Sex-offender registry adds costs without protecting public
COLUMBIA, SC
Last month, a new chapter was written in one of America’s oldest real-life murder mysteries. The body of 11-year-old Jacob Wetterling was finally found, 27 years after his abduction. Jacob’s gun-point abduction shocked the nation and spawned a network of state sex-offender registries, South Carolina’s among them. But extensive research since then has raised serious questions about the effectiveness of such measures.
These laws are almost always trumpeted as “protecting children” and regularly cite the claim that “sex offenders often pose a high risk of re-offending” (S.C. Code of Laws, 23-3-400). However, a steadily growing body of evidence demonstrates that this premise is simply not true and that our sex-offender laws in fact do very little to protect children.
South Carolina now has more than 14,000 citizens on the registry; probably fewer than a thousand of those pose any real risk to the public. But you can’t identify them because the registry is cluttered with thousands of people whose crimes were committed decades ago, teens who had sex with other teens and countless minor offenses. Tier assignments confuse the issue further, giving the illusion of identifying the riskier registrants although they are unrelated to the risk of re-offense.
The fact is that the overwhelming majority of child sexual assaults are not committed by previously convicted sex offenders: 94 percent, according to a 2003 Department of Justice study. Numerous other studies have produced similar results. Turning that number around, it means that for all the expense and effort put into registries, they are, at best, relevant to only about 6 percent of child molesting cases. So we are focusing vast attention and resources on a very small segment of the crimes and doing very little to prevent the other 94 percent.
The Wetterling case provides a good illustration. Even though Jacob’s death provided the impetus to begin this crusade, the sad irony is that if all of today’s laws had been in existence in 1989, they would have done nothing whatsoever to protect Jacob Wetterling. Jacob’s killer had no previous sex crime convictions. He did not choose a victim from his neighborhood; Jacob was kidnapped some 30 miles from the perpetrator’s home.
The Justice Department study also demonstrated that re-offense rates of sex offenders are actually far below other offense groups: Only 3.5 percent of child molesters were convicted of another sex crime during the three-year study period.
South Carolina mandates lifetime registration, but a long-term study released last year by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation revealed that after former offenders remain offense-free for 15 years, the statistical probability of them committing a new sex crime was indistinguishable from the general population. The bottom line is that the state’s registry and related policies are consuming millions of dollars and imposing onerous restrictions on thousands of citizens, but are perilously close to useless.
It is time to change course. Interestingly, Patty Wetterling, who championed the original registry law, now advocates for scaling back registries, recognizing that what they have become has diminished their usefulness and caused untold collateral damage.
As our Legislature reconvenes in January, lawmakers need to take a long, hard look at the sex-offender registry and related laws. Consider what is actually supported by research and contemporary knowledge versus what has been passed as a result of 1980s-era myths and emotional knee-jerk reactions to isolated horrific crimes.
Scaling back the registry would no doubt raise the hackles of some who love to play the label-and-hate game, but doing so would be the most just and economically expedient thing to do. And the citizens of the state would be much better served by a smaller (and cheaper) registry that accurately identifies those who might pose a real risk.
The word Sex used as a Tool. To Destory the United States Constitution. Laying the Foundation for the Police State.
Using the word Sex as a tool. To Destroy the United States Constitution. Laying the Foundation for The Police State.
Jacksonville’s municipal ordinance Sec. 685.104. – Prohibited Activities for Sexual Offenders and Sexual Predators; Exceptions certainly falls into this category. I know the “people” who craft this kind of drivel are not Rhodes scholars, but why is there a requirement to have a sign in my yard from 6am to midnight? Not only is this government compelled speech, but who trick or treats at 6am? I have never seen anyone start before 5pm or just before dusk. Secondly, why can’t we turn our lights back on at midnight as we take the sign down? There is something called a curfew for minors in Duval county according to municipal code Chapter 603 – CHILDREN’S CURFEW. Sec. 603.104. – Definitions state Curfew hours as
Sunday – Thursday from 11 p.m. until 5:00 a.m. the following day and
Saturday 12:01 a.m. until 6:00 a.m.
Sunday 12:01 a.m. until 6:00 a.m.
Legal Holidays 12:01 a.m. until 6:00 a.m.
I’m slightly off topic here, sorry. Orange County voters should cast their votes for the incumbent Sheriff Jerry Demings, Democrat. His opponent is on record indicating that he will increase visits to registered citizens’ homes and will organize targeted sting operations, if elected.
Articles like this are all fine and good and they keep repeating the same points over and over and they are all valid of course. But does anyone actually think that lawmakers are going to rescind or do anything to reverse or change any laws or make it any easier for RC’s?? Yes, I know we have to fight back, but that takes money that none of us have because we are relegated to third class citizens who are working dead end jobs that don’t pay sh** and have to fight everyday just to survive. I have a freakin master’s degree but have to work 3 freaking PT jobs just to make $1700 a month. Who the hell can live comfortably on that??? I appreciate the efforts of everyone at FAC and the small victories that we are managing, but in the end, it still equates to a meaningless life of just existing everyday and barely surviving and fighting to catch up on bills that I am so far behind on. I don’t have any resources or emotional will to do anything else. Sorry. Hopefully articles like that and points like this will eventually make a difference, but I just don’t see it. Sorry to be so pessimistic. But I have to agree with mark down there, we are the group that the US is beta-testing for complete government control, which will eventually seep over into other categories of people here in the US, not just SO’s. And it’s gonna happen no matter who wins, Hillary or Donald. Obama has done a great job increasing govt control over all of us and letting states run wild with their ridiculous laws. Hell, they’re even funding the damn sting operations to begin with. Our only hope is that judges will wake up and we will get lawyers to get on our side to fight these laws and stupid county ordinances like we have in Duval. I wish we could fight the holiday ordinance somehow. The ACLU needs to get on our side and sue for suppressing our right of religious expression. I am a Christian and you’re telling me I can’t decorate my house for Christmas?? If I was a wiccan, I could claim the same right being suppressed for Halloween. It’s insane. But it’s all a smart part for an eventual bigger plan like Mark is alluding to. Oh well, fight on I guess. Now let me get back to my meaningless PT job that barely pays my meals for the day.
MJ – I hardly agree that the victories are “small”. These are significant wins. Not only were we successful in blocking the enactment of a law that would effectively preclude internet use for registrants, but we sent a message that we are unwilling to sit back and take it.
Just because we’ve not gotten the entire registry scheme tossed, does not mean that what we are doing in chipping away at it is “small”. Even if we had lost (which we didn’t), legislators will think twice about the challenge they will inevitably have to defend against if they try to pile more unconstitutional punishments on our population.
I take offense when anyone suggests ‘FAC should…’ or the ‘ACLU needs to…’ or that our victories are small. The ACLU was THE FIRST to take up our Residency Restriction challenge that, after over a year, is still being litigated to the appellate court and back. FAC, despite consisting of leadership that is entirely made up of volunteers and a membership that (as you pointed out) is predominantly broke, scraped together enough to kickstart and support three federal lawsuits.
Nobody disputes how badly it sucks to work three part time jobs and earn only $1700 a month, but you need to keep in mind that for some of us, FAC is a part time job for which we earn ZERO dollars a month fighting for that to change.
As you prepare for one of your three part time jobs, think of those who would be grateful to find just one or who woke up next to a railroad track this morning. Set yourself a personal timeline to suck it up and give your full effort to meeting a goal of launching a full challenge to the registry in Q1 and let’s all suck it up until then and do what we need to do to accomplish that goal.
I think some of the best court decisions to show up of late (I know not in FL) are the ones where judges have said none of the added restrictions can be applied retroactively (I believe I saw where a judge said “A deal is a deal.” Of course these are good for obvious reasons but I am thinking of the bigger picture …if these massive registries, that are already in some ways becoming a mess and not being handled properly, have to be assessed and each registrant be analyzed by date to some how flag which laws apply to them and which do not – it is going to be catastrophic for the registries. I see no way states can implement that. I have noticed that in FL they have already felt the effects of that (only in an opposite way) – what I mean is we do have certain FL laws for RSOs that specify only if convicted after a certain date etc. but the sheriffs depts apply the laws to every one – it is too hard to distinguish what applies to whom.
Your Uncle is the one to watch, no need for a registry idiots.