Registering Sex Offenders - What's the Point?

[Pedersen]

My argument for sex registries has always been that the rate of recidivism for these crimes - even for those who took advantage of counselling and rehabilitation programs - is ludicrously high. Much higher than the recidivism rates for murder and burglary, for example. And often, their crimes escalate.

I'm sorry, but the statistics I've been able to find do not back up this assertion. I'll start with Greenday's statistics above, and then provide links for my own searches:

According to the United States Department of Justice, in 1994, 9,691 sex offenders were released in 15 various states. Within 3 years, 5.3% of them for a new sex crime. Comparing them to people who committed other crimes and were released the same year, 67.5% of them recommitted crimes of similar nature.

Now, my own research links: Google Search

• Center for Sex Offender Management
• Bureau of Justice that backs up Greenday's statistics
• Texas Dept of State Health Services
• Page that links to others, summarizing their statements

A study was done in Canada that showed extremely high rates of recidivism occurred for sex offenses. However, that study has been attacked (and possibly debunked) as artificially inflating the numbers.

The numbers do not seem to back you up on this, Boozy. Nor anybody else who wants to believe that sex offenders repeat their crimes after being convicted. It does happen, but the data shows that it happens less than it does for non-sex offenders.

[Greenday]

The numbers do not seem to back you up on this, Boozy. Nor anybody else who wants to believe that sex offenders repeat their crimes after being convicted. It does happen, but the data shows that it happens less than it does for non-sex offenders.

It's one of those things that get exaggerated, then becomes something that everyone just knows without actually ever looking at the rates.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

It depends on who the pervert is in relation to the child. I once read in a magazine a true story about a boy who was being abused by his stepfather. The stepfather managed to turn everything around and say that if his victim told anyone, he would ruin everything; break up his stepfather and mother's marriage, wreck his sister's life cuz of it, cause his mother untold pain and send his stepfather to prison. Basically, that it would be all his fault and everyone would blame him. So I can see an abuser using that as a threat, as in "If you tell, I'll go to prison and then the family will be broken up and it'll be all your fault".

This is entirely typical of the sort of thing perverts tell their victims. However, what the guy might say has nothing to do with whatever the law might be at the time. How stiff a penalty is would be completely irrelevant to what he could or would say.

My feelings here are this:
1. The registry is a joke. Since it's completely diluted with non-offenders (guy takes his slightly underage girlfriend over state lines or whatever can get you busted these days), it's very misleading and unfair. There's a guy on the registry living in the row of houses behind my property. I have no idea if he handled a toddler or his pants accidently fell down in front of a high school. No clue if he's a danger to me or not. But he MIGHT be, so heads up, I guess. (which is the exact same "MIGHT be I'd be working with if I didn't know this bit of info.) It's good we have a registry, but we need to FIX IT SO IT MATTERS.

2. If a guy is so much of a threat that we need to keep tabs on him after he gets out of the clink, then he does not need to be out of the clink.

So, fix the registry, then put the real threats in prison and LEAVE THEM THERE.

[blas87]

I'm with Boozy and Kinkoid all the way on this page, and AdminAssistant of course!

[Seshat]

I'll expand on my suggestion further.

Let's split crimes - or criminals - into types.

Type 1: Unlikely to reoffend.
Give them a punishment. A fine that's a percentage of their above-poverty income, a period of time in prison, community service .. some sort of punishment appropriate to the severity of their crime.
If there was a victim, have the criminal do something that in some way can compensate the victim: perhaps have them do a service to society, and the social coffers that benefit from that service compensate the victim.
Type 1 criminals, once their punishment has been done, get a little private note on their file (for use if they DO reoffend), and otherwise the record is clear.

Type 2: Significant potential for reoffending, but experience has shown that this type of criminal can be rehabilitated.
Rehab them. Lock away the ones who perform crimes of violence or who have otherwise shown that they cause suffering to victims, leave the others in the community (but only if they attend their rehab sessions reliably).
Don't give them a set sentence: maybe a minimum, but no maximum. Don't let them out until they're rehabbed, then monitor them. Put them in a program that helps them get back into society, and watches them closely. Then gradually taper things off, but only as much as you can without them reoffending.
Their files should always be kept, and probably should be public record.

Type 3: Usually/always reoffends when given the chance.
Don't give them the chance.
Because we can't be -certain-, do whatever we've found works to try to determine which of these people are false positives - innocents mistakenly determined to be type 3.
And some of the ones considered to be type 3 will actually be type 2. So rehab programs aren't wasted.
But in general, type 3s should stay locked away.


Victims of type 2 and 3 should get as much help as society can provide.

[Boozy]

Pedersen and Greenday - You guys are right about recidivism rates for sex crimes in general. Mine were dated, and focussed on child molestors only.

[Lace Neil Singer]

There's also the fact that most kids who are molested suffer at the hands of someone they know, not from some random stranger. And here's a link to back it up: http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm#Offenders So warning them about the sex offender living at number 12 down the road isn't going to help when you're unaware about Uncle Charlie's nasty little games with your poor child. -.-

[Slytovhand]

Ok....I finally get on board to add my 2c...

Firstly, cos I just did a copy and paste, Ped, you've lost me on the stats. Those links seem to indicate a fairly high recidivism rate (well, relatively speaking... after all, if 1500 people -yes, the guys and the girls - are convicted, and 5.3% reoffend.. that's 53 people - and 53 new victims who basically lose some aspect of their lives..). Also, from Texas Dept of Health Services link you provided:

It should be noted that recidivism rates are based upon information gathered from an arrest, a conviction, or incarceration on a sexual offense. In other words, a sex offender can repeatedly re-offend before he or she is arrested and recidivates. Marshall and Barabaree (1990) compared official records with “unofficial” sources. They found that the number of subsequent offenses revealed through the unofficial sources were 2.4 times higher than the official records.

5.3% now becomes 12 %.

Although.....

Firstly, given that sex offenders who molest young children are going to have some sway over the kids, we can presume that the actual number of offenses is actually significantly higher... they just got away with them. That sort of crime is a lot easier to cover up than, say, a murder or burglary.. or even rape. There's got to be suspicion first, before anything can be done, or an investigation mounted.

Which leads to my next point... those on the registry who 'shouldn't' be there. I would say the statistics provided will skew those figures. How many of the 5.3% recidivists were 'real' sex offenders? If we figure somewhat less than 100%, then it wouldn't be surprising to get a vastly decreased statistic of lowered reoffence... the girl peeing in public caught by a child isn't likely to make that same mistake again (yeah.. just thought I'd throw in a slightly altered scenario )

Now, shouldn't there be some easy way for the public to access criminal information? Well... red lights and not giving way?? Ok, perhaps not just traffic infringements... what about theft? Robbery? Fraud? Where does it end? And who should have access to those records? And what should be put into place if the 'criminal' is found innocent?

My last (immediate) point (which means, while I'm typing on the fly, see what comes to mind ), is... what about mental illness? Eg, person gets done for sex offence. Convicted, let out, does it again, gets caught, etc. #3 they get found to be mentally unstable, and is now under psychiatric treatment.. are the first 2 'legitimate' crimes? What happens if it was murder?

Also, to address some of the angst on this thread (not saying I'm opposing - just doing what GD did in starting this thread - let's look at the situation....), what should be done if it can be found that there is treatment for such offenders? (yes, I do personally believe there is....). If it can be found to reliably get an offender - even a serial violent offender - to rehabilitate, what should be done with their records? Should they remain on such a registry then?

I could throw in... why have a registry when you can have a death penalty.....

(I'll probably think of other stuff later..)

[crazylegs]

From what I've read, it's not that registering offenders is the issue, but who should be on the register. I'm quite glad of our system that we have in place, essentially there has to be a sexual devience (well beyone sociatal norms) for you to be registered, not because you're taking a leak and a kid saw it.

Yes there are some people that would be aroused by that but it's rather rare and up to the state/prosecutor to prove it in each instance rather than a blanket cover.

[Greenday]

I also think someone needs to keep track of it too. Find out when they move and either change the address to the correct one, or just put unknown. Because it's unfair that people move into a house not knowing that it's listed as a current home of a sex offender, thereby making them sex offenders in the public's eyes.

[Slytovhand]

Perhaps more to the point, if someone is going to go to the trouble to look up the Sex Offenders register, they should also take responsibility, and look up their criminal record to see the exact reason why they've been convicted... Since that's likely not to happen,then the next best (if not better anyway) is to have some vague info like that on the register itself!(presuming such a thing stays...)

[tropicsgoddess]

I say let the punishment fit the crime. But then again, what about the innocent ones, that are on it? Why should they suffer, for crimes that they did not comment?

I agree. It's sad when you have somebody like say a 16 year old girl and and 18 year old guy who have consensual sex, but the girls parents catch them in the act and the guy gets meted out the harshest legal punishment like he's some rapist scumbag. Why? Out of spite of the parents of the minor and then that 18 year old's life is forever ruined because of that. Then there's that sexting thing going on. I'm still WTF at that to be honest. For those that don't know: sexting is basically sending a nude/semi-nude picture of yourself to somebody from your cellphone. There were some teens that were charged with either distributing child porn or possessing it (depending on the state they live in) and had to register themselves as Sex Offenders. Sexting is something that kids need to know about being responsible and using common sense with their cellphones, akin to their facebook/twitter/myspace profiles. What I agree on with Slyt is how they need to show EXACTLY why the offenders were convicted, it's too vague on the system (for my state).

[Jester]

We have two different and distinct issues here.

1. Whether or not everyone who is a registered sex offender SHOULD be. There are, sadly, hundreds of cases of people being adjudicated as "sex offenders" when their crimes are, at worst, indiscretions (public urination) or violations of arbitrary societal standards (the teenage having sex with his teenage girlfriend), among others.

2. Whether or not there should be a registry. In my mind, if we can fix the first issue, I see no problem with a registry. If we are going to be serious about a registry of sexual offenders, it should be those who are dangerous sexual offenders. In my mind, that would be rapists, serial rapists, and child molestors.

And don't forget, as Sylvia727 has said, most of the people on the sex offender registry are males. What about all these stories we keep hearing about that involve FEMALE teachers with their 13, 14, etc. year old male (and in one case female) students? What about them?

Most sex offenders are male, it is true. And until recent times, the women who would prey on children, few that they were, tended to be ignored. To the justice system's credit, these women are lately starting to get the same attention and scrutiny (and punishments) meted out to their more numerous male counterparts. Witness the cases of Mary Kay Letourneau (Seattle) and Debra LaFave, which while different, were not merely laughed off as "what teen boy wouldn't want that?" bullshit.

I disagree with the idea of a sex offenders registry. Sex offenders are criminals like any other. We don't have a "Burglar Registry". We don't have a "Murderer Registry". We don't have a "Speeder Registry". We don't have a "Driving Without Insurance Registry". We don't have registries for the other types of crimes. We just have registries for this one type.

Americans tend to be overly protective of their children. Some would say they have taken this to a ridiculous degree, and in many cases, I would agree with them. But it is important to note that of all crime victims, children are the ones (generally speaking) that are least able to defend themselves. Especially if the person committing the crimes against them are someone in power over their lives, such as a parent, family member, teacher, or pastor.

No, I don't have to register as a speeder, despite all those tickets I got when I was in my 20's. But there is a de facto registry for lead footers like myself. It's called my driving record. Which has affected my insurance rates, has cost me the ability to get certain jobs (those that involve driving), and has followed me even to this day. But I am not bitching about the system. I did what I did, and I have paid the price for it.

Child molestors, on the other hand, do not commit crimes that are going to affect their insurance rates or stop them from getting driving jobs (short of school bus driver or some such). They prey on children, and the registry is one tool with which American society seeks to protect its children from further preying by these lovely people.

And we wonder why people repeat their offences.

Geez. Can't get a job, can't get a place to live, can't develop friends. Are we surprised these people feel like outsiders.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that child molestors are not repeating their crimes simply because they are made to feel like outsiders. I am going to go further out on the limb and say they repeat their crimes because they are fucked up in the head and find children to be sexual objects that they are compelled to prey on.

I have zero sympathy for real child molestors (as opposed to the "sex offenders" that frankly don't belong on the registry).

According to the United States Department of Justice, in 1994, 9,691 sex offenders were released in 15 various states. Within 3 years, 5.3% of them for a new sex crime. Comparing them to people who committed other crimes and were released the same year, 67.5% of them recommitted crimes of similar nature.

So let's recap, compared to other criminals, sex offenders are MUCH less likely to recommit their crimes. But because of the exaggeration placed on sex offenders by society and the media, we believe the complete opposite.

By your own comments, sexual predators are but a small portion of registered sex offenders as a whole. So, what do you think the recidivism rate would be for registered sex offenders if you took out the non-predators?

Pedersen and Greenday - You guys are right about recidivism rates for sex crimes in general. Mine were dated, and focussed on child molestors only.

Well, according to the data Boozy was looking at, it would seem that child molestors at the very least have a high recidivism rate.

Naturally the people who have been catagorized as "sex offenders" that probably shouldn't be are not going to have a high recidivism rate. If I'm 19 and my girlfriend is 17, and I get listed as sex offender, I am not going to make the same mistake again. If I get arrested for urinating on a playground at midnight but am listed as a sex offender, you better bet your ass I am not going to ever NOT find a bathroom again. And so on and so forth.

But sexual predators, especially child molestors, tend to be incurable, according to psychologists. And while some certainly can (and do) learn to control their behavior, many others cannot and do not.

I'm quite glad of our system that we have in place, essentially there has to be a sexual devience (well beyone sociatal norms) for you to be registered, not because you're taking a leak and a kid saw it.

Yes there are some people that would be aroused by that but it's rather rare and up to the state/prosecutor to prove it in each instance rather than a blanket cover.

Sadly, that is not as true as you would like to believe. There have been documented cases of people being classified by the legal system as sexual offenders who must register for doing some of the silly "crimes" we have talked about in this thread.

Generally speaking, if the police, prosecutor, and judge in the case are rational people, only the deviants would be the ones registered. Sadly, that is not always the case. And thus you get a guy who peed in public listed on the same registry as a guy who preyed on six year olds.

What I agree on with Slyt is how they need to show EXACTLY why the offenders were convicted, it's too vague on the system (for my state).

Odd that you say that. I live in the same state, and a while back when a discussion about sexual predators came up elsewhere, I did a little bit of research on the net, and found a list of registered sex offenders in my part of Florida. And each one had the crime they had been charged with listed. Admittedly, a lot of it was in legalese and there were many instances when it was rather vague what they did/were charged with, but when it read something like "illicit sex act with child under 10" that was pretty clear. Could it be more clear? Sure. It could also be more vague, though.

[Pedersen]

No, I don't have to register as a speeder, despite all those tickets I got when I was in my 20's. But there is a de facto registry for lead footers like myself. It's called my driving record. Which has affected my insurance rates, has cost me the ability to get certain jobs (those that involve driving), and has followed me even to this day. But I am not bitching about the system. I did what I did, and I have paid the price for it.

Child molestors, on the other hand, do not commit crimes that are going to affect their insurance rates or stop them from getting driving jobs (short of school bus driver or some such). They prey on children, and the registry is one tool with which American society seeks to protect its children from further preying by these lovely people.

It's an absolute shame that we didn't already have something in place that people could use, and required the creation of these registries. I dunno, maybe some method of allowing people to look up any crime that has been committed by someone else... I have a great idea!

Instead of a "sex offenders registry", let's make criminal records a matter of public record! That way, people who commit violent crimes, or sex crimes, or any other crime, will find themselves being haunted by those very same crimes! If you're a child molester, anybody can find out, and you won't be able to get a job working with kids, for instance!

I know, it's a revolutionary idea, and not one that's likely to catch on. But, what do you think? Should we at least attempt it?

By your own comments, sexual predators are but a small portion of registered sex offenders as a whole. So, what do you think the recidivism rate would be for registered sex offenders if you took out the non-predators?

I have to admit, Jester, that I'm disappointed. You took the time to read quite a bit of this thread, but did not bother to read the links I posted here. In particular, a group calling themselves the Center for Sex Offender Management had a few interesting things to say. First, a handy little graph of theirs:



Second, a little snippet of text from that page:

• Incest offenders ranged between 4 and 10 percent.
• Rapists ranged between 7 and 35 percent.
• Child molesters with female victims ranged between 10 and 29 percent.
• Child molesters with male victims ranged between 13 and 40 percent.
• Exhibitionists ranged between 41 and 71 percent.

Now, go back to the other statistic that was quoted by Greenday above (which was backed up by data here:

According to the United States Department of Justice, in 1994, 9,691 sex offenders were released in 15 various states. Within 3 years, 5.3% of them for a new sex crime. Comparing them to people who committed other crimes and were released the same year, 67.5% of them recommitted crimes of similar nature.

Going by the data from CSOM, we find that child molesters, at their highest recidivism rate, go to 52%. General criminal population recidivates at 67.5%. Rapists have even lower numbers, maxing out at 39%.

Now, surely, you aren't going to tell me that having a bit of anecdotal data that is unlinked to is enough for you to ignore a whole stack of data that does get linked to and proves the exact opposite?

Well, according to the data Boozy was looking at, it would seem that child molestors at the very least have a high recidivism rate.

Apparently, it is sufficient. That is really disappointing. Data that you have not seen, and cannot read, and is unable to be found by others who are trying to find it, and that no one reading this has managed to independently verify, was enough to sway your opinion. In fact, you even quoted your source as admitting that her data was wrong, and you still used that to bolster your position.

That's extremely disappointing.

But sexual predators, especially child molestors, tend to be incurable, according to psychologists. And while some certainly can (and do) learn to control their behavior, many others cannot and do not.

Going by the criminal recidivism rates, nearly half of them do learn to control it (47.5% of them, in fact).

Sadly, that is not as true as you would like to believe. There have been documented cases of people being classified by the legal system as sexual offenders who must register for doing some of the silly "crimes" we have talked about in this thread.

As crazylegs is from the UK, there are different standards in place for him. They might well have the same problems as we do. I don't know, and don't have evidence in either direction.

[Jester]

Instead of a "sex offenders registry", let's make criminal records a matter of public record!

Of course you realize that the problem with this is that something being public record does not mean that people are going to be aware of it. For instance, of Nice Mr. Johnson moves in down the street, you may not think to look up his criminal record. If he is a registered sex offender, you are more likely to be notified of this than if you were just able to look up his records.

I know what you are thinking....what about burglars? Well, people tend to be a lot more skittish about protecting their kids than their house. What about murderers? It is rare that a convicted murderer moves into a neighborhood and people are not made aware of it, so we can leave murderers out of the equation. And honestly, it is a low percentage of convicted murderers that are released, and of those who are, an even lower number who are still of age to really be a threat.

Going by the data from CSOM, we find that child molesters, at their highest recidivism rate, go to 52%. General criminal population recidivates at 67.5%. Rapists have even lower numbers, maxing out at 39%.

Now, surely, you aren't going to tell me that having a bit of anecdotal data that is unlinked to is enough for you to ignore a whole stack of data that does get linked to and proves the exact opposite?

What opposite does this prove? That non-sex offender criminals have a higher recidivism rate than sex offenders? I never argued that point. What I said was that dangerous sex offenders (as opposed to non-dangerous sex offenders, the distinction between which has already been made) have a high recidivism rate. I hardly find that 39-52% rate you quote to be something I could qualify as "low."

In fact, you even quoted your source as admitting that her data was wrong, and you still used that to bolster your position.

I quoted her, yes. She admitted she was wrong, but her logic was flawed. She was assuming that Greenday's data was more accurate, despite the fact that her data was for child molestors only and his was for all sex offenders. No, I did not independently verify the data. I won't argue that point. But let's for the moment assume that the data that both of them quoted was as valid as the other. If that is the case, my point stands: that dangerous sex offenders such as child molestors do, in fact, have a high recidivism rate, and should not be lumped in with non-dangerous sex offenders.

Remember, I never said that there should not be a registry for dangerous non-sex criminals, such as armed robbers, rapists, and murderers. I was merely saying I support the registration of dangerous sex offenders.

Going by the criminal recidivism rates, nearly half of them do learn to control it (47.5% of them, in fact).

By your own statement, more than half of them are NOT able to control it. If I were a parent, which I am not, and as an uncle, which I am, these are not numbers that inspire me to trust to the good nature and self-control of any pedophiles that happen to move near my non-existent children or my very real nieces/nephews. I like being aware of the dangers around me, thank you very much. And when it comes to my nieces and nephews, I am every bit as over-protective as any parent.