UT: Officials consider streamlining Sex Offender Registry, using better data

Seems someone is using their brains a bit in government out in UT instead of lumping all up into the same catagory. At times I can’t even think for me but its thinking of others that is the better way. This registry is more like a crusifying one thats just trying to make their bills meet or household payment.

Maybe sometimes its better tro be incarrcerated with this pressure of this registry. See its not the amount of Christianity one has or how one walks its the understanding and wisdom of the knowlege one receives. Sure one can go with a bible theory on all this registry going on even about this gay rights, people living together as some of my nephews are doing right now with their girlfriends but it is about true value. And yes Justice plays a roll in this justice as well as other advocates for justice. Even constitutional change has its merits.

If some have to keep looking over their shoulder thats not a good way to llive. Sure I’ve had my beers in the past. Tequila Sunrises, things of that nature but this sex registry intirgue’s me. Course thats just me and I’m sure a few others.

You have human nature mixed up in this ordeal, sexual intent of both parties, one of the parties just happens to be a servant of God and here that person is leading one, lying,deceiving to another to overcome another. Doesn’t sound like a good formula. Sounds more like a jerry lewis comedy of errors but the one element of supprise is the sex issue and the protection factor. Thats like putting out a fire with lghter fluid.

One could see it as a tug of war of the conscious when we are all carnal by nature. Yes things can get worse in this offender ordeal of this sexual type but honestly we should all think about that 25 or 35 year old getting caught up in all this. Isn’t that thinking of others.

When you take a car to a mechanic shop or body shop to they work on the outside of the body or the inside first. See its not whaqt always comes out of the mouth thaqt kills, its what comes out of the inside. Why do you think the bible said the heart is deceitful.

Much of this sex offender ordeal is a bit off or do we all need a quality control check. Maybe one should start with Will Allen. But in all theirs good and bad in everyone. I’m just glad that Utah is taking a look at all this registry and classifications as I’m sure much of this registry is ready to crumble. I’m sure everyone on here would be ready for that also.

“Low-risk individuals are offense-free 97.5% of the time” after five years, Diaz said, prompting the question, “Is there still a need to keep them on the registry?”

Imagine that!
Yeah, two point five percent is certainly frightening and high indeed. [sarcasm]

This is part of my response on this Article, to Mrs. Diaz, the Director of the Utah Sentencing Commission:

“…Two weeks prior to my trial my victim and I had a son, and subsequent to my release we reunited. At the time of my release she was 16 years old, and our relationship did not violate any state or federal laws going forward. Soon after my release I was embattled against the Utah DCFS over my parental rights to the child. During those proceedings I was evaluated by a state certified sexual offence treatment provider, which included a penile plethysmograph . The initial prognosis was that I was not a violent offender nor a pedophile, but was evaluated a low-moderate risk of re-offense due to my continued relationship with my victim. The judge responded by requiring that I complete a sex offender treatment program with the evaluator. This consisted of individual treatment which resulted in an evaluation as a “minimal risk to re-offend.” I was subsequently awarded full parental rights to our son in Utah’s Second District Court, against the objections of the state, because I had shown that I was not a danger to the child, or any child, nor a public safety risk. We have continued to raise our son, although we never married and are no longer together, my victim and I remain very close friends. I have our son nearly every weekend, he is now 15 years old. I also have a daughter, who is six months younger, that resulted from a consensual adult relationship prior to my conviction whom I also have joint legal and physical custody.

Regardless of the findings of that case, I was nonetheless required to register even though I posed little to no threat of sexual recidivism. However, while on the registry I was subject to many conditions and faced employment and housing hurdles often.

Article Feedback:

I would agree that sexual offenders, as an ever-growing class, do not have a high likelihood of re-offending sexually. Granted, there are those sexual offenders who have a clinically diagnosed sexual psychopathy and those offenders were likely the intended target of the registry laws in the early 1990s. However, as the years have gone on, politicians have included many other behaviors to the registration requirements based purely on the offense committed and not on any adequate or objective public safety risk. This balks at the “rational relation” doctrine used to uphold the constitutionality of these laws.

I would like to point you to a 2016 Federal Circuit opinion out of the Sixth Circuit, which is still playing out in a subsequent lawsuit, which is attached, a.k.a. Does I. It is noted that Michigan did appeal this decision to SCOTUS, which denied review; thus, it is inferred that if this decision was contrary to Smith v. Doe (2003) then SCOTUS would have corrected it. One striking statement is:

“In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful that, as Smith makes clear, states are free to pass retroactive sex-offender registry laws and that those challenging an ostensibly non-punitive civil law must show by the “clearest proof” that the statute in fact inflicts punishment. But difficult is not the same as impossible. Nor should Smith be understood as writing a blank check to states to do whatever they please in this arena.”

The empirical evidence of the sexual recidivism of sexual offender was also evaluated in Does I, and was relied on heavily to establish that “clearest proof.” As stated,

“Intuitive as some may find this, the record before us provides scant support for the proposition that SORA in fact accomplishes its professed goals. The record below gives a thorough accounting of the significant doubt cast by recent empirical studies on the pronouncement in Smith that “[t]he risk of recidivism posed by sex offenders is ‘frightening and high.’” 538 U.S. at 103 (quoting McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 34 (2002)).”

Also, the specific finding of SCOTUS in McKune, was premised on a Psychology Today article that has been debunked. See, Ellman, Ira Mark and Ellman, Tara, “Frightening and High”: The Supreme Court’s Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics” (2015). Constitutional Commentary. 419, https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/419. Additionally​, other studies have determined that the registry has not deterred sexual recidivism and may in fact increase recidivism. See, Prescott, J. J. “Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?” J. E. Rockoff, co-author. J. L. & Econ. 54, no. 1 (2011): 161-206, https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=articles; and, Sandler, J. C., Freeman, N. J., & Socia, K. M. (2008); Does a watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New York State’s sex offender registration and notification law. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14(4), 284–302, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013881 (finding that 95% of all new sex crimes are committed by non-registered persons, casting doubt on laws that target repeat offenders). Also, a 2013 Study by University of Utah Professor Larry Bench, PhD, stated a 10% reconviction rate for sexual offenders in this state, which infers that 90% of the state’s registered citizens are not of high risk to reoffend sexually. In fact, most recidivism of registered citizens is because of technical violations of the registry/parole and not sexual recidivism.

Michigan has of course been sued again, under a class action (a.k.a. Does II), to enforce Does I regarding all registered citizens. See, Does # 1-6 v. Snyder, No. 16-cv-13137 (E.D. Mich. 2020) (Permanent injunction granted for pre-2011 class registrants for all SORA requirements, the State of Michigan is unable to enforce SORA against any pre-2011 class registrant, permanent injunction granted for all current registrants include internet identifiers requirement and residency/presence restrictions.); see also, Reid v. Lee, Case No. 3:20-cv-00050 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 5, 2020); Doe v. Rausch, 382 F. Supp. 3d 783, 788 (E.D. Tenn. 2019).

Conclusion:

This brings us to the notion that sex crimes are under reported. While that may or may not be true, it is definitely not objectively defensible, and appears to be the default defense of politicians and the Attorney Generals of several states and the federal government. Those studies are, at their heart, based on untested allegations of sexual abuse. Without evaluation of those allegations by an unbiased court or jury, they cannot be seen as an implication of guilt or recidivism risk – innocent until proven guilty. However, we do have factual recidivism data of those previously convicted of a sexual offense, and the factual data of all the state jurisdictions and the federal government shows a low recidivism rate. (Some states count re-arrest; however, an arrest alone does not equate to actual guilt of a recidivist sex offense). Facts matter in a court of law.

Utah has developed a system that brands all sexual offenders as moral lepers, so dangerous that the public must be notified about their whereabouts, sometimes for life, based solely on the offense they committed and not on their actual risk of recidivism.

“Indeed, the fact that sex offenders are so widely feared and disdained by the general public implicates the core countermajorit arian principle embodied in the Ex Post Facto clause. As the founders rightly perceived, as dangerous as it may be not to punish someone, it is far more dangerous to permit the government under guise of civil regulation to punish people without prior notice. Such lawmaking has “been, in all ages, [a] favorite and most formidable instrument[] of tyranny.”
The Federalist No. 84, supra at 444 (Alexander Hamilton),” quoting Does I.

Utah is just one motivated litigant away from being challenged in the same way as Michigan. Specifically, on the issue of the irrebuttable presumption doctrine, Utah already has an alternative law allowing for the civil commitment of those “dangerous” sexual offenders, dubbed “Lonnie’s Law,” after Lonnie Johnston (2011). See, Commonwealth v. Gruver, 166 CR 2019 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. 2020). I implore your committee to continue to evaluate this issue and create a law that actually does something to protect the public, if at all possible.