a hard time lining up work for my sex offender parolees, so my parolees are stuck in halfway homes, unable to meet the full conditions of their parole." An Arizona parole officer expressed similar concerns: "I have found it near impossible to find an employer willing to take a chance on a convicted sex offender." As a parole officer in Florida told Human Rights Watch, "We have to find ways to find appropriate jobs for sex offenders, in a way that will both protect the public and also help sex offenders successfully reintegrate into society."

Making it difficult for former sex offenders to find and keep gainful employment is counterproductive for public safety. Structured, full-time employment is a cornerstone of nearly all re-entry programs for offenders. According to the Center for Sex Offender Management, "Research has shown that meaningful employment can provide a stabilizing influence by involving offenders in pro-social activities and assisting them in structuring their time, improving their self-esteem, and meeting their financial obligations."

Employment contributes to the likelihood that people who have previously committed crimes, including sex crimes, will not reoffend. A 2001 risk assessment study by Virginia's Criminal Sentencing Commission found employment to be a major factor affecting whether paroled sex offenders relapse and reoffend: sex offenders who had been unemployed or not regularly employed were found to recidivate at higher rates than sex offenders who experienced stable employment. Another recent study showed that former sex offenders who committed subsequent offenses were more likely to be unemployed. According to a different study, the only factors associated with reduced reoffending among sex offenders were the combination of stable employment and sex offender treatment. [source]

The Reintegration of Sex Offenders: Barriers and Opportunities for Employment - Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 32-42, February 2007

Abstract:

The process of reintegration of offenders after release from prison, or during a community sentence, is a key aim of criminal justice policy. This article provides details from recent research that investigated the barriers and opportunities to employment for sex offenders. The authors describe the barriers that are faced by sex offenders and the anxieties that employers experience when employing sex offenders. The authors conclude that the approach taken by the State is less than reintegrative and serves to increase the barriers and reduce the opportunities for employment for sex offenders.
[source]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Forensic Psychology, Criminology, and Psychology-Law, Article titled "Vigilantes: Coming soon to a community near you" by Karen Franklin, Ph.D.

Publishing the names and addresses of people who are villainized as "sex offenders" is almost like handing out murder licenses to violent and unstable people. As law scholar John LaFond put it: "These [community notification] laws are almost a confession by the state that we have done all that we can, you must now take the defense of your family into your own hands."

Even those who believe all sex offenders deserve to die might not feel so strongly if they knew how some people got onto the sex offender registries, which fail to distinguish based on the severity of the offense. For example, what about the middle-aged family man convicted of statutory rape at age 16 for his consensual relationship with his 15-year-old girlfriend? That man is no more of a threat to children than is any other randomly selected man on the street. He is certainly less of a threat to public safety than the vigilantes who are gunning for him.

Vigilante attacks on sex offenders, the most vilified pariahs in modern society, include the following:

Two men in a small Tennessee town torched the residence of a man convicted of a child pornography charge. The man's wife died in the fire.
In a scene reminiscent of the Salem witch trial days, a crowd of angry neighbors descended on a New Hampshire home, taunting the woman resident as a "molester" and "skinner" (prison lingo for a child molester) before tossing a burning scarecrow on her front porch.
A vigilante killed two sex offenders and visited the homes of another four in Maine. He had gotten their addresses from an online sex offender registry. (He then shot himself to death.)
A vigilante in Bellingham, Washington killed two recently released sex offenders. He too had found their names through an online sex offender registry.
A drunken father and son broke into the house of a paroled sex offender in New Jersey and began beating another man whom they mistakenly took as the sex offender. Yet again, the vigilantes had found their victim through a "Megan’s Law" community notification law.
In Bakersfield, California, a knife-wielding vigilante tried to break down the door of a sex offender whose name, photograph, and address had been distributed in the neighborhood by police. Police shot the vigilante dead. [source]

No Easy Answers

Information provided by state online sex offender registries, as well as information provided during community notification by law enforcement, is not just used by private citizens to determine what streets their children can walk on, or whom to avoid. Neighbors as well as strangers harass, intimidate, and physically assault people who have committed sex offenses. At least four registered sex offenders have been killed.

One of the fundamental obligations of government is to put in place measures to protect the lives and safety of those within its jurisdiction. This duty to protect extends to people who have been convicted of crimes, including sex offenses. When public officials affirm the importance of public safety, that public includes disfavored people living in the community. Indeed, when public officials and law enforcement know a particular individual or group is likely to be or is being targeted for harassment or violence by private actors, they must take appropriate measures to protect them, even when that means standing up to widespread community sentiments.

In the case of former sex offenders, such measures should include limiting access to online registries, carefully limiting community notification efforts, and taking steps to signal forcefully to the community that harassment and violence are unlawful and will be prosecuted.

Community members have used the notification information they have been provided about registered sex offenders in their area to both discourage sex offenders from moving into their neighborhoods, and to encourage those who already live there to leave. By far the most common tactic has been to print information from the internet about sex offenders and post copies of these printouts throughout the neighborhood. Many registered former offenders told Human Rights Watch how neighborhood flyers forced them and their families to move . . . In some instances, the stigma of being a registered sex offender affects not just the registrant’s employment but that of family members as well. [source]

Murdered in the United States: Registered Sex Offenders & Others

Here is how the statistics break down:

57 registered sex offenders minding their own business murdered, 24 of them in prisons and jails;
7 registered sex offenders were involved in domestic or other incidents, and were killed;
17 people, non sex offenders, were accused of a sex offense and murdered;
9 registered sex offenders were accused of a new sex offense and were murdered;
12 people, non sex offenders, were falsely accused of sex offenses and were murdered;
3 registered sex offenders were falsely accused of a new sex offense and were murdered;
5 innocent bystanders were murdered;
1 person was murdered when they were attacking a registered sex offender's home;
1 person in prison was falsely labeled as a sex offender and was murdered.
---------
112 persons murdered in 103 incidents. [source]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Recommendations to our current sex offender laws, including:

"No Easy Answers - Sex Offender Laws in the U.S." by Human Rights Watch;
"The Pursuit of Safety: Responses to Sex Offenders in the U.S." by the Vera Institute of Justice;
"Public Perceptions About Sex Offenders and Community Protection Policies" by Jill Levenson, Ph.D., Lynn University;
"America's Unjust Sex Laws" by The Economist.

"No Easy Answers - Sex Offender Laws in the U.S." [source]

With the goal of increasing the effective protection of children and others from sexual violence while protecting former offenders from unnecessary, unjust, and even counterproductive laws, Human Rights Watch makes the following recommendations for changes in federal and state legislation.

Adam Walsh Act:

All provisions of the Adam Walsh Act that deal with state registration and community notification requirements should be repealed.
If Congress does not repeal the Adam Walsh Act requirements as they pertain to state registration and community notification, states should not adopt the Adam Walsh Act provisions to their registration and community notification laws.

Residency Restrictions:

Neither states nor localities should have residency restriction laws that apply to entire classes of former offenders. Authorized residency restrictions should be limited to individually tailored restrictions for certain offenders as a condition of the terms of his or her probation, parole, or other mandated supervision.

Community Notification:

Access to sex offender registries should be limited to law enforcement.

National Sex Offender Registry:

Congress should eliminate public access to the national sex offender registry.
If the national sex offender registry is to be maintained, Congress should direct the Department of Justice to ensure that the national sex offender registry includes only such information from state registries as is consistent with the criteria.

State Sex Offender Registries:

Former offenders who have committed minor, non-violent offenses, such as prostitution between adults; non-lascivious indecency offenses, such as streaking and public urination; and consensual sexual activity with a minor who is within five years of age of the offender (statutory rape) should not be required to register.

No offender who was under the age of 18 at the time of his or her offense should be required to register. If states do require child offenders to register, then they should do so only after a panel of qualified experts determines that the child poses a high-risk of sexual reoffense, and that public safety cannot be adequately protected through any means other than the child being subject to registration. A determination that registration is necessary should be reviewed at least on an annual basis for as long as the registration requirement lasts.

States should institute mechanisms by which offenders are removed from registries if they are exonerated; their convictions have been overturned, set aside, or otherwise vitiated; or if their conduct is no longer considered criminal.

States should regularly review all registration information to ensure its accuracy.

Former offenders should not be required to register with their schools or places of employment. Most state laws require, and employers always have the option of running, a criminal background check for prospective employees who will be working with children.

Registration should be limited to former offenders who pose a high- or medium-risk of committing a serious crime in the future, either of sexually abusing children or committing a violent sex crime against adults. The risk should be assessed on a case-by-case basis for each convicted sex offender, using tools that have predictive validity and take into consideration a variety of factors found by research to be associated with recidivism, including the nature of the crime, prior offending history, the age of the offender at the time of the crime, treatment or therapy history, and the length of time an individual has remained offense-free.

Former offenders considered low-risk for reoffending, on the basis of individual assessment, should not be required to register.

The period of inclusion on the registry for former offenders assessed as medium- and high-risk should be initially determined by his or her individual risk assessment and then be subject to periodic review with a view to extension or termination. An initial determination of lifetime inclusion should not be permitted. At periodic review, registrants should be able to present evidence of rehabilitation, change in life circumstances, incapacitation (for example, disease or disability), or substantial time living in the community without reoffense in order to obtain termination of the requirement to register or to have their assigned level of risk changed. After a fixed period of time, the burden should shift from the registrant to the state to prove that a registrant poses a public safety risk and must remain on the registry.

Law Enforcement:

Law enforcement officials should only release information about registered sex offenders on a need-to-know basis. This would include notification to the individual(s) victimized by the offender. When determining who else in the community should be notified, law enforcement officials should weigh factors such as the size of the community, the nature of the offense, the level of reoffense risk at which the registrant has been assessed, and the likelihood that access to the information will enhance the recipient's personal safety or that of their children.
Law enforcement officials should eliminate the use of posters, flyers, and other easily replicable materials to alert communities of the presence of a registered sex offender in their neighborhood. They should inform community members individually, using accurate and responsible language to describe the potential threat posed by the registrant.
Law enforcement and other local officials must recognize their responsibility and authority to keep all community members safe, including people who have been convicted of sex offenses. In deciding the method and scope of community notification, officials should be required to take into consideration the potential for community hostility against registrants and take any necessary steps to mitigate the potential hostility.
States should enact laws allowing all registrants to appear periodically before a panel of qualified experts to review the requirement that law enforcement publicly release their personal information. Registrants should be able to present evidence of rehabilitation, change in life circumstances, incapacitation (for example, disease or disability), or substantial time without reoffense in order to terminate community notification requirements.
Local officials should work with the Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM) and local agencies or organizations with the capacity to conduct community meetings aimed at safe reintegration of registrants when they move into a neighborhood. Community meetings should be designed as an opportunity for education about where the risk for sexual victimization lies and how to prevent sexual abuse before it occurs. Organizations to include in the development and implementation of these community meetings should be victim advocacy groups, sexual violence prevention and response professionals, and sex offender treatment and management agencies.

Online Sex Offender Registries:

States should eliminate public access to online registries of sex offenders as a form of community notification.
States that do maintain online registries should only include information about offenders assigned a high level of risk, and only for so long as they are individually determined to pose such a risk.
Online registry search capabilities should only permit targeted searches (for example, by specific personal name or zip code). No member of the public should be able to search the entire database. States should also take steps to preclude the possibility of registry information being found via Internet search engines.
Accountability for those who search online databases should be ensured by requiring the database user to specify the purpose for the search, and to provide his or her name and zip code (with such information kept confidential and accessible only by state officials and law enforcement).
Online registry databases should provide enough information to enable a layperson user to understand the nature of the sex offense of which the offender was convicted and the registrant's risk of recidivism. This should include more information than the identification of the statute he or she violated. Databases should indicate when the offense was committed, how long has passed since the registrant was released from incarceration, and contain both the registrant's and the victim's age at the time of the offense.
The information about a registrant revealed online should be limited to what is necessary to promote public safety. For example, information such as place of employment or place of education should not routinely be available.
Congress and state legislatures should incorporate stronger prohibitions against and penalties for misuse of online registration and community notification information to harass, threaten, or injure registrants or their family members, or to discriminate unreasonably against registrants in the denial of housing, education, or other necessary benefits and services. Online registries must prominently display warnings against misuse of information on the registry. Misuse of registration information should be vigorously prosecuted.
Registrants should have a periodic opportunity to petition to be removed from the online registry. Registrants should be able to present evidence of rehabilitation, change in life circumstances, incapacitation (for example, disease or disability), or substantial time without reoffense in order to terminate community notification requirements.

Treatment, Research, and Education:

Federal and state governments should support sex offender treatment programs as a key component of sex offender management.
The Department of Justice and states should encourage and fund research to assess and compare the effectiveness of different strategies to prevent the perpetration and reoffense of sexual violence. This research should include efforts to identify and assess the impact that registration, community notification, and residency restrictions have on registrants, their families, and communities.
The Department of Justice should continue to support and fully fund the Center for Sex Offender Management, a national project of the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs, to provide training and education to communities to facilitate the safe reintegration of registrants.
Federal, state, and local governments should support collaborative efforts between citizens, law enforcement, offenders, victim advocacy and sexual violence prevention groups, and specialized sex offender treatment providers to enhance the successful reintegration of convicted sex offenders into the community in ways that promote community safety.
Federal, state, and local governments should support efforts to develop a range of strategies to prevent sexual abuse that go beyond control and treatment of former offenders, including educational programs for families, treatment and other resources for survivors of sexual violence, promotion of safety precautions by youth and adults, and those that treat the reduction of sexual violence as a public health campaign.

"The Pursuit of Safety: Responses to Sex Offenders in the U.S." - [source]

In passing sex offender laws, policymakers are doing their best to protect society – particularly its most vulnerable members, children. Yet many of these laws have been enacted without the benefit of evidence about which approaches work best. Some of the sex offender laws on the books today were passed in the 1980s and 1990s. With the benefit of 10 or more years’ hindsight, there is an opportunity now to evaluate objectively how well they have achieved their goals. Many sex offender laws also carry significant costs for local and state government in the form of added prison beds and staff time for parole, probation, and law enforcement officers. Any analysis, in addition to assessing their effectiveness in deterring crime, should consider whether these laws are an efficient use of public funds. Additionally, researchers should consider whether long periods of incarceration and close monitoring of offenders come at the expense of alternatives that might yield better outcomes. Should, for example, more resources focus on preventing sex offenses, intervening when abuse is ongoing, or providing public education? Finally, some laws aimed at reducing sex offenses do not target the most common sex offenses – those perpetrated by people known to the victim. Laws designed to keep people safe from sex offenders may also have unintended negative consequences – residency restrictions that lead to released offenders becoming homeless and losing touch with authorities, for example. These potential downsides need to be considered as well. In designing consequences for sex offenders, policymakers need to strike a balance between protecting public safety and dealing with the rising costs of keeping more people incarcerated for long periods of time. To get the best public safety outcomes, they must devote resources to stopping the most serious offenders from harming people and also work to rehabilitate those who present less risk.

"Public Perceptions About Sex Offenders and Community Protection Policies" - [source]

According to the Center for Sex Offender Management (2002) (operated under a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice), prevention of sexual violence requires the development of policies based on empirical research, and limited resources would be better spent if the most restrictive policies were reserved for those who are likely to pose the greatest danger (Hanson, 1998). Some have argued that failing to apply social science data to inform the development of social policy is not only inefficient, but unethical (Grove & Meehl, 1996).

Specifically, states should develop procedures for assessing risk using empirically derived risk factors and tools that have demonstrated predictive validity and reliability (e.g., Static-99) (Hanson & Thornton, 1999). Offense-based classification, such as that initiated in the recently passed federal guidelines ("Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006," 2006), is unlikely to be as useful as risk-based categorical systems. Factors associated with sex offense recidivism have been identified through research (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004, 2005) and have been incorporated into the development of actuarial risk assessment instruments. Such tools estimate the probability of sexual reoffense based on actual recidivism rates of other convicted sex offenders with similar characteristics (Epperson et al., 1999a; Hanson, 1997; Hanson&Thornton, 1999; Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1998). Though they cannot predict that a specific individual will or will not reoffend, risk assessment instruments are useful for screening offenders into relative risk categories (Barbaree, Seto, Langton, & Peacock, 2001; Epperson et al., 1999b; Hanson, 1997; Hanson & Thornton, 1999, 2000; Harris et al., 2003; Quinsey et al., 1998)

By using risk assessment to identify the most dangerous offenders, supervision and management strategies can be concordant with the level of threat that an offender poses to a community. Risk-based registration and notification policies allow for more efficient use of resources by identifying those who require intense monitoring, treatment, and restrictions while minimizing disruption of stability for lower-risk offenders and their families. Evidence-based management and treatment practices include actuarial risk assessment (Hanson, 1997; Hanson & Thornton, 1999), containment models (a collaborative approach to probationary supervision and treatment) (English, Pullen, & Jones, 1996), and cognitive-behavioral interventions (Hanson et al., 2002; Losel & Schmucker, 2005). Information disclosed to the public should be carefully considered with regard to its potential for enhancing community protection (e.g., offense descriptions, victim age, and gender preference), and should not include information which may hinder successful reintegration while providing little potential benefit to public safety (e.g., employment, phone number).

The media should be enlisted as a partner in educating the public about sexual abuse through the dissemination of accurate and research-based information about sexual violence, sexual perpetrators, and victimization. Rather than sensationalistic journalism, the public would benefit from factual information about recidivism rates, the heterogeneity of sex offenders, the signs and symptoms of sexual abuse, and the common types of grooming behaviors used by perpetrators who gain access to victims by using their positions of familiarity, trust, or authority. The media is clearly influential in shaping public opinion, which affects the development of social policy in this particular arena (Sample, 2001; Sample & Kadleck, 2006). Research has shown that exposure to accurate information can facilitate attitudinal changes about important social issues (Cochran & Chamlin, 2005).

"America's Unjust Sex Laws" - [source]

There are three main arguments for reform. First, it is unfair to impose harsh penalties for small offences. Perhaps a third of American teenagers have sex before they are legally allowed to, and a staggering number have shared revealing photographs with each other. The is unwise, but hardly a reason for the law to ruin their lives. Second, America’s sex laws often punish not only the offender, but also his family. If a man who once slept with his 15-year-old girlfriend is barred forever from taking his own children to a playground, those children suffer. Third, harsh laws often do little to protect the innocent. The police complain that having so many petty sex offenders on registries makes it hard to keep track of the truly dangerous ones. Cash that might be spent on treating sex offenders – which sometimes works – is spent on huge indiscriminate registries. Public registries drive serious offenders underground, which makes them harder to track and more likely to reoffend. And registers give parents a false sense of security.

It would be hard to redesign America’s sex laws. Instead of lumping all sex offenders together on the same list for life, states should assess each person individually and include only real threats. Instead of posting everything on the internet, names could be held by the police, who would share them only with those, such as a school, who need to know. Laws that bar sex offenders from living in so many places should be repealed because there is no evidence that they protect anyone: a predator can always travel. The money that a repeal saves could help pay for monitoring compulsive molesters more intrusively.

In America, it may take years to unpick this. However, practical and just the case for reform, it must overcome political cowardice, the tabloid media and parents’ understandable fears. Sensible sex laws are better than vengeful ones.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"We can't just throw a bunch of names on these lists and call it security." - New Jersey Rep. William J. Pascall

"I never intended for this to go so far." - Senator Mary Jane Garcia - Public Affairs Committee meeting (1/28/10) speaking as to the original intent of the registry.

"Sexual violence is a serious problem, and any recidivism rate is too high. But recidivism rates for sex offenders are not as high as politicians have quoted in their attempts to justify the need for overly harsh sex offender laws." - Dr. Jill Levenson, Expert on sex offender treatment and management

"We tried so hard to make this just for the serious sex offender" - John Walsh when commenting on the AWA

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." - Richard Hamill, President of the New York State Alliance of Sex Offender Service Providers

"What you're doing is pushing people more underground, pushing them away from treatment and pushing them away from monitoring, you're really not improving the safety, but you are giving people a false sense of safety." - John Gruber, Executive Director of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers

"...mean spirited vengeful legislation is only an incitement to vigilante injustice masquerading as a responsible public safety measure." - Margaret Love, Former Justice Department Pardon Attorney

"As a rape victim, I think it’s vitally important that treatment should be widespread and readily available outside of the justice system, and corrections should provide it during incarceration and after release. The man who raped me is doing at least 26 years, but never had to go into treatment to do the "hard labor" of having to face himself and what he did to me. Taxpayers will pay over a million dollars just to house him, and yet the system is not accountable to us to treat him. I’d rather he got 10 years with intensive treatment. As it is, he will come out at age 52, more angry, less capable of finding work, and we will be just as much the risk. Treatment is the best path to safety." - Phyllis Turner-Lawrence Victim Services and Restorative Justice Consultant

"The recent wave of sex offender legislation is based upon emotion and myths about sex offenders which are not supported by valid research or evidence. Legislation in this area should be based upon facts and valid evidence. The NACDL encourages criminal defense lawyers, prosecutors and legislators to oppose legislation based upon myth and public emotion. In doing so we can ensure both public safety and due process." - Report of the Sex Offender Policy Task Force, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

"People want a silver bullet that will protect their children, [but] there is no silver bullet. There is no simple cure to the very complex problem of sexual violence." - Patty Wetterling, child safety advocate whose son was abducted in 1989 and remains missing

During sentencing of a 16 year old girl in a sexting case, said she'd been given a "hell of a break," not only in avoiding a lengthy prison sentence, but in dodging the sex offender label. "Had that been branded on you, and perhaps you should read ‘The Scarlet Letter,’ that would have been a big A on your forehead for the rest of your life." - Judge Charles Littlehales, Lincoln County, Oregon

"There are more than 500,000 registered sex offenders nationwide. The registries should be used to monitor violent repeat adult offenders. It is unclear how many of those registered are considered violent repeat offenders. Instead, states are requiring anyone convicted of a sex offense to register. She sees little value in registering ‘Romeo and Juliet’ offenders." - Nancy Sabin, Executive Director of the Jacob Wetterling Resource Center

In an article titled "Prison Beakout" wondered aloud whether "we are home to the most evil population on earth, or we are locking up a lot of people who really don’t need to be in jail for actions that other countries seem to handle in more constructive ways." - U.S. Senator James H. Webb

"When I talk with friends, colleagues and neighbors regarding this law, the first reaction is that we must do everything we can to protect our children. Absolutely. But I am afraid this statute gives parents and communities a false sense of protection against crimes that most often occur not at school bus stops, but where children are in the greatest danger: their own homes." -J. Tom Morgan, Former DeKalb County DA

"The more cities choose to install these ordinances, the more ex-offenders will become an exile class, sex offenders are less likely to reoffend if they're allowed to reintegrate into society, to get a job, to establish stable roots, a support network, a home, by forcing these people to be refugees, politicians are essentially making their own citizens less safe." - William Buckman, Defense Attorney and National Sex Offender Policy Expert

"If the current reform efforts focus on punishing and restricting all former sex offenders instead of those who are the most dangerous, the goal of protecting children will once again be foiled due to anger, fear and misinformation ruling the day," she said. "The facts of the Chelsea King and Amber DuBois cases should be enough to persuade politicians and the families to look for better answers." - Mary Duval, chief executive officer for the Sex Offender Solutions and Education Network, an advocacy group for registered sex offenders, said anger-induced legislation is not the answer.

"There were about five weeks of testimony presented by knowledgeable Iowa people who work with sex offender issues . . . There was not one, not one shred of evidence presented that the residency law provides safety for children. In fact, there was a significant amount of evidence presented that the law might actually decrease child safety. Even the clear evidence that enforcement of the law is wasting valuable law enforcement resources . . ." - Corwin R. Ritchie, Iowa County Attorneys Association executive director

"It is sad 20th Century Commentary that society views the convicted felon as a social outcast. He has done wrong, so we rationalize and condone punishment in various forms. We express a desire for rehabilitation of the individual, while simultaneously we do everything to prevent it. Society cares little for the conditions which a prisoner must suffer while in prison, it cares even less for his future when he is released from prison. He is a marked man. We tell him to return to the norm of behavior, yet we brand him as virtually unemployable, he is required to live his normal activities severely restricted and we react with sickened wonder and disgust when he returns to a life of crime." - Former Chief Circuit Judge Donald Lay

"Therapy works for these people. Let them be punished for their crimes, let them out and let them get on with their lives. Let them work. Let them have stable homes and families and let them live in peace. Harassing them, making them move and continually punishing them does far more harm than good. A sex offender in therapy with a job and a place to live is less of a threat than one that is constantly harassed." - Robert Shilling, Detective, Seattle, WA Crimes Against Children Division

It may be time to do away with sex offender registration laws altogether. At the very least, the federal government should commission research to study the laws' effectiveness. In the meantime, several changes should be made. States should differentiate between serious and non-serious offenders and only require registration of the most serious offenders. Next, public access to online sites should be dismantled, and registries should be kept at the local police stations. This would provide at least a minimal screening process to those seeking inquiries. Lastly, we should experiment with restorative justice models such as what has happened in Canada where sex offenders moving into a community meet with members of the community in a public forum facilitated by a trained mediator. This type of forum gives the community an opportunity to meet the offender face to face and express their concerns and for the offender to show the community that he is earnestly seeking to change his life." - Rachel King, Professor of Law, Howard University School of Law, Washington, D.C.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *