Journalist lays out the research to counter myths about sex offender registry

Kelsey Turner with InvestigateWest shows readers that what we are doing to prevent future sex crimes against children is NOT working.

  • “Researchers say sex offender registration and notification laws can be counterproductive for public safety by keeping registrants on the streets: Tenino cited as example”
  • According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a Michigan study “found lack of a fixed address is distinctly associated with a higher risk of rearrest among individuals with a sex offense conviction.”
  • The 2019 Bureau of Justice Statistics report found that recidivism rates for people convicted of sex crimes are lower than the average for all offenders.
  • Prescott, a Michigan law professor who co-authored the above-mentioned HUD study, “noted that recidivism rates were low even before federal registration and notifications laws were put in place in 1994.”
  • The Washington Sex Offender Policy Board says, “Sweeping residency restrictions are not supported by research, and, in fact, can increase a false sense of safety.”

Ms. Turner needs to be commended for her strong use of research to denounce the incorrect public opinions.  kelsey@invw.org

 

A comment on the 2019 Bureau of Justice Statistics report mentioned above:

In Ms. Turner’s article, “Housing Restrictions Leaving More Northwest Sex Offender Homeless” for InvestigateWest, the follow statement from “Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from State Prison: A 9-Year Follow-Up (2005-14)” was quoted:

“Released sex offenders were more than three times as likely as other released prisoners to be arrested for rape or sexual assault (7.7% versus 2.3%).”

While the above statement is true, by leaving out pertinent information about these findings, the DOJ misled the public.  This study ONLY dealt with people released from prison whose worst offense was rape or sexual assault.  Not included were people who were convicted of viewing/possessing CP, people 18 years or older having consensual sex with someone under that age of 18 (in some states having sex with a 17-year-old individual is NOT a sex crime), people who committed a sex crime who have the intellectual ability of a 10-year-old or are diagnosed with autism or dementia, etc.

If the DOJ had included ALL of the subgroups of people who have been convicted of a sex crime, the 9-year sexual recidivism rate would have been lower than the given 7.7%.

When reading these government reports, many in the public assume that the studies and findings represent ALL people on the registry.  NOT SO!

An interesting study on how the U.S. government has distorted statistics on sex-crime recidivism:

Justice Policy Journal, Spring 2016, “Bad Data: How government agencies distort statistics on sex-crime recidivism”, Alissa R. Ackerman and Marshall Burns,

http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_bad_data.pdf

2 thoughts on “Journalist lays out the research to counter myths about sex offender registry

  • June 10, 2023 at 12:24 pm
    Permalink

    Here’s another fun fact: The public outcry in my city over the notification of a relocated registrant resulted in yard signs covering a 20 square mile area. If you multiply this by all registered sex offenders in the US (1 million), that’s an area seven times larger than the continental United States. If you disregard the 70% who are low-level offenders, this area only drops to twice the size of the continental US. So no matter which way you look at it, the public is measurably overreacting. Maybe this is why only a few countries have public registries and the rest do not.

    Reply
  • June 10, 2023 at 5:01 pm
    Permalink

    I just wanted to lay a brief comment out there about the registration. As has been proven by fact it does not provide Public Safety but it does put people on the registry at risk. There have been numerous accounts where people have been shot and killed because they have been on the registry. Many people such as myself were illegally convicted and did not commit the crimes but yet they’re having to pay the price live in the worst neighborhoods possible. They want us to stay away from crime but yet they put us right in the middle of crimes but only allowing us to live in those areas.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *