Do sex offender registries protect kids?

[2xx1xy1JD]

The Canadian government has finally proposed some new laws to get tougher on child sex offenders and create a national registry.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybre ... 50081.html

Compared to the United States, Canada's laws in this area have been far more lenient. For example, until changes by the current government, the age of consent was only 14 - we had a number of cases where we knew that 14 year old kids were being sexually exploited by adults, but we had absolutely no authority to do anything about it unless there was an actual complaint of assault from the victim.

My criminal lawyer friends are up in arms over the changes, claiming that they won't protect anyone and it's all too harsh and doesn't help rehabilitation.

Personally, this is one area where my normally liberal politics go out the window, since I'm from the "lock em up and throw away the key" school of thought when it comes to sex crimes against children. I know I'm biased. I have strong doubts that rehabilitation is even possible in many cases, and think that the risk of re-offending is harder to manage than with other crimes. [20 years ago, I discovered that a child close to me had been sexually abused by a relative for years, and that some of that abuse had occurred right under my nose. It was reported to authorities - child protection officials got involved to make sure that there was no further contact with the offender, but police didn't pursue charges against him. Family drama ensued as we refused any contact with the abuser, or to allow anything that might give the abuser access to or information about our children.]

The new registry would be searchable by the general public, but the scope would be narrower than the American registries - no close-in-age statutory rape cases, for example.

Thoughts or any solid information on whether registries help?

[OkToBeTakei]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2006 ... .politics1

As it is in the UK at the moment.

In the US, parents have access to pictures and details of all registered paedophiles. This right is known as "Megan's law", named after seven-year-old Megan Kanka, who was found strangled near her New Jersey home six years ago. Her parents campaigned for the police to notify communities when paedophiles moved in.

This I did not know.

More and more I see vigilante type groups popping up via social media.

It's a tough one because I tend to agree with you that children's safety should supersede the rights of a sex offender. I just don't trust the authorities to always implement the correct precautions or unnecessary vigilantism being employed by the public.

[bionicmlle]

This is an interesting topic. I'm not sure how much it protects kids - probably some. But it really concerns me that it harms offenders. People who are EVER convicted of an offense stay on the sex offender list indefinitely, even after serving their time. Granted, some of them definitely SHOULD but I'm not sure that a 20 year old with a statutory rape charge or an elderly man with an indecent exposure charge should be registered forever. Registering shackles someone in major ways including where they can live, if/where they can work and if they can be around children - even if their offense had NOTHING to do with children.

[Marianne]

We have no registry here, and I think it's great (there's a registry for police, of course, but a simple citizen can't have access personal information such as criminal records of someone). I will not be able to explain it in English, but I find this kind of really scary idea.

14 years seems a good age for consent (it was the age of my first sexual relationship with someone 16 years. Here, the age of sexual consent is 15 years, around me, most people have had their first intercourse between 13 and 17 years, with people of their age, or more and less older One of my friend was manipulated by an adult to have sex when she was more than 15 but less than 18, and the man was severly condemned.) We had a horrible story where a girl of 13 years had sex with his female teacher who manipulated her. Two "journalists" writed pitiful articles explaining that it was not rape (they had only interviewed the pedophile which of course had defended herself, saying that there was consent). The teacher was sentenced to years of prison, but I do not find the record of the court.

Our greatest weakness in France, it is incest. We are very good at telling children "warning, strangers can be dangerous." But we do not tell them "your father, your grandfather, your brother, your uncle, can be dangerous."

[BravaAmica]

This is an interesting topic. I'm not sure how much it protects kids - probably some. But it really concerns me that it harms offenders. People who are EVER convicted of an offense stay on the sex offender list indefinitely, even after serving their time. Granted, some of them definitely SHOULD but I'm not sure that a 20 year old with a statutory rape charge or an elderly man with an indecent exposure charge should be registered forever. Registering shackles someone in major ways including where they can live, if/where they can work and if they can be around children - even if their offense had NOTHING to do with children.

To me, a sex offender registry is for crimes that do actual harm to others. A public wee or your boyfriend or girlfriend having a birthday shouldn't haunt you forever.

[Conuly]

I think sex offender lists have the potential to be useful if a few guidelines are followed:

1. The list is severely limited to child rape and non-statutory rape of a minor. You shouldn't be able to get on the list for sleeping with your boyfriend who was two years younger than you, or public urination.

2. Unless the crime was especially heinous, those committed by minors should be able to move off the list by age 25, provided they have undergone therapy.

3. The restrictions imposed by the sex offender list should not be so onerous as to encourage sex offenders to break the law and drop off the grid entirely. We want to keep track of these people. If being on the list means their only choice is to live under a bridge and eat garbage because everywhere else is off-limits, some of them will look for and find a way to stop being tracked. Not to mention that this sort of thing probably does not help them keep from reoffending. I mean, how much more miserable can their lives get?

4. If there is automatic notification sent out to parents when a sex offender moves into the area, those pictures on The form letters have to be identifiable. We get notes home from the school, and those guys could be ANYbody. Completely useless. On a related note, police departments should be vigilant about updating their lists when sex offenders move out of the area, which many Aren't on the grounds that "people still need to be careful". Keeping names and addresses on a searchable list available to the public, when those people aren't in The area anymore is just fearmongering.

By and large, though, I think that if we honestly believe they are still dangerous after serving their time then we should increase sentences and limit parole more severely. I think that is a more effective way to keep kids safe than to leave the policing to the parents.

[Mama Mia]

I agree with what others have said regarding statutory rape ( and agree with Marianne regarding age of consent ) . I also agree with point about allowing younger people to go off, not making it so stringent it's pointless etc..

My main concern with these lists however is the negative impact they have on parenting. They don't seem, to me, to help parents teach kids to avoid certain people who have been convicted of a crime, or to stay away from a certain house in their neighborhood.

Instead they seem to just be increasing parents fear and paranoia factor to the point that there is no way these kids would possibly encounter a sex offender on the list only because they never encounter anyone, ever, without their parents within breathing distance. Even when they should be more than old enough to walk to school or play in their neighborhood or go to the store.

I know the lists are just part of the problem, which is largely fueled by the Internet and 24 hour news, but it is bizarre, to me as an older person, that most kids now are so phenomenally sheltered. I know we talk about fundamentalists doing this in their way, but I don't see much difference with the wider culture in some ways.

The other thing I have somewhat of a problem with is that the list is only regarding sex offenders, which feeds into the general idea that the worst possible crime that can happen to anyone is a sexual crime. Your next door neighbor could be a murderer, but that isn't going to be on a list. I think that is a weird message.

[Toothfairy]

Certain people shouldn't even be labeled as a sex offender. Taking a piss behind a tree and a kid accidentally seeing it isn't harming anyone. I really don't think it matters. There have been ton of cases where sex offenders keep abusing. I think it does help but it isn't going to solve the problem.

[susykt4]

I recently had a weird sex offender list issue. One of my teenage daughter's friends comes home with her on the bus every day after school and then her mom picks her up after work. My husband and I also work, the girls are plenty old enough to stay on their own, the other mom told me her daughter doesn't like staying alone. Other than this girl eating $$$ of my food every week, I don't care at all.

I had a day off work and was looking up silly days that coincide with our birthdays (national bacon day) and asked if the girls wanted me to look up any more in that month. Friend told me to look up her dad's and the subsequent conversation revealed that he doesn't work outside the home. What? Then why are you coming here every day and eating all my food??? I have known this family since kindergarten (though not well, obviously) so I googled the dad, assuming I'd find that he runs a computer repair out of his garage or something. Nope. His sex offender mugshot popped up. I was beyond shocked and found some site that explained his basic arrest details. 3 year old victim that the arrest year coincided with when Friend would have been 3. I freaked out a little and contacted a friend who is an attorney. She obtained his records (public info I could have sent for myself) and explained the charges and let me know the victim wasn't Friend, the charges indicated no penetration of any kind to the victim, probably no prison time was served for the charges, etc. I at least felt my own kids are safe and understand why Friend is coming over every day, but why on earth is Friend's mom still married to him and allowing him to live at home with 2 teenage daughters if there is some reason Friend can't be home alone with him??? I am soooooo glad I'm only acquaintances with this woman and not her friend! I don't talk to her very often, but when I do I want to kick her in the face. I very much wish I would never have found this info!

[FJismyheadship]

I was curious and looked up the ones in my area. Only one lives near me. I may have dodged a bullet because I nearly moved into the other side of the duplex he lives in.

Anyway, if you look, most of them say what the person did. So I would say they help, if you look at it right. For instance, the man in the duplex I almost moved into sexually assaulted a 16 year old. But if he had just urinated in public, it wouldn't have been a big deal.

It was interesting to look at the people on the list.

[Palimpsest]

Are you looking for statistics on efficacy or just our impressions and thoughts? Accurate statistics on "prevention" are hard to come by because sexual abuse of children is so under-reported and difficult to identify. Also, to put it bluntly, if an offender serves his time, is paroled, registers and is killed mysteriously shortly thereafter it is prevention - but probably isn't counted in the statistics. And I suspect that murders of sex offenders are not, shall we say, necessarily prioritized by over-worked homicide departments. Is this fair? Probably not.

Your points are well made on the effect it has on parenting and I agree with everything in Conuly's post.

I'm on the side of much longer sentences for sexual crimes against children. The rates of recidivism are sky-high and rehabilitation unlikely to succeed. I think we have more accurate statistics on that. I'm usually a bleeding heart liberal, but for some crimes I think we should lock the offenders up and throw away the key. I do think we need a second look at the classification of offences though. And probably another look at the classifications of offenders, which is done by assessing the potential risk of reoffending. That could be improved too.

In the US, although Federal Law now requires all states to have a registry, the states have some flexibility in determining which levels of offenders need to register for SORI. MA first instituted the registry in 1999, IIRC. Originally it was only Level 3 offenders who had to register. They amended the legislation last year to include Level 2. Level 1 offenders do not need to register. I could probably find some statistics used to support that amendment if you want.

An offender can apply for reclassification to a lower level after 5 years if they have not reoffended. I don't know how many applications succeed or how many people apply for reclassification. I could look into that though.

One huge problem with the registry is that some offenders do not comply and register themselves. They move and just disappear. My impression on following the news is that the majority of new cases seem to involve serial sex offenders who have failed to register in their town.

[DGayle]

We have laws barring keeping people behind bars for life unless it's a murder conviction. So child molesters and rapists have to be let loose at some point. This is why people who are still dangerous are allowed to walk free.

WhenI was pregnant, I was bored one day, and decided to look up the Megan's List online for my grandparents' town. bad area, I expected red dots everywhere. I didn't expect to find out my mother's stepdad, who I was fond of, to be on there for sex with a child under 14. Because of that, I let my child around him without me or my husband.

When the kid was a couple years old, this man reoffended. The victim was a the same-age child of one of my cousins. She didn't know about our step-grandfather, and let him babysit just one time.

The registry is to thank for my child not being one of his victims.

I don't think a public piss should go on the sex registry. That's not a sex offense. Molestation, rape, and sexual exposure (think of a guy in a park exposing his penis to passing-by kids to get his kicks) should be listed. The victims rarely completely move on, so why should offenders, people who choose to do this shit, be allowed privacy and to move on as if nothing happened? You choose to sexually offend, tough shit. I'm not going to pity you for people not trusting you. Think of that before diddling with a kid's private parts.

[Palimpsest]

We have laws barring keeping people behind bars for life unless it's a murder conviction. So child molesters and rapists have to be let loose at some point. This is why people who are still dangerous are allowed to walk free.

This is not true -- at least in the USA and depending on the state. It is possible to sentence someone to Life Without Parole for severe sexual offences against children. LWP is also possible with other offences short of murder - like being a habitual criminal or a drug kingpin. Google the CA Three Strikes Law and adoption of similar legislation in other states.

In addition, while some judges are stricter than others, it is possible to sentence someone with multiple offenses against children to the maximum penalty for each offense and have the sentences run consecutively not concurrently so the offender dies while still incarcerated.

I'm not advocating life sentences for all sexual offenders. It obviously depends on the severity of the crime and the liklihood of reoffending. I do advocated it for the worst.

Depending on which studies and stats you look at - between 34% and 52% of people convicted of predatory child abuse (not accidentally flashing a kid during an alfresco pee) reoffend in <4 years.

The reason for offenders being allowed to apply for reclassification after 5 years on the MA Registry is that stats show the risk of reoffence goes down dramatically after that waiting period.

[hapamama]

Right after the California Megan's Law database became available online, I found out that the father of one of my oldest son's friends was convicted of a sex crime against a child under the age of 14. This man was at every classroom party taking pictures for 2-3 years before the school found out...

[DGayle]

This is not true -- at least in the USA and depending on the state. It is possible to sentence someone to Life Without Parole for severe sexual offences against children. LWP is also possible with other offenses short of murder - like being a habitual criminal or a drug kingpin. Google the CA Three Strikes Law and adoption of similar legislation in other states.

In practice, this isn't true. Even Charles Manson has to be allowed to chance for parole. His chance of getting it is as close to non-existent as can be allowed, but he still has to be given the chance. All "life" really means, legally, is the sentence is likely to be longer than the remainder of that person's life. Sadly it's pretty uncommon for someone to actually die in jail an old person for anything except murder. I saw "sadly" because repeat sex offenders should. Courts also frequently shorten sentences on appeal on the grounds of the original sentence being unconstitutional.

Alaska doesn't even allow the "without parole" option.

[Trynn]

Actually, in the state of Michigan, if sentenced for life, you will die in prison. And we don't even have the death penalty to speed up the process.

[Palimpsest]

In practice, this isn't true. Even Charles Manson has to be allowed to chance for parole. His chance of getting it is as close to non-existent as can be allowed, but he still has to be given the chance. All "life" really means, legally, is the sentence is likely to be longer than the remainder of that person's life. Sadly it's pretty uncommon for someone to actually die in jail an old person for anything except murder. I saw "sadly" because repeat sex offenders should. Courts also frequently shorten sentences on appeal on the grounds of the original sentence being unconstitutional.

Alaska doesn't even allow the "without parole" option.

In practice it is certainly true. As I said above (now bolded in the quoted portion and now again) depending on the state!. Alaska is an outlier, if what you say is true. California's laws have changed dramatically since Manson was sentenced. He would not get the option of parole today but his original sentencing still stands.

I may be very tough on sexual offenders and murderers and want to throw away the key, but one of my more bleeding heart liberal concerns is the number of people aging and dieing in prison for much lesser crimes. It is something of a crisis in the prison system today. The overcrowding leads to inhumane conditions for many prisoners and the early release of some, including sexual offenders, because the burden on the system.

You don't have to believe me. Here are two links about the issue but there is much more information out there if you google.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/01/26/us-n ... rs-soaring

businessinsider.com/more-prisoners-are-serving-life-sentences-despite-crime-decrease-2013-9#ixzz2vWgPng8z

The number of prisoners serving life sentences without the possibility of parole has shot up by about 22% since 2008, according to a new report from The Sentencing Project.

And since 1984, the number of prisoners serving life sentences has quadrupled despite a steady decline in crime rates. A surprising number of these prisoners haven't even committed a violent crime — 10,000 of those serving life sentences have been convicted of nonviolent offenses.

"There are certainly people who should remain in prison for their entire lives," Ashley Nellis, the author of the report, told The Daily Beast. "But we think that everyone at least deserves a second look. The problem with this group is they’re never given the chance to show that they deserve it."

America is already dealing with a serious prison overcrowding problem, and taxpayers are footing the bill for these "lifers" to stay locked up.

The situation is particularly dire in California, where the governor is being forced to release 10,000 prisoners by the end of the year because the state's correctional facilities have become so overcrowded.

The report states that while life sentences used to be reserved for the most severe crimes, those convicted of assault, robbery, kidnapping, sexual assault, and drug crimes can now receive life sentences.

Other interesting facts from the report:

One of every nine individuals in prison is serving a life sentence.

More than 159,000 people were serving life sentences in 2012, and 50,000 of those are serving life sentences without the possibility of parole.

Florida, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, California, and Michigan account for 57.7% of all life without parole sentences nationwide.

Of those sentenced to life in prison, only 64.3% were convicted of homicide.

[Trynn]

In practice it is certainly true. As I said above (now bolded in the quoted portion and now again) depending on the state!. Alaska is an outlier, if what you say is true. California's laws have changed dramatically since Manson was sentenced. He would not get the option of parole today but his original sentencing still stands.

I may be very tough on sexual offenders and murderers and want to throw away the key, but one of my more bleeding heart liberal concerns is the number of people aging and dieing in prison for much lesser crimes. It is something of a crisis in the prison system today. The overcrowding leads to inhumane conditions for many prisoners and the early release of some, including sexual offenders, because the burden on the system.

You don't have to believe me. Here are two links about the issue but there is much more information out there if you google.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/01/26/us-n ... rs-soaring

businessinsider.com/more-prisoners-are-serving-life-sentences-despite-crime-decrease-2013-9#ixzz2vWgPng8z

Are those the Same states without the death penalty? I know MI doesn't have it... May e our life without parole rate is sky high because we don't do executions?

I agree, I think most prison sentences are ridiculously long.

[fiery redhead]

Is it just me, or does it seem that in some patriarchal circles that being a sex offender is quite excusable, not so much in current elders but I younger men. Here in the NW there is Greg Harris's denomination-not-denomination of Household of Faith and I have many friends associated with these churches throughout WA and OR. There has been one case in particular that is quite disturbing, a sex offender marrying an elder's daughter. I had 2 different friends who went to the wedding, and I have met this girl and have talked some with her siblings on a few different occasions. They seemed sincere. Of course, they are skirts only, girls don't go to college, etc. But I am disturbed that this marriage was so supported, as I did some research on the groom. Scary stuff. He is level 2 and his psycho-sexual eval says he has a strong propensity towards children even still. I won't go into detail if what he has done. In saying all of this, I was curious if others who bump shoulders in the quiver full crowd, or even any sort of evangelicals who think that Jesus cures all for anyone, has seen a situation like this before that is rather recent?

[dawbs]

We have laws barring keeping people behind bars for life unless it's a murder conviction. So child molesters and rapists have to be let loose at some point. This is why people who are still dangerous are allowed to walk free.

WhenI was pregnant, I was bored one day, and decided to look up the Megan's List online for my grandparents' town. bad area, I expected red dots everywhere. I didn't expect to find out my mother's stepdad, who I was fond of, to be on there for sex with a child under 14. Because of that, I let my child around him without me or my husband.

When the kid was a couple years old, this man reoffended. The victim was a the same-age child of one of my cousins. She didn't know about our step-grandfather, and let him babysit just one time.

The registry is to thank for my child not being one of his victims.

*snip*.

The problem is, though, it didn't work.

It helped your kid be kept from him...but did nothing to protect his next victim.

In some ways, it just makes more 'victim blaming' for the parents (not that anyone here is doing this; hell,just from what I know I'd feel though, it's there) who dont look up the registries of everyone and their brother. (and then you get the 'overwhelming info' problem. I know that my ex-neighbor was on the registry and I know what the crime was--which left it COMPLETELY open to interpretation whether or not his being on the registry was appropriate. So...it gives me just enough information to not make a good decision about myself or my kid :pull-hair: )

[Palimpsest]

Snipped for length

Are those the Same states without the death penalty? I know MI doesn't have it... May e our life without parole rate is sky high because we don't do executions?

I agree, I think most prison sentences are ridiculously long.

Florida, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and California all have the DP. I should double-check before I say this, but think that the study above did not include Death Row inmates. For Death Row inmates see here:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-r ... h-row-year

IIRC, Michigan has a 4 strike law which probably sends the LWP rate sky high. CA rescinded its 3 strike law fairly recently because of the over-crowding sinking the system as well as the unfairness of the law. It's hard to keep up with all the changes!

Basically, the whole sentencing system needs to be revised. Rapists, child molesters and incestuous parents can still walk free after a judicial slap on the wrist, or are sentenced to mere months, but in 3 and 4 strike law states a non-violent drug user/addict (not dealer) can get LWP after repeat convictions for mere possession. It is nuts!

[Maggie Mae]

So. Weirdness just happened. Reading this thread I thought I might check out the list just for curiosity. Put in my work address, and see a couple of marks on the map near my business. Click on them, realize that one is someone I work with on a regular basis. Look up case docket, doesn't tell me anything because it was "archived" and I have to submit a request in writing. Look up the statue of the law he broke. Looks like a molester to me. Then the door opens, and I'm not even joking right now, he walked in the door while I still have the sex offender profile on my screen. It was like something out of a lifetime movie. Creepy. :shock: :pink-shock:

NOT PLEASED.I feel like there has to be more to the story. Or not. :(

[Maggie Mae]

Well, I got the rest of the story from a coworker. Gross. He's a child rapist. Blamed it on the booze. Now a born again Christian, going to a creepy fundamentalist Church. Blamed it on the booze. Has new, much younger wife.

I don't even know what to think, other than I'm grossed out. I would have NEVER guessed. I never got a bad vibe from him.

So. Sex Offender List good. Child Molesters bad.

[Rebelwife]

Well, I got the rest of the story from a coworker. Gross. He's a child rapist. Blamed it on the booze. Now a born again Christian, going to a creepy fundamentalist Church. Blamed it on the booze. Has new, much younger wife.

I don't even know what to think, other than I'm grossed out. I would have NEVER guessed. I never got a bad vibe from him.

So. Sex Offender List good. Child Molesters bad.

That's so creepy! I would have been freaking out.

[mypsychoticself]

Our greatest weakness in France, it is incest. We are very good at telling children "warning, strangers can be dangerous." But we do not tell them "your father, your grandfather, your brother, your uncle, can be dangerous."

It's the same everywhere, I think. No one wants to believe that their loved one is a predator.