Reply To: PA state police arrests for sex offense registry infractions skyrocket


Understanding that the rate of recidivism of registered offenders (re-committing a sex offense) is lowest only to murder, it would be interesting to know how many registered offenders have been charged with violations involving the registry only. I suspect it’s high.

SCOTUS, in 2003, said the registry is not punitive but rather a form of civil regulation by the government with the “Intent” to protect the public. Setting aside the obvious rights violations for a moment, that any reasonable person interpretating the constitution would find ridiculous….how do any of these “Protect the public”?:

1) Charging registrants with “Civil penalties” for any of the myriad of ways one might violate a FTR statute; which often results in jail and/or prison time. Those high costs are passed to the public.
2) The time and money associated with our police departments to monitor a group of nearly 1 million citizens -that are very likely not to reoffend- for a plethra of non-violent, non-Sex offensive “Civil infractions”. And, of course the obvious costs and time that police could be solving real crimes.
3) The cost to the public homelessness, unemployable sect of society that ultimately ends in more costs to the public as a result that the registry imposes on 1 million of our nations citizens.
4) Finally, via governments continued enforcement and support of the registry, I would argue it is further putting the public at risk by promoting the false belief to the public that the registry is somehow protecting them, when most studies now show a sex offense is much more likely to be committed by someone close to the victim, and by someone not already on the registry.

I read an interesting statistic the other day. It stated that, acording to MADD, 2 out of 3 people are likely to be involved in a drunken driving crash in there lifetime; a near 70% chance. Seems high to me, but the lowest statistic I found indicated 1 out of 3 people would be (33%) involved in a drunk related crash. Meanwhile, where do I find the DUI convict registry that protects the public again?

Yet, apparently an estimated 3-5% recidivism rate of 1 million registered citizens justifies such a registry and argues its sole purpose is public protection; and in no way should its effects on the 1 million citizens be construed as unfair or punitive.

Constitutional violations aside, the registry is illogical, expensive, and ineffective when it comes to protecting the public. It’s simply an infinite punitive, shaming, non-evidence supported tool.