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 Meghan’s 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 person’s 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 offenders’ 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.

SOURCE

13 thoughts on “Is the Sex Offender Registry Fair?

  • January 12, 2022

    How many people who ran daycares in the 1970’s and 1980’s were accused of child sacrifices? Back then there were faces of missing children on milk cartons, but if there’s an amber alert is always make it sound horrid. Nothing noble about registries in a ‘free’ society if you believe that I have a car without wheels for sale. Not seeking inquiries

    Reply
  • January 12, 2022

    “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!

    Reply
  • January 11, 2022

    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.

    Reply
  • January 11, 2022

    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.

    Reply
  • January 11, 2022

    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).

    Reply
  • January 11, 2022

    The 1990s saw a significant rise in horrific sex offenses directed towards children
.

    I don’t buy this for one hot second and neither should any of you. What we had in the 1990’s was 24/7 news coverage and more NATIONAL news coverage. Sexual offenses were nothing “new” but they damn sure got treated as if they were. Sorry but, a local news channel in Connecticut most likely didn’t report on a child molestation that happened in the outskirts of Kentucky in the 1970’s or 80’s. It wasn’t the equivalent of an abduction like what happened to Adam Walsh. So no, there was no “rise” in sexual offenses, there was a rise in News coverage.

    Also, this “crimes against children” I assume includes the teenagers who either lied about their ages or just flat out seduced older people because of their raging hormones, correct? That’s a “crime against children”? It’s not even in the same ballpark as what happened to Jason Wetterling and Megan Kanka. Stop mixing the two.

    Obviously I wasn’t kidnapped, I wasn’t raped and I wasn’t murdered. And guess who else wasn’t; Priscilla Presley. And guess who else wasn’t; Reve Walsh. And guess who else wasn’t; The teenager I engaged with.

    Stop lumping people together in one basket.

    Reply
    • January 12, 2022

      Elvis the king Isn’t a registrant
      John Walsh isn’t a registrant
      Former generations aren’t registrants.

      Societal norms change human behavior and hormones don’t. Just because a minor engages in sexual behavior doesn’t make them a pervert or abnormal, it makes adults look stupid for not understanding biology even when John and Karen are growing up.

      Reply
      • January 12, 2022

        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.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

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