The Economist on America’s Harsh & Indiscriminate Sex-Offender Laws
Yesterday I said I believe internet porn is fueled by old guys who are addicted to the new plethora of pornographic options. What’s worse, I think, is our collective cultural guilt for all that porn — that and how we sexualize, fetishize, and ogle our young people in advertising, movies, and on television — has us criminalizing kids for those very same things we did when we were young.
We blame them and want to lock them up for our own sins of desire. Kids don’t need us to leer at them; what they need is for us to talk to them. And they certainly don’t need us to criminalize them because we are afraid of either our desire or theirs. America’s sex-offender laws are unjust. Most especially, for our young people:
How dangerous are the people on the registries? A state review of one sample in Georgia found that two-thirds of them posed little risk. For example, Janet Allison was found guilty of being “party to the crime of child molestation” because she let her 15-year-old daughter have sex with a boyfriend. The young couple later married. But Ms Allison will spend the rest of her life publicly branded as a sex offender.
Several other countries have sex-offender registries, but these are typically held by the police and are hard to view. In America it takes only seconds to find out about a sex offender: some states have a “click to print” icon on their websites so that concerned citizens can put up posters with the offender’s mugshot on trees near his home. Small wonder most sex offenders report being harassed. A few have been murdered. Many are fired because someone at work has Googled them.
Registration is often just the start. Sometimes sex offenders are barred from living near places where children congregate. In Georgia no sex offender may live or work within 1,000 feet (300 metres) of a school, church, park, skating rink or swimming pool. In Miami an exclusion zone of 2,500 feet has helped create a camp of homeless offenders under a bridge.
Arguments for reform:
First, it is unfair to impose harsh penalties for small offences. Perhaps a third of American teenagers have sex before they are legally allowed to, and a staggering number have shared revealing photographs with each other. This is unwise, but hardly a reason for the law to ruin their lives. Second, America’s sex laws often punish not only the offender, but also his family. If a man who once slept with his 15-year-old girlfriend is barred for ever from taking his own children to a playground, those children suffer.
Third, harsh laws often do little to protect the innocent. The police complain that having so many petty sex offenders on registries makes it hard to keep track of the truly dangerous ones. Cash that might be spent on treating sex offenders—which sometimes works—is spent on huge indiscriminate registries. Public registers drive serious offenders underground, which makes them harder to track and more likely to reoffend. And registers give parents a false sense of security: most sex offenders are never even reported, let alone convicted.
I’m all for locking up real sex-offenders. But registries don’t work and all of the resources we waste on them could better be spent addressing those real offenders who are out there.
29 Responses to “The Economist on America’s Harsh & Indiscriminate Sex-Offender Laws”
The fact is, very few *ex offenders are REAL pedophiles. Get the facts about *ex offenders @ http://www.oncefallen.com
How else can we prevent people from committing larger offenses? Now that the filthy disgusting perverts are in jail for the next ten years we can sleep well at night until they are released.
Those are tax dollars well spent, unlike those that we would spend educating those people or giving them ObamaCare.
The registries are good ideas when it comes to real offenders. Rapists, serious paedophiles, as in those who actually molest children, and do so for pathological reasons, and the like, those can be exposed to registries, but you are right, we overdo the sex offender registries.
Test
there's far more story to this old case. the mother was convicted of being an accessory to statutory rape after allowing her seriously underage daughter to bring home various men (older than she) and have sex with them with no intervention from the mother. This went on until the young girl became pregnant by one of the many man. There was a shotgun marriage, and they parted soon after.
The mother could have been charged with felony child neglect and endangerment, and sent to prison for a while. But who would have taken care of the newborn… the young mother not being old enough to handle it all?
To reduce this incident to 'kids want to have sex,' and adults who condone it in minors without care for their children's health or outcome of pregnancy, is just ok…. that seems shortsighted, especially for the innocent babies that come from such… to people who are in no way wanting a child, and in no way are prepared to cherish the child and one another.
The lead in to the article seems to be about criminalizing kids. But, the example is about an adult who failed to protect an underage child to the best of her ability. To sanction others having sex with her underage daughter, rather than intervene
as the mother of three daughters, I can guarantee most parents who have young daughters or young sons would not have sanctioned such by older men or women coming into the house to have sex with one's offspring.
Likely alot of us if in similar intrusion, might have gone to prison, but not for neglect of our children, but rather for assaulting the interlopers.
Also, as a PI, I can assure that police officers and oversight offices do not get worn out looking after 'so many' sex offenders … they definitely have their eyes on the ones convicted of the most serious crimes, but also on those who have made their forays in lesser ways, as serious sex offenders also often began as moderate offenders and progressively became more and more criminally intrusive.
I wont go further than mentioning that we can be realistic about sexual activity in offspring, but also, there are other considerations besides 'desire'… and that is, many parents understanding their roles too as sheltering their children's futures, their being able to gain education, learn the world, before they have children so very young.
To teach children well, “desire” cannot be divorced from meaning, nor the fact that babies come to people, even with condoms, even with bc pills, even with wearing armor.
This is just my two cents worth. Thanks Joe for giving us a chance to think about these matters.
dr.e
P.S. Have marked as spam from below your article Joe, the 7 twitters to porn sites that were somehow attracted to your article.
archangel,
Outrageous Injustice
Georgia Supreme Court Frees Man in Sex Case
Only after two years and ten months, it'll teach the little pervert to have oral sex with women two years younger than he is…
archangel,
Outrageous Injustice
When he was a senior in high school, he received oral sex from a 10th grader. He was 17. She was 15. Everyone, including the girl and the prosecution, agreed she initiated the act. But because of an archaic Georgia law, it was a misdemeanor for teenagers less than three years apart to have sexual intercourse, but a felony for the same kids to have oral sex.
Two years and ten months in the big house, it 'll teach the little pervert not to let a woman two years younger than him perform oral sex on him…
Well, before the wife died, sex was about 5% of that which was important in my life. Now it is far more important but I can't stay awake long enough to do anything about it. I'm not sure how, if at all, this relates to your article here Joe. Uh….oh well….zzzzz
dr. e. – I must respectfully disagree on this one. While Joe may have used an inapt example, there are many situations where sex offender status is inappropriately apllied, branding people for life. And, yes people do get fired when exposed (not for lying…the question is often not on an employment application, and most non-union employees are employed “at will” meaning they can be fired at any time for no reason whatsoever), are denied credit, are restricted in their ability to conduct business and denied access to housing, often for very minor indiscetions.
To understand the problem with sex offender status and registries, we must first accept that a significant percentage of registered sex offenders are not child molesters or rapists. A few examples might help. Two consenting adults have sex outdoors, say in the woods, or in a car. Public Indecency…lifelong sex offender status. Another example (an actual situation): an underage girl (16) has dated a boy for over a year. He turns 18, and they continue to have sex. Statutory rape…lifelong sex offender status. The final example I will cite here is high school and college students “sexting” each other. While deplorable and self debasing, it should not be the stuff of which permanent sex offender status is made…but it is.
Nothing here is meant to condone underage pregnancy, child molestation or sexual assault. Just the opposite. I believe we need to make clear distinctons between serious problems and less serious mistakes in judgment so that we can better address the serious problems while having the grace forgive momentary lapses in judgment or youthful overexuberance.
The rush to declare anyone who engages in some momentary libertine indiscretion a “sex offender” and subject him/her to lifelong discrimination presents too puritanical a face, and makes it more difficult to sift out serious offenders (who should be registered) from minor pecadillos. In our zeal to punish and expose the truly dangerous we have cast the net so wide that we ensnare many who present no danger. We should have the discretion to separate the two.
The final example I will cite here is high school and college students “sexting” each other. While deplorable and self debasing…
Really?? Deplorable?? Self-debaing?? I see it as neither. I see it as healthy.
Why are we so ashamed of images, pictures and actual nudity? Why do we pretend 16 – 18 year olds (and you added college students!) are not fully funtioning sexual adults, at least the vast majority.
AR – That you see sexting as “healthy”, not an uncommon view though one with which I disagree, is all the more reason it should not lead to permanent sex offender status. This issue was taken up recently by the legislature in, I believe, Vermont.
We do have many different views of sexual morality in our society. You and I represent two. One of the problems, which you help identify, is that sex offender status and registration often work to impose a particular (I call it puritanical) moral imperative on those who may, like you, have a dfferent view of what is immoral as opposed to healthy.
BTW, my view of sexting has much to do with potential repercussions…photos being shared with unintended audiences or photos coming back to embarass someone later in life. For that reason alone I would regard it as unwise. I concede that “deplorable” may have been too strong a descriptor at least for those are legally adults, though I stand by “self debasing” knowing full well that you disagree.
tidbits -
I am at a loss for words. A fair, reasonable reply that states your position, acknowledges our differences, and does not denigrate mine.
Thank you.
btw – the argument you put forth, IMO, supports calling sexting unwise, and that indeed it is, as is any method of distributing nude photos to a wider audience than the individuals.
But sexting itself cannot be self-debasing, unless you are of the opinion that any nude photography is self-debasing, and is done only by those who are not really comfortable with it. After all, the term goes to the state of mind of the individual. Perhaps simply debasing describes your opinion, as that references your state of mind about that action, not the participant.
Food for thought.
The real irony here is that while we're putting sex offender status on teenagers sending naughty pictures to each other, rape is one of the most underprosecuted, underconvicted, and undersentenced crimes out there. How many times have we (collectively) scolded a teenager or young woman for “getting herself raped” by wearing a low cut top or having a drink at a party? We live in a culture that believes the rapists over the victims — almost pathalogically, blames the victims for living their lives in such a way that they might “get raped”, and often refers to what can only be called rape as “sex”, yet we're so afraid of consensual sexual activity among young people that we want to criminalize it? Such a backward set of priorities.
Can anyone name a politician that would take the risk of “correcting” the way we register sex offenders?
It is political suicide.
When I was a teenager, a kid down the street was convicted of rape because he had sex with his girlfriend…it was the situation that tidbits mentioned. He had to put a sign in his front yard, actually his parents, stating that a sex offender lived in the home. The guy was only a senior in highschool.
Terrible situation…..that will happen again….and no one will change the law.
You'd have to state the law in each state.They are all different. Also interesting to see if case of person forced to put a sign in his yard, actually stood up on appeal. I'd say it didnt. But, the state law will dictate. Frustrating to discuss this, for no one links to actual cases that can be read.
I think Tidbits, we'd have to review the state law and city ordinances and know the facts of the case more than merely on the face of it, before anyone could determine the gravity of the situation. As in the example that Joe W gave above, the story has far far more story to it; pages more. That case, as presented, cannot be discussed with any depth as merely a girl had sex, got pregnant, married the father of the child. Too many of the actual facts are missing.
I agree with you that petty matters among teens ought not be given colossal consequences. And, in discussion, I think, legally one also has to add in, accdg to each state/ jurisdiction, what parental rights exist for the underage, and what parental duty to protect laws are written.
It seems that moderating such laws (which would likely have to change parental repsonsibilities re colluding with underage anything currently outside the law… could not easily occur w states' rights intact, and 'community' input varying so very much in this world…
Seems it would have to be a state by state, even city by city issue.
dr.e
tidbits, also the issue you bring up about 'at will' employment is interesting. It would be interesting to look at a legal brief on such a case of being fired for having been convicted. In the state I live in, state D.O.R.A for licensure, state hires, and employers hiring not sub rosa have forms that ask if an applicant has a misdemeanor or felony conviction, and for what, and asks a set-aside for an explanation of how it all worked out. It would be useful to look at a case of disclosure/non-disclosure, and to see if that, in some jurisdictions is adequate or not adequate bar to let a person go from work. Do you know of such a court case off the top of your head?
dr.e
dr. e. – You touch on a very important point, and there are additional variants. Most of these laws are state by state. There is no uniform national criteria by which sex offender is defined or registry required. Because of this there is considerable difference in registry requirements among the 50 states. Without going state by state to the various legislatures, only the US Supreme Court could clarify or limit these laws. As Shannonlee pointed out above, politicians are loathe to touch this issue.
The sub-point to your observation is that state laws are locally enforced. That includes local police and local prosecutors. There is considerable discretion at that level. The local officer, in a minor case, has the discretion to arrest or cite for, say, disorderly conduct, not carrying sex offender status, or for an offense that carries sex offender status. Similarly the local prosecutor can indict or charge in many different ways, and, surprisingly, in some jurisdictions prosecutors can cut pleas where a person pleads to a sexually related offense pursuant to an agreement that he/she will not be required to register as a sex offender.
It is a sad comment, but the truth is that it is often the poor, the culturally oppressed and the poorly represented (or unrepresented) who are most likely to be hit the hardest on this score in the legal system. As an example, what is the likely difference between the reaction to, and treatment of, an affluent Anglo urinating on a public golf course and a Latino laborer urinating in a park?
I entirely agree with your comments on parental responsibility laws and variances in community standards.
Geez, dr. e. Now you want me to do heavy duty research to find an employment case based on being fired for being a registered sex offender? I don't work that hard in my day job.
To your point though: 1) most sex offenders would not sue over a firing because of the embarassment and jury bias they would face, 2) there is a substantial difference between union jobs, government jobs, jobs for large corporations, and the kind of jobs many registered sex offenders would seek like the local gas station, car wash, sales position or the like, and 3) in “at will” employment, the employer need not give the reason for the firing.
Now, on to the slavish assignment of trying to find a published case on the issue.
According to Allyson Taylor, executive director of the TX licensed sex offender treatment providers only about 5000 of the 56000 registered sex offenders in TX are truly dangerous. How does anyone know the difference and why are my tax dollars going to pay to prison, monitor and keep up with people that are not dangerous and ones that are only prosecuted due to age of consent.
tidbits, I'm at work days, but if you want to find a case, suggest ACLU. Seems a case about wrongful employer action would be in keeping with their mission. I just read decision the other day of a person who was fired for wearing insignia and proselytizing neo-Nazi ideas at work. Court found for plaintiff. It was an ACLU case.
dr.e
Archangel – OK, between conference calls and meetings, I found something related, though not entirely on point. It is a disciplinary proceeding, about whether a lawyer should be disbarred for a conviction involving registered sex offender status. 2008-NY-1231.159, In the Matter of Lever, 2008 NY Slip Op 10230, decided December 30, 2008. In this case, attorney ended up being suspended three years, or potentially longer, with the dissent arguing for disbarment. The underlying offense involved an internet chat room with a police officer posing as an underage girl with an attempt to meet, but no actual sexual contact.
Researching Fed & most major states' case law, there is nothing I found quickly that was directly on point…contesting termination of employment based on sex offender status, but the above case does impact employment or employability…admittedly within a unique context.
Could you read this site
http://estrinyefim.newsvine.com
Tidbits, send me a link privately and I'll look at it. Im interested too if you come across them, any final decisions by the courts on agism. That's one that seems an entirely innocent 'crime' many seem to be fired or dismissed from work over. Very difficult to prove, but imagine we'll see more cases as such that may be defining for the first time over past precedents.
dr.e
Dear fima, re your link shortly above this comment, usually Joe Windish would have been commenting on this, but I think he is away for a bit. I would just point out for our readers that your link is to Newsvine which is a 'citizen blog' where anyone can post news they've heard of or seen. This particular link points to a state legislator wanting green license plates for sex offenders. Which begs sanity, I would think. But, community standards may be at work, which are way different, way way… than state or fed standards.
Thanks fima.
dr.e
Assistant Editor, The Moderate Voice
The real tragedy is that our country has a growing number of District Attorneys prosecuting cases with insane legal outcomes, especially in alleged consensual sex cases. What is most disturbing as a parent and concerned citizen is that prosecutors are able mask gender and other unlawful biases under “broad prosecutorial discretion”, which shields these unlawful practices during judicial review and prevents public knowledge and/or scrutiny.
As a tragic result, there is now an alarming increase in the number of prosecutions across the U.S. where, but for their age, an otherwise innocent boy/teen/young man faces a life of ruin and potential life-time registration as a sex offender (Commonwealth vs Bernardo B.). Then, adding insult to injury, there are no legal consequences for the girls and/or girl’s parents for their equally illegal acts and heinous character assassinating complaints, even when the allegations are proven false (Commonwealth vs. Jeffrey Witham and State of Tennessee vs. Corey Dehart).
This reverse gender bias is neither new nor unknown to the highest courts in our country as many states have commissioned studies to recommend corrective action to this unlawful gender biased practice. Throughout these numerous reports the workings of bias are illustrated in statistical data, expert testimony, and first-hand accounts (Gender Bias Study of the Court System in Massachusetts, 1998).
The Massachusetts report stated “Gender bias exists in many forms throughout the court system. Sexist language and behavior are still common, despite an increased understanding that these practices are wrong. Beyond these overt signs of bias, many practices and procedures exist that may not appear motivated by bias but nonetheless produce biased results.”
An article published in the May/June 2009 Boston Bar Journal included a lengthy discussion of two gender biased cases recently decided in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the United States Supreme Court. The article states these decisions, “permit some assessment of the extent to which judicial decisions today reflect a conscious and sophisticated consideration of societal assumptions about gender on the application of the law.”
At least in Bernardo B. the SJC majority demonstrated some sense of reasonableness. However, the fact that juvenile boys are being charged in consensual sex cases and not the girls, is a clear gender based discrimination and a failure of the legal system to protect the boys’ constitutional rights and provide equal justice.
How many of our young boys and teens will we allow to be incarcerated, subjected to barbaric and abusive treatment (see Plethysmographs, Masturbatory Satiation, Arousal Reconditioning, Cognitive Restructuring of juveniles) and then forced to register as Sex Offenders for the rest of their lives before we bring an end to this insanity?
The current and potential legislation regarding this entire subject is seriously lacking any real protection of our children from violent predatory sex offenders. In fact more and more underage children are the ones who are being prosecuted and convicted at an alarming rate under the very laws enacted to 'protect them.' “
jamesregal — Absolutely! Just chalk it up to another case of “The Patriarchy Hurts Men Too”.
just came back from store and noticed the August Issue of the Economist has a cover story on exactly this topic. I think it says something to the effect of overfinding sex offenses. You might want to look at it next time if you have further interest. I wasnt able to read the article, just glance, but it is several pages long.
thanks
dr.e