So I Married a Sex Offender: 2015

Sex Offender Laws:

The Creation of a New Class of Citizens

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. (MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) which made it mandatory that all professionals that work with children to report any suspected cases of abuse. As governmental officials became more acquainted with these abusive situations more laws and statutes have been put in place in an attempt to protect society and children. There have been a few well-publicized and horrific cases of child abuse, abduction, rape, and murder that have garnered a great deal of media attention. These cases and the public panic that they caused have dramatically shaped the creation of a whole new category of laws that deal with sexual offences. They have also changed the way that law enforcement handles these situations as well. The creation and enactment of these laws are the change from within that we are going to look at.

This change is actually creating a new lower class or a second class of people in our society. Long ago and even in some countries still today, the topic of a woman’s “virtue” or her virginity was a very integral part of her value and marriageability. It was such a grave and serious situation that losing one’s virginity often came with the penalty of death. It did not change even if the woman or girl was raped, it is as if a blanket of guilt, a blindness so to speak that automatically blamed the girl for whatever had happened to her. In more recent times, the focus has shifted from blindly blaming the woman, or girl to almost as equally blindly blaming the man. Ideally the blame falls on the adult, or the individual who is the older one in the couple.

We currently live in a society that proclaims “Innocent until Proven Guilty” and that may be unless the charge against a person is of a sexual nature. I purpose that this is not true. I also purpose that there need to be some changes made to the current system. Somehow in the course of trying to protect the population in whole the government and populace, in general, has taken some of these new laws to an extreme.

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. (MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) 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. 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 the 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. (MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) Legal papers and language can often be confusing below is a list of some of the most common terms used in sexual crimes:

1. 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) (MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS)

2. 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.

3. Indecent Exposure=the intentional exposure of one’s genitals to unwilling viewers for one’s own sexual pleasure.

4. Incest= sexual intercourse with a close relative. (MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS)

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 allowed to live and all of them revolve around places where children often visit (Wetterling). The trouble with these statutes is that not every released sex-offender is interested in small children (DeMichele, Payne, and Button).

With this knowledge stated the next question that comes to mind is who are sex offenders; and how does a person become a sex offender. As stated above in Minnesota; there are five levels of sexual assault; 1^st-5^th degree. Every degree has a similar but distinct list of requirements that must be met in order for a person to be charged with a sex crime. Knowledge of the actual statutes regarding sexual assaults or offences can give a deeper understanding of exactly what a person can be charged with. 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 sex-offender registry. The registry required convicted sex offenders to register their addresses with their local law enforcement offices.

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 went wild. Suddenly communities wanted to know if a sex offender was released into their neighborhoods. Megan’s parents claimed that if they had 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. (MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) 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. (MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) ("Love Our Children USA"). If a state choose not to participate in the Adam Walsh Act the Federal Government would penalize that state by removing a portion of their law enforcement funding. This guaranteed that the law would be followed by all 50 States, and the repercussions have been vast.

It is in the public arena that the most difficulties begin to be expressed for a newly designated sex offender and some of the key misconceptions regarding sex offenders begin. One of the first laws to go into effect was, Megan's Law which 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." (Rasmussen 234-237)

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 (Middleton, Mandeville-Norden, and Hayes 5-19). 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 (Middleton, Mandeville-Norden, and Hayes 5-19). One law office in Minnesota, Rosengren Kohlmeyer Office, has been quoted saying “The (sex-offender) registry is a gold mine for lazy journalists.” (Berkowitz 226-230)

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.” (Middleton, Mandeville-Norden, and Hayes 5-19) 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 allowed 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 cannot 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. (Middleton, Mandeville-Norden, and Hayes 5-19) 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. In fact sexual offences are not even the predominant or majority of crimes committed in the United States every year. (Mehta)

There is also the many misconceptions of who and what a sex offender is. Many people believe that all sex offenders are pedophiles, and this is not the case. We need to educate people on the ways people become sex offenders and who communities really need to be worried about. We also need to understand that there are times when a younger person, male or female, often pursue an older person with full knowledge of their own age but lie about it to the older person. There is now talk about enacting a There have even been talk of enacting a “Lolita law” for these situations. When we factor in the new information regarding brain growth and when the pre-frontal cortex finishes growing it is easy to see that these sex offender laws are not only ineffective but also damaging to many people.

Sex offenders face an ever increasing set of obstacles on their path to reintegrating into the general populace. There are two primary issues that every sex offender faces. One is finding 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 parka. 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.” (Berkowitz 226-230); they site that 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. (Berkowitz 226-230) It would appear that giving a sex-offender a job would be in everyone’s best interest, but the stigma that employers face often pushes 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, and yet total disclosure, open honesty and assuming responsibility for ones actions is an intricate part of all sex offender therapy. It is a “catch 22” situation; if a person tells all possible employers about one’s past, one will have a more difficult time obtaining employment, yet if one does not tell then he or she is purposely going against all that he or she was taught and also leaves the individual open to attacks and sever consequence’s when the truth comes out. It always comes out. 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 (Seither-Keast) (Berkowitz 226-230). 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 an often crippling amount of fear and instability.

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 incarcerated for a technical violation (Shelly). 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 (Berkowitz 226-230).

This is where we find the secondary and even tertiary victimization of the sex offender’s within their own family and friends. All of whom 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 allowed 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 (Berkowitz 226-230). 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! (Berkowitz 226-230). 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; somehow this is just not right. If people should be accepted anywhere it should be at church. (Seither-Keast)

Although at first glances the registration and notification process for sexual offenders seems like a very responsible and informative set of laws designed to protect the community from dangerous individuals, many studies have shown that the benefits do not outweigh the difficulties. A wife of a level 3 sex offender once asked a police officer why sex offenders had to register for so long but murders and drug dealers did not. The only answer that officer was able to come up with was to say that murders don’t leave their victims alive; to which the wife said, “Well last time I checked a person can go to therapy to work through and move beyond a rape or molestation situation but no one can go to therapy to become undead.” The officer had no response for her. (Seither-Keast) This topic and the people in this new category are not going to go away, and by all accounts will simply continue to grow. Very soon the government is going to have to start looking at the whole picture rather than the emotionally fueled reactions and find a fair way to treat all people.

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 re-incarcerated for a technical violation (MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS). 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 let’s 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 triggered the wife’s an anxiety disorder and along with triggering 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. (Seither-Keast)

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 (Gordon and Grubin). 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 allowed 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 (Gordon and Grubin). 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! (Gordon and Grubin). 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; somehow this is just not right. If people should be accepted anywhere it should be at church. (Seither-Keast)

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 outright 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 too 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 (MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS). 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 (Neal). 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 children was allowed to be categorized as a supervisor, only after this family went in front of a judge was everything approved and set up. (Seither-Keast)

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 (Seither-Keast). 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 cannot afford those kinds of repairs. (Seither-Keast)

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 (Salas).

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 (Kohlmeyer).

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 effect. 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 (Salas). 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

- - 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 (Kohlmeyer). 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. (Middleton, Mandeville-Norden, and Hayes 5-19) 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.

The change that now needs to happen is that we must look for ways to fix this system. We need to find a balance between the public’s perceived safety, and the individual and their families’ rights and privacy. One way I purpose to change this is to institute a program that will start in Middle School that will teach pre-teens, and up about what sexual offences are. They need to understand what is socially and legally acceptable. There is talk about instituting a “Lolita Law” where youth who actively pursue older partners can be charged with a crime. Teens need to understand that as the laws currently stand even if the minor takes pictures of themselves to another minor it is considered a sexual crime and is punishable by criminal actions and the possibility of being added to the sex offender registry. I believe with more information continually given to minors as they grow though Middle School and High School we can help combat the developmental issues that comes with a rapidly developing prefrontal cortex, that simply has not developed its “STOP” button or “Breaks” yet and help to curb the number of future sex offenders.

I believe with more information given to the general population and the right support systems put in place, we can help reformed sex offenders move on from their pasts and become productive members of society. If we take the tools that are available, like the sex offender supervisory classes and train family, friends, clergy, and other volunteers or community members to be official supervisors we can give these families the support to get back to a more normal life. Once we realize that the registry is not really helping anyone, we can move forward with their lives, and support their families. As in all things so dreadfully adult, like divorce, the primary victim, may be the parent who has been harmed, or the victim of the sex offence but the residual and continual victims are the children of the adults involved.

There is a group of women “WAR Woman Against Registry” (Henry) is bringing two Class Action Law Suits at the federal level regarding the inequitable balance between the illusions of protection the registry compared to the collateral damage the registry has on all individuals involved. WAR is planning to bring this to the federal courts this fall. The first suit will be on behalf of the registered sex offenders for the damage the registry has done to their own lives. The second suit will be on behalf of the sex offender’s families. As previously noted the families of the sex offender face a great deal of discrimination, bullying, ostracizing. There is nowhere they can go to feel or be normal. Children to don’t attend birthday parties. Parents are afraid to make friends outside the family for fear of someone getting mad and then attempting to accuse the registrant of a new sexual crime. No one wants to rent to or hire a sex offender, and often their family is included into this as well. This campaign was developed with the assistance of Professor Crysanthi Leon from the University of Delaware and the logic is same with true non-escalating information it is easy to see that the registry is not helping anyone, and only creating more victims (Henry). Education is and always will be the key. This is the change that we need to see, and make in our society.

Works Cited

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 ofChild Sexual Abuse 19.2 (2010): 226-30. Web.

DeMichele, Matthew, Brian K. Payne, and Deeanna Button. "Electronic Monitoring of Sex Offenders: Identifying Unanticipated Consequences and Implications. Probation and Parole." (n.d.): n. pag. Web.

DeMichele, Matthew, Brian K. Payne, and Deeanna M. Button. "Electronic Monitoring of Sex Offenders: Identifying Unanticipated Consequences and Implications. Probation and Parole." Probation and Parole (n.d.): 119-35. Web.

Finkelhor, David. "Child Sexual Abuse Statistics." National Center for Victims of Crimes. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.victimsofcrime.org/MEDIA/REPORTING-ON-CHILD-SEXUAL-ABUSE/CHILD-SEXUAL-ABUSE-STATISTICS>.

Gordon, Harvey, and Don Grubin. "Psychiatric Aspects of the Assessment and Treatment of Sex Offenders." BJPsych Advances. Royal College of Psychiatrics, 31 Dec. 2003. Web. <http%3A%2F%2Fapt.rcpsych.org%2Fcontent%2F10%2F1%2F73.full>.

HARLEM, GEORGIA. "Sex Laws: Unjust and Ineffective." The Econimist. N.p., 6 Aug. 2009. Web. <http://www.economist.com/NODE/14164614>.

Hebenton, Bill, and Terry Thomas. "‘Tracking’ Sex Offenders." The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 35.2 (1996): 97-112. Web.

Henry, Vicky. "Class Action Law Suits." WAR Women Against the Regestry. WAR, n.d. Web. <www.womenagainstregistry.com>.

Hu, Caitlin. "A Place That Sex Offenders Can Finally Call Home." Quartz. N.p., 13 Mar. 2015. Web. 12 May 2015. <http://qz.com/344508/110-convicted-sex-offenders-live-in-harmony-in-this-small-florida-town/>.

Hudson, Bill. "Patients Testify In Lawsuit Over Sex Offender Program." CBS Minnesota. WCCO, 17 Feb. 2015. Web. 12 May 2015. <http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2015/02/17/patients-testify-in-lawsuit-over-sex-offender-program/>.

"Human Rights Watch | No Easy Answers." Human Rights Watch | Defending Human Rights Worldwide. Ed. Patty Wetterling. Human Rights Watch, n.d. Web. 12 May 2015. <http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0907webwcover.pdf>.

"It's Time to Abolish Where Ofender's Can't Live." Fosters.com. N.p., 3 Mar. 2015. Web. <http://www.fosters.com/APPS/PBCS.DLL/ARTICLE?AID=/20150303/GJOPINION_01/150309841/0/SEARCH>.

Jones, Ashby. "Protection or Punishment? New Sex-Offender Laws Prompting Questions." Law Blog RSS. Wall Street Jurnal, 7 Apr. 2011. Web. 12 May 2015. <http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/04/07/protection-or-punishment-new-sex-offender-laws-prompting-questions/>.

JustUs. "Tales from the Registry." Tales from the Registry. Reform Sex Offender Laws, 18 Apr. 2015. Web. 12 Mar. 2015.

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. Web.

Kohlmeyer, Rosengren. "Business." - The Denver Post. Denver Post, 9 Dec. 2011. Web. <http://finance.denverpost.com/mng-denver.denverpost/news/read?GUID=20155844>.

Kuhn, Sherri. "Penalties for Parents?" SheKnows. N.p., 08 Apr. 2013. Web. 12 May 2015. <http://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/988263/what-parents-need-to-know-about-sexting-laws>.

"Love Our Children USA." Love Our Children USA. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 May 2015. <http://www.loveourchildrenusa.org/pubawareness_stopsexoffenders.php>.

Many. "Sex Offender Issues." Sex Offender Issues. ACLU, 1 Jan. 2015. Web. <http%3A%2F%2Fsexoffenderissues.blogspot.com%2F>.

Mehta, Kiran. "Crime Mapping: Efforts to Improve Safety in City Heights | Speak City Heights." Speak City Heights. N.p., 7 May 2014. Web. <http://www.speakcityheights.org/2014/05/crime-mapping-efforts-to-improve-safety-in-city-heights/>.

Middleton, David, Rebecca Mandeville-Norden, and Elizabeth Hayes. "Does Treatment Work with Internet Sex Offenders? Emerging Findings from the Internet Sex Offender Treatment Programme (i-SOTP)." Journal of Sexual Aggression 15.1 (2009): 5-19. Web.

MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. The Effects of Failure to Register Sex Offender Recidivism. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/documents/03-10FailuretoRegisterstudy.pdf>.

MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. Megan’s Law in Minnesota, n.d. Web. <http://www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/publications.htm#so>.

"PROJECT PATHFINDER." PROJECT PATHFINDER. Ed. Diane Neal. MnATSA, n.d. Web. 12 May 2015. <http://projectpathfinder.org/>.

Rasmussen, Lucinda A. "A Commentary on the Michigan Sex Offender Registration Article." Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 19.2 (2010): 234-37. Web.

"Review - Sex Offenders - Ethics." Review - Sex Offenders - Ethics. Ed. Fabian M. Saleh, Albert J. Grudzinkas, John M. Bradford, and Daniel J. Brodsky. Oxford University Press, 1 Dec. 2009. Web. 12 May 2015.

Salas, Ted. "Sex OFFENDER LAWS. UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!" Teds Space. N.p., 10 Apr. 2011. Web. <http://tgsalas.wordpress.com/2011/04/09/sex-offender-laws-unconstitutional/#comment-34>

Sandy. "Tales from the Registry." Tales from the Registry. Reform Sex Offender Laws, 3 May 2015. Web. 12 May 2015.

Seither-Keast, Missy. "So I Married a Sex Offender." So I Married a Sex Offender. N.p., 22 May 2014. Web. <http://mearaciranfayak.blogspot.com/>.

Serres, Chris. "Sex Offender Describes Cycle of Despair inside MSOP." Star Tribune [Minneapolis/ St. Paul MN] 19 Feb. 2015: n. pag. Print.

"Sex Offender Management Myths and Facts." NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services. Ed. Janine Kava. New York Division of Criminal Justice, n.d. Web. 12 May 2015. <http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/NSOR/SOM_MYTHSANDFACTS.HTM>.

"Sex Offenses." Sex Offenses. N.p., 4 Mar. 2010. Web. 12 May 2015. <http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Sex_Offenses>.

Shelly, Stow. "Life as a Child of a Sex Offender." Reform Sex Offender Laws. Reform Sex Offender Laws, 15 Nov. 2011. Web. <http%253A%252F%252Fwww.reformsexoffenderlaws.org%252Ftales.php%253Fid%253D27>

Stow, Shelly. "Life as a Child of a Sex Offender." Http://nationalrsol.org/. N.p., 15 Nov. 2011. Web. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reformsexoffenderlaws.org%2Ftales.php%3Fid%3D27>.

"Talk to Me." Personal interview. 6 May 2011.

United States Of America. Department of Justice. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

So I Married a Sex Offender

Me

Friday, June 19, 2015

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

New Bigger Better Fuly Documented Paper on Sex Offenders Written for School

Thursday, May 7, 2015

Relief

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

What Children Say

Blog Archive