The Inequity of Sex Offender Registries

There are more than 900,000 people on the sex offenders registry and growing, but studies show that the sex offender registries do not reduce recidivism and prevent sex crimes and laws restricting where offenders can find housing and employment make it almost impossible for many on the registry to reintegrate into society, ostracizing them and essentially creating a life sentence for those who have already paid for their crimes and in some cases, first time offenders.

Guy Hamilton-Smith, a legal fellow for the Sex Offense Litigation and Policy Resource Center at the Mitchell Hamline School of Law, joined The Takeaway to talk about sex offender registries. Listen to the Full Interview

Note: Guy Hamilton-Smith was a Speaker at the 2019 ACSOL Conference

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.  
 

16 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Interesting that even in an evenhanded interview like this one on NPR, the host when talking about someone she knows being victimized and desiring retribution so clearly just assumes the registry is part of someone’s punishment. The nuance of collateral consequences, while WE talk about it a lot, is entirely lost in this conversation because it’s completely non-intuitive. Even with well educated journalists.

Kudos to Guy. Thanks for being a good spokesperson.

Who takes the worst of their flock and advertises it to the rest of the world? Good for short term political gain but bad for the bottom line. This no rancher or farmer in their right mind would do so. A destructive moronic public policy plain and simple.

We’ll never be in the clear or have true peace thanks to the rabble-rousing lawmakers who believe they’re appeasing the “will of the people.” We’re a product and unwarranted fear is the commodity they’re exploiting. Until that cycle is thwarted, I don’t see an off ramp – besides death.

LAND OF THE FREE !!

I t is not the database itself. It is their USE & misuses by government actors ( and private firms)I point to.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/more-sports/former-buckeye-lake-police-chief-charged-with-misusing-database/ar-AAEwJGh?ocid=AMZN

I know everyone is infatuated with bells and whistles. Love makes you blind. SOR is unconstitutional precisely by rendering human subservient ( just a bit) to machine.
That is were it starts ( subservience to some) but the notion will grow and expand.

One may not dispute a state’s sovereign right to maintain a database of convicted bad actors.
One may however confront the accuracy, efficacy and intent underlying it’s promulgation.
Affirmative disability and restraint IS AND ALWAYS WAS going to be imposed by it, because that was the underlying protracted intent. In Fact without having the SOR databases no enforcement of residence restriction could be imposed at all. The purpose exposed- the clearest proof. Speech and peaceful assembly are being affected by TOS. Public opinion is almost entirely formed by what big media advances as TRUTH.
A truth is human sex offenders are indentured, not to a prisons maintenance, but to a machines maintenance that works anti-liberty in their day to day lives. Invisible electronic bars used to impose affirmative restraint.
Firms and GOV is already using them for nefarious purposes, or to gain political advantages.
Google, FB and the rest are manipulating what the people see, read.

CR,
Registry – an official record – fine.
This ” registry” is not just an official record. It goes way beyond!
1) Voter registry – so you may vote ( or not)
2) SOR databases – so registrants may not. Period!

Huge difference between promoting liberty and working anti liberty.

states could have opted to build individual pages of offenders ( as the SOR does now)
But demanded registrants interface and update their pages themselves ( like FB does by individuals volition) instead of hiring SOR agents to do so. However IF that option had been selected the registrant would have been necessarily required ” to show up in person ” when updating. Yes The updates could occur from inside a home, via PC, but still qualify as ” in person reporting. “

AJ, CR, New Person, Will Allen.
Who collects data points without intend to use it for presentation of some side-by-side else why bother collecting in the first place. Some states refer to it properly. State X’s database of child molesters and kidnappers.
The sex offender registry term is a misnomer used to distort underlying intent and appear less big brotherish. It is far more than a list, log, or merely an official list. It goes way beyond that, far beyond in that registrants are indentured to the upkeep of other information ( not conviction). To have a list of official log of those convicted , no problem, to demand personal information not attainable by LE without warrant is untenable constitutionally.
@FTR
Agent, SOR want email addresses from registrants with no intent to communicate with registrants via email? Answer Yes.
Agent the SOR collection demand of email addresses are for purposes other than or outside emails normal use?
Answer Yes.
What other purposes Agent?