The ranks of the registry just keep getting larger. But experts say there are many on the list who pose no danger. Shouldn't we focus on those who do?
We're pretty good at punishing people who are caught and convicted of sexual abuse. We're not so good at stopping the abuse in the first place, especially when children are involved. After all these years of open discussion about this scourge why is it still so prevalent?
Because, we keep attacking the problem the same old way.
A new project from the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, funded by the Ms. (magazine) Foundation, concludes it is time for us to adjust our collective thinking about sex offenders.
Perhaps the A.T.S.A.'s most important conclusion is that media coverage of abuse "monsters" has warped our sense of who they really are. Television news, movies and books mainly focus on the most extreme "stranger danger" cases, those in which a child is kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered.
In reality, the sexual abuse of kids doesn't usually come from outside their circle and murder is extremely rare. Most often the perpetrator is a relative, a family friend or a trusted authority figure. But if a parent is intent on looking for a "monster" it's easy for them to overlook warning signs from those closest to the family.
Another important conclusion? Too often we lump all abusers into one category and label them "sex offenders" or "sexual predators." Not good and not smart.
A serial pedophile is quite different from a teenage boy caught with his underage girlfriend and reported to police by angry parents. Some jurisdictions view an errant nude sunbather or a drunk who exposes himself to urinate in the street as a sex offender. And then, there is the category of children with deeply rooted sexual behavior problems. All have to be handled differently.
It doesn't keep the community safe when we brand all of these diverse types with the same scarlet letter and make them all become registrants of an official, ever-growing and very public National Sex Registry. Too often that's exactly what happens.
The just released project paper from the A.T.S.A. calculates that in 2007 and 2008 alone, "More than 1500 sex offender related-bills were proposed in state legislatures and over 275 new laws were enacted." Generally, they did two things: Increased incarceration time and put in place intricate (and costly) monitoring systems and restrictions on where the released offender is allowed to work, live and interact within a community once released back into society.
After the convict does his or her time and returns to life on the outside it's as if the deck is forever stacked against them. What chance do they have to succeed if the stigma of being a registered sex offender keeps them from getting a well paying job or finding a place to live that is the mandated distance away from a school or public park? Even trying to join a church is tricky for them. If there is a Sunday school for youngsters on the property many states do not allow the convict to attend services there.
Everything they do for the rest of their lives will be viewed through the lens of their label: Sex Offender.
But, wait a minute, you say, "Once a sex offender always a sex offender, right?" Not necessarily.
Don't mistake what I write here as being soft on sexual criminals. I am not. In fact, I believe there are career pedophiles that should never -- ever -- get out of prison. But the latest Department of Justice statistics peg the likelihood of a child molester repeating their crime after they've done their time at just 5.3 percent. And, the DOJ study concludes that of the 5.3 percent who do re-offend 40% commit another sex crime within a year or less. In other words, that first year back on the outside is a crucial time for them -- they either assimilate or they don't.
The way these offenders are treated -- their isolation and loneliness -- often causes their closest family members to retreat in shame as well. It has been well documented that relatives of the abusers often struggle with the disgrace and stress that comes with having someone close to them convicted as a sex offender. It's too bad that our societal Scarlet Letter brands them as well because family could be our first line of support to help keep the ex-con from re-offending.
I propose we all take a deep breath and stop adding new laws until we can figure out a better way to attack the problem.
First, forget the one-size-fits all category of "sex offender." Let's identify all the varieties of offenders and determine what their range of punishments should be. And, as for our National Sex Offenders Registry? Let's not make the teenaged Romeo carry the stigma around for the rest of his life and let's give those who have gone on to live law abiding lives for a set number of years the hope -- the goal -- of getting their names expunged.
We need to start thinking differently about how we define and tackle this problem. We're smart. We can do better.
Diane Dimond may be reached through her web site at www.DianeDimond.com Her latest book is "Cirque Du Salahi" the inside story of how the so-called White House gate crashers story came to be.
Follow Diane Dimond on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dianedimond
But, in attempts to tackle this issue, it's desensitizing the fact that there are dangerous individuals on this list, and there have been and will continue to be victims. As a former victim of sexual child abuse, I can personally attest to my own horrors.
The situation feeds on itself.
They make these laws and they think nothing of the families. I had five armed sheriff's officers show up at my house to do an address varification. They were very intimidating and threatening. What a waste of tax payer dollars. I'm a veteran, a business owner, and a tax paying citizen. No one ever considers what it does to me when that happens. Where do I live. Certainly not America. The America I thought we lived in would not use my own money to harrass me. I guess I don't live in that Amerca anymore.
Even murderers get their day in court and get to start over when they get out, but not innocent men accused of molesting a child. Once you are accused your life is over.
Do we just trump community standards? Isn't there an appeal process from local to state, and then to Federal if it violates the "cruel and unusual" punishment right?
Where does parental consent fit in, like in the 18/16 year old case?
The fact is, we need a national registry, just like we do for health care practitioners, to keep them from moving from state to state to avoid consequences for their actions.
Have we truly identified the precursor behaviors that progress to pedophilia?
Yes, I do believe that when the victims are children, we need to take special precautions.
1. Have had three comprehensive risk assessments - decision very low risk, if any. (NOT RECOGNIZED BY NEW MEXICO LAW.)
2. Had two lie detector tests - Never touched a child.
3. Four years of counseling - My therapist said, "I am not a sex offender."
4. Never had a criminal record.
5. Have Attended Sex Anonymous Addiction meetings (3 per week) for five years.
6. Have been a dedicated educator for 34 years with Peace Corps experience.
7. Have been married for 34 years leading a stable life.
8. I am 65 years old.
So go ahead and vote... should I be on the sex registry? Yes or No?
Thank you,
Tusau
I couldn't agree with you more! My point exactly ~ DD
Perhaps a "level 1 offender" could include those youths commonly used as examples, but after 2 years their name would be expunged. If we still find the actions or acts that they are committing to be criminal, then lets continue to add them to the registry, but lets not pretend that 'sexual assault' means only one thing. I WANT to know whether an individual is guilty of unwanted touching or forcible rape. Same goes for 'lewd and lascivious behavior," did you pee in the woods, or pleasure yourself in public? Lets treat these crimes differently.
Some of you would no doubt be happy to know that he is extremely solitary, and carries himself with the bearing of a man who dreams of nothing at all. There is no point for him to do so. The consequences from society are quite real; a scarlet letter to be sure. The comments here will no doubt be filled with hate and anger towards those that commit atrocity. And it is hard not to join in, I will admit. We want our loved ones to be safe, to fight off perverse and traumatizing threats. Then again, in Florida about a year and a half ago, two or three guys brutally beat an old man to death because they thought that he was an offender. He wasn't. And I have to ask to what degree hysteria and acceptable social rage made that murder seem like the right thing to do.
It didn't matter that he passed multiple polygraphs saying he didn't do it, or that medical exams showed her virginally intact. Her history of making prior rape accusations and subsequent therapy were inadmissible. Her mother's history of making false police reports and rape accusations were also rape shielded as "a victim by proxy". Dozens of people, teachers, social workers, ministers tried to speak out in his defense, only to be told "He is the next Ted Bundy" and only APPEARED to be innocent.
You want something to be afraid of? It's not my son, who has spent almost half his life forced into Nazi era registering as a sex offender. It's his accuser who has accused before, and will likely accuse again - this time it may be someone YOU love and care about, instead of just someone else's son. She is out there, perhaps a neighbor, a classmate, a coworker.
The laws have been changed to convict anyone accused, not just the guilty. There is an entire industry awaiting your soul with sharpened claws. Those in a custody dispute, a church member, a teacher, a cop, a single Dad, a completely innocent bystander - Y O U can be falsely accused.
YOU can be convicted on "children don't lie" alone - no evidence required. NO EVIDENCE NEEDED.
Be afraid.
And actually, I think anyone convicted of an ACTUAL sex crime should be committed to a maximum security psych hospital for the rest of their lives. Just my two cents.
We could afford to do this if we'd stop jailing people for non-violent crimes such as theft, prostitution (which is more a tragedy than a crime) and substance abuse (which is a medical condition).
Also - sexting, having an underage girlfriend, peeing outside - these activities don't make someone a danger to society. Where's the common sense?