EDITORIAL: Lawmakers need to re-examine sex offender registry
Mar. 22—When this mother speaks on this particular issue, know that every one of her words is valuable and chosen carefully.
Patty Wetterling lost a son to the actions of a sex offender. But she now has misgivings about a sex offender registry she helped create.
Her concerns are worthy of attention.
Wetterling’s son Jacob was abducted and killed in 1989 in central Minnesota by an area man. After Jacob’s disappearance, Wetterling worked to establish a sex offender registry that would help flag offenders for law enforcement. (The man who 27 years later admitted to Jacob’s abduction and killing would not have actually been on such a registry because he’d never been charged or convicted of a sex crime.)
Today Wetterling has concerns that the registry, drastically changed over the years by the Legislature to aggressively capture more offenders, has overreached.
maybe she has been affected by it as well since
” by the Legislature, aggressively capture more offenders, has overreached.” maybe it reached into her world as well we will never Know but at least she is going into this 1 eyes wide open
FTR,
The problem is that they only listen to “the people” (i.e. the parents) when there’s a petition that will favor votes for these politicians. The same people who wanted the laws made are ignored when they eventually change their mind.
Every single one of the horribly tragic high-profile cases that have led to increasingly draconian sex offender registration and restriction laws have had three things in common: the kidnap, rape and brutal murder of a young child.
Yet lawmakers have persistently ignored the kidnapping and murder part, focusing only on the sexual abuse component. Yes, society is getting out its frustrations on child rapist-murderers by treating everyone with any crime with a sexual element as child rapist-murders. This might make some people feel better, but it does not make children or society any safer and in fact makes them less safe, because research has shown time and again that when low-risk sex offenders are treated like high-risk sexual predators, they are more likely to act that way.
Is the goal to make children safe and reduce sexual violence and abuse, or to simply heap on perpetual punishment for all offenders whose offenses involved a sexual component, regardless of whether the offense was violent or predatory? If lawmakers are attempting to achieve the former, then they are failing miserably. When was the last time the Legislature passed any law aimed at reducing (or even studying) the underlying causes of child sexual abuse? And how does treating me, who engaged in consensual sexual activity with a 17-year old when I was 25 (half my life ago, as I’m now 49), like a child rapist make anyone safer?
Everything you said here sounds like a damn good argument to present to a legislative meeting.
They ARE basing sex offenses on those who had obvious psychological issues which made them blatant rapists and murderers.
Since the federal rules regarding sorna are dictated by the Attorney General, why don’t we state our case in a letter directly to our new AG?