The Complications of the Sex Offender Registry

Damon Talbot

Composition 2

Shayler White
 Many persons have heard of the Sex Offender Registry, sometimes referred to as
Megan’s Law. The laws require that convicted sexual offenders register with the state their home
location and job; they also have many other strict rules they must adhere to and follow.
Generally the public at large is all for the registry as a measure to protect children, and others
from possible sexual assaults. The concern though is from the other side; the sexual offenders
who must comply with these laws and all of the attached rules. Many of these stipulations make
it almost impossible for a registered person to even live or function as a productive part of
society. Another factor is the broad definition of crimes that require an offender to register. In
many cases a person that must register may not be a true threat to the community these include
cases that include juvenile offenders, minor and nonviolent offenses. While the Sex Offender
Registry is good in thought it must undergo a strong review and many possible adjustments.
States need to look at the effectiveness and complications of these laws and use this information
to change them making the community safer.

Many people do not know what a large problem we have in this country with sex
offenders. It was reported in 2008 over 1.25 million registered offenders nationwide, this
includes over 6 thousand in Utah alone (Family Watchdog, 2008). This number does not include
those that failed to register which is one of the issues with the registry. What this number does
include however are those persons that are not truly a threat to society.

“One of the problems with sex offender notification is that it only

creates an illusion of safety. There is no evidence to suggest that
notification is effective in reducing sex offense recidivism. In 1995,
Washington State conducted the only study in which the recidivism rates
of released sex offenders were compared. Half of those tracked were the
subject of notification and half were not. The results showed no difference
in recidivism rates for sex offenses between the two groups” (Jacobs,
2003)

So knowing the numbers and statistics of convicted sexual offenders can lead to a false
sense of security. It lumps together those that are not a threat, while at the same time leaving out
those unregistered, and persons that have never been caught or convicted. The lack of details
within the registry leave parents and the rest of the public just guessing as to what the crimes
may have been, who is really a threat, and thinking that the registry has everyone that could be
harmful listed. State and Federal laws regarding the sex offender registry need to be reviewed.
Some of the first changes should be to detail what the convictions were. This will allow the
public to better understand if a registered offender is truly a threat. The public also needs to be
more aware that the registry is not a full list of threats in their neighborhoods. They need to be
ready to stay safe even when not near a location a convicted offender may live.

The next issues all have to do with the registered offenders themselves. One thing that
many in the public never think about is how being labeled on this list can completely disrupt
your life and in many cases your rehabilitation into society. The first affect can be on the family
of the offender, and not necessarily themselves. According to Farkus and Miller (2007) family
members often report persistent feelings of hopelessness, depression, and frustration as they
adjusted to life with a registered sex offender. In many cases, a family member's decision to
maintain contact with the offender led to hostility and disengagement from other relatives,
leaving the family member feeling alone and isolated. Many reported that housing and
employment disruptions, often caused by limitations imposed by the offender's probation or
registration status, resulted in economic hardships for the entire family. As well, close scrutiny
and perceived intrusion from parole or law enforcement agents were viewed as an invasion of
privacy, and public notification procedures often generated an enormous sense of shame and
stigma. Many family members discussed feeling "overwhelmed and demoralized" (Farkus,
2007). As you can see the offender is not the only person who is affected by being on the sex
offender registry.

These affects are not only wrong for the offender but to their families and friends as well.
It can outcast them within society and cause issues for everyone that the registered person may
associate with. Punishing an entire group of people for a single crime committed by one
individual is not right. The laws need to add protections, and other actions that will better protect
the families of these offenders. Counseling and openness of the parole system with the families is
vital to helping them understand the needs and issues on a case by case basis.
 Now let’s start to look at the affects the sex offender registry has on the registered person
themselves. These issues include where to live, ability to get a job and be productive in society,
and being outcast by friends, and the public in general. The hardest issue facing a registered sex
offender is locating a place to live. Most all sex offender laws have very strict rules on where
you can, and cannot live. These restrictions usually include a specific distance that you must
keep from schools, parks, and other facilities where children may be present. The distance
required can be anything from 55 to 2500 feet. Some States include laws that even prohibit
loitering at any location. These restrictions can make it difficult if not impossible for a registered
offender to find a place to live. Not having permanent housing can also lead to many further
problems.

“The inability of convicted sex offenders to find housing when they are
released from prison has become a significant barrier to their successful
reintegration into society. This is particularly problematic for registrants who
have limited resources, or for those who because of work, community, or family
obligations want to live in particular locations. Residency restrictions prevent
offenders from living in the areas closest to jobs and public transit, since schools,
daycare centers, and parks are often built in the center of main residential areas of
cities and towns” (Human Right Watch, 2007, p. 102).

Human Rights Watch also looked at a few case stories that depicted some of the issues
with housing. Mentioned were the stories of a man who could not even stay at a homeless shelter
do to his registered offender status. Another account was of someone that could not stay with
family because they lived within 1000ft of a school bus stop. This created a situation where they
could not live with their family and have support. They were forced to live miles away and even
became homeless for some time (Human Right Watch, 2007). So how can someone become a
productive member of society when they cannot even find a place to live? This is an issue that
these laws need to address. Forcing a person away from family, work and in some cases even the
required treatment is just another failure in the system that can lead to future problems. While the
restrictions are in good faith the practicality of them does not function in the real world.
 In Florida an even more concerning situation has arisen. The Sherriff of Hillsborough
County will not allow any registered offenders in emergency shelters. “If a hurricane blows
through, don't plan on going to one of the county-operated shelters for refuge. Make other
arrangements.” Said Sherriff David Gee (Van Sickler, 2005). So even in a time of possible life
threatening hurricane these registered offenders will have to try and survive on their own. This
could end up being a death sentence after the offender has already served their debt to society.
Laws such as this need to be quickly reviewed and changed before someone is injured, dies or
faces other consequences they never were sentenced too. The possibility of this also could lead to
litigation by the offender or family that could cost the city, county, or state thousands of dollars.

Almost every State has some type of residency restriction for registered offenders. By
restricting where offenders can live it has created unforeseen issues of pushing them away from
their jobs, treatment, families, and communities. Another affect the restrictions have had is to
force the offenders underground. By law they have to report where they live; however if they
cannot find a location then they become homeless and have no address to report. Without an
address to register at registered offenders then become unable to be located. All of the residency
laws are so complex and varied by city, county and state that offenders could also be breaking
the laws without even knowing it. In one city you may be allowed to visit a park, while in just
the town next door it may land you in jail with a violation that could possibly lead the offender
back to prison.

In a related issue are employment opportunities for those that are registered sex
offenders. Many offenders may find it difficult to locate a job within the community due to the
restrictions state laws have on offenders. They may also have difficulties locating a job
opportunity that does not conflict with the discussed residency and location laws. Even the
lowest blue collar construction jobs could be out of reach due to the fact they are nomadic by
nature and could have work in a restricted area, and also do not provide a stable location to be
checked by the parole and probation officers. Some of the restrictions include inability to work
anywhere that may serve or have children as patrons. This type of restriction can severely limit
the possibilities in employment in a retail, or service type of industry. Another complication can
be that of the community reaction to a business that employs a registered sex offender.
 Structured, full-time employment is a cornerstone of nearly all community
supervision programs for offenders, especially for sex offenders. Most offenders
who are released into the community after their conviction are required to find
and maintain suitable work. However, acquiring appropriate employment for sex
offenders presents formidable obstacles. Many employers are reluctant to hire sex
offenders because of the stigma that follows them, and most sex offenders are
restricted by special conditions of their supervision (Center for Sex Offender
Management, 2002, p. 1)

The inability to find gainful employment can lead to homelessness, depression, and the
offender returning to jail for failing to comply with the terms and rules of the registry. It further
burdens the community that has to support a person who wants to, but is unable to find a steady
job due to the sexual offender status. Without gainful employment the offender is more likely to
need welfare, housing, and even medical expenses all covered by the taxpayer. The laws need to
be closely monitored and changed to better the community and give the offender a chance to
become a productive member of society.

The next issue is that of offenders who likely not any threat to society are. The best
example of this would be that of child and teenage offenders. These offenders can be classified
into two distinct groups; Children that committed a sexual act without maturity to understand
their actions, and that of teenagers that have had a consensual sexual relationship. A third
category is that of those acting within the age of consent laws but still of adult age.

With children it is incomprehensible that the sex offender registry laws even apply. As a
child one has not yet matured enough to fully understand their actions. Also during this age a
child is just learning about their own bodies, feelings, and sexuality. However a report done by
the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics showed that Juveniles age 7 to 17
make up 23.2% of the total sexual offender population (Snyder, 2002). These children may not
fully understand their actions though. Human Rights Watch spoke with a young woman, Sharon
D., now 23, who was convicted in Michigan of fondling her sister when Sharon was 10 and her
sister was four. “I didn’t really understand sex then, or what it meant to be sexually appropriate
with someone, to respect their boundaries. I made a mistake, but it was a child’s mistake, not an
adult’s mistake, and I think the distinction matters.” (Human Right Watch, 2007, p. 68). In
Michigan in 2002 over 600 parents lobbied to restrict registration to the most dangerous felons. The
parents claim their children should be exempt from the 25-year registration requirement because
their crimes involved sex with cooperating juveniles. A bill in the House would allow juveniles
to petition the court to be removed from the registry, which lists 2,000 youths among its 23,900
offenders (Anonymous, 2002).

Consensual sexual relations between two teenagers are yet another problem with the
sexual offender registry laws. Many juveniles may experiment sexually with each other as part of
the natural maturing process. With the current sex offender registration laws even these youths
could be required to register for many years, or even life. There are “Romeo and Juliet” and Age
of Consent laws in many States however these still may allow for these actions to be tried as
crimes and convicted. Human Rights Watch talked to a few persons who have been adversely
affected by these laws. For example, in Georgia, a 26-year-old married woman was made to
register as a sex offender for life and had to move from her home because it falls within an area
in which sex offenders are prohibited from living, because as a teenager she had oral sex with a
willing fellow high school student when she was 17 and he was 15 (Human Right Watch, 2007)
and in another example one individual who was convicted of statutory rape at age 16 for having
consensual sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend told Human Rights Watch, “We were in love. And
now we are married. So it’s like I am on the registry for having premarital sex. Does having
premarital sex make me a danger to society? My wife doesn’t think so.” (Human Right Watch,
2007, p. 77). So as you can see some of the people who must register by law are not really any
threat to society at all.

Another argument against the sex offender registry laws with youths is that juvenile
records are supposed to be sealed. The registry trumps the expectation of privacy in regard to a
person’s juvenile record. A case study relayed by Human Rights watch explains how a young
man convicted of statutory rape for having consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend when
he was 17. Later when he attended college he was removed from the baseball team due to being
a felon, even though his records had been adjudicated and there was no criminal record. The
coach and athletic director were made aware of his conviction by an officer who was doing a
check on him due to being on the sex offender registry (Human Right Watch, 2007).
 In regards to juveniles state and federal governments need to take a very critical look at
how to handle these cases. Many of these cases lead to a lifetime of difficulties for actions that at
the time may have been innocently taken. These laws also do not respect the right to privacy that
in most all other cases are held for a juvenile offender. Juveniles should not be listed on the sex
offender registry while they are still underage, they also should not be held accountable to the
registry for an entire lifetime based on an event occurring during the growing and maturing
process.

One of the worst consequences of the sex offender registry is that of the registered
individual themselves. Being listed as a sexual offender can create many problems to the person
on a very personal level. The registered person can be faced with vigilante violence by persons
that find them to be registered. “Neighbors as well as strangers harass, intimidate and physically
assault people who have committed sex offenses, at least four registered sex offenders have been
killed” (Human Right Watch, 2007, p. 86). Human Rights Watch also states “Community
members have used the notification information they have been provided about registered sex
offenders in their area to both discourage sex offenders from moving into their neighborhoods,
and to encourage those who already live there to leave. By far the most common tactic has been
to print information from the internet about sex offenders and post copies of these printouts
throughout the neighborhood (Human Right Watch, 2007, p. 93).

Having such in depth information about persons available online creates a very real
privacy issue. While it is quite unreasonable for adult offenders for juveniles it can be
devastating to the rest of their lives. Information such as pictures, address, and even car make
and model can create the offender into a target for vigilantes.

Offenders can also have problems of their own. These problems can include depression,
anxiety, and a feeling of despair. The ongoing stress of following up with the various rules and
laws, not finding work or suitable housing, and torments by the community to themselves and
family can be overwhelming. The ongoing troubles can even lead to suicide. In one case in
Florida a man listed on the sex offender registry started to get accosted by signs being placed
around his home. He reported the incident to the police but was found dead from apparent
suicide the next morning (Human Right Watch, 2007).
 In some countries even more extreme sentences have been carried out. In a few European
countries they have adopted the policy to use chemical castration to reduce the chances of
reoffending. While not prevalent in the U.S. some states also have looked at this as another form
of punishment for sexual offenders. California and Florida have passed laws requiring that
paroles that have had multiple sex offense convictions must be on a regimen of antiandrogen
drugs which lower the testosterone and lower the sexual urges in the offender (Petrunik M.,
2008).

There are many different changes that could be made by state and federal law to better
the sex offender registry program. Many of the issues addressed could be solved by taking cases
on a one by one basis. Painting all offenders with such a broad brush does not fit the needs of the
offender, victims, or communities. Many people believe that the sex offender registry laws are
the best solution to a growing problem. While in many cases this may be true, the overuse and
broad nature as discussed could set up major failures. Labeling even the most minor offenders
for life could end up giving a discredit to the registry and create a situation where people just do
not take the registry as serious as it should be.

Some states have already implemented changes that do strike a balance between public
safety and the rights of the offender after they have served their time. Items such as notifying
only the victims and local law enforcement of the offender being released back into society. In
Utah registered offenders must renew their license or identification card each year; this helps to
monitor where they offender is living, and also allows those with a need to check the
identification to know the sexual offender statue by having a one year expiration date.

If there is to be a public sexual offender registry it must come with education. Just
posting a person’s name, address, and personal information without being clear of the threat is
unfair to society and the offender as well. Overall these registries need to be changed to be used
on a more case by case basis. Identify the threat, find a solution that fits everyone’s needs and
work directly with the people involved to create a situation where everyone is safe, but still can
live their life and become a productive member of society.
 References

Anonymous. (2002). Young sex offenders push to get off list. Crime Control Digest, 36(22) , 6.

Center for Sex Offender Management. (2002). Time to Work: Managing the Employment of Sex
Offenders Under Community Supervision. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Family Watchdog. (2008). Offender counts. Retrieved June 10, 2009, from Family Watchdog:
http://www.familywatchdog.us/

Farkus, M. &. (2007). Reentry and Reintegration: Challenges Faced by the Families of Convicted Sex
Offenders. Federal Sentencing Reporter , 20(2), 88-92.

Human Right Watch. (2007). No easy answers: Sex offender laws in America. Human Rights Watch ,
Volume 19, No. 4(G).

Jacobs, D. (2003). Why sex offender notification won't keep our children safe. Corrections Today , 65(1),
22.

Petrunik M., M. L. (2008). American and Canadian Approaches to Sex Offenders :A Study of the Politics
of Dangerousness. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 21(2) , 111-123.

Snyder, H. (2002). Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident,
and Offender Characteristics. Washington D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Van Sickler, S. (2005, June 16). Hillsborough shelters shut out sex offenders. St. Petersburg Times .