Limits of Sex Offender Alert Programs Exposed
I am a long-time critic of sex-offender registries (see, most recently, here). Part of the problem is we’re too quick to use the sex-offender label — an estimated 674,000 people appear on registries across the country — diluting its efficacy. Another is that even with registries we are too often too trusting to recognize the wolf at the door.
But the bottom line is sex-offender registries don’t work. And the Phillip Garrido case clearly demonstrates the limits of sex offender alert programs:
Mr. Garrido, who had been convicted of kidnapping and rape in the 1970s, was listed, as required, on California’s sex-offender registry (complete with a description of the surgical scar on his abdomen and his 196-pound weight) and had dutifully checked in with the local authorities each year for the past decade — all while, officials say, his victim and the two children he is accused of fathering with her were living in his backyard.
Sex offender lists have made far more information readily available to the public and the police than before, but experts say little research is available to suggest that the registries have actually discouraged offenders from committing new crimes.
Ernie Allen, the president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, is quoted saying, “let’s at least make sure they’re not working in your elementary school or coaching the soccer team.” I’m not so sure we need registries to prevent that. And it’s setting the bar far too low:
If anything, Mr. Garrido was getting far more attention than the average offender listed on a state registry.
For years and until his arrest last week, he was on parole from the earlier kidnapping and rape in Nevada, and, California authorities said, met several times a month with a parole officer and wore a GPS device that tracked his whereabouts. Three years ago, he was visited by a sheriff’s deputy after a neighbor complained that he had a “sexual addiction” and that children were living in his yard. [...]
Mr. Garrido’s case has also renewed concern that policies regulating offenders may inadvertently be driving them to live in more remote, out-of-the-way places, where crimes can go unnoticed. Nine other registered sex offenders live within a mile of Mr. Garrido’s home on the outskirts of Antioch, in a dusty neighborhood on the outer reaches of the Bay Area… at least one neighbor said the unincorporated area was “loaded” with offenders, in part because no schools are around, meeting the current rules.
RELATED: The WaPo’s Charles Lane looks at how Phillip Garrido got out of prison in 1988. He concludes that “if today’s rules had been in force on the morning of June 10, 1991, as Jaycee Lee Dugard scurried off to catch the school bus in South Lake Tahoe, California, Phillip Garrido might well have been safely behind bars.”
opinions powered by SendLove.to
5 Responses to “Limits of Sex Offender Alert Programs Exposed”
It may be true that, if current guidelines were in place, that Phillip Garrido would have done eight more years and therefore Jaycee Lee Dugard would have been safe. But eight more years would not have changed him and it would have simply been someone else's daughter enslaved in his back yard. While that would be a great boon to the Dugard family, it is no victory from a societal view.
I, too, am a critic of sex offender registries. In some states, procuring a prostitute (or being a prostitute) can land a person on the registry list. While there may be some objections to prostitution, there is no logic link between being or procuring a prostitute and abusing children in any way. Clogging the registries with such lists means that there is less manpower to deal with offenders that are actually dangerous to the people around them.
However, it has to be noted that this man was on parole. Anyone on community supervision must agree to have their PO visit their home. Obviously, no one actually conducted a home visitation during the lengthy period of time when Dugard was in Phillips' home. This is actually not a rare problem, due in part to the large caseloads of POs. In short, it wasn't the registry that failed – Phillips was duly registered – and it wasn't the prison system that failed – they kept him until ordered to release him – it was the community supervision system that failed.
While it sounds like the sex-offender label is being applied too broadly, I'm not sure you can say sex-offender laws “don't work” based on the evidence you've given, which essentially is an anecdote and a link to a blog. The most you can say is in this case they didn't work.
Although I am a hippie progressive “do gooder” leftist I have often disagreed with many of my friends on this. Some people are simply to broken to fix and should be locked up for the rest of their lives. Hardly a day goes by that a pedophile or sex offender who has been released hurts someone again. In a recent case in my home town it was less than 24 hours after he was released.
I support sex offender registries, but agree that it's too broadly applied. It makes no sense for an 18 y/o who is convicted of stat. rape with a 16 y/o to be on the registry, or other various offenders such as those using prostitutes. Sex offender risk assessments are used in some places to determine placement on the registry, length of registration, etc. These assessments are time intensive and rather costly, and of course, not foolproof, but it can help the public and probation/parole officers understand the offenders and determine level of supervision when the offender is in the community. One other issue involves the tendency for sex offenders to start with misdemeanor crimes and work up to more serious ones. For example, exposing oneself is a misdemeanor in many states; I am familiar with research that suggests that individuals who expose themselves or window-peep repeatedly tend to escalate over time into physical victim contact, such as entering a home to assault a victim, which is clearly a felony. Yet, if misdemeanor exposure offenders are included on registries, we will end up with drunk people who are arrested for urinating in public being on registries….
All the attention given to registered sex offenders gives a distorted perception of the more likely perpetrators of sex crimes against children. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 93% of children who are victims of sexual abuse are victimized by family members or acquaintances. 94% of those arrested for the sexual molestation of children in New York State are first time offenders who are not listed on any registry. To put it another way, if a child has been the victim of sexual abuse, the odds are 4 in 1,000 that the child was victimized by a stranger who is a registered sex offender. The odds are far greater, 874 in 1,000, that the child was victimized by a family member or acquaintance who is not listed on the sex offender registry.
You better believe that sex offender registries give the public a false sense of security.