The Star Press in Indiana recently published the photos, names, and addresses of 62 sex offenders from the Indiana sex-offender registry, on the front page of their newspaper. Predictably enough, the persons identified have received harassing phone calls, threats, and some have lost their jobs. This wasn't illegal, since the Supreme Court upheld Megan's Law registries, with the following reasoning:
"Our system does not treat dissemination of truthful information in furtherance of a legitimate governmental objective as punishment," he wrote for the majority. "The purpose and the principal effect of notification are to inform the public for its own safety, not to humiliate the offender."Fair enough, but why should we limit dissemination of this sort to sex-offenders? If my neighbor has multiple assault convictions, for my and the public's safety, we should be able to find out. I would certainly take such information into account before I tried knocking on his door to make a noise complaint.
If I want to spend the money, I could try running criminal records searches against the names of each of my neighbors, and make sure they're clean, but I'd have to spend the money, and I don't think I could simply get a listing of all the convicted felons living in my neighborhood. In fact, from the looks of Virginia Code: Dissemination of criminal history record information I shouldn't be able to get criminal history record information unless I'm with a state agency, or an employer. The same state, however, has published a free searchable database containing the names, photographs, descriptions, home addresses, and criminal convictions of their population of sex offenders. I'm not trying to minimize the vileness of child molestation, but for the sake of fairness and public safety, I think that if a state is publishing all of this information on their sex offenders, they should publish it on anyone convicted of a felony.
You know, I've always had a major problem with the 'naming and shaming' of sex offenders. Not because I don't want to see them punished - I do. (Although I worry about the dangers of lynch mobs and vigilante justice). I have a problem with it becuase I really feel it is a failure on the part of the government to fulfil its obligation to protect citizens from them.
In effect, by publishing their names the government is saying 'we aren't prepared to keep these people locked away because its too expensive, but at the same time, we feel they are a risk to society. We can't protect you from these people, however - you must take responsibility for it yourselves.'
Rehabilitation into society is a perfectly fine option by me - so long as the government is sure there is no risk of re-offending. But in a case where there is still a real risk, surely it is criminally irresponsible to release people like this back into society.
The difference between sex offenders and other violent criminals is the rate of recidivism. Additionally, most non-sexual assaults involve people who know each other. Most registerable sexual offenses include crimes that are known to be serial offenses, often against women or children. Until lawmakers and voters are ready to remand these offenders to custody for life, the justice system will have no way to avoid releasing them, even though these offenders are notarious for repeating and escalating the violence of their offenses. Megans Law and other similar legislation are attempts by government and the families of victims to protect the public from these types of offenders, by giving them enough information to protect themselves. Sorry Andy, there is personal responsibility involved is protecting your safety. No one is willing to pay for enough cops to monitor all of the dangerous people out there and keep you safe. So without offering this information to the public, how do you propose we protect the public? Since Registered sex offender information is legally public information, what kind of censorship would you propose for the media. Remember, arrests, without convictions, are also public information. It's just that the vast majority of those are to uninteresting to print. Personally, I would be just as happy if they would not only publish registered sex offenders in my area, I would love to know who the burglars are, as well.
Andy - that's part of why I'd like to see registries for anyone convicted of a felony. If this isn't for 'naming and shaming', but public safety, the public has just as much interest in knowing where the robbers, and thugs are living, too. I am unsympathetic to privacy arguments that would apply to someone like Gregory D. Murphy, but would not apply to your average sex offender.
TC - I'm not saying that we don't have to take responsbility for our own protection. If we absolutely must put people in danger then, of course it is appropriate to tell them that they are in danger.
What I am saying is I think exactly the same as you - that once we have identified and convicted people as child molesters, identified them as a danger, and gone so far as to lock them up in the first place, it is irresponsible to release them back into society just for the sake of saving a few bucks. Not to mention stupid.
Celeste - I agree with you about registers for all crimes, although I would probably put some kind of time limit on them - a lot of people do stupid things when we are teenagers that we don't want anyone to know about when we are living a respectable middle-aged suburban life.
Sexual offenders are a difficult category though, as it is much harder to 'rehabilitate' sex offenders than, say, burglars, and the scale of their offense is that much greater. Therefore I think that much more care has to be taken before trying to place them back into the community, and in many cases it is entirely inappropriate to return them to the community in the first place.
I'd add though that shame is an important part of the naming of criminals process. There is a lot of evidence that the shame factor is a huge deterrent in preventing crime. I don't have the link, but there was an interesting article in the NY Times a couple of months back about how this is beginning to happen on some native american reservations, where the crime rates have got so high they feel they have to take 'radical' measures.
I disagree with the "any felony" reasoning. A person who gets into a fight in a bar and stabs someone to death is not nearly the same thing as a pedophile predator, whose crimes are invariably premeditated and also extremely likely to recur.
If you publicize every felon, all you'll do is sharply up the rate of recidivism on all felonies becuase these people are barred from normal society. But for child molesters, the additional risk is low precisely because they're never really cured, and the repeat offense rate is so high.
So now you have an imbalance in the acts, and an imbalance in the consequences. 0 for 2, A.L.
The reason these people get harassed is that children are not really capable of protecting themselves, and so to keep their children safe the only real solution in a partent's eyes is to remove the predator from the neighbourhood. This is too bad in some few cases, but I can't quarrel with the reasoning.
If your neighbour once whacked someone with a baseball bat, odds are that you as an adult will be able to deal with any situation that arises, even if you head over with a noise complaint. Nor are you in danger every time you step out of your home, or in your home.
If your neighbour is a child molester, on the opther hand, your children ARE in danger every time they step out of their home, and possible while they're in it as well.
There are very few felony convictions that parallel this. Serial killers and serial rapists, yes. Beyond that, the parallels drop away quickly.
Persopnally, I support "dangerous offender" legislation that effectively locks such people up indefinitely, thus solving the problem. If the state is going to fail us by refusing to implement such measures, then workarounds like the one you describe will flourish.
Andy,
I am glad to see we are on the same page here. I guess what confused me is your blaming of "goverment" for risking public safety with releasing these offenders. I mean look at all the hoopla about 3 strikes legislation. It is no wonder that lawmakers are reluctant to take a stand for life sentences for habitual sexual offenders until they have created irreperable harm to many lives, even though in many cases the behavior of the offender once released was predictable. There is some effort in California to hold people after their court sanctioned release dates in mental institutions, if you can prove them to be a danger, but the proof is still based upon the opinion of doctors and as such is subjective and sometimes just plain wrong.
As for the "Felons Registry", I think that is a great idea and along with time limits, you might add a multiple offense catagory, but I think it would offer a good deterrent effect as well as give the public important safety information.
TC
Joe,
I think repeat violent offenders, and repeat theft offenders should also be published. It would help to know if the guy next door was lilkely to bean you with a bat when you ask him to turn the music down and ivaluable to know if the guy you hired to do your laawn is likely to leave with your lawn mower, or your car. In my experience, one time offenders are nearly always just that, and repeat offenders rarely change and whether or not society knows their name is not going to change that fact. If one doesn't want to be known as a thief, dont steal. Pretty simple concept that may act as a deterant better than some of the others that have been attempted and remember the arrest is public information anyway.
Joe -
Not all child molesters repeat their crimes, just as not all assault convictions are one-time deals. There are enough repeat offenders outside of the sex-offender category for it to be a problem - hence California's 3-strikes law. My hypothetical children are in danger every time they step outside of my home, with a sex-offender registry in place or not, especially when you take into account the paper's reasoning for publishing the names - the sex-offender registry wasn't getting enough attention. With new child molesters popping up all the time, having a sex offender registry in place does absolutely nothing to protect my children from being molested, all it does is help me keep my kids away from molesters that have already been caught.
If that's a valuable public safety goal, I think it's just as valuable for me to know if people like Gregory Murphy are living in my neighborhood too.
The issue about child molesters isn't their recidivism rate, given that it is non zero. It is the victims. Given any other felony, the crime is between adults. Adults presumably can deal with each other (which might be a bad presumption at times, but that is the law) but the Megan's Law motive was to protect one class of citizens, children, from predators which they cannot deal with on a equitable basis.
Which leads one to wonder if listing felonies against the aged and disabled would be logical as well. I'm not sure if that is a demonstrable social ill though.
Tom Roberts -
Or keeping a registry of people convicted of felonies committed against children that aren't sex-related. Kidnappings, physical abuse, and murder are all serious concerns for parents as well.
I'm fine with locking up such people indefinitely. Or I'm fine with eventually letting them out of prison, but keeping them in a registry. Or I'm fine with not registering them, and just expecting parents to keep their kids safe themselves. What I am not fine with, is having a different standard for a child molester than for a child murderer, or a kidnapper, or a rapist. Molestation is not the only thing children have to fear, and children are not the only people in the community deserving of protection.
Don't know the details of the state laws, but depending on the state sex offender registries can include some pretty minor offenses. A 21 year old who has consensual sex with a 16 year old can get busted for statutory rape. Or having sex in a public place (ever had sex outdoors?). Not to make excuses here, but some cases of sexual assault (basically unwanted touching or groping short of rape) can occur in cases where the offender is troubled but not an out-of-control monster. There were some very minor and very old crimes included on the Massachusetts sex offender registry when I lived there; there was a bit of a scandal about it and I believe
Also, I'm with Celeste in general on this, even for nastier crimes. There is something underhanded and almost passive-aggressive about using public humiliation as an additional punishment after someone has served their time. If someone is still dangerous, keep them locked up. If you let them out, give them a fair chance to remake their lives.
Firstly, I'm in agreement with you that other offenders have their names and offensive patterns listed publicly.
Secondly, I see a major difference with sex offenders, especially those who prey on young...
They ACTIVELY SEEK the involvement of those whom they'd abuse, in a more or less conscious manner.
That is, the nature of their disease is quite unlike your example, violent assault, only a small portion of which is pre-conceived, planned or set up over a period of time.
Sex offenders often become adept at setting up gray-area situations whereby they can shelter behind the natural reluctance of decent, God-fearing folks' to openly discuss such an emotional issue; adept at getting themselves into contact (under 'laudable' or 'volunteer' or 'praiseworthy' conditions) with impressive or gullible youth...
More than recidivism, its the contagious nature of the crime which most people seem unwilling to confront... by sexually abusing this pre-pubescent girl, she acts out her anger and pain by sexually predatory behaviours aggressively enacted with boys or girls around HER... which in turn leads to...
A subtle violence, which the light of publicity CAN (not necessarily DOES, but potentially CAN) help eradicate or lessen.
I was accused of molesting my step daughter 15 years ago, I feared I might be convicted and sent to prison over these lies, so I took the advise of an incompetent lawyer and took a plea bargain because the lawyer told me the jury could take the 14 year old girls word and send me to prison for many years. I am not a child molester, nor have I ever had the desire to molest a child, and I have two grown children by my first marriage who knows I am not a child molester, but the state of Alabama has me on their sex register, and every attemp I make at trying to start a relastionship with a woman, it ends everytime by the unjust laws which keep a man down, and will not let them become a productive citizen. I think if any felon, regardless of his crime pays his or her debt to society, and stays out of trouble for ten years, they should be given a clean slate with all rights restored as a full citizen. It is criminal within itself to keep a person down and branded for the rest of their lives, and it is unjust in the eyes of almighty GOD, because GODS word said if you do not forgive your fellow man, neither will I forgive you. It is time to clean the slates of all people who have led a clean life for ten years, all deserve this. If any reoffend then they never have another opportunity for a clean slate ever, and the sealed records are opened and used to prosecute them. Time to give folks a break, and let them live a clean dignified life free of this injustice.
Craig
Craig's comment offers me pause, and food for thought.
I think his "10 year rule" is probably a good addendum for registries like this - the odds of a non-cured pedophile staying straight for 10 years strike me as extremely low, and this would give people like Craig their lives back.
And Craig's extra safety measure at the end via the reopened file is a good idea, too.
Craig, I hope you find both justice and peace.
[Content deleted by Marshal]
I will comment on this and I am a convicted sex offender. [edited by A.L. - Bryan - that's obviously painful, but too graphic for our site]
Our Court Systems Fascism has adjusted it's marketing plan to include a way out of the being on the registry for sex offenders.
Yes you can get off the registry.
It reads like an email from an oppressed infidel in a rich oil country with tons of money at the end of the rainbow.
All you have to do is sue your government.
following steps are necessary.
1. Sign on with the attorney who emails you.
2. Except his offer to win you twenty five million dollars.
3. Allow them to offer less.
4. Understand that the government changed the law and statutes of limitations have run out.
5. Send your check for $2, 700.00 to file a writ of habeas corpus.
Now just like the guy down the street who has so much money coming in the mail from a rich oil buddy you too can feel rich again before these sex law destroyed your life.
Mr. & Mrs. Keith Richard Radford Jr.
[links deleted by Marshal]
I am currently doing a paper on the Supreme Court ruling and I must say that although sex offenders are a threat to society, so is every other criminal. As a criminal justice major I have found that 2/3 of all convicts released from prison, recommit crimes and return to prison. I want to know if a sex offender, drug dealer, murderer, gang member, robber, etc... lives in my community. Andy brings up good points. I will be using those points in my paper. As for the one who claimed a guy who stabs in a bar fight is less dangerous than a sex offender, you really need to look deeper into that. If an individual is in a bar and has the mentality to get in a fight and stab someone, they are a threat to society. The mentality of violence does not go away easily and individuals are like pit bulls, the first taste of blood changes them and turns them into animals who most can not control.
As for the criminal I feel should be stopped - drug dealers- they give poison to our children yet we do not see them as a threat and ignore half of the drug addicts and dealers. All criminals are a threat to the nation and we should enact laws to force all criminals to register.
All convicted criminals should have to register once released or found guilty of a crime. I have every right to know who my neighbors are and what they are capable of doing if they are convicted felons.
Good Luck on the paper Dianna,
Is the supreme court conservative?? fair?? biased?? right??...
did the supreme court say blacks couldn't walk on the sidewalk, or that women couldn't vote or ever make bad decisions?? Why are they appointed?? that act in itself is non-virtuous.
i noticed you said felons. I have a single misdemeanor that has ruined my life, all said "it's only a misdemeanor, just take the plea and it will go away. They called it sexual misconduct, a 4th degree, misdemeanor. I thought, what could happen it was only a hug with an adult and it was non-violent. That couldn't have been further form the truth. No one ever said a single word about any registration at sentencing or anytime at all. Now, it's become so intense, i've had to move from my home, my family, my girlfriend, move from my state and i could go on for pages with the new laws and turmoil it has brought into my life. Police show up at my door in full swat garb and we have no rights to due process and are not protected by search and seizure laws. We are not even allowed to prove that we are NO threat to society. i could easily provide hundreds of credible character witness letters which would state i am no threat to any community. i cannot travel freely anymore and am hindered daily form these laws. They say it is not a punishment but don't you think having to go to their prisons to register, register out of state, pay for gas, read laws in every state you visit, they change faster than they can update their websites. paying for attorneys to interpret these laws, etc is a burden and we are forced to do this all against our wills. Having to be burdened against your will is overcourse a punishment and being harassed constatnly, being shamed is definitely PUNISHMENT. How about this one. FLorida just made a new law that said i must notify them everytime i leave the county for over three days. i was allowed to leave the country during my probation with no special permissions and now i can't even leave my county?? for a single misdemanor offense?? not with a minor and non-violent. c'mon people, wake up FLorida. i have had to comply with laws written and campaigned by people like Mark Lunsford, and Mark Foley and Bob Allen who've all been caught doing much worse and they are never even prosecuted. Mark Lunsford was found with Kiddie Porn and not a single charge on him. Mark Foley was enticing minors online, many have went to prison and have lifetime requirements for much less.
I was pushed into pleading no contest for a misdemeanor which occured 12 years ago with an adult and was totally non-violent. We were at a nude festival and clothed the entire time.
I've been lumped with pedophiles, child molestors, kiddie porn whackos, rapists and the like. i only hope if they do list the whole world that they give accurate descriptions of what really happened. BOTH SIDES.
I gave a girl a hug and ended up on a list that most people could not live with the stringent requirements being imposed on us after already completing our sentences. I completed all probation and other obligations on time and 100% and they are imposing new laws daily and the are RETROACTIVE. And i haven't even had a parking ticket since. do uou know what that meanss?? it means that you can keep being punished for the same crime over and over, wha a croc ~ But Americans like to punish people, we punshied the Indians, We punished the Gays, we burned the Witchces, We told the women they couldn't vote and blacks they couldn't drink out of the foutains. In fact, America made laws (killing people while enforcing them) that you couldn't have a glass of beer or wine when you came home after a hard days work. anyone remember prohibition?? They are putting many non violent people in prison now for POT which is proven to be much less harmful than alcohol. just another money making ploy. we are a kind and compassionate bunch aren't we.
The 1,2,3's of sex offenders.
1. The recidivism rate of sex offenders is under 5%
2. 90% of all sex crimes are committed within the family.
3. 92% of all sex crimes are perpetrated by people not on the sex offender registry.
If the bulls eye is 5% of the target and the bulls eye scores no points, what justifies the billions of tax payer dollars for the project?
A fair question, but may I ask where you get your 5% recidivism figure?
There are multiple government studies that provide similar results as the following, which is to show that Child Molester are LESS LIKELY to re-offend with another Child Molester than other types of crimes are likely to re-offend with the same offense.
http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Reports/Ten_Year_Recidivism.pdf
Child Molester – extrafamilial
From time of release from prison to committing another sexual crime
Per 100 released
Column 1 = Years after release
Column 2 = Number in year period who committed another sexual crime
Column 3 = Total since release from prison to commit another sexual crime
Column 4 = Total since release who have NOT committed another sexual crime
0 0.0000 0.0000 100
1 2.2446 2.2446 97.7554
2 2.4186 4.6632 95.3368
3 1.1658 5.8290 94.171
4 0.5394 6.3684 93.6316
5 0.4524 6.8208 93.1792
6 0.4524 7.2732 92.7268
7 0.6264 7.8996 92.1004
8 0.5394 8.4390 91.561
9 0.1827 8.6217 91.3783
10 0.0870 8.7087 91.2913
Looking at this example of Recidivism for child molesters, you can work out the following statistics.
After 10 years more than 90% of convicted child molesters do not re-offend.
Of those who do re-offend, most do so within 3 years of being released from prison.
It is also a well established governmental statistic that the vast majority of sex offenders have only offended once and only a very small percentage are recidivist. This information is from multiple well established government studies and statistics.
This is very well known information by the government as the studies are all government studies. But the official government position is that Child Molester are highly likely to re-offend, have large numbers of victims and are incurable. It is one of the lies the government perpetuates because it is politically expedient for them to do so. Everyone supports getting tough on Child Molesters.
The problem is blowing minor incidents up into life shattering events and destroying the lives of people who have done very little or in some cases have done nothing but come under suspicion of having done something.
This goes on to cause grievous harm to the families and children of those labeled a Sex Offender, especially a Child Molester, who had one offense more than 10 years in their past and now have a family with children. The children of Sex Offenders have their childhood raped from them by the social branding of their sex offender parent which spells over onto the child, making the child a social pariah.
["Emanatelove" (et alia):
We ban for sock-puppetry and spamming, which is what you in all your various names are recently guilty of here. You not only have not helped your case by this behavior, you have harmed your future ability to contribute rational discourse on this or any other topic here at WoC.
Welcome to our ban list. --NM]