Public Registration of Level One Sex Offenders - Research Paper Example

Public Registration of Level Sex Offenders Sexual offences have been condemned by society for centuries. There has been a decline in the rate of sexual offences not only in the United States but also in the entire world. This has been attributed to the strict laws that have been advanced to curb this vice. In the United States, there is no federal law that governs matters related to relate and other sexual offences. However, the individual states have developed laws that govern the way sexual offences are treated. These laws are not consistent across the states; hence there are very many variations that continue to be evident today (US Department of Justice, 2012). Modernization has resulted to these changes and is expected that there will be further changes in the future. Sexual offenders fall in different categories depending on the risk of re-offense. Many states have three classes of sexual offenders. A level 3 offender is the most dangerous; they pose a higher risk of recidivism as well as are the biggest threat to the community. The level 2 offenders poses a moderate risk but are less likely to repeat the crime compared to the level 3 offenders. Then we have level 1 offenders that are less likely to reoffend hence they present the lowest risk to the community. In the article, we shall focus on the issue of whether level 1 offenders should be registered publicly. Labelling someone a criminal creates a perception to the public that may not be easy to erase. Therefore, criminals that commit minor offences and have higher chances of reforming should be protected from the outcomes being branded criminal. In this regard, level 1 sexual offenders should not be registered publicly. The public registration and notification laws were necessitated by the factors that are associated with sexual crimes. One major aspect that is associated with sexual crimes is increased recidivism. This aspect deals with the chances for a criminal committing the crime again. Compared to other crimes the rate of recidivism in sexual offences is quite high hence making it necessary to have a law that helps the community to beware of these individuals (Centre for Sex Offender Management, 2001). However, the findings by the Centre for Sex Offender Management established that there was a significant difference between the chances of re-offending among the sexual offenders. This means that a blanket policy for all the offenders would be biased. The biasness comes in because the individuals that are less likely to reoffend will be treated just like those that have very high chances of repeating the crime. Re-offending can occur for a number of psychological as well as personality reasons, which includes getting used to the crime or being branded a criminal. For this reason individuals that depict low probability of re-offending should be exempted from public shame. The basis of the registration and notification laws has some undesirable aspects that can ruin human dignity. Though the proponents of the regulation argue that it keeps the public aware of the offenders, it exposes them to undesirable lifelong psychological effects. The fact that the public are aware of the offenders makes them recognizable but it does not make them stop their heinous acts. Therefore, they may still end up committing the acts whenever there are opportunities. A survey conducted by Phillips (1998) indicated that almost 60% of the respondents did not feel that the law made any substantial effect. Actually, their responses tilted towards the proposition that the sexual offenders felt even more motivated to commit the crime compared to the time that their criminal record were not made public. To support these findings were Matson and Lieb (1996) who conducted a survey among the law enforcers. While the law enforcement team established that, there were several advantages attributable to the Offender Registration and Notification law, they categorically pointed out some disadvantages. They clearly pointed out that the overreaction in the neighborhoods created a situation where extreme embarrassment prevailed for the offenders as well as their families. In addition, they pointed out that some offenders were completely dehumanized through the harassment that they received from the members of the public. Therefore, level 1 offenders having the least chance of committing the once again should be exempted from the embarrassments that ensues. In their case, other interventions can adequately serve to help them reform to acceptable moral standards. The psychological aspect of the level 1 offenders is quite different from the rest of the levels. Law prohibits sexual offence and it should not be an option at any given time. Individuals should adhere to the requirements of the law. In particular, the offender registration and notification law provides a platform where the name of a person can be completely tarnished, this results in the public. However, human weakness can sometimes prevail. The sexual offender may have no intention to sexually assault their victim but due to the prevailing circumstances, they are compelled by their inner instincts to commit the heinous act. This does not encourage in any way acts of sexual molestation but a consideration of the intention could say so much about what made the individual to engage in the act. Leniency for such an individual will help them reform for the last time. However, that is not necessarily the case; the individual may commit the act some more times hence the need to be elevated to the next level (level 2). It is also possible that the individual caught for the first time has been successfully evading the law enforcers the previous times they have done that. There is a likelihood of recidivism for such a person hence they are chances that they will be caught and will get to the next level where the registration and notification law will catch up with them. For these reasons, it would create an extremely bad image in the eyes of public for a ‘good’ individual being labelled by the entire populace as evil and immoral. In a great way there are so many underlying psychological effects that will result to the individual becoming immoral, just as the society brands them. It is also possible that even if the society does not brand the individual as immoral, they will have an inner perception that world perceives them as immoral. This self-judgment can ruin both their social life as well as affecting their moral character. For these reasons, it is inadequate to get into the registry books as well as being notified to the public an individual who has minimal chances of repeating the crime. Research has indicated that there is no relationship between repeating of sexual offences and the registration and notification law. Through a review of available of literature, Walker et al (n.d) came to a position that the available empirical research findings find no significant correlation between the sex offender registration and notification law with the ability to restrain from repeating the crime. This forms the basis of the argument that there is no need for individuals that do not demonstrate extreme moral rottenness being regarded by the public as sexual offenders. The fact research demonstrates such effect means that another strategy should be devised at least for the level 1 offenders. The blanket labelling of all the offenders as evil and immoral while making it clear to the public does not help these individuals in any way; neither do they have significant effect to the public because it does not help them keep away from the ‘real’ sexual offenders. In fact, it keeps the public in unnecessary fear for individuals. However, for the sake of the public, it is important that they take caution of those that have labelled themselves sexual offenders. The public too can label them and more importantly mark them. This is because of their security. The public image is very important for every person, if an individual loses this image, so many aspects will accompany him or her. Definitely, due to psychological effects, the individual will end up becoming what they have been branded. The policy is geared towards protecting the right of the victims, but not all cases of sexual offence are ideally the truth. An individual may possibly be convicted for an act they never committed or there was mutual agreement but something went wrong somewhere and a disagreement ensued. It is therefore humane to give the individual another chance to prove themselves whether it was intention or was based on lies. Human rights require that human dignity should be protected at all times. It is a contravention of the offender’s right if the information their names appear in the public domain list of shame. These people will feel dehumanized and some may opt even to commit suicide especially if they have low self-esteem. The argument here is not that the law as it is has an aspect of illegality but there should be checks on the extent to which a law can go. The law should be made is there so that people remain within its confines, the extent of breaking should attract different penalties. Therefore, making an individual whose emotions overcame them to look the same as an individual who has a ‘don’t care mentality’ is extremely unreasonable. I support the law fully in registering the level 2 and level 3 offenders as criminals whom people should be cautious of. However, the level 1 lacks the threshold of crime so that they can have such a punishment. Talking of susceptibility to commit suicide due to criminal behavior, this group is more prone because they are somehow under some aspect of naivety. In addition, the chances of bouncing to the ‘don’t care’ group are very high if the whole world knows that they offended someone sexually at some point of their lives. Most of the state laws regarding the issue of sexual offences have been founded on the basis of public outcry including the sex offenders registration and notification law. This means that it was made as a reaction to a situation, such a law has the capacity to overlook some of the important aspects of humanity. Such a thing as protecting the offenders that are likely to change should be given a priority. Contrasting to the correctional centers, individuals that depict a change in behavior are trusted and can be allowed to do a little more compared to the other inmates. This makes it possible for them to shed the crime mentality and yield to the proposition that they are good individuals. The same case will apply to the persons that have lower chances of repeating the sexual offences. It is therefore ideal for the level 1 offenders to be protected by law against public shame. The fact that their recidivism levels are low may cause them to transform for good. Media reports have indicated that level 1 offenders showed no case of recidivism after release from the prison. A case of Bainbridge Island as presented by the Tribune Business News indicated that out of the 11 cases of individuals that were released on sexual offences as level 1 sexual offenders, not even one was allegation about their involvement in any sexual related syndicate was reported (Josh, 2010). This indicates that these offenders have a high chance of transforming and aligning themselves to the community expectations. To such individuals the Sex offences registration and notification policy may leave them exposed to other threats. It is quite ironical that a serial killer released from the prison integrates normally with other citizens while an individual that is completely transformed is labelled a criminal who should be avoided. It beats logic and at the same time creates a bad picture of our laws. The transformative capacity of these individuals can be harnessed in a positive way hence they better individuals that realize where they went wrong and advocate for a behavior change. The case of Bainbridge is not an isolated one, the evidence strongly shows that people have the capacity to change if they are not accompanied by public shame and resentment. It is therefore, wise and prudent to exonerate level 1 sexual offenders from public bitterness, harassment and resentment. In conclusion, human dignity is very important though punishment for sexual offenders is even weightier. However, for level 1 sexual offenders who show very little capacity to re-embark on sexual offences they should be exempted from the heavy punishment of being labelled ‘sexual offenders’. These people have high chances of transforming. On the other hand, having to place them on the public domain as evil people has underlying psychological effects that can result to them being even more evil. References Centre for Sex Offender Management. (2001, May). Recidivism of sex offenders. Retrieved from http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.pdf Centre for Sex Offender Management. (2008, November). The Comprehensive Approach to Sex Offender Management. Retrieved from http://www.csom.org/pubs/Comp_Approach_Brief.pdf Farley, J. (2010, Dec 26). Should all convicted sex offenders be required to register? McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/821571045?accountid=45049 Matson, S. and R. Lieb. (1996). Community notification in Washington state: 1996 survey of law enforcement. Washington: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Phillips, D.M. (1998). Community notification as viewed by Washington’s citizens. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. US Department of Justice. (2012, July). Sex offender registration and notification in the United States: Current case laws and issues. Retrieved from http://ojp.gov/smart/caselaw/handbook_july2012.pdf Walker, T.W et al. (n.d). The Influence of Sex offender registration and notification laws in the United States. Retrieved from http://ww.ilvoices.com/media/96974ddeccb5afb9ffff82e2ffffe41e.pdf Read More