Sex offender residency restrictions: bad, bad public policy
By Sandy . . . Residency restrictions for persons required to register as sexual offenders are often enacted for no reason other than neighboring towns have implemented them. They spread like wildfire,
and like that destructive force, they wreak their own form of havoc, making it more and more difficult for registrants to find decent housing for themselves and their families. This, in turn, makes it more and more difficult for them to create the stability they need to become productive citizens, which, in reality, is what drives down recidivism.
The match that starts the blaze is the totally appropriate desire, a desire we all share, to protect children from sexual harm. Residency restrictions, however, are an inappropriate response to that desire. They are based on three assumptions that are contradicted by evidence:
Residency restrictions assume most child sexual abuse is committed by strangers, when in reality 94 % or higher of cases involve someone known to the child.
The percentage of situations in which a prior relationship exists between an abuser and a child victim varies dependent on the age of
the victim. A study done by the Office of Juvenile Justice found that for very young children, family members and close acquaintances comprise close to 100% of their offenders while for teens, those categories make up 94.3%. The U.S. Department of Justice, in a mega study, found that overall, 90% of the offenders of children and teens were either family members or trusted acquaintances (p.10).
The policies presume offenders choose victims based on residential proximity, which is not supported by research.
Residency restrictions create zones around schools, daycare facilities, and often parks. A two-state study, Michigan and Missouri, did not support the mistaken theory that living close to one of these was a factor in repeat sexual offenses against children. Another study examining several states found that, in Florida, “There was no significant relationship between reoffending and proximity to schools or daycares.”
Residency restrictions assume that most sexual abuse is committed by repeat offenders, which research shows to be inaccurate.
On average, a significant majority of registered sex offenders are one-time, first-time-convicted offenders. A study in New York found that “. . . over 95% of all sexual offense arrests were committed by first-time sex offenders, casting doubt on the ability of laws that target repeat offenders to meaningfully reduce sexual offending,” and a study from the university of Tennessee had very similar findings. They report, “Another factor constraining [sex offender registries’] effectiveness is that past studies have shown that … ‘94.1% of those arrested for child molestation were first-time sex offenders.’ ”
Restrictions often force offenders away from support systems, treatment, stable housing, and employment opportunities, which are crucial for successful reintegration. These are the elements associated with remaining offense-free. Some areas are so encompassed by residence restrictions that homelessness has escalated, especially in states where residency restrictions are aggressively implemented, such as Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi.
On the opposite end of the spectrum is the state of Kansas, who
actually has a page on their DOC website about why residency restrictions do not work and who passed legislation in 2006 prohibiting their jurisdictions from implementing them.
What drives down reoffense? Housing and employment stability; family and community connectedness. What makes those things difficult, sometimes impossible? Residency restrictions.
The choice should be easy.
Imagine trying to impose the affirmative restraint and disability residence restrictions without a public sex offender registry. The banishment would be much !more difficult to enforce. Nevertheless, the community banishment is another historical form of punishment and reflects the obfuscated original intent underpinning the use of the database driven regime in the first cause. The regime was plainly meant to impose additional bars upon the already convicted.
People,
The deal with the database driven infrastructure is the fact it, on the whole, is equally as dangerous to human liberty and civility independent of which trending ideology happens to be in charge if it. The DDI is a very powerful tool and indeed a serious threat to civility when it’s uses are left unchecked.
This is why it was so important NOT to begin with enslaving the citizenry to it’s ever incessant maintenance by law. The machines are properties, people are not. Many are proclaiming the end of democracy when maybe its the end of a republic. Maybe it’s the time when re:publica becomes re:machina.
And quite frankly by their own volition.