Is the Sex Offender Registry Fair?
The 1990s saw a significant rise in horrific sex offenses directed towards children, prompting the federal and state governments to formulate laws to help deter offenders and ensure public safety. One of these laws was the 1994 Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, requiring convicted offenders to register with their local law enforcement after their release from prison.
In 1996, Congress passed Meghanâs Law (a subsection of the Jacob Wetterling Act), which was then signed into law by President Bill Clinton. This law required law enforcement agencies to publicize the information of convicted sex offenders. This meant that any person needing to look up a personâs name when doing a background check for sex offenses could find their name in the sex offenders register if they had had a sex crimes conviction. Under some jurisdictions, the police must conduct community notification in neighborhoods where convicted sex offenders live.
The intentions of the creators of sex offendersâ registry were considered noble. However, in recent years, sex registry laws have come under much criticism from proponents of criminal justice reform and human rights watch groups as unfair and ineffective in attaining the initial objective. Additionally, sex offenses are the only crimes where offenders suffer double jeopardy for their crimes, which is unfair.
How many people who ran daycares in the 1970âs and 1980âs were accused of child sacrifices? Back then there were faces of missing children on milk cartons, but if thereâs an amber alert is always make it sound horrid. Nothing noble about registries in a âfreeâ society if you believe that I have a car without wheels for sale. Not seeking inquiries
@Brandon, et al
Missing-children milk carton: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing-children_milk_carton
Just thought people should read up on it for a min and see how unsuccessful this effort was in locating children but more successful in facing criticism.
“Additionally, sex offenses are the only crimes where offenders suffer double jeopardy for their crimes, which is unfair.”
‘Double Jeopardy’ is The Key Here! The US Justice System, Thinks Otherwise…..Because, If So, The Registry CANT EXIST!
Although the article is well researched and accurate, the opening sentence is misleading. It states, “The 1990s saw a significant rise in horrific sex offenses directed towards children, prompting the federal and state governments to formulate laws to help deter offenders and ensure public safety. ” The reality is that the draconian sex offender laws were prompted not by a “significant rise” but by a handful of horrific and high-profile cases. A casual reader might assume otherwise from from the opening sentence.
The answer is no. No it’s not fair. It’s political and it’s all about getting and maintaining legislative seats while taking and making money from political donors. As long as people are making millions off the registry, it will never go away.
I would not say that the original intent of the SOR was ever noble. The registry was never anything except public shaming. Shady politicians realized the massive power of mentioning CHILDREN and how easily parents and the general population can be manipulated using so-called “child protection” as the reason.
Although scientifically proven to be 100% ineffective they continue to grow and to ensnare victims (there I said it – we are victims of the RSO). Every time a politician needs to change the subject or divert attention all they have to do is mention sex offenders.
So NO the registry is NOT fair because there is no way off even when your time is done. They are a lifetime punishment in Florida. Until there is a way off it will continue to be unfair and will continue to used to abuse victims who are caught up in the living nightmare (and yes innocent people get caught up in this as well).
The 1990s saw a significant rise in horrific sex offenses directed towards childrenâŠ.
I donât buy this for one hot second and neither should any of you. What we had in the 1990âs was 24/7 news coverage and more NATIONAL news coverage. Sexual offenses were nothing ânewâ but they damn sure got treated as if they were. Sorry but, a local news channel in Connecticut most likely didnât report on a child molestation that happened in the outskirts of Kentucky in the 1970âs or 80âs. It wasnât the equivalent of an abduction like what happened to Adam Walsh. So no, there was no âriseâ in sexual offenses, there was a rise in News coverage.
Also, this âcrimes against childrenâ I assume includes the teenagers who either lied about their ages or just flat out seduced older people because of their raging hormones, correct? Thatâs a âcrime against childrenâ? Itâs not even in the same ballpark as what happened to Jason Wetterling and Megan Kanka. Stop mixing the two.
Obviously I wasnât kidnapped, I wasnât raped and I wasnât murdered. And guess who else wasnât; Priscilla Presley. And guess who else wasnât; Reve Walsh. And guess who else wasnât; The teenager I engaged with.
Stop lumping people together in one basket.
Elvis the king Isnât a registrant
John Walsh isnât a registrant
Former generations arenât registrants.
Societal norms change human behavior and hormones donât. Just because a minor engages in sexual behavior doesnât make them a pervert or abnormal, it makes adults look stupid for not understanding biology even when John and Karen are growing up.
People like John Wash will normalize their own actions, while demonizing those same actions when done by others. That’s because people always see their own actions in the best possible light while often making the worst assumptions about the actions of others. This is the fallen human condition in which we live and it takes a mature person to rise above this. No many care to, however.