AP Photo of Jaycee Lee Dugard
The case of Jaycee Dugard being kidnapped, raped, and held prisoner by Phillip Garrido for 18 years has put a spotlight on a problem in the criminal justice system. With so many people being branded as registered sex offenders, how can law enforcement keep track of the ones who are truly dangerous?
An article in the Wall Street Journal highlights many of the problems in California's system for tracking sex offenders. In the article, Ryan Knutson and Justin Scheck state that in 1994 there were 45,000 registered sex offenders living in California, but in 14 years the number has doubled to 90,000. Of the 20,000 sex offenders currently on parole in California, only 9 percent are considered to pose a high risk of reoffending and only 29 percent pose a moderate-high to high risk. But law enforcement has to spread its resources to monitor them all equally.
One result of treating everyone the same was that Phillip Garrido was monitored no more closely than the other 200 registered sex offenders living in the same area, despite many of them being nonviolent offenders unlikely to reoffend. Garrido, on probation for life for a prior violent abduction and rape, is exactly the kind of offender who is likely to reoffend and should be monitored closely. Yet Garrido's probation officer never noticed a problem at Garrido's home during visits there, and a deputy who went to Garrido's home over complaints that children were living in tents in the back yard never bothered to look in the back yard. Was the problem that the officers just didn't have enough time?
The problem is not limited to California. In August of 2009, The Economist ran an article entitled “America's Unjust Sex Laws.” The focus of the article was not on the Phillip Garrido's of the world, but on the people who are lumped into the sex offender database with him with no regard for the “apples and oranges” differences in their crimes. The article noted:
According to Human Rights Watch, at least five states require registration for people who visit prostitutes, 29 require it for consensual sex between young teenagers and 32 require it for indecent exposure. Some prosecutors are now stretching the definition of “distributing child pornography” to include teens who text half-naked photos of themselves to their friends.
The number of “registered sex offenders” in America is currently around 674,000 people – more than the entire population of some states. Of those, the majority are people who are not likely to reoffend, unless you count the myriad of ways that a convicted sex offender can violate laws regulating where he lives, where he travels, or where he drives down the street.
A teenage boy who gets convicted of having sex with his underage teenage girlfriend is labeled a rapist on the sex offender registry the same as Phillip Garrido. An underage teenage girl who texts a nude photo of herself to her boyfriend is now registered for distributing child pornography the same as Gary Kendall, the Ohio minister convicted of distributing pornographic images of prepubescent minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Both the hormonally-charged children and the perverted adults are branded as sex offenders on the same sex offender databases, and their images are spread across the internet for the rest of their lives, despite obvious differences in the situations as well as studies showing that the reoffender rate of juvenile sex offenders is only 10 percent.
As Monica Davey said in the New York Times:
The sheer numbers of sex offenders on the registries in all 50 states — an estimated 674,000 across the country — are overwhelming to local police departments and, at times, to the public, who may not easily distinguish between those who must register because they have repeatedly raped children and those convicted of nonviolent or less serious crimes, like exposing themselves in public.”
While many experts recommend reducing the number of crimes requiring registration and limiting the public registry to those offenders who are considered dangerous, the law appears to be moving in the opposite direction. With the enactment of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 more and more nonviolent offenders are being added to the registry (many retroactively for convictions from years ago). Yet while the sex offender database grows exponentially, funding for monitoring sex offenders is on the decline. Fewer officers monitoring more people means other Garridos will be more likely to go unnoticed, and the original purpose of sex offender registration will be lost in the politics of the system.
For more information, see:
Case shows limits of sex offender alert programs
Center for Sex Offender Management
FBI National Sex Offender Public Website
Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National/State Sex Offender Registry
If you are a victim of a sexual crime, contact:
RAINN – Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network
If you suspect a child is being abused, report it to:
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
Comments
No offense to victims and families of violent sexual offenses by sexually dangerous persons, but the current and potential legislation is not working and is INSANE!
As this and a growing number of articles points out, there are kids as young as 10 on the sex offender registry for “playing doctor” no violence involved; Kids as young as 12 for pinching another kid on the butt just joking around; a long and rapidly growing list of teens for “consensual sexual activity” (statutory rape), and men for public urination on the golf course; think about how many men will this one put on the registry and wearing GPS devices!
How many people, including kids as young as 14, will we allow to be prosecuted, incarcerated, subjected to barbaric and abusive treatment (see Plethysmographs, Masturbatory Satiation, Arousal Reconditioning) and then forced to register as sex offenders for life before we bring an end to this insanity?
Legislators, Please change legislation to stop this insanity!
All the attention given to registered sex offenders gives a distorted perception of the more likely perpetrators of sex crimes against children. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 93% of children who are victims of sexual abuse are victimized by family members or acquaintances. 94% of those arrested for the sexual molestation of children in New York State are first time offenders who are not listed on any registry. To put it another way, if a child has been the victim of sexual abuse, the odds are 4 in 1,000 that the child was victimized by a stranger who is a registered sex offender. The odds are far greater, 874 in 1,000, that the child was victimized by a family member or acquaintance who is not listed on the sex offender registry. The primary effect of sex offender registries is to give the public a false sense of security.
The sex offender registries are creating a false sense of security. Politicians really don't care about the safety of the children. All they care about are the votes so they can have a long political career. They don't care who they have to step on in order to stay in office.
The registries are growing to include more crime types too. Meth and drug offenders are just some of the new registries cropping up. Florida has a career offender registry. In Ohio, you don't have to be convicted of a sex offense to appear on their registry. A judge in a civil court just has to determine that the sex crime more than likely happened rather than the stronger shadow of a doubt. Private organizations are getting into the act to by creating their own forms of registries. Copwatch.net is an example with over 15,000 cops listed. More than 2600 are sexually deviant, and most of those are pedophiles. Imagine that, the ones supposed to be protecting the kids are sexually abusing them.
Thank you Polly! I have been saying this for years! Feel-good laws do nothing to protect anyone. The legislators only create these laws to get re-elected and not for the supposed reason.
Consider another absurdness of the sex offender registries. The DOJ states the recidivism rate of sex offenders is around 3.5%. Other crime types in various state recidivism studies shows recidivism rates as high as 25% for drug crime offenders, and 50% for property crime offenders. If the government can declare a crime type with a 3.5% recidivism rate as dangerous, what does that say about crime types with much higher recidivism rates. So drug crime offenders much be super dangerous, and property crime offenders extremely dangerous according to the logic of our politicians.
Barbara Levine in here article titled, "Learn the facts about parole process" states that we are confusing the seriousness of past harm with the risk of a future crime. This is an important point. Sex offender registries are based on the seriousness of past harm, and confusing it with the risk of future harm despite low recidivism rates for formerly convicted sex offenders.
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
--Thomas Paine (1737 - 1809)
These words by Thomas Paine are important words to remember especially as the registries expand to include other crime types. It is easy to say that formerly convicted sex offenders have no rights; however, we are setting a precedent that extends to ourselves by doing so. Keep in mind that the government has linked a person's address, online map, email addresses, online ID's, driver license numbers, social security numbers, vehicle descriptions and license plates as public information to a criminal record. Every address you move too becomes part of that criminal record. Anyone can create a public list with all of this information. Imagine if MADD created a public list of drunk drivers online with all of this information. Moreover, online satellite maps, and photos of houses are public
Public registries are nothing new. California has had a sex offender registry since about 1947. Prior to the Civil War, Northern states such as Indiana had Black registries where blacks had to register as free slaves. These registries are still on the books to my understanding, and were no longer enforced after the Civil War. Imagine the riots that would happen if the government would require the decedents of slaves to register? We as a people wouldn't stand for such a registry. Why should we stand for a registry of formerly convicted sex offenders? Especially when they have low recidivism rates according to government studies.
Our government will soon have us all register with our information made publicly available online. Some states like Wisconsin are essentially doing so. Check out WI Circuit Court Access.
Is is still legal to tar and feather our politicians? If so, maybe some of them need a good tar and feathering. Just so none take offense, I am talking about this in jest
"Sexting" spreading among teenagers
Updated: Sep 04, 2009 4:30 PM CDT
Cat Andersen/Eyewitness News
[quote]
Recent studies show that one out of every five teens have admitted to sending or receiving nude or sexually suggestive images using their cell phones. Experts say the sexting incidents are no longer isolated, as technology has made it east and many teens don't think about the long-term effects.
[/quote]
As technology advances, more and more people will be listed on public registries such as sex offender registries. Laws meant to protect our kids are going to get them registered. Especially with current cell phone technology which allow fads like sexting. Parents need to disable picture, texting, and email capabilities on their childrens phones.
In some states consensual sex between two minors under 16 are being prosecuted as sex offenders. Both the boy and girl are being tried for statutory rape. States like Wisconsin and Utah have prosecuted such cases.
Some sex offenders may leave list
Least dangerous would be exempt
By SHIRA SCHOENBERG
Monitor staff
August 24, 2009
[quote]
The man was charged with two felonies. But on a negotiated plea, he pleaded guilty to attempted second degree assault, a felony, and attempted sexual assault, a misdemeanor. He received a suspended sentence and was required to register as a sex offender for 10 years.
The man's mother is state Rep. Jennifer Brown, a Strafford Democrat. Brown has sponsored a bill that would exempt the least dangerous class of sex offenders, which includes her son, from registering on the public sex offender registry.
[/quote]
Interesting how a politician is having a change of heart about the registries and their consequences after her son is put on the registry for online child solicitation. She doesn't think that her son should be on a public sex offender registry. Her son Jeremiah can't find a job now that he is on the registry. New Hampshire would lose money if her
A study out of New Jersey has shown that sex offender registries are ineffective. One coauther even helped draft Megann's Law in NJ. They used temporal statistical analysis which showed sex crimes as well as all crimes in general were declining well before Megan's Law went into effect. Most of the change points occurred prior to Megan's Law. See Zgoba, Kristen; Dalessandro, Melissa; Veysey, Bonita; Witt, Philip (December 2008), Megan’s Law: Assessing the Practical and Monetary Efficacy
Wikipedia entry:
A December 2008 study by Kristen Zgoba Ph.D., Philip Witt Ph.D., Melissa Dalessandro M.S.W., and Bonita Veysey Ph.D. found that Megan’s Law has no effect on community tenure (i.e., time to first re-arrest), showed no demonstrable effect in reducing sexual re-offenses, has no effect on the type of sexual re-offense or first time sexual offense (still largely child molestation/incest), and has no effect on reducing the number of victims involved in sexual offenses.
Moreover costs associated with the initial implementation as well as ongoing expenditures continued to grow over time. Start up costs totaled $555,565 and current costs (in 2007) totaled approximately 3.9 million dollars for the 15 responding counties in New Jersey according to the study. The authors feel that given the lack of demonstrated effect of Megan’s Law on sexual offenses, the growing costs may not be justifiable. Philip Witt is a psychologist and the co-principal author of the study who helped implement Megan's Law in New Jersey.
New Jersey has 21 counties I believe. So the 2007 costs for New Jersey to operate the sex offender registry can be extrapolated out to $5.5 million. Assuming same cost for each state, it roughly costs $275 million. Federal costs such as JAG Grants, and other kickbacks bring total to about $500 million annually, and growing. Not cost effective. Monies could be better spent on other things.
You are absolutely correct about the costs of the registry Silence. The true costs are probably even higher when you consider people who are incarcerated for not telling the government where they live, people civilly committed after completed their sentence, other offender registries costs, and Federal US Marshals chasing after people who don't tell the government where they live with the passage of the Federal Adam Walsh Child Protection And Safety Act. There are an estimated 100,000 formerly convicted sex offenders who have absconded from the registry that the US Marshals are now trying to locate with special operations such as Operation Falcon. While the US Marshals are looking for these low value targets, they can't find higher value targets such as Daniel William Hiers who they have a $10,000 reward out for, and has been featured on AMW. He is wanted for murdering his wife, and sexually abusing a minor. He has been on the lamb for almost 4 or 5 years now.
I wonder about that 100,000 figure. Like the politicians bellowing that 90 percent of the sex offenders will commit a new sex crime. Are the 100,000 sex offenders ones that have moved to a new state that does not require them to register. Well to bad. They are not in violation of the law. so to make them in violation of something on paper, Make a new law. this is nuts. We don't need new laws just to try and trip them up so we can lock them up. If they are not committing sex crimes and living a law abiding life. they are doing as well or better then most of the politicians and activists yelling from the mountain how hurt they are.
I know and love this 18 yo boy that had sex with a girl, and she ended up being 13 yo. Now he has to register as a sex offender the rest of his life. He knows he did wrong, but at the time he didn't realize she was 13. hes in his 20s now and I know and he knows he want do this again. Hes not a predator. The police are going to waste a lot of time going through these type of registered sex offenders Looking for criminals. How are these teenage sex offenders going to live a normal life? Is the punishment worst than the crime? Yes
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!