PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER [from the web page]:
Registration and community notification with international adoption of these policies expanding to other countries in subsequent years. Federal and local laws in the U.S. and other Western countries require persons who have been convicted of a sexual crime to register their living location and other personal information with a local law enforcement agency on a regular basis. This requirement varies in its duration, but in many cases can continue for the rest of the registrant’s life. For the majority of registrants in the U.S., the information is posted on the internet and available to the general public , the most common form of community notification. Failure of the adult registrant to comply with these laws is a crime and, in many cases, non-compliance can result in a period of incarceration that is longer than the sentence for the sexual offense. Given the significant expansion of sex offender registries in the U.S. and around the world, a review of the research and best practices can provide needed guidance to policymakers, legislators, and front-line registry officials on these important issues.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS [page 11 of the downloadable paper]:
The research to date on SORN has not identified significant reductions in the incidence of sexual abuse or sexual offense recidivism as a result of this policy. This fact leads to the conclusion that SORN, as currently implemented within the United States, does not achieve the intended goals of preventing sexual abuse, protecting society, or effectively managing the risk of individuals convicted of sexual crimes. Current practices additionally have numerous unintended consequences which actually potentially increase, rather than decrease, risk factors for individuals required to register. If the goals of these laws are the prevention of sexual abuse and reducing recidivism risk, meaningful legislative reforms will be required.
Read the full description and download a PDF of paper
Another confirmation about something that’s already been well known for decades. Does this report actually hold any significant weight for legislatures and, more importantly, the courts?
Naturally,
It was always machine centered rather than human centered, despite the creative marketing.
Free men are paid to maintain them or do so by volition which surely comes with its own inherent consideration. A law that renders human subservient is plain indenture and thus punitive in intent.
If no liberty at stake; who would complain. – J.P. Stevens.
Wow, I sure hope CASOMB receives a copy of this ATSA report …….. not that they would read it or give a s***. (I sincerely doubt they would!) 😠
If the registry isn’t making a positive difference toward future offenses…then having a registry is punishment. Not only punishment for the registrant but also punishment to any family or loved ones that support the registrant.
That PDF is a nice compilation of why SORN isn’t doing its job (3/4 of sex offenses are new sex offenders) and the plethora of cases against the registry (most of them pertaining to minors).
I just submitted this report as a PUBLIC COMMENT to the new SORNA proposal by the Feds.
Someone else can do the same if they’d like, or submit excerpts from the report.
Every bit helps. Only 505 comments so far.
Too many lazy people unfortunately who can’t be bothered with helping the cause.
ATSA is nothing more than a nice name and pretty logo to serve as window dressing for treatment providers. They and their members essentially use the substance abuse treatment model for SO “treatment” (which doesn’t make much sense considering the same people generally are in and out the drug courts every year) and can only claim successful “treatment” because nearly all “treated” SOs are simply not inclined to re-offend in the first place (and their programs don’t do one damn thing for the few that are). Their Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice are a joke, and (apparently) no member can be guilty of anything as long as their dues are paid.
Regarding the claim that “SORN, as currently implemented within the United States, does not achieve the intended goals of preventing sexual abuse, protecting society, or effectively managing the risk of individuals convicted of sexual crimes”, it overlooks that:
1. Regardless of whatever the original purpose of SORN was when implemented, its only purpose now is to increase funding for law enforcement and provide means for legalized discrimination.
2. There is simply no way to implement SORN to achieve the (supposedly) intended goals listed.
If you read a little closer, they’re not speaking against SORN, only it’s current implementation. Maybe the full report suggests an alternative implementation, but it wouldn’t make any difference in the rate of sexual recidivism of registrants if it does. Regardless, I’m more than certain that ATSA’s intent is to force more registrants into more “treatment” programs to be provided by its members.
1. Not everyone who pleads guilty, pleads no contest, is convicted by a judge or jury did something which qualifies as sexual abuse.
2. Keeping tabs on people because of a worry they might break the law again based on prior conduct in of itself is neither a guarantee the supervision/registration/monitoring will prevent anything or an accurate method for predicting behavior.
3. The solution everyone seeks requires stopping potential victims from ever becoming victims and potential law breakers from ever breaking the law ideally years before there’s any real risk. Unfortunately this would need to be an international effort with every country involved. Sadly because so much disagreement exists about most things, one of the last subjects everyone would agree on is anything related to sex.