Hundreds of Southern Illinoisans are required to register as sex offenders. But are we any safer?
Illinois’ sex offender registry, which now includes more than 32,000 people — most of them men, though some women, as well — has rapidly expanded since its first iteration in 1986.
Then, it included four qualifying crimes. Today, there are more than 30 crimes that trigger mandatory registration, including some repeat misdemeanor offenses.
In recent years, policy makers and advocates, both for offenders as well as victims, have been raising questions as to whether the registry, and the ever-increasing rules around it, really makes the public safer, or causes more societal harm than it does good.
In 2018, a bipartisan task force recommended Illinois take a far more nuanced approach to its registry, providing for risk assessments that allow law enforcement to focus limited resources on monitoring and more robust treatment options for people who are at high risk of re-offending.
From he source document at:
https://thesouthern.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/hundreds-of-southern-illinoisans-are-required-to-register-as-sex-offenders-but-are-we-any/article_cdf8a3f5-c436-5726-881b-da4f59abcb4c.html
“The General Assembly has not taken any significant action on the recommendations in the two years since.”
California has listened slightly to their SOMB, but Illinois won’t budge.
The answer is simple.
The police are spending a lot of time being probation officers to persons who committed crimes years and often decades ago. Some of these people are in wheelchairs or nursing homes or walking with walkers and no obvious threat to society.
This deprives police of manpower needed pursue persons actively involved in crime.
#stupidillinoisans
In the Illinois Sex Offenses & Sex Offender Registration Task Force Final Report in December 2017, pages 26-28 included the following recommendations:
Require the use of a validated, structured risk assessment as it is the most effective way to identify risk to sexually reoffend as well as general reoffending risk.
Use a standardized risk assessment process and risk assessment tools to promote consistency across those conducting the assessments. The tools, training, and process shaped by state oversight entity, like a sufficiently funded SOMB (Sex Offender Management Board).
Administer risk assessments after conviction by qualified professionals. Re-administer once a year, ideally (but minimally every two years), while under supervision.
Document and explain opinions that diverge from what is indicated by the validated, structured risk assessments.
Require treatment and management be informed by the current scientific evidence as it relates to what is effective at reducing sexual reoffending.
Effectively identify high risk people by requiring any registry to use tiers to reflect actual risk of sexual re-offending (informed by the risk-assessment conducted post-conviction)
Ensure resources can be focused on people who are at high risk of re-offending by having individuals on lower tiers—i.e., those who pose less risk—automatically removed from the registry after a set duration.
Allow registrants to petition to be removed from the registry if they meet certain criteria, such as having crossed the desistence threshold. These criteria should be created by Illinois’ SOMB and be informed by current scientific knowledge.
If used, the term “Sexual Predator” should not automatically refer to all lifetime registrants.
Remove statutory requirements that stipulate any new felony (not for a sex offense) automatically triggers retroactive registration for certain individuals.
I have contacted the series’ editor.
He quickly replied to my email, in part, as follows:
“The issues you address will be included in this year-long reporting endeavor. It’s important to note that we will be reviewing a number of facets, including controversies and effectiveness levels of the registries themselves as well as effectiveness, or lack thereof, of residency restriction laws, such as the proximity in which sex offenders can reside in relation to schools. Not every angle of the effort was included in the first week’s coverage – not by a long shot.
From a reporting aspect, the order in which the issues are handled will vary by market. A number of our markets already have written about controversies and perceived ineffectiveness of sex offender registries as part of this project.
We’re beginning a conversation. Multiple aspects of the issue need to be part of that conversation.”
FAC readers, I encourage any of you who feel you can provide some insight or illumination on the issues of registries, being a registrant, etcetera, to contact the Lee Enterprises publisher or editor to share your perspective / provide your input. I am encouraged by the editor’s reply and anticipate this series actually helping to turn the tide of public opinion against the SORs. Please take action & be a part – help make this transition happen!
Please be sure to read the comments people have left on the articles’ website. Enlightening and encouraging!! 👍🙂
Why knows, the devastating deficits that will result from this pandemic may just be to our benefit as squeezed budgets necessitate trimming some government services. To quote “Detroit”, “The police are spending a lot of time being probation officers to persons who committed crimes years and often decades ago.”
The arguments promoting “smarter on crime” instead of “tougher-on-crime” may finally get the fair hearing they deserves. And, while at it, “smarter on crime” legislation will provide lawmakers with political cover so they’re not accused of being soft on crime and too easy on sex offenders.
Busted budgets may benefit all.
Correction.
#dumbassillinoisans.
Media:
Thank you for bringing the task force report to our attention.
Illinois may ignore it’s own reports but it’s these reports that are what helps us win in court.