home

Rethinking Sex Offender Registration

By TChris, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:10:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

It was only a matter of time. As TalkLeft noted here, two men were murdered because their names and addresses appeared on a sex offense registry in Maine, making them easy targets for a vigilante. The man who killed them committed suicide when police contact was imminent, and his motives are unclear, but the victims were among 34 men he looked up on the registry.

Maine took down its registry. It's time for other states to do the same.

"This is a stark reminder that there's no evidence that online sex offender registries increase public safety," said Allen Gilbert, executive director of the Vermont ACLU. "In fact, they might just do the opposite."

Vermont is on track to expand its registry, adding new sex crimes that haven't been subject to the registration requirements. Vermont doesn't list addresses of ex-offenders, but the proposed law would allow the police to provide their addresses to members of the community. Lawmakers should rethink that proposal in light of the Maine tragedy.

"You never anticipate anything that tragic happening," [Sen. Richard] Sears said of the Maine killings. "We discussed our concern over vigilantism, and that's part of the reason we don't put addresses on our online registry. Something like this really gives me pause about even allowing police agencies to release specific addresses."

< E-Mail Search Warrants Start Dec. 1 | Duke Lacrosse Players Arrested >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Rethinking Sex Offender Registration | 35 comments (35 topical)
    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:49:54 AM EST
    As a mom, I have to disagree with that. Our registry taught me that there was a child molester two streets away from a house we lived in a couple years ago and I knew to keep my kids away from that area. I'm sure the availability of this information has done more good than harm, and if I have to choose between protecting children and sex offenders, there's no contest.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:53:34 AM EST
    I'm sure the availability of this information has done more good than harm
    Prove it.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 09:16:25 AM EST
    I don't have time to do the research to prove my speculation. I do think Megan's Law was created for a good reason and I think it's sensible to think that having the law makes kids safer. From the DOJ: "The neighbor who invited Megan Kanka to see his puppy was a twice-convicted pedophile who raped and murdered her, then dumped her body in a nearby park. Megan's grieving parents said they never would have let their daughter travel their neighborhood freely if they had been alerted to the presence of a convicted sex offender living across the street from their residence. Congress passed the Federal version of "Megan's Law," another amendment to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, in 1996. -3[104 P.L. 145, 100 Stat. 1345.] It required States to establish some form of community notification by September 1997."

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 09:19:26 AM EST
    I think you can also make the opposite argument, i.e., that doing away with the registry will make it more likely for sex offenders to commit another crime. Besides, since you admit that the killer's motives are still unclear, it's too early to say that this was an act of vigilantism, revenge, or just one guy who went nuts.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 09:28:09 AM EST
    He was just a crazy nut, like the people who bomb abortion clinics and go into gay bars stabbing people. A nut is a nut. It's surprising that it doesn't happen more often, atually. But I don't think that we should change laws based on a nut here and there.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 09:28:59 AM EST
    Macro - "prove it" is an argument that cuts both ways. You're making an (implicit) assertion of your own, namely, that the registry laws (laws of which I'm rather skeptical, btw) *don't* do anything to reduce the risks posed by convicted sex offenders. So prove it. I'm not saying that to be flippant; there may be good evidence out there that they don't, in fact, have any effect, but I haven't seen much one way or another. And if we're operating in the dark, where any action (having the laws, or not having the laws) winds up being a decision to put one group or another (convicted sex offenders, or their potential victims) at some unknown degree of greater risk, then I'm going to guess that most people are going to be willing to let the convicted sex offenders bear the greater burden of risk, in the absence of any convincing "proof" one way or another.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 09:32:35 AM EST
    Here is something we can agree on.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 09:33:50 AM EST
    I'm going to guess that most people are going to be willing to let the convicted sex offenders bear the greater burden of risk, in the absence of any convincing "proof" one way or another.
    I concur. I think registry laws serve a public purpose, especially considering the rate of recidivism for sex crimes. It's unfortunate when a convicted sex offended gets killed by a vigilante wackjob. But it would be even more unfortunate if just one child were sexually abused by an already convicted sex offender because the child's parents didn't know he was their neighbor.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 09:36:37 AM EST
    One thing that does bother me about the system, though, is the socio-economic implications. I live in an area where every single resident belongs to some sort of homeowner's association. There isn't a single registered sex offender listed in my zip code. They end up concentrated in certain less affluent areas that don't screen residents, and the kids who live there are walking by their houses every day. That is sad.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 09:43:35 AM EST
    TarasBulba, Your post, so far, has been the most intelligent post I have seen regarding this topic. My reason for making an implicit assertion to "prove it" is due to most people blindly accepting an unproven argument that these public registries reduce the risk of sex offenses.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#11)
    by scribe on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 09:43:59 AM EST
    The same problem - vigilantism - came up immediately after the first Megan's Law went through, in New Jersey. Two yokels gut drunked up, kicked in the door of some guy's house and beat the crap out of him, thinking he was a registered sex offender. Problem was, they got the wrong house and the wrong guy. So, for the distinguished state senator from Vermont to intone that "You never anticipate anything that tragic happening" is risible. It happens all the time - revenge by opprobrium is a primary purpose of these registries. Vigilantism is merely a step further. While I understand and appreciate the concerns for her children which mappleby recites, there has to be a better way than the one we have. Vengeance is not the answer. Nor is acting out of PR-driven rage. Going back to the Megan Kanka/ Jesse Timmendequas case, the mother was used by a local politician seeking to make his name by being "tough on crime", and, to an extent, she used the politician too. Sad to say, but nonetheless true. The defendant never had a chance of a fair trial. He was convicted as much on PR and rage as evidence and testimony. In the words of the NJ Supreme Court upholding his conviction and death sentence (161 N.J. 515, 550-551):
    "In the motion [for change of venue] he cited 437 separate articles from the Trentonian and Trenton Times, [the] County's leading newspapers. ... The pretrial publicity in this case was constant, prolonged and horrendous. The Trentonian, a [local] newspaper, referred to the defendant as "scum", a "predator", a "monster", a "piece of trash", an "animal", a "pervert", a "dirtball", a "sicko", a "monster", and a "bottom-feeder". The articles often assumed defendant's guilt and disclosed defendant's prior sex offense convictions, including the fact that he had refused psychological treatment while serving a previous sentence. The Trentonian frequently stressed that defendant had confessed to the crime, and many articles called for his execution. The case also received nationwide publicity as a result of the activity associated with Megan's Law.
    I quoted that portion because it bears re-reading. Every time someone proposes tightening the screws further, we need remember that defendants are people, too. When we dehumanize them we only succeed in dehumanizing ourselves.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 09:46:55 AM EST
    Mappleby, your comment actually brings up one of the issues with these registries. Just because there are no registered offenders in your zip code does not mean there are no offenders. More affluent people get better lawyers and either get off, or at least avoid being ordered to register. So, people get a false sense of security. But you are also correct that some zip codes list hundreds. You get that, the list becomes meaningless. Remember too, Megan's law was supposed to allow for the registration of the worst offenders most likely to re-offend. Not the 18 y/o high school student who had sex with his 16 y/o girlfriend...which are a lot of the registered cases. I agree, the lists have become unmanageable, and hence have lost any value. Spend the money to have enough probation officers to properly monitor these people. Having their name on a list will NOT keep them from re-offending.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 09:50:35 AM EST
    Remember too, Megan's law was supposed to allow for the registration of the worst offenders most likely to re-offend. Not the 18 y/o high school student who had sex with his 16 y/o girlfriend...which are a lot of the registered cases.
    Also, the registry wasn't intended for people convicted of stealing women's underwear. For those who have not seen that article, click here.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 09:55:03 AM EST
    Well, seein' how Senator Dick Sears is hardly a bleedin' heart liberal and is just the kind of thoughtful person the State of Vermont wants on the case and that the lynch mob lunatics who frequent this joint are so adamantly opposed to what he's doin' and usin' their brains at all, I'm with Sears. Especially, in view of the fact that they peppered one guys neighborhood with homemade wanted posters of the guy not too long ago. They drove the poor bastard to suicide. The fact that he was in a wheelchair and was the wrong guy who just happened to have the same name with a different middle initial was just collateral damage for these sanctimonious sacks o'goo, they always leave that part out on paul harvey or horsebrithume.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 10:00:57 AM EST
    Scribe, you have to keep in mind that how the defendant was described in the media is not the issue unless you're suggesting that the jury couldn't have been objective or were not in fact objective in that case. As the Court stated in that case "[t]he question we must address is whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that the seated jurors could disregard their suspicions and knowledge of defendant's prior convictions and render an impartial verdict. We reiterate that the Constitution does not require ignorant jurors, but only jurors who can lay aside any preconceived notions and judge the defendant impartially." (Emphasis added.)

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 10:05:04 AM EST
    The Point is the information was made available on the internet for the convienence of the people so they don't have to go to the sheriffs office to request this information. Is it up to a couple who have children to be concerned that everytime someone moves into there neighborhood how will they be informed if this person might be or is a child sex predator. What happens when these Sex Offenders move and don't register. Who is going to educate the common couple who have children if they have suspicions about a neighbor who could be a unregistered offender that recently moved next door.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#17)
    by Punchy on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 10:10:53 AM EST
    This will yo-yo ad nauseum. Sex offender gets killed, registry pulled. Kid gets 'napped or molested, registry gets reposted and gets more visible. Repeat to infinity.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#18)
    by Al on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 10:13:45 AM EST
    Chase says:
    It's unfortunate when a convicted sex offended gets killed by a vigilante wackjob. But it would be even more unfortunate if just one child were sexually abused by an already convicted sex offender because the child's parents didn't know he was their neighbor.
    I think it's unfortunate that crime control should be left up to deranged people. How does someone become a rapist to begin with? What is wrong with them? Can it be repaired, or at least controlled? Can it be prevented? Until society asks itself these questions, the problem won't go away. All a registry does is make people paranoid, and get people harassed and sometimes killed. It's society's way of looking like they're doing something while not doing anything at all.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 10:35:45 AM EST
    Chase, you are so right. They need lots of treatment. These people have a problem that is impossible for most of us to comprehend. We can't just give them a year or two in prison, then slap an ankle bracelet on them, let them go off on their own and post their address. But since that's what's happening and they remain a threat, I still want to at least know where they live. It would be ideal if we could do more to rehabilitate them, but that's not how things are. What is it? We don't even know what it is. Some of them were abused as children but many were not. If it's a freak chemical thing, we should research it and learn how to treat it. It may look like paranoia, but it's not unfounded. They exist, they often victimize their neighbor kids and we're not doing anything to prevent it.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 10:39:58 AM EST
    Al, that is.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#21)
    by scribe on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 11:13:05 AM EST
    El Loco: Given the level of furious publicity, I do not think there was any way Timmendquas could have received a fair trial. Whether the evidence against him was overwhelming or not, the fact remains that he was tried as much for crusade value as anything else. There was no way any juror could have been ignorant of the case or totally without any opinion - they would have to have fallen into the "set aside any opinions and follow the facts and instructions" category. In my experience, even when jurors sincerely say they will do that and mean it, they still cannot escape seeing through the lens created by their opinions and prejudices. That's just a fact of life. The Trentonian is a repeat offender in the editorialize-and-crusade-the-defendant-to-death department. See, e.g., State v. Harris, 156 N.J. 122, especially the dissent. They used on Timmendquas the tools honed on Harris. BTW, while on death row, Harris (black) was later stomped to death by another (white) death-row inmate, enraged over Harris having raped a white woman then killed her. I recall he cited the press coverage as "justifying" his stomping. OT - what's really interesting me is how the press manipulation will play out in the Duke case (now that we can officially call it a case).

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#22)
    by HK on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 11:21:14 AM EST
    I totally agree with Al. I am a mother of three young children. I do not think the public should have access to information that identifies sex offenders and their locations. The judicial system has the responsibility of dealing with those who have been convicted. Making this information available encourages vigilantism. We really must learn more about this type of offence so we may reduce these crimes and not merely treat those who commit them like animals. It does nobody any good. I honestly do not believe the sex offender register does anything to help parents protect their children. We all know that there are such predators out there. We have a duty to our children to keep them safe in general and a misplaced emphasis on known offenders does not help us to do so. We must protect our children while giving them measured freedom so they can develop their own independence and defence mechanisms. Mappleby, by keeping your children away from the area with the known sex offender, could it be that you didn't consider that a sex offender without a conviction may live as close as next door? The sex offender register would not make me act any better as a parent. I try to use my common sense, trust and judgement and hope that in turn my kids will learn to do the same. Is that not the best defence?

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#23)
    by roger on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 11:37:17 AM EST
    Mappleby, You should teach your children to avoid all strangers. Nobody is on the list before they commit their first offense (and get caught, and get convicted). These lists will never replace good parenting.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 11:57:55 AM EST
    Oh, indeed I do teach them to avoid all strangers. And I understand that sex offenders who haven't been caught yet don't appear on the resitry and they could live next door. Do you think we should disregard the known sex offenders because of the unlikely possibility that an unknown one could be next door? I think it's wiser to use whatever information you have to your advantage.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#25)
    by Richard Aubrey on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 12:02:46 PM EST
    I was once in a crowd when a small boy, about four, came up to me and said, "my name is chuck". Then he held up his arms. I was, to put it mildly, frightened. I picked the kid up and put him on my shoulder so his parents could find him. Fortunately, my brother-in-law recognized him and found the parents. Turns out they were his adoptive parents. He'd been taken from a home where he was sexually abused. His adoptive parents taught him to avoid strangers. That's why he introduced himself. We weren't strangers. Apparently, his abusive experience led him to want to be picked up by strangers. These are kids, for heaven's sake. Hell, high school girls in Detroit were being kidnapped and raped because when a van pulled up and the guys started talking, even though they were frightened, the girls would approach the van rather than be seen to be un-hip, or whatever the term is these days. You can put a lesson in front of a four-year-old, or a fourteen-year-old, but that doesn't mean he learned it. My father fought off a carjacker last fall--don't mess with eighty-five-year-olds--and some distant relatives had him relate the story to their three-year-old. She was impressed. When I quizzed her later, she said exactly the right thing. But that was in the family. On the street...?

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#26)
    by HK on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 12:49:24 PM EST
    Do you think we should disregard the known sex offenders because of the unlikely possibility that an unknown one could be next door?
    How have you worked out this probability? Mappleby, surely if it's unlikely that an unknown sex offender could live next door to you, by the same rationale it is unlikely that a known one may live two streets away? But you stated earlier that this actually happened.
    I think it's wiser to use whatever information you have to your advantage
    I too try to use information available to parent well, but I think that it is very difficult to use the information available on the sex offender register constructively. Moreover, I think that it places an unfair label on those whose names appear on it to no good effect.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 01:12:46 PM EST
    I guess I didn't word that clearly. I simply meant that knowing a sex offender lives at 12 Maple Street is different from wondering if one might live next door. And I guess it's a personal thing whether or not that information is useful. Maybe it sometimes isn't useful, but I don't agree that it's never useful. Additionally, I don't think it's an unfair label if they are truly dangerous people. But again, this is just my individual fellings on it. didn't mean to imply that every parent should feel the way I do, but I know that many do.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 01:23:01 PM EST
    I don't think it's an unfair label if they are truly dangerous people.
    Part of the problem is the unfair lablel in some instances. As I have stated before, people like Anthony Allen Scholfield and Fitzroy Barnaby are being put on the registry.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#29)
    by roger on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 02:03:38 PM EST
    Mappleby, If you are truly, rationally, concerned, watch who you date. In my representation of many molesters, it is almost always a man who exclusively dates women with kids that fit his "likes". The women are sometimes blind to this, sometimes they help the guy. Sorry, but that's how it usually happens in real life.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 04:47:23 PM EST
    Once again, the "truth" parrots FoxNews. Tough on crime, and the easy target of sex offenders, is all the Right has going for it, and they milk it for all they can. Dems too like votes and appease the voters by claiming to believe the false data. How many know it is false? No way of knowing, but would anyone mind a few facts? First, recidivism. The DOJ reported that sex offender recidivism is not higher for sex offenders than it is for any other offender. It is lower, in fact, and that includes an arrest for any new sex offense, be it as serious as child molestation or not. Revisiting Megan's Law and Sex Offender Registration: Prevention or Problem As mentioned in the above article, registration does not increase safety, and it has no impact on recidivism. No one is safer.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 04:49:29 PM EST
    Sorry, no way to edit that first one. Sex Offender Recidivism: A Simple Question

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dadler on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 06:59:53 PM EST
    The majority of sexual predators will never be caught. Just like the majority of murders will never be solved. Reality is simply too difficult to deal with for most people, so we invent things to make us feel better, even if in the long run they don't make us safer and hurt others who don't deserve it. Religion exists for the same reason as these registries. The illusion of security and safety.

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 11:26:34 PM EST
    You should teach your children to avoid all strangers.
    Don't you know that children are far more likely to be molested by someone close to them than by a stranger?

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#34)
    by Johnny on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:54:21 AM EST
    Don't you know that children are far more likely to be molested by someone close to them than by a stranger?
    Yes, thats why I advocate locking up every white male between the ages of 16 and 99. it would be much safer for everyone were that demographic eliminated. I am just kidding of course, but if people are really concerned more with protecting children than in getting their jollies off of looking at their neighbors faces on "the list" and then plotting their idiots vengeance...

    Re: Rethinking Sex Offender Registration (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 10:09:36 AM EST
    I have all of the comments posted here. I see some people with a reality and some operating out of fear. Although I personally feel the SOR really only gives a false sense of security the reality is there are many people on there that do not belong and were never a threat to our children in the first place. It was intended for the most serious sex offense. You have people on there who were caught urniating in public. Nature called. What I find most disturbing is the laws in each are different. So is the age of consent. So what might be completely legal in one state will get you on the SOR for life, and totally kicked out your childrens school and social lives. That is if even you get to see your children. In our state having consenual sex with a 16 yr. old and you are 21 that gets on the SOR for life, cannot go to your children school for life (if you would want to have any after that), cannot take your children to the park or public swimming pool, live 500 ft from schools, parks, daycares ect. There is even talk of making a law that all sex offenders lose custody/visitation of their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and so on. It blanket and does not make any exceptions. I just don't see how any of this is fair. No all sex offenders are created equal.

    Rethinking Sex Offender Registration | 35 comments (35 topical)