The Rise of Registries

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

Related posts

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
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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?

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.