Sex Offender Laws May Do More Harm Than Good

Sex offender laws may be doing more harm than good. That is the conclusion Human Rights Watch came to after two years of intensive research into sex offender registration, community notification, and residency restriction laws in the United States. Our research convinced us that politicians failed to do their homework by enacting popular laws without seeking expert advice on how best to prevent sexual violence.

Instead of an informed debate about how sexual violence ravages this country, politicians and the media have largely focused on child victims of truly horrific crimes by previously convicted sex offenders -- like the murders of Megan Kanka, Polly Klaas, and Jessica Lunsford. Horrific yes, but uncommon, which means the laws are designed to tackle only a tiny minority and fail to address the full picture of sexual violence.

A growing number of child safety and rape prevention advocates agree that current laws are not working. For example, the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CALCASA), a state-wide coalition of 84 rape crisis centers and sexual assault prevention programs, had this to say about residency restriction laws: They "waste valuable resources on sex offenders who are unlikely to reoffend, while leaving a deficit of treatment, supervision, and focus on offenders who we know should be receiving more intense scrutiny."

Two popular myths about child abusers underlie many of our sex offender laws: first, that our children have most to fear from strangers, and second, that sex offenders will inevitably repeat their crimes. But the data tell a different story. More than 90 percent of child sexual abuse is committed by someone the child knows and trusts. And recidivism rates for sex offenders are far lower than most people believe -- authoritative studies show that three out of four do not re-offend within 15 years of release from prison.

Furthermore, focusing much of our public policy resources on restricting the rights of former sex offenders will do very little, if anything, to protect the 87 percent of victims of sexual violence who were abused by someone who had no previous sex crime conviction.

Residency restriction laws, in place in 20 states, are based on another popular belief about former offenders -- that keeping them away from places where children gather will reduce their risk of re-offending. But there is no evidence these laws diminish crimes against children and some to suggest the opposite.

A recent study by the Minnesota Department of Corrections analyzed 224 sex offender recidivists to see if where they lived had an effect on their crimes. The study found that residential proximity had very little impact on a recidivist's opportunity to re-offend. Many took pains to drive far from their neighborhoods in order to re-offend. More than half (113) came into contact with their victims through "social or relationship proximity" to the child. The most common example was that of a male offender who found his victim(s) while socializing with their mother.

The main impact of residency restrictions may be to drive former offenders underground, away from families, police supervision and the help that can stop them re-offending. As an Iowa sheriff pointed out, "We've taken stable people who have committed a sex crime and cast them out of their homes, away from their jobs, away from treatment, and away from public transportation. It's just absolutely absurd what these laws have done, and the communities are at greater risk because of it."

Law enforcement officials and sex offender treatment providers repeatedly told Human Rights Watch that isolating former offenders is counter-productive. Existing parole and probation laws already permit law enforcement agencies to place restrictions and conditions on former offenders when appropriate.

All registered sex offenders must provide a home address, but because of the restrictions, some do not have a home. Police in Iowa, which has seen residency restrictions backfire, have resolved this conundrum by allowing individuals to register as homeless, if they specify a location. So users who go to Iowa's online registry will find addresses listed as "on the Raccoon River between Des Moines and West Des Moines," "behind the Target on Euclid," and "underneath the I-80 bridge." I visited some of these "addresses." The areas are industrial, polluted, noisy, full of debris, and, in one case, right next to an active railroad track.

As a Des Moines police officer explained, "We don't expect that the registrants are actually living under the bridge, it's just one of the few places where they are legally allowed to admit they are living, and so they list that as their address, and go live someplace else."

Since the law took effect in Iowa, police have lost track of hundreds of former offenders.

Even online registries, where the personal details of offenders, but not necessarily the nature of their crime, are accessible to anyone with an Internet connection, may not be that useful. Some were convicted of non-violent offenses, others were children when they committed their crime. Police already have the duty to inform neighbors when an offender who might pose a threat moves in.

But it's one thing to say parents should be told there's a dangerous man living next door -- which they should -- and quite another to let anyone browse the registries to see who's listed, regardless of any need to know. Unfettered access to registry information can and does lead to harassment, ostracism and even violence against former offenders. That doesn't protect anyone. More effective would be to ensure that police actually pass on potential threats to the relevant community.

We deserve laws that protect everyone from sexual violence. Former offenders need laws that allow them to rebuild their lives -- because when they succeed in safely rejoining their communities, we are all made safer. State and federal legislators should end residency restrictions and reform online registry and community notification laws so they target high-risk offenders.

It's not surprising that those who know something about the nature of sexual violence in the United States have started to criticize the way the laws treat former sex offenders. But it's a shame that politicians don't seem to be listening to the experts who could help to craft laws that might actually prevent sexual violence.

Comments

[estrinfima]

I came to US as political refugee on human rights violations in former USSR
I am russian jew, and I got a lot of discrimination in USSR
My parents are Holocaust survivors
But I got the worst thing in USA, never possible in communist country.
I was set up with my computer, convicted as a sex offender for computer p..rn.
Now I do not have job and can hardly survive under police database
supervision, named sex offender registration. Nobody want to hire me,
I think because of police database.
And I have family. Who cares? Dirty polititians are playing their
dirty games for more power.

This is publication in Wired news. I wrote part of this article

http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,63391,00.html

Is there any way to fight this terrible law. Sex offenders
registration law create subclass of pariah inside of USA. This is Nazi
tactic. Creating of class public enemies is very bad.
For example minnesota congress narrowly rejected law to create
predatory license plates
for all sex offenders. This is too much, as you can understand.
Once the class of pariah is created, we can expect more and more
attempts to create more laws to clamp on them. No congressman would
risk to vote against any sex offenders law .
As we know recently SD congressman was charged with rape. He was main creator of new laws to restrict rights of sex offenders. He was hidden sex offender, worst of the worst, and he was not on sex offender registry
What kind people elected this monster? People of the country desrve their leaders.
The interesting thing, there are not so much coverage with these kind of questions asked.
Dirty polititians continue get more votes and profit by passing 'feel good' laws agains sexual predators,
which in fact dangerous for our kids.

[LeftRight]

Reminds me of my daughter. Couple of years ago she had her first serious boyfriend. Her, 14, almost 15, looked 18. Him, 17, almost 18, looked 15. Once we realized that they were having sex, we talked to them and provided protection because we wanted them both to be safe, and not getting sick from sex out in the park. Someone reported us to DCFS, which came by the house and informed us that we had to stop them, because in our state it's illegal for anyone under the age of 16 to have sex at all. When I informed the agent that we would refuse to press statutory rape charges against him, I was informed that we didn't need to, the state could do that on its own. Further, this boy who was having sex with his girlfriend would have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life......

All bogus.

[sosnet]

These laws are creating a false sense of security, and as a result, they are making women and children less safe.

Additionally, these laws are creating a second class of citizens, comprised of the wives, children, parents and siblings of America's Registered Sex Offenders.

These egregious laws are the results of our political leaders and the media. Politicians prefer to pander fear for votes, in place of acting on the recommendations of experts in law enforcement, sex offender management and therapy. The media sensationalizes the sex offender issue for easy ratings and advertising dollars.

The CDC (Center for Disease Control) has stated that sexual abuse is first and foremost a PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE before it becomes a Criminal Justice issue. Therefore, two steps must be taken right away;

1. We need to restore the sex offender registries to their original intent, that is to track ONLY the most dangerous or high-risk offenders and absconders, removing lower risk offenders. Medium risk offenders would move on or off the registry according to their Risk Assessment by sex offender management and treatment professionals. This WILL MAKE monitoring more efficient for law enforcement and effective for communities.

2. We absolutely must become proactive and implement a policy of THERAPY FIRST. By preventing abuse and by intervention for Intra-familial abusers, we can virtually eliminate this public health issue. This would be for intra-familial abuse only and based on a PROVEN RESTORATIVE JUSTICE MODEL.

Research, scientific studies, and thousands of documented cases have proven that THERAPY WORKS! By restructuring mandatory reporting laws to allow Intra-familial abusers or people who have the potential to abuse and have not yet committed a crime (e.g. people with porn addictions, etc) to seek help, without the repercussions of prison, a lifetime on the registry, GPS monitoring, etc.; we can remove the links in the chain, or cycles of abuse.

Our FOCUS should be on THERAPY, not retribution. Additionally, when we remove lower risk people from the registry, we add the needed stability to their lives for success.

Learn more at sosolutionsnetwork.org

[creepers]

One question. How does the Human Rights Watch use this research to convince lawmakers to turn these laws around and end the witchhunt?

[SamThornton]

Coincidentally, many of the most repressive measures enacted have been successfully promoted by people who have made a lucrative career out of publicizing admittedly heinous crimes committed against one of their children or a relative.

It's that good, old-fashioned demagoguery we never seem to tire of. The media is complicit of course; there's big money in encouraging hate and giving us something or someone to direct our hate against.

Thanks for throwing some facts against the wall. Let's hope they stick.

[Keith Richard Radford Jr]

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 not 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?

[DBG56]

Ms. Tofte,

This article is as good a description of what is going on as I have seen. Thanks for putting these thoughts down so concisely.

Another thought I have from a family experience. For an offense not worthy of criminal prosecution, but none the less prosecuted; resulted in charging this young man with four felony counts with the potential for 40 years in jail if convicted in a trial. A plea was offered and accepted based on the risk at trial, of one felony count, one year in jail, lifetime registration as a SEX OFFENDER, lifetime probation and what amounts to lifetime therapy(group, periodic testing, etc.).

Now he is labeled as a level two offender in his community with a moderate to high risk of re-offending resulting in neighborhood notification each time he moves, if he can find a place.

The "Crime". He(at age 20) "heavy" petted with his girlfriend who was underage(14, almost 15, looked 18+), a fact he was unaware of at the time. This inappropriate behavior has defined his life to the law and his community for the rest of his life. This affects his employment possibilities, educational opportunities, residential choices, marriage plans and the restrictions now on him for having children.

Lumping every category of SEXUAL OFFENSE under that term and applying the harshest possible restrictions on these young people for what amounts to a Romeo and Juliet experience, is a crime unto itself. He is not a child molester, a deviant, a predator! He was experiencing that which goes on for many young people. The mother of the girl thought he need a little counseling. SAD, SAD, SAD!!!

My opinion!!!!

DBG56

[sculptor]

There are two things going on here. First, America loves a good witch hunt, or at least its hypocritical preachers and politicians do. Second, America has got its head up its ass when it comes to sex.

The politicians love an issue like this. It lets them act like total jerks and at the same time lets them say "see how I'm protecting all of you from really bad people." This allows them to curry favor with two sets of constituents: the jerks and the paranoids. Preachers similar love to foam and rant about sex. It makes people guilty and gullable. Note, the very same politicians and preachers are likely trying to seduce children on the Internet because those that are the most guilt ridden are often the most strident (the Larry Craig effect.)

Americans are really messed up when it comes to sex. Most of them simply don't want to face the fact that it's their closest friends and relatives that are most likely to commit these acts. Admitting this would be like saying that they themselves had perverse sexual desires. Many Americans were molested as children and consequently likely do hold these desires. Until America comes clean about this the cycle of psychological damage will persist.

[sparkandy]

I saw a news story about a man who had had sex with an underage girl and was convicted of statutory rape. He was just barely older than she was. It turns out that the two were in love and ended up getting married and starting a family. Now, because of the absurd laws, the entire family is having problems finding a place to live. His only crime was having sex with his future wife when she was underage.

[drheelin]

I have thought for some time that many, many laws, these included are political, not governmental laws. The bill gets drafted, and put up for a vote, because "the people" want these laws. Even if they dont want them, it is thrown out there anyway. Everyone has to vote yes because they want to get re-elected. the laws are not crafted to prevent or protect anything or anyone.

[andygaus]

The residency restrictions may be counterproductive, but the worst is the legal precedent that has been set -- and already upheld by the Supreme Court -- that sex offenders who have ALREADY SERVED THEIR TIME may be held INDEFINITELY because they MIGHT re-offend, and that that doesn't count as double jeopardy because this preventive detention doesn't qualify as "punishment"! Note that sex is always worse than murder and burglary. I don't believe we have a thief and murderer registry, though I would be much more worried to have a thief or murderer next door than a sex offender who would probably not target my modest charms. And certainly we don't justify holding thieves and murderers on past their sentences because they MIGHT commit another crime. Depriving people of their freedom because they MIGHT commit a crime should make any American vomit. But that is already going on in my own Massachusetts and other benighted states of America. I love my country; I would like its face to be more recognizable.

[rwt1138]

I've often wondered why nobody has proposed a bill to brand the foreheads of convicted sex offenders, that way you don't need to visit a registry to determine their status. Sadly, I think were such a bill proferred in the wake of a horrific attack on a child, it would pass with broad support.

The trend in criminal law since the 80's has been toward vindictiveness over any meaningful effort to stem or prevent crime. This is because politicians realize that after sensational news stories have stirred up the public bloodlust, the public is not interested in calm, well-thought-out, rational efforts to address the causative elements. Rather, most news coverage of tragic crimes today is borderline pornography, appealing to the prurient, voyeuristic elements of the psyche.

Politicians who run on platforms of rationally addressing and overhauling existing laws will always be trumped by an opponent who promises to flay violators alive and douse them in acid. Politicians in office who try to propose rational legal policies will not get re-elected against a challenger who promises more blood to the mob.