Overview of Sex Offender Registration: Effective or Not - Research Paper Example

Running Head: Sex Offender Registration – Effective or Not Sex Offender Registration – Effective or Not [Institute’s Sex Offender Registration – Effective or Not Introduction A sex offender refers to a person who has been involved in a crime related to sex. This may include sexual abuse, rape, adultery, and criminal transmission of HIV, prostitution, sexual harassment, pimping and others. Countries including United States, United Kingdom, and Australia require these sex offenders to register with the country through the process of sex offender registration (Ward, Laws & Hudson, 2003). In the United States, this information is made available to the public since 1995 (Zimring, 2004). It was in 1994, when a 7-year-old girl Megan was raped and murdered, in New Jersey. Police investigation revealed that the convicted person was a sex offender and was a nearby neighbor of Megan (Douglas, Burgess, Burgess & Ressler, 2006). Nevertheless, the parents of Megan had no information about the fact that their neighbor is a sex offender and how dangerous he can be to their family. This heated a great debate and eventually Megan’s law came onto the scene, which required States to put this information of sex offenders available to public so that people can ensure their safety (Tilley, 2009). Despite the fact that these registration polices vary amongst different states, however, the primary goal remains the same, avoidance of sexual violence or crime and prevention of sexual re-offending by these former offenders (Wright, 2009). This paper would try to compare to Sex Offender Registration policies in California and Massachusetts. California had implemented these policies in 1947 and Massachusetts was the last state to implement these policies in the last years of 1990s (Douglas et al., 2006). Moreover, in the light of the policies at these two states, many others elements concerning the effectiveness of this system would also come under discussion. Discussion Sex Offender Registration laws require offender to register with the local state authority and supply crucial information like name, address, employment details, and others. In most cases, the offender has to register right after his or her release from the prison or in the initial of days of community supervision (Holmes & Holmes, 2008). Since 1996, most of the states have put this information online for public viewing including California and Massachusetts (Brown, 2005). As mentioned earlier, all the states have laws regarding sex offender registration that vary greatly. Differences start arising from the information required for registration. Both these states ask for name, aliases, photo, fingerprints, description of offences, location of offences, date of conviction and criminal history (Laws, Hudson & Ward, 2000) (Siegel, 2009). However, there is a lot of information that Massachusetts would ask from a sex offender that California’s authorities would not ask. These include date of birth, place of birth, sex, race, height, weight, eye color, hair color and home address (Siskin, Teasley & Library of Congress, 2001). Moreover, the reverse is also true. California also seeks some information that Massachusetts is not interested in. These are “work address, occupation, palm print, driver’s license number, and vehicle license number, vehicle description, indentifying information, blood, saliva, and DNA” (Winick & Fond, pp. 23-45, 2003). Quite clearly, California looks more boarder range of information and keeps a better track on its sex offender as compared to Massachusetts (Winick & Fond, 2003). Another important question in this regard is of the degree to which this information is available to the public since there has to be some concern over the privacy of these offenders. In both these states, unlike some other states where information is broadcasted, one will have to take a request driven approach (Maddan, 2008). These requests are made either through the criminal history systems board or by the local law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, despite the fact that the public gets access to this information but the degree to which personal information is provided to inquirers varies. Many law enforcement agencies will ask for personal identification, motive and even for a small fee if one wants to know about the offenders. Law enforcement agencies expect that this would prevent unnecessary and unneeded inquires by the public and invasion of privacy of offenders (Kemshall, 2003). However, important here to note is that both these states would notify their citizens, in case, presence of more dangerous offenders in their surroundings. Again, there are variations in these notifications as well. In California, police would notify only the schools and organizations dealing with kids, only if, a high risk sex offender has entered the area (Siegel, 2009). However, in Massachusetts, law enforcement agencies are bound to inform all neighbors and community organizations if any moderate of high-risk sex offender has entered the area (Douglas et al., 2006). It is important to note that these Sex Offender Registration policies have had little impact on the sexual crime rates of these states (Laney, 2008). Despite the fact that sexual crimes decreased in California by 15 percent in the first decade of its implementation and remained steady for the next couple of decades, but since then the crimes have been on rise (Aggrawal, 2008). The same is true for Massachusetts as well. The sexual crime rate decreased by 9 percent in 1996-2003, however, since then it has remained steady (Douglas et al., 2006). Despite the fact that all the states of US now have this system, yet there is an ongoing debate that whether this registration should take place or not in the first place. Proponents of registration present the bill passed in 1994 in Alaska. It reads: “The legislature finds that: (1) sex offenders pose a high risk of reoffending after release from custody, (2) protecting the public from sex offenders is a primary governmental interest, (3) the privacy interests of persons convicted of sex offenses are less important than the governments interest in public safety, and (4) release of certain information about sex offenders to public agencies and the general public will assist in protecting the public safety” (Douglas et al, pp. 65-73, 2006). These people argue that registration helps the law enforcement agencies in preventing of such crimes (Johnson, 2006). For example, if there is sexual crime in a certain area and the police do not find any clue that could lead them towards the offender then it would turn itself to the registry to search for all the sexual offenders living in the area and have a similar pattern of crimes (James et al, 2008). Secondly, these registration laws also provide the law enforcement agencies with legal grounds to hold sexual offender that are found in suspicious circumstances or situations in which there is a high potential that they would commit the same crime (Siegel, 2009). For example, if police finds a person loitering around a playground for hours, police can stop him and then charge him in case if he has failed to register himself. Offenders that register themselves remain under scrutiny of the law enforcement agencies thus decreasing the chances of another offence (Miner & Coleman, 2003). Thirdly, it not only deters the previous sexual offender but also prevent anyone else to commit such a crime since the cost may be the lost of privacy, respect and freedom for the entire life (Terry, 2005). Lastly, this system offers a chance for parents to protect their children from these predators (Laney, 2008). Research indicates that homes having any sex offender living nearby would sell for more than 5000 US dollars less than its market price on an average (Holmes & Holmes, 2002). Some states allow full public access or background checks for employment (Hess & Orthmann, 2009). Before this paper analyzes and comments about the pros of this system, it is important here to look at the variations amongst the state laws for sex offender registration. The reason for initiating this debate at this stage in this paper is quite understandable that this is also a potential problem of this system. Sex offenders have always tried to escape to states with lenient and relaxed laws (Siegel, 2009). Furthermore, sex offenders when travelling from one state from another may find it extremely difficult to cope with the variations in the laws. What is acceptable for any sex offender in one state may be a high treason crime or law breaking activity in the other. In the recent past, media has covered many such incidents where sex offenders have paid heavy prices for not being aware of the laws of the new state (Marshall et al., 2006). The following are some of the major differences amongst states regarding the sex offender laws. Firstly, in most states, the law enforcement agencies are responsible for collecting the information and transferring it to the state administering agency. The state attorney general plays a key role in this process. However, there are states where state is responsible for collecting this information and maintaining the registries. These states are Delaware, Maine, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Oregon (Siegel, 2009). Secondly, states also differ widely on the level of information collected. Almost all of the states collect information (Ramble, 2008) like name, photograph, fingerprint, phone number, date of birth, criminal history, and social security number. However, many states also go for having employment and vehicle details well (Ramble, 2008). There are only nine states, which would want DNA record of the offender as well. These states are “Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Minnesota, Mississippi, Vermont, and Wisconsin” (Siegel, pp. 30-34, 2009). However, Michigan has made not made it obligatory and it would only include a DNA profile if it were available. Thirdly, an important variation occurs in the time for registration, which at time becomes very problematic. “Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin require immediate or “prior to release” registration of all offenders” (Marshall et al., pp. 56-63, 2006). However, there are 27 states, which would provide a relaxation of a week to 30 days for this registration. Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington are the states that require offenders to register for a lifetime (Wright, pp. 245-277, 1997). Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming would allow the offender to go to the court in case he or she wants an end to the lifetime registration process. Moreover, these state rules for registration also vary in terms of how these states define the seriousness of crimes (Ramble, 2008). Fourthly, offenders are also bound to update and verify their addresses with state authorities from time to time. Most states would give the offender 10 days within the change of address to update the state authorities. Alaska, California, Iowa, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wisconsin want their offenders to update their address information annually (Ramble, 2008). However, New Jersey and Vermont are strict enough to ask for update in every 90 days (Marshall et al., 2006). Consequences in result of noncompliance vary strongly as well. California, Delaware, Rhode Island, South Carolina would order imprisonment for 90 days in case of any non-compliance. However, other states would put fines up to 5000 US dollars of imprisonment ranging from 1-5 years (Siegel, 2009). However, as mentioned earlier, there are strong arguments against this system as well. One of the basic rights of any US citizen is the right to freedom and civil liberty. Sex Offender Registration system is a clear step towards making a “big brother” society (Erooga & Masson, 1999). If a person commits a crime and he is found guilty, then it is responsibility of the law to punish him in the deserved way. The same is true for sex offenders as well (Hickey, 2006). When found guilty, they spend time in prison, paying for their punishment and once their imprisonment is over then they have all the right to live with freedom and without any possible government intervention (James, Thomas & Foley, 2008). Secondly, many critics have repeatedly indicated that despite deterring sexual crimes this process actually motivates sexual crimes by previous offenders. Quite understandably, the society will not see any sex offender will good eyes and respect. This eventually develops an antisocial feeling in the mind of the offender (Ramble, 2008) and the worst-case scenario may be in which the offender would tell himself “If society thinks Im a permanent threat, I guess I am and theres nothing I can do to stop myself” (Aggrawal, pp. 59-61, 2008). On the other hand, some offender will try and have tried their best not to register due to either the post registration life or motivation for committing further crimes (Barbaree, 2008). Nonetheless, this system has decreased the number of convictions at the same since now no sex offender prefers to plead guilty when he knows that he will have to live under cruel monitoring for the rest of his life (Doren, 2002). Thirdly, this system of registration and public access of the same will disturb the society largely. It creates a false sense of security amongst the public (Marshall, 2006). A proprietor, before making a decision to rent his place would look in the registry; however, he fails to realize that many offenders intending to repeat their offences will not register themselves in the first place (Erooga & Masson, 1999). Moreover, this debate of registration of sexual offender has seemed to overrate sexual crimes largely. What is more dangerous, your neighbor being a sexual offender or your neighbor being a convicted murderer, armed robber, or kidnapper? (Holmes & Holmes, 2002) Additionally, many citizens would voluntarily take law in their hands due to this system. Physical attempts to harm the sex offender living near by are common to hear. In addition, the most problematic situations arise when people try to harm, harass, and assault the family of the offender as well (Matravers, 2005). Furthermore, many states, along with the details of the sex offender, would also reveal at least some details of the victim as well. This may compound the victim’s trauma by deterring his or her privacy and create more problems for the victim rather than the offender (Marshall et al., 2006). Lastly, research has indicated that the US spends millions of dollars every year for running this system. Money of taxpayers is being spent on a system, which is not fully efficient in stopping the related crimes. Research indicates that most of the children had faced this sexual assault from a family member or an acquaintance (Kemshall & McIvor, 2004). Therefore, these funds should be wisely spent on rehabilitation of these offenders or their psychological and mental treatment to make them better and productive citizens of the society. The comments of Supreme Court Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg in a 2003 case in Rhode Island made following following remarks regarding the system. He said: “the Act applies to all convicted sex offenders, without regard to their future dangerousness. And the duration of the reporting requirement is keyed not to any determination of a particular offender’s risk of reoffending, but to whether the offense of conviction qualified as aggravated.” Moreover, “the Act makes no provision whatever for the possibility of rehabilitation: offenders cannot shorten their registration or notification period, even on the clearest demonstration of rehabilitation or conclusive proof of physical incapacitation. However, plain it may be that a former sex offender currently poses no threat of recidivism he will remain subject to long-term monitoring and inescapable humiliation” (Aggrawal, pp. 41-47, 2008) (Marshall et al., pp. 81-89, 2006). References Aggrawal, Anil. (2008). Forensic and medico-legal aspects of sexual crimes and unusual sexual practices. New York: CRC Press. Barbaree, Howard E., & Marshall, William L. (2008). The juvenile sex offender. California: Guilford Press. Brown, Sarah. (2005). Treating sex offenders: an introduction to sex offender treatment programmes. London: Willan Publishing. Doren, Dennis M. (2002). Evaluating sex offenders: a manual for civil commitments and beyond. New York: Sage Publications. Douglas, John E., Burgess, Ann W., Burgess, Allen G., & Ressler, Robert K. (2006). Crime classification manual: a standard system for investigating and classifying violent crimes. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Erooga, Marcus, & Masson, Helen C. (1999). Children and young people who sexually abuse others: challenges and responses. London: Routledge. Hess, Karen M., & Orthmann, Christine Hess. (2009). Criminal investigation. San Francisco: Cengage Learning. Hickey, Eric W. (2006). Sex crimes and paraphilia. New York: Pearson Education. Holmes, Ronald M., & Holmes, Stephen T. (2002). Current perspectives on sex crimes. New York: Sage Publications. Holmes, Stephen T., & Holmes, Ronald M. (2008). Sex crimes: patterns and behavior. New York: Sage Publications. James, Nathan, Thomas, Kenneth R., & Foley, Cassandra. (2008). Civil commitment of sexually dangerous persons. New York: Nova Publishers. Johnson, Scott Allen. (2006). Physical abusers and sexual offenders: forensic and clinical strategies. San Francisco: CRC/Taylor & Francis. Kemshall, Hazel. (2003). Understanding risk in criminal justice. Dallas: McGraw-Hill International. Kemshall, Hazel, & McIvor, Gill. (2004). Managing sex offender risk. California: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Laney, Garrine. (2008). Sex offender registration. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Laws, D. Richard, Hudson, Stephen M., & Ward, Tony. (2000). Remaking relapse prevention with sex offenders: a sourcebook. New York: Sage Publications. Maddan, Sean. (2008). The labeling of sex offenders: the unintended consequences of the best-intentioned public policies. New York: University Press of America. Marshall, William L. (2006). Sexual offender treatment: controversial issues. New York: J. Wiley. Marshall, William L., Marshall, Liam E., & Serran, Geris A. (2006). Treating sexual offenders: an integrated approach. London: Routledge. Matravers, Amanda. (2005). Sex offenders in the community: managing and reducing the risks. London: Willan Publishing. Miner, Michael H., & Coleman, Eli. (2003). Sex offender treatment: accomplishments, challenges, and future directions. New York: Haworth Press. Ramble, Harry. (2008). Sex offender lives here. California: Ebb Press LLC. Siegel, Larry J. (2009). Introduction to criminal justice. Florence: Cengage Learning. Siskin, Alison M., Teasley, David. & Library of Congress. (2001). Sex offender registration: issues and legislation. New York: Congressional Research Service. Terry, Karen J. (2005). Sexual offenses and offenders: theory, practice, and policy. New York: Thomson Learning/Wadsworth. Tilley, Nick. (2009). Crime prevention. London: Willan Publishing. Ward, Tony, Laws, D. Richard, & Hudson, Stephen M. (2003). Sexual deviance: issues and controversies. New York: Sage Publications. Winick, Bruce J., & Fond, John Q. L. (2003). Protecting society from sexually dangerous offenders: law, justice, and therapy. New York: American Psychological Association. Wright, John. (1997). The New York Times 1998 almanac. New York: Penguin Putnam, Inc. Wright, Richard Gordon. (2009). Sex offender laws: failed policies, new directions. London: Springer Pub. Zimring, Franklin E. (2004). An American travesty: legal responses to adolescent sexual offending. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Read More