Are Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Effective - Research Paper Example

Are Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Effective? Many studies that include the study carried out by the Department of Justice, demonstrate that most of the sex offender do not carry out the same actions again. This shows that the sex offender acts that are being implemented by the Department of Justice are successful. Support of the society and steadiness is very important in the treatment of the sex offenders. When these sex offenders are published on the internet this frequently results in the loss of job, homes, causes disturbance in their treatment as there is lack of support from the society and their own family, nuisance and violent behaviour. Notifying the public about sex offenders whether they are imposing high or low risks, will lead to meddling with the treatment of the sex offenders, as a result deteriorating safety of the public. This also wastes funds which can be spent on those sex offenders who are precarious and are most likely to rebel. A risk evaluation system is used by most of the states; this categorizes sex offenders according to how unsafe and rebellious and makes sure that public notification is reduced to a minimum. Under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 2006 (SORNA) all the states need to take on a unsympathetic policy that is the same for every sex offender regardless how dangerous they are or what the consequences may be, or else they will lose Byme Grant funds. The SORNA laws were passed with no hearings. This act was passed without consulting all the states and the laws in progress in the states were not thought about. Institutes that had knowledge in regard of sex offenders were not given any consideration; one can believe that it is not too late to review this faulty law. (Baron, 2008) Under the third part of the Adam Walsh Act which is a part of the Sex Offender Resgistration and Notification Act a cataloguing system was created for the sex offenders. A Tier I sex offender is different from the Tier II or Tier III sex offender. Sex offenders who come under Tier II are those offenders who are found guilty of committing such crimes that are against a minor, for example sex trafficking, bullying, transporting with the intention to get the minor involved in some criminal sexual activity, violent sexual contact, using the minor to perform some sexual presentation, asking a minor to get involved in prostitution or using the minor for pornography. Tier III sex offenders are those offenders who are found guilty of committing criminal acts of maddened sexual violence, sexual abuse, violent sexual contact against a minor below the age of thirteen or kidnapping of the minor. (Wright, 2008) In this paper we will discuss about the three major SORN laws that were implemented for punishing sex offenders. I will respond to the question of whether sex offender notification laws are effective. I argue that they are ineffective because sex offender laws are not proven to reduce recidivism, they provide residency restrictions, sex offender laws just produce a label which interferes with other rehabilitation methods. SORN Laws The Sex Offender Registration and Notification act was passed on July 27 2006. Under this act the states, the District of Columbia, the territories and Indiana tribes were needed to extensively implement all the elements of this act by 27 July 2009 or they will be fined by losing 10 percent of the Byme Grant funds. A sex offender is someone who was found guilty under the rule of any jurisdiction of any type of sex offense under the SORN law. If the person found guilty was of fourteen years then he or she would be punished with juvenile adjudicated criminal. For anyone who is found guilty of being a sex offender a broad series of information is needed to be issued on the internet. Offenders are put in one of three different ranks of the SORN act; needing them to register and have internet notifications against them for fifteen years, twenty five years or for even for life. These three levels are supported by only the offense, not by how dangerous or how large is the risk that the offender will commit the same offense. (Baron, 2008) The Jacob Wetterling Act: The Wetterling Act was approved in 1994 as one of the terms of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. This law marked the of the delegation of the policy regarding sex offense, it needed the states to form and preserve sex offender registration and notification programs. (Wright, 2008) Megan’s Law: When the Megan’s law was passed in New Jersey which needs the registration of sex offenders that were found guilty of the crime and notifications of members of the society who are likely to come across such offenders, this act received both admiration and condemnation. (Constitutional Law, 1998) An important feminist point of view states that the Megan’s law uses an extreme idea that is an ineffective idea of sexual violence that strongly contradicts with the ideas of the feminists regarding cultural and institutional heredity of sexual violence. The issue with this law is that it does not include many of the most general criminals and keeps them out of the reach of the law. This thus switches attention from attacks that are carried out by family and friends in favour of renewing the stereotype image about deviant strangers. The most important outcome of the Megan’s law is not to enlarge the power of the penalizing state but to put forward a political and legal understanding of rape that weakens the foundation and efforts put in by feminist rape law reforms of 1970s. (Corrigan, 2006) Adam Walsh Act: President Bush passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act in 2006. With the passing of this bill the position of the federal government in policy regarding sex offense was increased. The capacity, extent, and needs of sex offender registration programs increased to a great extent with the passing of this act. The law increased compulsory verdicts for central sex offenders, social commitment of sex offenders, checks records of criminals and keeps a check and balance on child pornography. (Wright, 2008) Flaws in the Adam Walsh Act Labelling an individual as a sex offender is the most derogatory label given to anyone in the modern world. No other expression brings to mind such widespread repulsion. This label of being called a sex offender holds on to a major weight. All the states need those who are found guilty of committing the act of sex offense to register on a standard basis with the law enforcement agency present in their locality so that the community they reside and have a job can be informed regarding their attendance. They might be asked to put signs in front of their residents which clearly shows their new status as outsiders and they might also be asked to have a special coloured number plate for their cars to differentiate them from the other people. If one fails to meet the terms of these laws it will be considered as a crime. Almost half of the states not only have types of residential restrictions on sex offenders but also have imposed restrictions on employment for as long as these sex offenders are required to register. Therefore when the government labels an individual as a sex offender it means it is a serious crime. Due to the harsh outcomes of being labelled as a sex offender the procedure of being labelled should be examined. There should in fact be a procedure not only an automated action. The sex offenders are often not given their complete constitutional rights in order to rapidly convict them of their crimes and label them as outcasts. A person, regardless of what we personally feel regarding his action, he or she still deserves all the rights and protection that is promised to them in the constitution, specifically in the Sixth and Fourteenth amendments in the constitution. (Lester, 2008) Due to the fact that the social stigma of being labelled as a sex offender is immense, the way these sex offenders are labelled should be defined more clearly. Every person who commits a crime related to sex should not be labelled as a sex offender. After the implementation of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act in 2006 the states are forced to expand their attacks on sex offenders with no consideration of their need of procedure and justice. Due to this the people who are being labelled as sex offenders and the time they have to bear that label is increased. The question here is that why is being called a sex offender being made such a huge deal, especially when the person convicted in found guilty of committing a sex related act. Is it not just very understandable that someone who is being labelled as a sex offender has actually committed a sex crime? If this was considered to be just an expression this would not be such an issue, if he or she was called anything else it would not have been this terrifying. Other crimes do not become a part of an individuals’ identity the way sex offender does. This is due to the fact that one has never seen a headline that labels a person for example as a “drug offender”. However headlines that label sex offenders can be seen very often. The government has now used this word too frequently. This now refers to the person as their identity and what they are expected to do in the future, now it is considered a lot more than what the person did. The main reason behind labelling someone as a sex offender is that the society should consider him an outcast avoid him in order to protect themselves, this is because once an individual is labelled as a sex offender there are considered to be unsafe, lethal and hopeless. (Lester, 2008) Moving from Wetterling to Walsh The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act under the Adam Walsh Act mainly replaces the the Jacob Wetterling Act. This law is considered to be a reaction to the sexual physical attacks and the deaths of the seventeen people which took place in the last seventeen years. How effective are the SORN Laws? The SORN laws have not proven to be very effective. These laws do not help the sex offenders to get better however they further impose restrictions on residence, make socially unacceptable by imposing restrictions regarding which days they are not allowed to participate in any sort of ongoing activity and it also puts labels on the sex offenders which does not help them in any way and they are not able to settle down. Restrictions on Residence for Sex Offenders: Restrictions on residence for those who are found guilty of sex offense are extensively imposed in the United States. The majority of these restrictions are described geographically. It prohibits those found guilty from forming a stable house inside an approved distance from amenities like schools, parks and bus stops. Supporters of the restrictions on residence say they keep the families and children safe from sexual violence, however those who do not support these restrictions believe that they give birth to a number of unintentional social, economic and geographic results that include compelling offenders to come together in socially deprived areas, restricting availability of rehabilitation facilities and causing spread out effects to communities that live nearby. (Grubesic. Murray & Mack, 2011) SORN Laws do not Reduce Recidivism: The fundamental principle of sexual marauder legislation represents the idea that sexual violence in a few forms are unlike in type from the usual terms of antisocial behaviour that are shown on a regular basis in the criminal justice system. However it is not very clear if this idea generated the regulatory initiative or vice versa. One thing that can be clearly seen is that the idea is very powerful in leading a number of regulatory bodies in order to control sexual violence. Furthermore this has levied weight on expansion in the behavioural sciences and it might give a system for avoiding imprisonment in other sectors of the law. The real problem is that this idea is a ploy which will be soon forgotten by the people or leftover. People will only be left with a fresh and unchecked regulatory way to criminal behaviour which will not be looked over by any main boundaries. (Janus & Prentky, 2008) Ineffective Rehabilitation Methods: The most important spoken topic about the sex offenders’ legislation was the idea that sexual violence is widespread and it imposed a greater danger to the wellbeing of the society than any other type of criminal behaviour and it was required to be spoken about not only about in courts but also by carrying out interventions that give awareness to the public. The fundamental thought is that the state usually limits freedom in the name of system. These early insights have initiated many types of laws, Sexually violent predator commitment laws make use of a psychological health representation to physically lock up sex offenders, usually after their time in prison is over. Megan’s law is an expression which indicates laws that require registration and social notification of sexual offenders that have been released. Due to the residential restrictions imposed on those who were found guilty of sexually offending someone, sexual offenders are not usually allowed to live in an exact radius of those places where children are usually meeting up. (Janus & Prentky, 2008) In reality, there are a number of restrictions on the regulatory extent to which policy-makers may settle. Some states have well thought-out about laws that need sex offenders to use number plates of different colours from others to differentiate themselves; others have passed bills needing sex offenders to remain in their own homes on occasions like Halloween and to keep away from any sort of contact with children on the holiday. Initially proceedings confronted the constitutionality of the most important types of authoritarian laws. A general subject in these confrontations was the disagreement that the regulations in actuality were penalizing, thus they breached a number of legal restrictions regarding punishments. Homogeneously the courts have made sure that the states have acted in accordance with the laws imposed and discarded all such challenges. Another confrontation to the laws had a dispute that these laws defied important suitable rights. This argument was also declined by the Supreme Court. (Janus & Prentky, 2008) Policy Recommendations to improve SORN Laws In my paper I have concluded that the SORN laws are ineffective therefore measures need to be taken to improve these laws for the welfare of the sex offenders. The sex offenders should be first provided with counselling so they can actually talk about their mental state. This will help them to tell someone how they feel and will further enhance their capability to improve. Talking someone will also help them realise what they have done is wrong, the psychologists can then conclude whether housing restrictions should be placed on the sex offender or not, if they have shown some improvement housing restrictions should not be imposed on them and they should be given a chance. However if any sex offender shows signs of going back to their same activities strict action should be taken against them. Labelling them will also prevent them from showing signs of improvement as they might rebel against it and start acting the way they did before. Conclusion In this paper I told about the sex offender acts and how they are ineffective due to the fact they do not reduce recidivism. They further impose residency restrictions and labels the sex offenders which hinders their rehabilitation process. Sex offenders are required to register online and their details are also published on the internet. The question here was how effective these laws are in stopping sex offenders from committing the same crimes once again. Under the risk evaluation system sex offenders are categorized according to how unsafe and risky they are. However these laws have not proven to be very effective, the process of registration and notification has failed in many ways. When all the information about the sex offenders will be made and they will be labelled as sex offenders, they will have nothing left to lose, they will have no motivation to stop doing what they once did and they might end up doing it again. The problem with these laws is that they will also include people who were drunk and ended up peeing in the streets. These laws need to be limited to actual sexual crimes like rape, sexual assault and child abuse. A different process of registration should be done for such people so the actual sex offenders can be punished. The main goal of the notification act is to notify the public and keep them safe, therefore the list should only be restricted to such people who have actually committed sexual crimes. When one is labelled as a sex offender it is very difficult to get rid of such a social stigma. Due to the harsh rules of these acts the people are not given their due rights. By labelling them we are forcing them to rebel. The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws are therefore not very effective and they should be revised. References Baron-Evans, A. (2008). Rethink Misguided Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 20(5, American Criminal Justice Policy in a "Change" Election), 357-361. Retrieved April 08, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/fsr.2008.20.5.357?ref=search-gateway:4917224ed879767a3d1729cfe105df3e Constitutional Law. Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto Clauses. Third Circuit Holds That Notification Requirement of Megan's Law Does Not Constitute Punishment. E. B. v. Verniero, 119 F.3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997). (1998).Harvard Law Review, 111(5), 1353-1358. Retrieved April 08, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1342168?ref=search-gateway:c078d2e911a38236b46277b33936134d Corrigan, R. (2006). Making Meaning of Megan's Law. Law & Social Inquiry, 31(2), 267-312. Retrieved April 08, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/4092748?ref=search-gateway:c29c236a1bd78070a973eeca99e8a3b8 Farkas, M. A., & Miller, G. (2008). Sex Offender Treatment: Reconciling Criminal Justice Priorities and Therapeutic Goals. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 21(2, Sex Offenders: Recent Developments in Punishment and Management), 78-82. Retrieved April 08, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/fsr.2008.21.2.78?ref=search-gateway:406679f5b0b39a2afa17958796908c3e Grubesic, T. H., Murray, A. T., & Mack, E. A. (2011). Sex Offenders, Residence Restrictions, Housing and Urban Morphology: A Review and Synthesis. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 13(3), 7-31. Retrieved April 8, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41426673 Janus, E. S., & Prentky, R. A. (2008). Sexual Predator Laws: A Two-Decade Retrospective. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 21(2, Sex Offenders: Recent Developments in Punishment and Management), 90-97. Retrieved April 08, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/fsr.2008.21.2.90?ref=search-gateway:50757e5f504921dc0b9fc83eaec87a6b Lester, J. L. (2008). Brandishing the Mark of Cain: Defects in the Adam Walsh Act. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 21(2, Sex Offenders: Recent Developments in Punishment and Management), 107-110. Retrieved April 08, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/fsr.2008.21.2.107?ref=search-gateway:862cbd02640daccee9877d5a21ecc594 Wright, R. G. (2008). From Wetterling to Walsh: The Growth of Federalization in Sex Offender Policy. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 21(2, Sex Offenders: Recent Developments in Punishment and Management), 124-132. Retrieved April 08, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/fsr.2008.21.2.124?ref=search-gateway:2fdaa911fe4304ea17dea941a3472fda Read More