The magazine’s Ethicist columnist on whether to disclose information about a neighbor on the sex-offense registry.
I recently reneged on an offer to buy a house because I discovered that a registered person lived across the street. I found this information on a public website that is available for our state and county.
This discovery raised many questions for me. First, the sales contract of the home specifically said the seller and seller’s agent are not obligated to divulge information about any nearby neighbors on the sex-offense registry. It’s unclear if they knew about this specific person across the street. If they did know, would it have been unethical for them to keep this information a secret? And what about me? Now that I know about it, should I keep it a secret, too?
I feel some compulsion to spread the word to others who might be interested in purchasing this property, as knowing a person convicted of a sex offense lives next door could affect what a prospective buyer might be willing to offer. And I feel uncomfortable telling my friends the truth about why I dropped out of the contract that I had entered for this house, because I feel I have discovered private information that I should keep secret. In the end, I think I would rather not have made this discovery in the first place. — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
Sex-offense registries in the United States were created for the reason you’d expect: to protect the vulnerable by informing the public. They provide names, addresses and other identifying details of individuals convicted of sex crimes. Every state has such a registry; the federal government maintains a consolidated version. The idea was that access to this information would allow families to take, as one federal agency puts it, “common-sense measures” for their protection. But what began as a law-enforcement tool has, over time, evolved into a system of prolonged public punishment, treating vastly different cases as if they were the same.
Some people are on the registry for horrifying, predatory acts. Others wind up on a registry for nonviolent conduct committed when they were children or teenagers, including a 10-year-old girl who “pantsed” a classmate. But that’s what the system has allowed. Teenagers in a relationship who consensually swapped nude pics, adults who got busy in a car parked in a municipal lot, a drunken undergraduate who went streaking across the quad — all may be subject to lengthy registration mandates. Even those no longer on the official registries may find that for-profit data-collection websites still display their names and photos, demanding payment for delisting.
In theory, registries can distinguish among offenses by labeling them according to tier and type. In practice, a person on the list becomes labeled a sex offender — full stop — regardless of the details. Elizabeth J. Letourneau, who directs a center at Johns Hopkins University dedicated to the prevention of child sexual abuse, has observed that a vast majority of sexual offenses are committed by individuals who aren’t on any registry. A concern for evidence-based policy has led the American Law Institute to recommend eliminating public notification and limiting registry access to law enforcement. Public registries don’t reduce recidivism or protect people, researchers have concluded. The old “once a sex offender, always a sex offender” wisdom is a discredited generalization. Yet policies built on that assumption remain, despite a growing belief among experts that the registries do more harm than good.
You recently decided not to purchase a house after discovering that a neighbor was on the registry. You didn’t mention what the offense was or how long ago it occurred; presumably the person’s mere presence on the registry was enough for you. That’s your prerogative, of course. But it’s worth pausing to think about what your decision was based on.
How dangerous is this neighbor, really? That depends on details the registries rarely convey: what happened, how long ago it happened, how old the person was at the time and what the person has done since. A quarter of people currently on the registries, it has been estimated, were minors at the time of their offense. The presence of a name on a list tells you very little about your actual risk.
Click here to read the full article
Always dream of having money and moving into a rich neighborhood so I can decrease their market values and cause them to make less money or to loss money when they sale. I see this as payback for their hatred.
This right here is hitting close to home right now. Last week Saturday my neighbor’s house to the left of me went up for sale. Background on me, 2015 conviction of possession of CP in Wisconsin. I served three years in, with 3 years of extended supervision. I’m even on lifetime GPS!!! The house I’m living in, I bought in 2006. Probation would not let me live in my house, so I was homeless while owning a house. After extended supervision I moved back into my house, in 2021. My house is directly across the street from a high school. And around the corner is a grade school. It’s been pretty quiet, no troubles, and the business owner to the right of me knows all about me. I’ve even helped her move around items in her business. Now with the sale of the house, how much trouble am I going to encounter when the new family moves In? Are they going to know before the purchase? Are they going to find out after the purchase? And as soon as they find out, are they going to cause me trouble? And how many people are going to try to get me to move after almost 20 years of owning my house?
I think it’s telling of the buyer, the conflicted person who backed out, of their judgemental mindset and thinking in lack of knowledge overall of the PFR, given there is lack of details related to any search of the info related to the person or talking with the person at all to know more. They backed out merely on the what is seen online and probably based upon the fear mongered by others for people like this. Why didn’t they talk with other neighbors to get a sense of the ‘hood? Who are they to go on a crusade to share the info with others about this ‘hood and this one person? The ‘hood is better off w/o this person being there for if they think this way, who knows what and how they’d think about once they’re settled.
I hope that others who read this article will focus on the language used by the ethicist who asked the following question: How dangerous is this neighbor, really? The ethicist when on to add that the level of danger “depends on details the registries rarely convey: what happened, how long ago it happened, how old the person was at the time and what the person has done since.” These are insightful questions that are rarely asked. The ethicist goes on to say that a “quarter of people currently on the registries, it has been estimated, were minors at the time of their offense. The presence of a name on a list tells you very little about your actual risk.” This person is speaking TRUTH and it is a message that will be read by a very large audience. We need to build upon this message and spread it widely. Therefore, please send a link to this article to as many people as you can.
This is great, thank you so much for sharing. For me, the most important line is this: “In the end, I think I would rather not have made this discovery in the first place.” I think this is a far more common sentiment than we acknowledge. In many states, there are no residency restrictions, so what exactly is the point of this information? Neighbors can’t force them to sell, businesses can’t force them to sell. It’s a self-imposed black eye, airing a community’s dirty laundry for the world to see without any clear recourse for what folks should do. The registry is Pandora’s Box, and I’d wager most Americans don’t want it open any more but they can’t close it because they’re afraid. Yes, some people claim to hate us, but over the years I’ve come to believe that has more to do with people enjoying bullying a class of citizen who can’t fight back than actual fear of us. In the end, America will be a better place when the registry finally disappears.
A person forced to register actually has far more to fear from public retribution, harassment, vandalism, and vigilantism, than the public will ever have to fear from them. At any given moment, I believe that there is a much higher chance of someone committing a crime against a person on the registry, than the other way around.
Also, given that the majority of “sex crimes” are perpetrated by those not on any registry, logic dictates that it would actually be safer to live next to a “known entity”.
Whatever proponents of the registry claim it was meant for at the start, it has long since been corrupted, and is now completely useless for that stated purpose. Rather, the only thing that anyone uses the registry for anymore, is to decide who they are going to hate, fear, and attack, which they would insist is how they are “protecting” themselves.
The public should never have access to the personal or private criminal information of other people, because the average person is simply not mentally mature or responsible enough to handle that information properly, and more often than not, the information itself is inaccurate or intentionally misleading.
The concluding sentence of the person who wrote to the Ethicist really struck a chord with me:
“In the end, I think I would rather not have made this discovery in the first place.”
It made me remember an editorial in Ohio when the legislature there proposed requiring registrants have a distinctive license plate, asking what specifically the law-abiding citizen is supposed to do when encountering these plates. Call the cops? To report what? That a car is driving or parked somewhere? Follow it and confront the driver? Sounds like stalking. Ram it? Give him the finger? In the end, best to ignore it. So what’s the point of putting it there?
I’ve also argued that the same reasoning would equally apply to the registry as a whole, as opposed to this bill proposal (I don’t think it passed).
In addition to the Ethicist’s response, I would have told the enquirer to ignore the registry when looking for another house. Live there for a year or two before looking it up. Or if (God forbid) a sex crime occurs in the neighborhood, then look to see if the accused was registered in that neighborhood. Doing that would show exactly what “vital public safety utility” the registry actually provides. And the odds are better than average that the enquirer would feel pretty foolish for passing on the first house because of it.
When I moved to Maryland in 2019 a neighbor wrote a letter to my parents telling them I needed to move. We hired an attorney and told her to back off or face consequences. A year after I moved in a house went up for sale and a sheriff deputy moved in. If I’m so scary why would a sheriff deputy with young children move on a street with a registrant. If someone is scared of me based on a crime over a decade ago is one fearful scary cat and needs to put down their finger and take a look in the mirror. One of my neighbors and I talk frequently even compliments that my yard is the best on the block.
Here in AZ, there is a disclaimer saying that the use of the registration info to harass or intimidate is a crime. But it’s rarely enforced. I have been threatened, called names, etc. I was away from my home for some years, and moved back in 2018. There are only 2 people on the street who know my status. There is no web entry and there was no community notice because I was assessed as a Level 1.
“You didn’t mention what the offense was or how long ago it occurred; presumably the person’s mere presence on the registry was enough for you.”
^This is the main truth bomb from the article.
THIS RIGHT HERE!!!
They don’t care about context or nuance!
All they are about is how “icky” it makes them feel !!
All the logic, facts and evidence in the world will never change their minds!
Surprised the disgraced home buyer did not note they looked online to see if a death happened in the home (Died In House search website) since that too will decrease the home value or what the crime rate is and the type of crimes happening the in the area considering that too will decrease the home value. They just looked (allegedly of course) at whether there is a PFR in the ‘hood and nothing else.
Through a quick online search, nowhere in top 20 items listed for things that devalue a home or neighborhood is a PFR living nearby. Yes, crime in the area is easily researched and can be a factor, but it is NOT on the lists I saw, but one person, without having any knowledge about (other than what may have been read online), keeps the house devalued for no reason and people away from buying it. In the end, it sounds like a personal problem to me, one they need therapy for, and the ‘hood is better off without them.
All this person did was save that community from having another Karen move in. The registrant should be thanked for helping keep them out.
My brother and sister in law’s previous house had a drug dealer as a past resident. I recall a few times when law enforcement would show up asking if he was there. Not all cops are bad, however if you are too lazy to make sure you have the information you might want to cut back on the donuts.
Gotta love the comments left for the Ethicist. Although a handful are enlightened, many people are just flaming the Ethicist for not being sensitive to victims.