Earlier this year, lawmakers in New York proposed a bill that would bar people convicted of multiple sex offenses from ever using New York City’s subway system again. The plan, which would inflict a form of banishment in the name of public safety, is part of a broader pattern. Sex offender registries increasingly include children under the age of 18, and some states permit children as young as 7 to be registered. But a growing body of evidence suggests that our reliance on registries—not just for sex crimes but also for terrorism, gun, and drug offenses—may allow politicians to look like they’re taking action while actually doing little to curb abuse.
To discuss the rise of registries, we are joined by Appeal contributor Guy Hamilton-Smith and Elizabeth Letourneau, professor and director of the Moore Center for the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Podcast and Transcript
I would be more worried about a mugger, murderer, drug dealer on any public transportation rather than a person who is listed on the registry. This has got to be a joke, right? Or have our public representatives completely left their senses?
THE RISE OF THE REGISTRIES
Was precipitated by the advent of the electronic database. A registry is purely a colloquial term with less consultative impact than government database, in this case, of convicted sex crime or kidnapping. Given no sex proof of Jacob Wetterlings fate at enactment why not choose to call it ‘ kidnappers registry? ” MARKETING! Sex sells. Even unconstitutional and unfettered use of the database.
I emailed the Author a few weeks back to suggest ending Advocates minimization of the impact of the registry databases by referring to them as registry alone.
This tact will be absolutely key to any hopes of abolishing the practice. Indeed man must remain superior to machine database, AI or not.
The only registry we need is a bridal registry.
Nothing is going to bring about meaningful change until we get mad enough and stop saying “it is what it is.”
Enjoy asking people this. Would you rather have someone convicted of a DUI or a sex offense drive your child home?
Most people who dont know a so, choose wrong.
Q&A@FTR: Line D, email
Agent does SOR intend to communicate with registrants via email? No!
Agent communication is the normal use\ purpose of email addresses? Yes.
Agent SOR intends to utilize email addresses for a purpose outside emails addresses normal use? What is that use? For purposes of law.
Agent does SOR intend to share that address with ( thirsty sic)third parties? Yes.
Very misleading article! It’s almost hilarious to read your comments. NY is proposing to ban repeat (2 or more times) sex offenders who have been convicted twice on a subway (groping/grinding/or other lewd acts)! So, if you commit 2 different sex offenses on a NY Subway, the law proposes you will be banned? Duh. You obviously have issues! I 100% support this proposal! This came about by a man named Gian Verdelli who has been arrested over 70 times for sex offenses on a Subway! Go NY
Politicians shouldnt have their hand in this at all. The judiciary is tasked with protecting the public from those charged with crimes and must taylor it to the individual and the circumstances. No law needed.
If someone is a repeat subway sex offender, the judge decides if a ban is needed and for how long and only applies while on probation or parole unless there is some extreme condition that requires otherwise and was addressed in a fair trial with options to appeal.
Legislators need to stay out of court business.