“Sex offender registries don’t make us any safer; abolishing them would”

By Emily Horowitz . . . Watching the Senate hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, I was struck by how Republican senators pounced on the judge’s thoughtful, considered, and mainstream sex offense sentencing. My research examines why our sex offense policies are based on fear-driven myths and how excessive criminal-legal responses do not genuinely and effectively address sexual violence — and do create new harm. And at the time, based on this knowledge, I wrote about the spectacle, where politicians like Josh Hawley accused Jackson of “endangering our children” and not “protecting the most vulnerable,” while those voting in her favor were branded “pro-pedophile” by the likes of Margorie Taylor Greene.

The message was clear: Supporting sex offense policy as it exists on the books is the same as supporting sexual violence, not caring for children, and, as in Salem, the equivalent of being someone who sexually offends.

Since 1994, ostensibly in the name of public safety, legislators passed sweeping federal, state, and local laws imposing onerous requirements and restrictions on people who have completed sentences for sex-offense convictions. On pain of further punishment and incarceration, these provisions require their names’ inscription on registries easily consultable by the public, notification of their moving into a new community, and restrictions on residency, travel, work, and presence. In practice, these burdens fail to reduce recidivism while subjecting those on them to never-ending state surveillance; even after sentence completion, not adhering to the myriad of complex and ever-changing rules, such as failure to update personal information to law enforcement, can result in reincarceration. An example: A 62-year-old, last convicted of a sex offense in 1989, and off probation since the mid-1990s with no sexual re-offense, received two years in prison for failing to update his registration in 2020.

For almost three decades, the Sex-Offender Registration and Notification Act, also known as SORNA, has subjected millions with sex-offense convictions to a period or even a lifetime of being openly named, shamed, and essentially banished from society.

As I argue here, and in greater detail in my forthcoming book, From Rage to Reason: Why We Need Sex Crime Laws Based on Facts, Not Fear, the experiences of those convicted of sex offenses starkly reveal what happens when our society gets drunk on punishment. In my work, I focus exclusively on the post-sentence, public, and specialized punishments to which those convicted of sex offenses are subject. I do not question the need for them to be held accountable or to be prosecuted in the criminal legal system. Those decisions have their place, but they are not the focus of my work. What I address, instead, is the enhanced and extraordinary civil and criminal punishments for this group of people beyond the already extensive range of collateral consequences faced by others with criminal histories.

Public and political support for registries remains high. There is little evidence that attitudes have been impacted by a growing body of research showing that public registration, community notification, and residency restrictions do not decrease the incidence of sexual offense. Rates of sexual re-offense have been low both before and after registries, and sex offenses have lower recidivism than almost all other crimes. Further, decades of data consistently show that the majority of sex offenses involve non-strangers and those without prior sex-offense convictions. In other words, there’s scant proof that sex offender registries make us any safer.

Read the rest of Emily’s piece here at Inquest.

image_pdfimage_print
Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

4 Thoughts to ““Sex offender registries don’t make us any safer; abolishing them would””

Leave a Comment

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone and language of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Refrain from comments containing references to religion unless it clearly relates to the post being commented on.
  • Do not post in all caps.
  • We will generally not allow links; the moderator may consider the value of a link.
  • We will not post lengthy comments.
  • Please do not go into details about your story; post these on our Tales from the Registry.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites.
  • Please do not solicit funds.
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them. It will not be displayed on the site.

  1. Tim in WI

    If indeed ” level of dangerous” was rejected by the Rehnquist Court as to the intent of the Act ( Smith V Doe 03) what makes her believe “public safety” could result from the adoption of the electronic registration regime. Identifying the dangerous person in proximity is precisely invented to put affirmative restraint upon potential interpersonal attack. That is to say in a prophylactic way. Through informed circumvention, it was thought the SOR database would impact recidivism rates. However the database and associated infrastructure has enabled far more crimes than it has circumvented. We see an avalanche of evidence of this fact especially in terms of human sexploitation. Many many kidnappings have occurred that were in fact wholly enabled by the power of the internet! Never before in the history of man, had a bad actor on one side of pond or nation been able to groom a victim clear on the other side of the pond or nation at will. The internet made “Pimpin” more possible, popular and profitable and certainly enabled expanded networks to operate in ways never before possible.
    American telephone networks didn’t suffer the incessant robot dialers it does today with scam ad nauseam are evidence of lessor evils. Americas head first dive into the internet age was totally irresponsible with respect to liberty and we will suffer it.

    1. w

      Smartphones
      Cloud computing
      Social media
      Internet of things

      Basically they’re putting the tools for spying and mass surveilance into people’s hands and lives and watching the experiment unfold, all the while selling people on the bells and whystles and youtube.

      Progressivism.

      So you have to back away. Resist.
      Do without.

      1. Tim in WI

        Yep, domestic surveillance, the alternative purpose stated in ruling after ruling, to assist law enforcement. But if you affect a police state dominated by popularity against disfavored groups it soon becomes a populist crap show. Precisely what we see today.

  2. MrT

    Registration and the quarterly/annual information updates/or change of info such as new job, or housing and the time frame that it must be completed, in my opinion is a forceful waiver of 5th amendment right. You are compelled to report your changes, and could subject you to further punishment for “failure to register.”
    Why should someone be compelled to provide statements against themself, if let’s say you didn’t report your change within the time limit?