Public Policy Based On Feelz
Great piece by Hallie Lieberman in the latest print edition of Reason, just out online, about how our sex offender laws are broken.
Being for individual rights (as I am) means being for all people's individual rights, including those who have done some despicable things and done time for them, which describes many people who are registered sex offenders.
However, as I've blogged prevously, there are also some who have engaged in public urination or consensual sex as a teen with a teen a year or two younger.
What should matter when creating policy -- like the sex offender registrations -- is whether there's any good data or just a lot of emotion driving it.
Obviously, if you're even a slightly decent person, you're disgusted by child molestation.
But does the registry of sex offenders stop it? Actually...
Lieberman writes:
In 2006, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) further tightened restrictions on sex offenders, requiring some to register for life and mandating that they keep their addresses up to date or face felony charges. Today all states require adults convicted of sex crimes to register, and 38 states require some children to register as well. When "we literally started putting kids on the public registry," Horowitz says, that showed "it's not really about protecting children."The official goal of registering sex offenders is preventing sexual assault, but experts don't think it does that. "The premise of adult registration is you've demonstrated your dangerousness, and we think that means you're going to be a future danger," Carpenter says. "The empirical evidence does not support that."
The idea that sex offenders are especially likely to reoffend is a myth. A 2012 meta-analysis of sex offender recidivism rates published in Criminal Justice and Behavior found that most offenders' likelihood of committing another sexual offense over a five-year period was around 7 percent. A study of sex offender recidivism in Connecticut found an even lower rate: 3.6 percent. "People who commit sex offenses have the lowest recidivism rate of almost any crime besides murder," Horowitz says. A 2003 study found that in Illinois, about 37 percent of those convicted of nonsexual assault will be arrested for the same offense within five years, while only 6.5 percent of sex offenders and 5.7 percent of murderers will be rearrested for the same offenses.
Not only that, but data from the Justice Department's National Crime Victimization Survey indicate that more than 90 percent of sex offenders are people known to the victim, such as relatives, friends, and coaches. And according to a 2008 study of sex offenders in New York, around 95 percent of people arrested for sex offenses do not have prior records for this sort of crime, meaning they would not be listed in a registry.
"The registry wasn't developed out of research," Horowitz says. "It was developed out of emotion and fear, which is a recipe for disaster in public policy."
Rozek and other leaders of the registry reform movement want the laws to be grounded in science. "It's the National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws," Rozek says, "and the key word is rational. Something that is rational is based on science, based on fact, based on evidence. The registry isn't, and certainly none of the laws coming out of the registry are based on any evidence or any science."
The problem is all the emotion. Once legislation like this is passed, I would guess it's near impossible to overturn. More from Lieberman's piece:
Like Rozek, Bellucci wants the registry to be based on science and reason. But that's hard to accomplish, she says, because when people "hear the term sex offenders, they just panic. They're thinking of the worst sexual assault that you can ever think of." It is therefore difficult for them "to absorb new information or to analyze the information that's in their brain."To combat that emotional response, Bellucci assures people that "we believe all children should be safe. We're not here to unleash a bunch of sexual predators on the public." Her message, she says, is that "the registry gives people a false sense of security," because "they're looking in the wrong direction," given that "more than 90 percent of the perpetrators are not on the registry."
It's a long read, and worth it. Much more at the link.
I was inspired by Janice Bellucci, chronicled in Leberman's piece. Bellucci is working to reform the sex offender laws -- not because she had a relative impacted by them (as most reformers probably do) but because she believes in individual rights and science-driven public policy.
They could start by taking stupid crimes like public urination off.
NicoleK at January 19, 2020 5:42 AM
Law makers don't want to take anything off the sex offender registry. It's simply too much revenue for the state to give up.
Patrick at January 19, 2020 6:30 AM
Doesn't the list COST the state money? How is it a money-maker?
NicoleK at January 19, 2020 10:21 AM
Doesn't the list COST the state money? How is it a money-maker?
NicoleK at January 19, 2020 10:21 AM
Taxpayer funded. Make work.
Isab at January 19, 2020 10:39 AM
1.All stats about this issue are partial, based on the visible part of the iceberg. Would also like to know who funds these august sounding organizations. NAMBLA spends heavily to influence this issue. And a lot of these look like "meta analyses" of someone else's data - an approach beloved of progressive liar-activists bent (get it? Bent!) on statistical mischief.
2. There is a significant cohort among the molesters we *do* discover for whom the behavior is compulsive and carefully coordinated. There is also significant evidence that rehabilitation does not work with this cohort.
3.Many of these people gravitate to careers and environments that give them access - and that are notoriously bad at policing their own ranks. Problematic teachers are passed like hot potatoes between districts, and silence facilitates the transfers.
THAT was the major reason these registries were set up. So parents could find out what the churches and school systems were not telling them.
Not "feelings".
You are a journalist when you're not goddessing, aren't you? This story is not so old. Edumacate yourself.
Ben David at January 19, 2020 11:53 AM
That may be where such lists started but it isn't where we are today. The offenses that can get you on such a list are overly broad. Public urination may be crass but it shouldn't be in the same category as raping a child.
Ben at January 19, 2020 12:29 PM
Are rapists on the list?
DP at January 19, 2020 6:32 PM
I’m totally cool with someone publicly urinating ON a rapist.
JD at January 19, 2020 8:07 PM
Typically rapist and pedophiles do get put on sex offender registries. Convicted pedophiles have a very high recidivism rate. Interestingly most rapists do not have high recidivism rates but serial rapists do. Serial rapists also typically kidnap their victims as part of their crime which sets them apart from the more general group.
I'm not excusing anything. Just noting that most rapes appear to be crimes of passion or opportunity. Hence without those specific circumstances those people appear unlikely to recommit their crime.
The issue Amy raises is that many sex offender registries have become overly broad. Guys getting drunk and peeing in public without even anyone observing the offense have been put on sex offender registries. You also have voluntary statutory rape where there is only one or two years between the two people and everything was consensual. In some places Odell Beckham could be put on the list for his recent activity.
Ben David raises the very valid point that many organizations when confronted with these types of crimes have tried to cover the crime up rather than seeing justice done. The Catholic Church is one prominent example. US Olympic gymnastics is another. They are hardly the only ones.
From the article, "most offenders' likelihood of committing another sexual offense over a five-year period was around 7 percent. A study of sex offender recidivism in Connecticut found an even lower rate: 3.6 percent."
This is an apples and oranges mixed together issue. There are two different groups that are being treated as if they were the same. As I mentioned above rapists in general aren't likely to repeat their crime. I believe the statistic is under 5%. Serial rapists are very likely to repeat their crime. I believe the statistic is over 70%. When you average the two populations together you can get wildly different numbers depending on how large the two populations are. Which is why the stats quoted above vary from 3.6 to 7 percent. Elsewhere you will find 35% or even higher numbers. All are accurate for the population measured. The variance shows how worthless this is as a metric.
If I can validly get a measurement anywhere between 3% and 80% measuring the same thing then the measurement is crap.
Ben at January 19, 2020 8:52 PM
As an add on, you have the same trend with murder.
Most murderers will never kill another person. It was a crime of passion and those specific circumstances will not be repeated. Then you have serial killers who are more or less guaranteed to kill again and again. You also have drug violence where killing is part of the business. When you mix the two you get very noisy statistics depending on how many of each group you happened to catch in the specific sample. The two groups really shouldn't be mixed.
Ben at January 19, 2020 8:57 PM
The worst problem is that teens can get on the list for sending dick pics. Girls have gotten on the list for sending pictures of themselves in bikinis. Two 15 yr old kids caught fooling around do not deserve to be on the list. For other crimes committed by juveniles, the records are sealed or expunged once you are an adult, but not for sex offenders.
A second problem is that the law is so draconian that sex offenders cannot find anywhere to live that does not violate their terms (like near a school).
A third problem is that if an unpleasant date can later be called "assault" then lots of guys can end up on the list for just being awkward or ugly. Big problem on campus.
cc at January 20, 2020 7:52 AM
Sex offender registries should then only include serious felonies and no offenses committed by a juvenile. And if residency requirement don't allow them to live anywhere, then the local government should designate a housing zone for them or loosen the restrictions. I don't see how being homeless makes an offender less likely to re-offend.
Novathecat at January 20, 2020 4:13 PM
Leave a comment