Sex-Offender Laws are Ineffective and Damaging
Current sex offender laws are harmful to the immediate and extended family of the sex-offender. There needs to be changes made to these laws to protect family members and children from vigilantism style justice. This type of retaliation has been a growing concern as the sex-offender registry and notification process. In fact over 190 people who have been accused or convicted of a sex crime have been murdered, and 40% of sex-offenders listed on the registry and their family members have experienced some form of vigilantism even though the public is told not to do so at the notification meetings (19). Society needs to help sex offenders re-enter society by abolishing laws which make it difficult for sex offenders to find locations to live and means to support themselves and their families including their own children. Communities need to stop operating from a basis of fear and move to one of education and support including aid in finding suitable housing, employment and effective psychological treatment both before and after release from correctional institutions.
The impacts these laws have on the people of a community are dramatic, and predominantly negative. The mental health of a community often hinges on its collective sense of safety and security, however many people report feeling a loss of security and safety when they learn that a sex offender has moved into their neighborhood. The people who feel the safest are the people who do not have known sex offenders in their neighborhood but they appreciate the ability to know where sex offenders live outside of their communities. In fact most communities indicate that they do feel safer with the restrictions placed on sex offenders, but feeling safer and being safer are two different things. In an article written by Sarah W. Craun from the University of Tennessee, she notes that a study was done to survey communities that have sex-offenders living in them and to see what percentage of residents were aware of or heard of a person in his or her community that had been charged with or convicted of a sexual offence. The study found that 32% of residents that lived within 1/10 of a mile were aware of the presence of a sexual offender. Furthermore that same study found that only 2% of residents that live within a mile of a registered offender were aware of that individual. (4)
Even with this relatively small amount of a community being aware of a person with this in his or her background there are many hardships that the sex offender and his or her family face daily. Suitable and legal housing is one of the major issues almost every sex-offender faces. Many states have laws that limit a sex offender from living near schools, playgrounds, video arcades, and parks (20). This inability to secure housing thrusts sex-offenders into a state of disorganization. Even when sex-offenders do find suitable housing it is often in the more disorganized areas of the community. Gwenda Willis and Randolph Grace from the University of Canterbury, New Zealand report that the absence of a place to live was “significantly related to sexual recidivism.” (18). The best way to help prevent recidivism is to help sex-offenders find stable living conditions and employment. Candace Kruttschnitt and Christopher Uggen from the University of Minnesota studied over 500 sex-offenders that were on probation, and they could see a significant difference when the sex-offender had some stability in their lives. (18) It would appear that giving a sex-offender a job would be in everyone’s best interest, the community and the sex-offender him or her, but the stigma that employers face often push them to avoid hiring sex-offenders. With the economy in such a down trend sex-offenders are finding it harder and harder to find acceptable work. Most sex-offenders are apprehensive about telling potential employers about their criminal background because the judgments are so intense. Most sex-offenders do not even bother trying to apply to work places that would them in contact with vulnerable persons. Many sex-offenders find themselves abruptly fired when the community suddenly remembers who he or she is, even if the sex-offender was honest and told his or her employer about his or her past at the time of hiring (18). Worse yet is the fact that there is no regulations set in place that prevent an employer from releasing a worked because of being a sex-offender. When lawyers are questioned about the legality of the unwarranted firing, they tell the sex-offender that their situation is not a protected group. Just another stressor added to a life already filled with a certain amount of fear and instability. Fear and instability are not good foundations to build a future or rebuild a life on. This epidemic has gotten so bad that some are saying that sex-offenders should just automatically be put on Social Security Disability because there is no work for them. Studies have shown that this lack of employment can actually push an offender to reoffend with the sole reason being that at least when he or she is in prison there are no worries about food, shelter, and bills. The Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) has been conducting regular studies to track the effectiveness and results regarding the sexual registration process and the findings have been contrary to what the media typically reports. “Research has demonstrated, for example, that notification produces a number of collateral consequences for offenders, including isolation, harassment, and making it difficult to secure and maintain housing and employment…. research on stakeholders indicates that while law enforcement generally supports notification and believes it to be effective, sex offender treatment providers tend to have an opposite view, doubting its efficacy in reducing sex offender recidivism.”
Perhaps a sex-offender would be able to cope with these issues if he or she had a stable home life, but that is rare as well. In fact according to a study done by the Minnesota DOC regarding prisoner visitation, the more support an offender has (e.g. the more people who came to visit the prisoner while he or she was in prison) significantly decreases the likelihood that individual was to recidivate; 13% less to recidivate, 25% less likely to be reincarcerated for a technical violation (27). An example of a “technical violation” is when a Minnesotan family planned to move from an apartment in Minneapolis to a home in one of the outer suburbs. This family included a level three sex-offender whose offence had been 16 years before, with no further assaults to a person, but two issues with correctly registering. They contacted the sex-offenders probation officer two months before the planned move. The sex-offender’s probation officer said “great! I’ll send you the paperwork.” In the confusion of moving with infant twin daughters this family never opened the letter from the probation officer and simply filed it away with the other documents, and proceeded to move into their new home. The very next day the sex-offender went to visit his probation officer for his monthly check in. He was glad to tell her that the move had gone well. She then asked him why he had not signed and returned the paperwork for the move. Frightened he asked her what to do. She said no problem lets just get everything filled out and signed now. Unfortunately since the statutes regarding a level three sex-offender moving requires a five day waiting period before the move; this gentleman was now six days late. The new county he had moved into decided that was a “serious breach of the rules” and proceeded to charge him with a FTR. For level three sex-offenders a FTR is not a misdemeanor, it is considered another felony. The man was charged and convicted and given five more years of probation because it was a “technical” FTR. In no way did this gentleman intend to deceive either county. He was the first level three that county had ever had, and the woman assigned to be his probation officer was fierce in her zeal to perform her job. She made weekly check-ins, restricted where he could go during his truck driving job, and attempted to violate him twice in one year. Her vigor “keep him in line” became so aggressive she actually gave the wife an anxiety disorder and triggered panic attacks whenever she called or stopped by. This family wanted nothing more than to live their lives as peacefully as possible. Sadly that was impossible, they lost the house because the business the husband worked for had to close because of the economy, and no one else would hire him. In the following months, one of their twin daughters passed away suddenly. His poor wife was not able to go back to work because of a nervous breakdown. They eventually became homeless staying with friends for short times and then moving on but having to live separately because there was no room, no money and no work. They still don’t understand why the communities have to be so extreme and cruel, and although they collectively do understand the principles behind the registration regulations, they do not feel that these rules are in anyway fair or helpful. (30)
One survey, performed by a Ms. Levenson discovered that 86% of family members of sex-offenders felt a large amount of stress because of the registration process, and the residency rules. In addition to this 49% of these family members fear for their own safety because of the public notifications and publicity that the town meetings stir up (18). Family members have also found it difficult to find employment because of their association with the sex-offender.
Other aspects of family life can be very difficult as well. One sex-offender named Bill said “It’s very difficult. Pretty much all the things that you a good father are now illegal for me to do.” He is not aloud to take his children to the park or a pool in the summer. He is not able to attend events at his children’s schools, and he can see how his children are often ostracized (18). Schools now have to deal with the added pressure of bullying of sex-offender’s children. One out of five registrants has reported harassment of some kind, and one out of eight has reported harassment of their children. There is simply no place to turn to find solace, especially since four out of ten sex-offenders have even been harassed at church! (18). If a sex-offender is lucky the church will attempt to make compromises. One church in Norwood Young America MN was willing to allow a level three sex-offender to attend church. Their provisions, so that the people of the church would feel safe required the sex-offender to have a “chaperone” with him at all times, even though his wife was a certified supervisor. This same gentlemen was asked not to return to the church of his youth when someone remembered who he was and what he had done over 18 years before; some how this is just not right. If people should be accepted anywhere it should be at church.
It is hard to understand just how deep these sanctions can cut a family; everything changes. Holidays are no longer the same, birthdays and school outings are difficult if not out right banned. Children do not understand why their mommy or daddy is not coming to their choir concert or soccer game, they only feel left out and abandoned. When parents try to explain what happened or why the parents have to walk a fine line of telling the truth and telling to much. One way to try to keep these family events as normal as possible is to have authorized supervisors available to be present in these situations. The DOC in Minnesota has found that the larger any offender’s social support system is the lower the risk for recidivism (27). Many professionals that work with sex offenders have already made the correlation between social support and successful rehabilitation. There are classes available for supervisor training in many states. In Minneapolis MN there is a group called Project Pathfinders, and individuals can choose to attend a class and be certified to be a supervisor providing the probation officer is amiable to that solution (28). Many probation officers are unwilling to allow certain sex-offenders to have family or friend supervisors, choosing to maintain as much control over the person as possible. In one case a Minnesota man had his finance, her father, stepmother, mother, and stepfather and a number of friends all willing to pay for the classes, $45 each, in an attempt to make life easier for the gentleman and his family. Support like this is rare and should be encouraged and treasured but his probation officer refused to allow anyone to do so. Only his fiancé who was the mother of his infant twin girls was aloud to be categorized as a supervisor, only after this family went in front of a judge was everything approved and set up.
There are hundreds of stories like this one. The discrimination that sex-offenders face is can be outrageous. Sadly the ones who get the worst of the discrimination and bullying are the children of the sex offenders. A website; www.reformesexoffenderlaws.com; has a large amount of information regarding the sex offender laws and how they impact communities as well as the friends, and family of sex-offenders. In the section called “Tales From the Registry” are hundreds of people’s stories about things that have happened to them or their family because of the ways that sexual offences and past offenders have been handled. In this section a child of a sex offender shares some experiences about living with a parent who is a sex-offender.
“Nov 15, 2011
…I wake up every day wondering how many signs may be on our front lawn. How many people are going to ride by our house and point and take pictures? How many people are going to watch every move we make today? How many times are people going to call the police because my parent has done something, which for an average person would be normal but because they know a Sex Offender lives here, that activity with their child looks suspicious?
How many more birthdays will be with just family because parents will not let their kids come to my party. How many parties will I not be invited to? How many more games will my parent not be allowed to watch me play? How many field trips will I not attend because it is too hard to listen to the whispers of the parents?
Are we gonna have to move again because my parent cannot find a job to pay for rent? Are we gonna have to stay in the car again; because it is hard to find a place to live, because our government has decided we are Prohibited to live in Low Income Housing???? How many YEARS am I gonna have to watch my parent cry with frustration because they can't provide even the simplest life for our family.
Why is it everyone wants to protect children but NO ONE thinks about me or kids in the same situation as me?? Can anyone answer that question??? Why do we not count?…I cannot give you my real name as I fear it would put us in more danger, so I will give you a name for the life I wish I had.
Thank you for listening,
Living Free”
In an interview with a Minnesotan teen whose parent is a level three sex-offender a high school student recounts some of the discriminations she and her brother faced during their school years. Every time her father moved and was publicized she was taunted and teased by her peers. One horrible boy once asked her how she liked her serving of incest for Thanksgiving (30). The children of this sex-offender have lived with this discrimination their entire lives and their relationship with their father has suffered from it. He is more stable and diligently working to rebuild his relationships with his children, but the notifications still put stress on that fragile bond. During his latest move town’s people slashed his tired four different times. People who live on welfare because of lack of employment can not afford those kinds of repairs.
So exactly what are these laws that have turned so many people’s live upside-down, and how did they come into effect? In Minnesota there are five levels of sexual assault; first degree, second degree, third degree, fourth degree, and fifth degree. All of these have different requirements that must be met in order for a person to be charged with one or more of these degrees. All degrees of sexual assault have certain statutes in common. If the victim is under 13-years-old and the offender is more than 36 months. If the victim is between the ages of 13 and 16-years-old and the offender is more than 48 months older, and is in any position of authority even if the act it is consensual. Other factors are if the victim was fearful of extreme harm being inflicted on them, if the offender has a weapon, and or if the offender verbally threatens the victim. The relationship between the individuals is also taken into account. If the offender is in a position of authority e.g. boss and employee, brother and sister, parent and child, or between close family members help to determine the levels. First degree requires sexual penetration with another person. If the offender has accomplices that aid in forcing or coercing the victim all denote the offence to be that of a first degree.(24) Second degree criminal sexual assault or conduct does not need to include penetration, but it does include other sexual contact. In this situation sexual contact is defined as touching of genital area, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks in a sexual manner either over or under clothing.
Third degree sexual assault contains all the same requirements as first and second regarding age and authoritative position. However this level is defined by the act of penetration generally of the anal or genital openings and focus on digital (fingers) and oral (mouth) penetration. Fourth degree sexual misconduct is when a person engages in sexual contact with another person when any of the previous age, relationship, or interactions comes into play. Fifth degree criminal sexual conduct is when a person engages in nonconsensual sexual contact or if the offender engages in masturbation or lewd displaying of the genitals in the presence of a minor. In this case sexual contact does not include the intentional touching of clothing that covers the intimate areas of the body; buttocks and breasts. This also includes attempting to remove the victims clothing and forcing the victim to touch the offender’s intimate bodily areas. (24) Legal papers and language can often be confusing below is a list of some of the most common terms used in sexual crimes:
Sodomy= anal intercourse and commonly used as a generic classification which includes bestiality (intercourse with animals), fellatio (oral sex performed on a man), cunnilingus (oral sex performed on a female)(23).
Non-Forcible sex offences=is sexual conduct with people that the law assumes are not capable of giving consent; underage, physically helpless, and the mentally incompetent.
Indecent Exposure=the intentional exposure of one’s genitals to unwilling viewers for one’s own sexual pleasure.
Incest= sexual intercourse with a close relative.
Knowledge of the actual statutes regarding sexual assaults or offences gives a deeper understanding of exactly what a person can be charged with, notice that the parameters are not exclusively operating in terms of just small children, and yet most of the laws or statutes for sex offenders focus on “protecting children.” Almost every state has some statutes regarding where a registered sex-offender is aloud to live and all of them revolve around places where children often visit (20). The trouble with these stautes is that not every released sex-offender is interested in small children (26). This misconception is just one of a series of public fallacies.
Sexual abuse and crimes are not new, what is new is the acknowledgement and openness about this topic that has developed since the sexual revolution in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1990 Congress responded to an “alarming increase” of reported child abuse cases with a bill called the Victims of Child Abuse Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 13001 et. seq. which made it mandatory that all professionals that work with children to report any suspected cases of abuse.(23) This statute also set up some ground rules for children as witnesses in court cases. As legislation became more acquainted with these abusive situations more and more laws and statutes have been put in place in an attempt to protect society and children in particular. There have been a few well publicized and horrific child abuse, abduction, rape, and murder cases that have garnered a great deal of media attention and have dramatically shaped the creation of sexual offence laws as well as the way that law enforcement handles these situations.
One of the first cases that made headline news was Jacob Wetterling (Feb. 17, 1978-?) was abducted from his small Minnesota town of St. Joseph on October 22, 1989. Despite massive search and rescue attempts and countless man hours there has been no sign of Jacob. This situation prompted the creation of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Act, 42 U.S.C §§14071, et seq. This act required convicted sex offenders to register their addresses with their local law enforcement offices. Thus the sex-offender registry was born. Soon society and the law makers decided that registration alone was not effective enough. When 7-year-old Megan Kanka was raped and murdered by a sex offender who was living on her street the public with wild. Suddenly communities wanted to know if a sex offender was released into their neighborhoods. Megan’s parents claimed that had they known about the sex-offender living down the street from them, they would have been more watchful of that person and perhaps saved the life of their daughter. The law termed “Megan’s Law” was passed in 1996 without so much of a minor protest. However the law was written so that each state could make its own rules regarding this topic, and the lack of cohesion resulted in thousands of “lost” sex-offenders. (22) In an attempt to resolve this problem the U. S. Congress amended the Adam Walsh Act to include the “Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act in July 2006. This law set specific standards regarding registration requirements for sex offenders in all states, as well as requiring states to release to the public specific information regarding sex-offenders, and to a publicly-accessible website that provides information about known sex-offenders in the state. (22)(11)
Megan's Law struck out on every important area related to protecting the community from sexual offenders. Not only is there no evidence that it reduces sexual re-offenses, Megan's Law fails to positively impact sex offender re-arrest rates, fails to change the type of re-offenses or first time offenses that occur and fails to reduce the number of victims involved in sexual offenses. As the state agency charged with representing those required registering under Megan's Law, the Public Defender agrees completely with the study's findings and with its ultimate conclusion that "The lack of demonstrable effect of Megan's Law on sexual offenses, the growing costs may not be justifiable." (12)
The media plays no small part in this problem. Statistics that are used are often miss-used. The U.S. Bureau of Justice did a statistics study ("Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994"), that found out that only 5% of sex-offenders reoffended within the first 3 years after his or her release. If the news media is to be believed, sex-offenders have the highest rate of recidivism of all criminals, but this is not true. In a study done in 2003 the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) reported that recidivism rates for sex-offences is not unusually high with only 3.3% of released child molesters were later arrested for a similar crime (15). Most of the fear and panic regarding sex-offenders comes from the media. The rare but high-profile cases are key players in enacting this amount of fear in reaction to sexual offences and sex-offenders (15). One law office in Minnesota, Rosengren Kohlmeyer Office, has been quoted saying “The (sex-offender) registry is a gold mine for lazy journalists.” (17) Popular television shows like “Law and Order SVU (special victims unit)”, “Criminal Minds” and “Dateline NBC’s” show “To Catch a Predator” with Chris Hansen gives the illusion that this situation is progressively getting worse, as if it were “a national epidemic.” (15) Many typical citizens do not know what the restrictions are for any given sex-offender. They only know what they have seen on television, where sex-offenders are not aloud to live in “normal housing,” and are just “given jobs” when they are released from prison. In fact most states do not have these programs set in place, so when a sex-offender does live in an area the community assumes that, that person’s restrictions are just like those on the shows. When they see a known sex-offender doing something that the shows say a sex-offender can not do they may needlessly call the police on that individual. Another misconception is that a sex-offender is required to register for X amount of years, then that means that the SO is on probation for that entire time. This is not true. Probation and Intensive Supervised Release are very different from just being on the registry. When a sex-offender is off probation but still on the registry that person needs to have his or her photograph taken every 6 months at the local police department. He or she also has to inform the BCA and local police department whenever he or she moves, or changes employment. Failure to do so results in a charge of Failure to Register, (FTR). FTR is the main offence that a sex-offender commits after release from prison. Sadly media outlets tend to take this statistic and make it sound as if all sex-offenders are out in the world just waiting or children to pounce on. In reality sexual offences are not the main crimes committed against children. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, “the danger is to children is greater from someone they or their family knows than from a stranger. (15) This particular misconception only spurs unnecessary panic about sex-offenders and distracts the populace from the larger danger to children; that of parental abuse and neglect. This site stresses that most sex offenses happen in the family or the inner circle of the child (15).
America is not the first country to have a registry for sex offenders and it appears that not many of the world’s countries are willing to follow the United States of America’s example. Particularly since the United Nations Survey of Crime Trends in the industrialized countries show that women in the United States are more than twice as likely to be raped than in Sweden, and Denmark; three times more likely to be raped than in Germany and five times more likely to be raped than women in England (16).
Morally the sex-offender laws run a very close line between what is morally right and morally wrong. History is riddled with similar types of punishments; however, most of those punishments have long been abandoned as cruel and unusual. In the past people have been forced to wear a badge to declare who and what, they are or did; both in the puritan times, in New England during the Salem Witch Trials as well as the Jews in pre World War II Germany. Some of the current legal suggestions for monitoring sex offenders are just newer versions of these degrading and demoralizing laws. Some law makers have suggested tattoos across a person’s forehead, (reminds me of the tattoos the Jews in the concentration camps suffered) some suggest special license plates, or driver’s licenses, or continual electronic GPS monitoring. The financial cost of that is astronomical, with a daily bill of upwards to $80’s. Sex offenders will never be able to pay that because of the employment issues. If teachers are forbidden to use public shaming and humiliation forms of discipline because of the social trauma inflicted on the child, why then is the government aloud to impose this kind of trauma on a sex-offender who has completed treatment and their family (17).
Many people working to change these laws claim that the 8th Amendment to the Constitution outlaws Cruel and Unusual Punishments, and that, the registry and its shamming policies do just that. The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers does not believe that offender registries are working. In fact they believe that it is having the opposite affect. There is a registry growth rate of about 8% per year. Thus the conclusion of the ATSA is that the registries seem to be putting more children at risk because communities focus too much on the known offender and forget to be watchful of the unknown offenders (16). In a Minnesotan study done in 2008, 224 sex-offenders were analyzed to see if residency restrictions had any effect on future offences. The criteria used in this study were:
- "Offenders had to establish direct contact with the victims rather than gaining access to a victim through a relationship with another person (girlfriend, fiancée, wife, acquaintance);
- Contact with the victim had to occur within at least one mile of the offender's residence at the time of offense;
- The location of the initial contact with a victim had to have been near a school, park, daycare center, or other prohibited area; and
- Contact with the victim had to occur within at least one mile of the offender's residence at the time of offense;
- The location of the initial contact with a victim had to have been near a school, park, daycare center, or other prohibited area; and
- - The victim had to have been under 18 years of age when the occurred."
Surprisingly there was not one single case where the restrictions would have prevented an offence.(17) To quote Michael Buncher, from the Office of the Public Defender in charge of the Special Hearings Unit; “ These sanctions implemented by the moral panic of the country really have little influence on actually deterring sexual crimes when treatment does work then the registry and notification process unduly subjects the sex offender and their family to the social shaming process that can actually push the offenders involved into re-offending and their families into all kinds of chaos.” In fact most sex offenders that have been interviewed believe that being placed on the registry does little to deter offenders from re-offending. (6) Long story short treatment for sex-offenders can and does work, when the individual wants to change, but the registry is a broken system that superficially makes the community think it is safer. If people are not careful there soon may be registries for all types of crimes, DUI’s, Drug Dealers, Murderers, and Domestic Violence offenders could well be the next group to be publically humiliated in the name of safety (16).
Works Cited
1. Holcombe, Hunter. "California bill targets sex offenders." Massage Magazine 117 (2005): 142-143. Alt HealthWatch. EBSCO. Web. 22 Sept. 2011.
This is an article telling about how new laws in California are making life more difficult for Sex Offenders in California.
2. Ackerman, Joy. "Art therapy intervention designed to increase self-esteem of an incarcerated pedophile." American Journal of Art Therapy 30.4 (1992): 143. Alt HealthWath. EBSCO. Web. 22 Sept. 2011.
Joy Ackerman explores different methods of therapy for sex offenders in an effort to aid in rehabilitation.
3. Schmitz, Anthony. "A shot in the dark." Health (Time Inc. Health) 7.1 (1993): 22. Alt HealthWatch. EBSCO. Web. 22 Sept. 2011
This is an article that explains the uneducated policies used to control sex offenders.
4. Craun, Sarah W. "Evaluating Awareness of Registered Sex Offenders in the Neighborhood." Crime & Delinquency 56.3 (2010): 414-435. ERIC. EBSCO. Web. 22 Sept. 2011.
This article goes into detail about a study done to see if communities were accurately aware of registered sex offenders, or persons who had been charged with a sexual offence lived in their area. The study found that 32% of people who lived within 1/10 of a mile knew of or thought they knew of a sex-offender, whereas only 2% of people who lived with in a mile of this same individual knew of the person. Showing that the notifications do not always reach an entire community, of coarse the size of the community does significantly influence these results.
5. Rasmussen, Lucinda A. "A Commentary on the Michigan Sex Offender Registration Article." Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 19.2 (2010): 234-237. ERIC. EBSCO. Web. 22 Sept. 2011.
This talks about situations where a child is put on the sex-offender registry.
6. Middleton, David, Rebecca Mandeville-Norden, and Elizabeth Hayes. "Does Treatment Work with Internet Sex Offenders? Emerging Findings from the Internet Sex Offender Treatment Program (i-SOTP)." Journal of Sexual Aggression 15.1 (2009): 5-19. ERIC. EBSCO. Web. 22 Sept. 2011.This article discusses the motivations behind sexual assaults and aggression.
7. Kernsmith, Poco D., Sarah W. Craun, and Jonathan Foster. "Public Attitudes toward Sexual Offenders and Sex Offender Registration." Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 18.3 (2009): 290-301. ERIC. EBSCO. Web. 22 Sept. 2011.
8. Berkowitz, Carol D. "Sex Offender Registration: Balancing the Rights of the Individual with the Public Good--A Commentary on Comartin, Kernsmith, and Miles (2010)." Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 19.2 (2010): 226-230. ERIC. EBSCO. Web. 22 Sept. 2011
This article looks at the balance between the communities rights to know who lives in the area, and the individual person’s own privacy.
9. Stow, Shelly ReformSexOffenderLaws.com, Tails from the Registry--A not so Fairy Tale (Sep 21, 2011) http://www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org/tales.php?id=8
This is a personal account of living with the sex-offender registration rules.
10. Comartin, Erin B., Poco D. Kernsmith, and Roger M. Kernsmith. "Sanctions for Sex Offenders: Fear and Public Policy." Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 48.7 (2009): 605-619. ERIC. EBSCO. Web. 22 Sept. 2011.
This is a study that attempts to see the consequences of the publication process.
11. Love Our Children USA, Public Awareness and Advocacy http://www.loveourchildrenusa.org/pubawareness_stopsexoffenders.php
This is a group of people who are actively working to keep every child safe. This website contains some extreme views that are not supported by recent study and research.
12. Benjamin Radford “Scandals Reveal Sex Offender Laws’ Limits” Discovery News ….learned a rainbow Dec. 6, 2011 http://news.discovery.com/human/abuse-scandals-offender-laws-111206.htmlThis web site tries to reveal issues that are reported incorrectly about sex-offenders.
13. Ashby Jones, Protection or Punishment? Wall Street Journal, New Sex-Offender Laws Prompting Questions, April 7, 2011; http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/04/07/protection-or-punishment-new-sex-offender-laws-prompting-questions/
This is a look into what can be called protection and what is punishment when dealing with a vulnerable populace and a criminal who has completed treatment and time served.
14.
Predator Panic: “Reality Check on Sex Offenders”
This article describes how the media has over exaggerated the danger of sex offenders, and has falsified the reported re-offence rate.
16. Ted’s Space Lora, Given at the “Silent No More” rally in Columbus, Ohio - December 1, 2007 http://tgsalas.wordpress.com/2011/04/09/sex-offender-laws-unconstitutional/#comment-34
This is a blog spot for a sex offender to write about his troubles in life. In the second posting he posted a speech made at the Silent no more rally in Columbus OH in 2007. It give good insight on how sex offenders and their families deal with “being on the registry.”
17. Rosengren Kohlmeyer Law Office, 
Minnesota Residency Restrictions for Sex Offenders, Denverpost.com, December 9, 2011; http://finance.denverpost.com/mng-denver.denverpost/news/read?GUID=20155844
Minnesota Residency Restrictions for Sex Offenders, Denverpost.com, December 9, 2011; http://finance.denverpost.com/mng-denver.denverpost/news/read?GUID=20155844This article reports on a study done in Minnesota to see if the registry process and residency restrictions do not impact the cases of re-offending.
18. Harlem, Georgia, Unjust and ineffective America has pioneered the harsh punishment of sex offenders. Does it work?, The Economist; August 6, 2009 http://www.economist.com/node/14164614
19. Derek "The Fallen One" Logue, THE STOP VIGILANTE VIOLENCE AND WEBSITES ACT OF 2010; Once Fallen, February 9, 2009, amended November 2009, http://www.oncefallen.com/antivigilantebill.html
This is a web site that is run by a sex offender who is trying to improve the structure and situations of sex offenders and their families. He speaks from a first hand knowledge about how difficult it is to live with the stigma of being a sex offender.
20. Wetterling, Patty; No Easy Answers, Human Rights Watch 2007 Pg. 139-140 http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0907webwcover.pdf
This is a book written by Patty Wetterling, mother to Jacob Wetterling who disappeared when he was 11 years old. This book covers many topics including what each state requires of persons on the registry as well as reports on recent studies and what the findings mean and how they can effect the policies of today and tomorrow.
21. Stow, Shelly ReformSexOffenderLaws.com, Tails from the Registry--Life as a Child of a Sex Offender (Nov. 15, 2011) http://www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org/tales.php?id=27
This web site has a number of stories about individual’s experiences when dealing with the effects on daily life that the current sex-offender laws produce. On this page is a letter from a child of a sex offender about his or her experiences. This letter epitomizes the troubled issues that sex-offenders and their families are facing every day of their lives. Yes this letter does invoke a large amount of pathos, but one must remember that it is never easy for a child to watch their parent cry. Nor is it easy for a child to be punished and ostracized for actions they did not commit, and many times either were too young to remember when it did happen or sometimes before they were even born.
22. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children; Sex Offenders: History, 2011; http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=3032
This is a wonderful website that gives a lot of information regarding many topics effecting youth and their parents. Included in this information is the history of sex offender laws, and the links to look up the sex offenders in any area. Typically only level III offenders are listed on the web sites. An important fact to remember before assuming your neighborhood is sex offender free.
23. Law Brain, Sex Offences; 4 March 2010; http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Sex_Offenses
This is a useful site to look up definitions and explanations on exactly what sexual assaults or offences legally are.
24. Maury D. Beaulier , All Good Lawyers Resource Directory; Minnesota's Criminal Sexual Offense Statutes, 4/3/2008, http://www.allgoodlawyers.com/guestbookview.asp?key=1040
An interesting site to see exactly what constitutes different sexual crimes in Minnesota.
25. Megan’s Law in Minnesota: The Impact of Community Notification on Sex Offender Recidivism; May 2008; http://www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/publications.htm#so
26. DeMichele, Matthew; Payne Brian K.; Button, Deeanna M.; Electronic Monitoring of Sex Offenders: Identifying Unanticipated Consequences and Implications. Probation and Parole pg. 119-135; 129
This article is the results of a study to see if electronic monitoring is helpful in the management of sex offenders. It also gives some interesting incite on the actual situations and statistics of sex offender re offences.
27. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; The Effects of Prison Visitation on Offender Recidivism (November 2011) Key Findings
This report details how support of a sex offender can significantly and positively impact the sex offender and likelihood of re-offending after release.
28. Project Pathfinders; 1821 University Ave. W. Suite N385 • St. Paul, MN 55104 • 651.644.8515; http://projectpathfinder.org/
This is a group in St. Paul MN, which works with sex-offenders after they are released from prison or in some cases before a sex-offender ends up in prison. This group offers classes for people who want to be supervisors for sex-offenders so that the SO can begin to reintegrate into society and family life. They acknowledge the premise that a strong support system is crucial for a successful and healthy progression.
29. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; The Effects of Failure to Registeron Sex Offender Recidivism; (March 2010); http://www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/documents/03-10FailuretoRegisterstudy.pdf
In this report the DOC investigated how the registry affects the sex-offenders and what its effects on the reoffending. It found that as the registry requirements and repercussions tightened the more sex-offenders were likely to violate said rules. They found that the less educated and lower income individuals were the ones most effected and likely to face this type of offence.
30. Seither-Keast, Melissa L.; Personal interview/information (2011) Eveleth MN
These are some of my own personal experiences and opinions.
No comments:
Post a Comment