bigmacbear (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
bigmacbear) wrote2005-12-15 12:04 am
bigmacbear) wrote2005-12-15 12:04 am
The Dilemma of Sex-Offender Registration
I have a bone to pick with the folks behind "Megan's Law" (sex-offender registration). While the goal (of preventing repeat sex offenses by notifying neighbors, who may be parents, of the presence of convicted sex offenders in their neighborhood) is laudable, the devil is in the details.
What drew my attention to the topic was this news story about how sex offenders get around the registration requirements by claiming to be homeless when in fact they aren't.
From the story ["Shilling" is the lead detective in the Seattle police sex-offender unit]:
The sad truth behind sex-offender registration is that in many cases, its requirements are so onerous that once required to register (usually for the rest of one's life), it is pretty much impossible to live in society. The jurisdictions referred to in the above quote are trying to zone sex offenders out of existence. Basically, what we have here is akin to the old Amish practice of shunning, only on a state and national scale; or, if you prefer, the same sort of punishment without cease visited upon, say, Jean Valjean in Les Miserables (and which has often been visited upon ex-convicts of all stripes, pun unintended, until very recently in most states and still remaining in a sizeable few).
The rationale for this lifelong supervision is that, while there is always a risk any convict will re-offend, that risk is considered especially great for sex offenders due in large part to the psychiatric profession's inability as yet to determine and treat the root causes that drive these offenses.
On one level it seems these people brought their troubles upon themselves by committing these crimes; but on another level it seems counterproductive to prevent the re-integration of folks who have served their sentences back into society. In fact, it is implied if not stated outright in the article that we may have gotten the cart before the horse: that truly homeless sex offenders are homeless because they are sex offenders and for no other reason, because so many places have shunned them.
And the saddest cases of all are those who are forced to register as sex offenders because of a past indiscretion that would not earn them that distinction today because the law forbidding the act is no longer valid (a lot of old sodomy cases are going to need to be reviewed here), or a miscarriage of justice in which overzealous prosecutors charge people with sex offenses for acts that should not be construed as such (as happened to a man in, I believe, Chicago for pulling a teenaged girl out of the street).
I'm surprised we don't hear of more cases of sex offenders either going postal and taking out a bunch of their neighbors by any means possible, or escaping the regime by suicide.
If society views sex offenses as that heinous then sentences should be set accordingly. Life sentences should be considered for the most heinous acts, such as murder or grievous bodily harm committed in the course of a sex crime -- and in fact most states do have provision for this in law, if memory serves. However, for those acts which do not merit life sentences, condemning folks who have already served their sentences to a lifetime of bureaucratic hell serves no legitimate purpose, and strongly suggests that there's something wrong with our justice system.
What drew my attention to the topic was this news story about how sex offenders get around the registration requirements by claiming to be homeless when in fact they aren't.
From the story ["Shilling" is the lead detective in the Seattle police sex-offender unit]:
Some jurisdictions, such as Issaquah and Monroe, have enacted ordinances that limit offenders to living in only certain areas, but some law enforcement officials say those restrictions create more problems than they prevent.
Shilling said the residency limits create a "public-safety nightmare" by chasing offenders out of one neighborhood and passing the problem on to other communities.
"None of us want sex offenders in our neighborhood, but the fact is that they have come from our neighborhoods," Shilling said. "How do we expect them to succeed?"
The sad truth behind sex-offender registration is that in many cases, its requirements are so onerous that once required to register (usually for the rest of one's life), it is pretty much impossible to live in society. The jurisdictions referred to in the above quote are trying to zone sex offenders out of existence. Basically, what we have here is akin to the old Amish practice of shunning, only on a state and national scale; or, if you prefer, the same sort of punishment without cease visited upon, say, Jean Valjean in Les Miserables (and which has often been visited upon ex-convicts of all stripes, pun unintended, until very recently in most states and still remaining in a sizeable few).
The rationale for this lifelong supervision is that, while there is always a risk any convict will re-offend, that risk is considered especially great for sex offenders due in large part to the psychiatric profession's inability as yet to determine and treat the root causes that drive these offenses.
On one level it seems these people brought their troubles upon themselves by committing these crimes; but on another level it seems counterproductive to prevent the re-integration of folks who have served their sentences back into society. In fact, it is implied if not stated outright in the article that we may have gotten the cart before the horse: that truly homeless sex offenders are homeless because they are sex offenders and for no other reason, because so many places have shunned them.
And the saddest cases of all are those who are forced to register as sex offenders because of a past indiscretion that would not earn them that distinction today because the law forbidding the act is no longer valid (a lot of old sodomy cases are going to need to be reviewed here), or a miscarriage of justice in which overzealous prosecutors charge people with sex offenses for acts that should not be construed as such (as happened to a man in, I believe, Chicago for pulling a teenaged girl out of the street).
I'm surprised we don't hear of more cases of sex offenders either going postal and taking out a bunch of their neighbors by any means possible, or escaping the regime by suicide.
If society views sex offenses as that heinous then sentences should be set accordingly. Life sentences should be considered for the most heinous acts, such as murder or grievous bodily harm committed in the course of a sex crime -- and in fact most states do have provision for this in law, if memory serves. However, for those acts which do not merit life sentences, condemning folks who have already served their sentences to a lifetime of bureaucratic hell serves no legitimate purpose, and strongly suggests that there's something wrong with our justice system.