A Better Sex Offender Registry

Regardless of where a reader stands on the "issue," I love your ability to disarm everyone!

I praise AZ for such an amazing tool... we have great searches here but nothing as super advanced as that! ARPAIO doesn't play around, does he? :)

The recidivism rate is much lower than the public thinks, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Ignorant people and certain politicians and media deliberately mislead the public to serve their various interests.

Regarding the registries - many are listed for offenses that you may have committed when younger and just got lucky that you were never placed on a registry. For example, have you ever peed in a park or mooned a sports opponent? Or had sex with an underage girlfriend? Well, you'd be a sex offender.

Then there are those CHILDREN being listed for such things as playing doctor or the most outrageous of all: a 13 year old Utah girl forced to register for having sex with a 12 year old boy. Or the two teens who took pictures of each other, e mailed them and both forced to register as "sex" offenders.

So be very careful whom you label as a sex offender. Who knows, maybe one day you will do something that is rated as a "sex" offense, or maybe one of your children will.

Then it won't be quite so good to see YOUR or your children's mug on that registry, will it?

I say all this because society is truly ignorant to what is happening to members of society who are getting caught up in this insanity. Society thinks that child molesters are being listed. Well, yes they are, and anyone else the fascist states can rack up as having committed a "sex" offense. They do this because they receive additional funding if their registries are larger. It's a cynical game for additional funding.

Thanks for your insight Mica. No system is perfect. I for one have no desire to live near a child molester. And I see no point in protecting child molesters. I'd rather see too many people listed than none. But that's just one person's opinion.

I'm not an attorney, and I'm only familiar with Arizona statues regarding who is required to register as a sex offender. In Arizona, "Level 2" and "Level 3" offenders are required to register, not "Level 1". I think it's likely that those peeing in a park and mooning are Level 1 offenses and are not required to register. I highly doubt that a minor's photo and address would be posted on the registry site.

Can you provide a link that references how government entities get more funding if they artificially inflate their registries? I'd like to further educate myself on this subject.

RE: Can you provide a link that references how government entities get more funding if they artificially inflate their registries? I’d like to further educate myself on this subject.
This article will interest you. Dead people listed and infated registries = money for florida.
http://www.orlandoweekly.com/features/story.asp...

I just happened onto this site by accident and WOW, does it make for interesting reading.

For quite some time now I have thought that people's thinking has run away with them concerning this issue.

It would appear that all of those people sitting home looking at porn sites on their computers are the very ones throwing stones at others doing the same thing.

While I have never gone on a porn site I do know for a fact that several of our neighbors do so and have admitted it. It was a big joke at one of the "block parties" recently. They were trying to figure out if the kids they were looking at were underage or not. That sounded suspicious to me but I didn't call the police and turn them in.

I think people are reporting people for doing things that they themselves are doing when it comes to this issue and other forms of abuse (ie. spanking a child all of a sudden becomes child abuse).

Maybe we are going a bit to far with our finger pointing. Accusing someone of being a sex offender destroys their lives, no two ways about it. If they are guilty of contact with a child I say they should be punished, but for anything less I think we should think twice about punishment (prison).

These are just my thoughts and I don't expect many to agree with me in todays age. We seem to be accusing people of too many things today that are somewhat innocent.

Interesting that the female voices chime in this way; in my opinion, it's typically women on the witch hunt. Look, I check the registry monthly so I can show my children photos of who to steer clear of but they know not to be hateful or rude, just to avoid. That said, a friend of mine got arrested at a party at UT a few years back because at HIS house, the bathrooms were all full and he went to his back yard to pee in the bushes. The house was up the street from an elementary school and it was deemed that it was possible for a child to witness this "lewd conduct," thus he still has to register as a freakin' sex offender.

That said, it is still important to have a tracking system and I'm really proud of Arpaio- if only all of the nation participated accordingly, we'd have a much better time of this.

Thanks for chiming in, Carol! :)

The federal government and the states are spending God knows how many millions and billions of dollars maintaining these registries. But for all the length of time they have been in existence, I have yet to set any empirical data (not anecdotal) that they have made any difference in preventing additional sex offenses. I understand New Jersey, the state that started this crusade, was doing some study but nothing has come out in the media.

Having taken the time to educate myself on this issue - starting in July 2006 - I can say that I have yet to run across any study that shows that x number of women or children have not been victimized by the presence of the registries. However, I have seen plenty of evidence (alas mostly anecdotal) that ex offenders and their families have been harassed by people hoping to "protect" themselves.

So I don't support these registries. If you're going to have them, at least be intellectually honest and state that it's not for protection against registered sex offenders but rather to "name and shame" former offenders. Otherwise, why stop at sex offenders? Why not have all ex offenders (violent and property offenses) be listed for all the world to see? The recidivism rate for some property crimes is truly sky high, while recidivism rates for sex offenses is 5%-19%. And please don't insult my intelligence and all those who don't favor these registries by saying that sex offenses are somehow worse than other crimes. I would say that swindlers who steal peoples' fortunes, drunk drivers who kill, and murderers commit crimes that have lifelong consequences for their victims. Yet I have yet to see registries for these folks.

Interesting reading. In response to the last post...you can access the vine link for most states and check out your neighbors for such other criminal offences.....as to have they kill, harmed, scamed, sold drugs..ect....As to the registeded sex offender, they are worse because they harm innocent children and destroy the lives of they children. And also if you look at all the names it is not only men who offened. Just to question why do you seem to want to protect them?

Yama: Did you read my other posts? Here in California, anyone who has committed anything considered "indecent" or "sexual" is placed on Megan's List. Since this state has been registering people since 1947, there are lots of people and many whose offense was way back with nary an offense since. that means child molesters are listed and so is everyone else. Don't tell me that registered sex offenders are all child molesters because I know that isn't the case at all. I don't know about Arizona, but I do know that under the Adam Walsh Act, all "sex" offenses will be registerable, even if they were 50 years ago, like in California. Patently ridiculous, because the intent of Megan's Law is to protect the public from people who are likely to reoffend and create additional victims. But if their offense was decades ago, it's hard to argue that they are still dangerous.

Secondly, it's not a matter of "protecting" them (sex offenders) as being against a state or national registry which serves no other purpose than to villify a certain group of people based on past actions. Don't try to argue that it protects society because it does not. No registry can, and even though society thinks it's being protected, it's not. It's a false sense of security based on the idea that if you know where all the former offenders are, you can protect yourself.

Secondly, it brushes EVERY offender (whether they're tier 1, 2 or 3 as some states do) with the same broad brush: molester! It fails to distinguish between those who would re offend and those who made a one time mistake. It makes society think every offender is just waiting to snatch some child (a very popular media image) when that isn't the case at all.

Thirdly, it utterly fails to protect the innocent against more sexual attacks. Statistics by the U.S.Department of Justice show the greatest preponderance of fresh attacks are being committed by people NOT on the list. This is especially true for child victimizations, which are nine times out of 10 committed by a non registered person already around the child. This creates a situtation in which parents are anxiously scanning the Megan's Law site for former offenders who live nearby, while Uncle Joe or the babysitter is victimizing the child.

Fourth, it stigmatizes low risk and no risk former offenders who are unable to become productive members of society,while the true predators are hidden from public view by the low risk and no risk. For example, in many states, there is little differentiation between the 19 year old who had sex with the 17 year old and the 35 year old who had sex with the 12 year old. They're both child molestation.

I agree with Mica 100 percent! My son was convicted of indecent libertires with a minor. Minor being 15, already sexually active since 14, and mother had her put on birth control because of a previous older boyfriend who was having sex with her. Only my son was the one convicted, not the other older guy. This was truly a act of vindictiveness. The parents are the ones who push to prosecute these young men, not the girls who were consenting to sex with them. Tru

Mica, you are absolutely right! I wish everyone would take the time to do some of thier own research to learn more about the National Sex Offender Registry. There are thousands of people who have fallen victim to this registry and they need our help. Tru

I can't believe how many excuses people are making for sex offenders. It seems to me that protecting the public is very important. My family knows a man who molested a metally changellenged child. He received only one year in jail and was released early due to "good behavior". The state has put him in category 1 so he isn't on the register. I guess someone thinks he won't reoffend. Too bad his wife was able to hide from her family what was going on. He had been repeatedly accused by her younger sister. So now we know he's done it at least twice but that info never made it to court. But his defense which worked for the judge was that he was drunk so not responsible for his actions!! His wife provides respite care for diabled children and their families will have no way to know what this man has done.

Ruth - Your thesis for your comment on sex offenders is that you can't believe how many excuses people are making for sex offenders, presumably by being critical of my and other comments who see the negatives in sex offender registries. As "proof," you offer ONE case of some guy who apparently got off easy by a judge. However, one case doesn't prove your thesis one bit. If you had done as much research as I have on this issue from reputable sources (government sites, public interest sites, etc.), you would see the entire picture, rather than this one case in which you know. You'd see that registries have not protected anyone, have not saved anyone, and have not made people use their common sense. Instead, it's targeted a group of people (and their families and loved ones) who have committed offenses in the past (or who have been falsely accused in the past) and made them pay - over and over again. The recidivist stats cited by those who support registries are wrong, and are used to unjustifiably hold people accountable for crimes long since committed as if they would recommit them over and over again. Will some reoffend? Of course! Will most reoffend? Of course not! But the ASSUMPTION is that 100 percent will reoffend, thereby necessitating the registries to make the public vigilant against a future offender. The premise for 95% of those on the registries is wrong. Instead, it should post only those who have proven themselves to be a danger.

Mica, You are soooooo...... right! There is no way the National Sex Offender Registry can be of help or protect our children. It is up to the parents to educate your children about sex. It is also up to the parents to protect your children. In other words, I would not let my children go around or into someone's home that I don't know. I don't care if his or her name is on the registry or not. I'm going to watch my own children, and I will not leave my childs safety in the hands of anything or anybody. Tru

Good to know. I'm glad this service is available.

<abbr></abbr><abbr>AG´s last blog post..Comment from Katherine_B:</abbr>

You're wrong about sex offender recidivism. Tracking studies have demonstrated time and again that other types of offenders (non-sex offenders) have higher recidivism (return to ANY type of crime) than SOs. Get your facts straight. Here's one good quality study: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/rsorp94p...

You may also want to check your male ego at the door and thinking you're "saving" your wife and kids. Over 87% of victims of sex offenses KNOW the offender... and not by seeing his/her face on a registry.

I've read all the comments and quite frankly, wouldn't it to be wise to really examine the indivisual who commits the offense. It's quite oveous the ones who reoffened would be the most threat. But what about the ones who where convicted of a one time offense. Lets say the person was convicted of a 1st. degree. But at the trial there had been no phisical evidence to prove it, even by a Doctor. That a first degree happened. Should that person be convicted of that. You see we all see just the cover of the book, but how many of us would open that book and read whats inside. I know there are many of books that have a title that has nothing to do what is going on in the book. Yes ther'ers alot of bad pepole out there. But they are not all bad ones, and I know of a person in this situation and even though it happened almost 20 years ago and this person has never been convicted of another crime, ther are alot of pepole who would stand next to this person. Like mental therapist and the parole officer. This person who went away spent the time going to school and working, this person completed every educational trade that was offered, kept the nose clean, went to church every weekend, and all that person wants to do is to keep functioning that way. This person would like to have a relationship but is not looking for one, but that person still looks toward life. Just because a person is LABELED does not mean they are no longer of use. I thought we did away with the scarlet letter, whats next,"BURN THEM AT THE STAKE"