The plight of registered female sex offenders could be a hard sell to some. Like males who offend, they can and do cause extreme physical and emotional damage to their victims. In addition to prison time, they can also be subject to a long list of lifetime restrictions such as where they can live and work as well as being listed, often publicly, on their state’s sex offender registry. The reason for these post-sentence restrictions come under the guise of public safety, but a growing number of critics are disputing the true benefits of what they call “draconian” laws. Full Article
Related posts
-
Changes to be Made in Treatment for CA Registrants on Parole
Source: ACSOL The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has agreed in writing to stop... -
RI: Cranston YMCA employee fired for letting sex offender on grounds
Source: wpri.com 5/16/24 The YMCA of Greater Providence (GPYMCA) fired an employee earlier this month after... -
TN: Tennessee will remove HIV-positive people convicted of sex work from violent sex offender list
Source: abcnews.go.com 7/19/24 NASHVILLE, Tenn. — HIV-positive people who were convicted in Tennessee of sex work...
Thank you! This is an important subject that hardly ever gets talked about. I am a female RC and I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been subject to sexual harassment and even sexual battery. I am not publicly listed, but I had been open about my status. Men seem to think it’s a green light to take advantage of me because in their minds, “whose going to believe a sex offender?”
Nice to see that Vice picked her story up. Anything to spread awareness (for all subjected to Online shaming) and to cast Megan’s Law into disrepute.
What state thinks it’s ok to force a registered citizen to disclose their status before consensual, lawful sexual encounters? Is that common? Is being a RC equivalent to carrying an STD?
A very good article. Never even considered the collateral damage as well as the media sensationalism for ” (female) hot for teacher” article promotions.
One thing I didn’t like was the citing of 13.5% recidivism rate after denoting 80% recidivism rates were wrong. Maybe should use state studies to show a vast array of rates for the readers so the readers can have a grasp of the variances. I say this because in California, its own state program, called CASOMB, has been tracking recidivism rates that only look at re-offenses and found the state recidivism rate was under 1% for the past two consecutive years. (Under 1% because they are no longer including failure to register as a re-offense because it’s not.)
Again, here in Ca, it’s under 1% recidivism rate for the whole lot. This article is great as it presented a sociological/psychological collateral damage to women. Yet people follow stats as well. 80% is bad. 13.5% is in the double digits. 1.5% is very minimal, but that’s only for women. The 13.5% was arbitrarily chosen by the author as the “correct” stat. This just paints the registry is just wrong for women based upon those stats provided in the article. It should be wrong for all.
It isn’t just women. A public list opens everyone up to abuse. If that isn’t true then why is everyone uptight about giving out personal information on forms, like SS# and such. Of course the registry is a gold mine for scammers. Any public disclosure of personal information will definitely be abused.