New evidence says US sex-offender policies are actually causing more crime

… Cases like this might seem to argue for even tougher controls on ex-offenders convicted of sex crimes. But new research indicates that the existing sex-offense regime in the US actually may be making repeat sex crimes more likely. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

58 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

While articles like this are great, and really point to a “tide turning” there is a downside.

If a challenge to the core registration scheme isn’t done soon, then removing some of these restrictions will make the registry itself look more constitutional, or, at the least, it will make it more likely that judges will not find it unconstitutional once the worst parts get watered down.

It’s the perfect time for the right group of registered citizens to challenge numerous constitutional violations (Bill of Attainder, Due Process, Etc…) but not include the “ex-post-facto” since once they rule on that, judges will claim all the other violations will have to wait for another day and any relief will only be for those on old charges. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to make this happen, and cannot afford to contribute money to such a fight.

It just makes no sense that the registration scheme can completely bypass judicial involvement that normally allows punishment and restrictions to be tailored on an individual basis while providing an appeal process and future motions for modifications as situations change. One size fits all and public shaming lists need to come to an end.

Odd… CASOMB is listed here, stating how homelessness makes it less safe in their research, but they aren’t really changing any legislation. It’s just a number and that’s it.

What good does it do to toughen sex offender laws, and using public notification to put the public into a frenzy and point fingers and humiliate innocent registrants for the things they’ve done in their past, whenever a crime related to a sex offense has taken place?

there’s some reason no one will challenge the Courts on the real issues besides the same old story it’s impossible or the registry isn’t going away…I call a big BS on that sad stance and guarantee that that isn’t what is causing the lack of motivation….

just emailed WAR to find out what the status of that motion that was supposed to be filed last fall…we’ll see what they have to say…it’s kind of disturbing that they now have advertising for attorneys on their site…

It seems that sufficient data showing current trends in sex-offender legislation is increasing rather than decreasing recidivism. Given the right set of unfortunate circumstances, a town, village, city, state….. could be potentially found at fault for passing these laws knowing that these restrictions do not do anything other than increase recidivism, and give the public a false sense of security. An unfortunate victim of an offender, along with a shark of an attorney, could do well to fix this problem.

yep deriliction of their duties…

how long before acsol has paid ads on here??? we’ll see i guess…

man I love this statement i believe by the Michigan court..

The 2011 amendments also included a requirement that registrants notify authorities “immediately” and in person when they move, change their names, buy or borrow a car, enroll in school, start a new job, switch to a new email address, or plan to travel for more than seven days. Failure to comply is punishable by fines and prison terms as long as 10 years.

The 6th Circuit observes that “SORA resembles, in some respects at least, the ancient punishment of banishment” as well as “traditional shaming punishments” and parole or probation. It notes that the restraints imposed by the law are “greater than those imposed by the Alaska statute by an order of magnitude” and “relate only tenuously to legitimate, non-punitive purposes.”

Although SORA’s restrictions are based on the assumption that sex offenders have especially high recidivism rates, the court says, there is little evidence to support that premise. Michigan presented no data on recidivism rates among the state’s sex offenders (a telling omission), and research published by the Justice Department indicates that sex offenders “are actually less likely to recidivate than other sorts of criminals.” Furthermore, the evidence suggests “offense-based public registration has, at best, no impact on recidivism”; in fact, laws like SORA may “actually increase the risk of recidivism, probably because they exacerbate risk factors for recidivism by making it hard for registrants to get and keep a job, find housing, and reintegrate into their communities.” As for the rule excluding sex offenders from the vicinity of schools, “nothing the parties have pointed to in the record suggests that the residential restrictions have any beneficial effect on recidivism rates.”

The appeals court emphasizes the mismatch between SORA’s burdens and its benefits:

While the statute’s efficacy is at best unclear, its negative effects are plain on the law’s face….SORA puts significant restrictions on where registrants can live, work, and “loiter,” but the parties point to no evidence in the record that the difficulties the statute imposes on registrants are counterbalanced by any positive effects. Indeed, Michigan has never analyzed recidivism rates despite having the data to do so. The requirement that registrants make frequent, in-person appearances before law enforcement, moreover, appears to have no relationship to public safety at all. The punitive effects of these blanket restrictions thus far exceed even a generous assessment of their salutary effects”

magical music to my ears…

Indeed and here is further proof
Great Article with actual facts (imagine that) –

Listening to Sex Offenders

Read this…Pass it along…post it in comment sections of websites, blogs,
and news sites

These articles always talk about Registered people being forced into homelessness and then being unable to track them, as if the main problem with that is the people can’t be tracked! F them. If I ever get to even within a hundred thousand dollars of being homeless, I’m going to hurt some people.

I don’t think the people who support the Registries get it. I’ve always had high standards and I’m not going to let them affect that. It’s not just that I’m going to have a good, normal life, it’s that I’m going to have a life that is a lot better than theirs as well. I am also going to try to do it on their backs. That is what their Registries are getting them.

The Registries completely turned me into a different person. Decades ago I was a very good, contributing citizen who felt a moral obligation to my fellow citizens. I was pro-government and pro-law enforcement. No longer. The Registries freed me from my obligations. I have a very, very long list of things that I’m not obliged to do any longer. I help my family, friends, and known allies. I will never take a chance of helping someone who may support the harassing, un-American Registries.

The other aspect that these articles never talk about is that some Registered people actively retaliate simply because the Registries exist. I am around random children all the time, just because the Registries exist. It is also how normal people typically live. So that is what I am going to do. I will never allow law enforcement to communicate with me. I will never help them with anything. And if there is anything that I can do that I think people who support the Registries would not like, I do it as often as I can – as long as it is not illegal or could possibly give them some other way to further attack me. Because then I would have to retaliate for that also.

America belongs to Americans like me. F the people trying to destroy it.

I believe the paid ads are a slippery slope since I already am concerned that the lack of motivation from these organizations to try and abolish the current registration scheme may be based on the fact that their organizations would not exist without it…adding paid advertising just seems like it would give them more incentives to not challenge the government…I hope and wish I am wrong but the lack of a real challenge on real issues from any of these organizations is inexcusable and very suspect..just my opinion that’s just how I see it..

I found the following amendments to the California Constitution to be very interesting..note how it states no government agencies or entities shall have any immunities against prosecution or redress that only the people have such a right..

Article 1, Section 3, is hereby amended to read as follows:

The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and peaceably assemble, without penalty therefor.

(a) No person shall be denied the right to prosecute any petition in any court on its merits, and in particular, on the basis of prior petitions or his performance in pursuing such.

(b) No person shall be denied the right to prosecute a claim against any official or office of government on the basis of any practice or doctrine, such as “sovereign immunity”. Only the people are sovereign and immune, when met in convention, referendum, or election, and not public officials, agents, or assets.

(c) Any person shall have standing in any court, either in a separate action or in part of another proceeding, for declaratory or injunctive relief, or both, from any statute, regulation, administrative order, repeal, or other official act on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, unlawful, or inapplicable, without having to first become a defendant under such act, and without a presumption that such act is lawful or applicable.

In spite of what is written in articles like this, isn’t it what law enforcement/political statisticians want? More crime by sex offenders to pad their statistics and make life more difficult and oppressive for the million or so registered citizens of the country? Rarely do they differentiate between a homeless sex offender and a registered citizen who has made a go of it when there is a repeat offense. To most, it makes no difference; a sex offender is a sex offender is a sex offender…all the same to them. I imagine them skipping and dancing with glee when any sex offender re-offends. S**t like that gives them ammunition to pass even harsher laws.

im letting any negative comments towards just fky by me..I’ll say what I want when I want and if someone doesn’t like ignore me…
merry Christmas everyone….and I don’t hate janice or this site just because I respectively disagree with the tactics..

Well….no matter what happens to the Registry, there will always be a need for people like Janice and Organization’s like this and others to watch over and rise up against hate and oppression.
And I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Mike R does not have anything positive to contribute either.
Sometimes we need to be reminded to keep the fire going and do our best to speak as one voice. Everyone here is an important piece of the puzzle.

Janice can you any one tell me are the amendments valid in the following page. Its from the constitutional society. I just cant find references to this no where else but there…Thanks..
http://www.constitution.org/pol/us/ca/initcivil.htm

Margeret moon… just wanted to say amen

Gotta disagree. Any tier bill is junk.

thank you for your response Vicky Henry. I agree you must cover all your bases and try to address ever argument that the government or the court can bring because it’s been obvious the courts are no longer there to keep checks and balances in our government that they are now just an extension of the legislative body..I really hope whoever brings suit that they get the court to apply the intermediate or strict scrutiny standards by a showing of definite violations of a fundamental rights. although if argued correctly I believe the registry wouldn’t even pass the rational basis requirement since there is so much evidence showing it to be counterproductive and doesn’t reduce recidivism as the legislative objectives claim or suggest, especially when applied to fist time ex-offenders..