Restriction & Registrate Debate Continues

a public defender and Sex Offender Issues are also debating what sex offender restrictions should look like.  I do not subscribe to mandated therapy as does Sex Offender Issues.  Therapy usually needs to be voluntary, accompanied by a desire to change a problem, to be effective.  Likewise, incarceration for the incorrigible is a legitimate way of protecting society (not that any of my clients fall into this category of course!). 

Not all persons accused of sex crimes are guilty, however, neither are all innocent.  We must recognize that while many innocent or low-risk people get caught in the net there is a legitimate societal interest in locking away the truly dangerous.

Lawdoc comments that all "objective" exams are subject to interpretation and bias.  While this may be true the use of a previously agreed upon objective scoring system has got to be orders of magnitude more objective than a single psychologist or even a panel of psychologists with a wide variety of training and biases making the decision.  No system will be perfect.

Lawdoc also suggests that my blanket prohibition against convicted offenders working with children is subject to the same criticism I level against the current regime as being irrational.  I accept that as true to a certain extent but I have imported to my suggestion the notion that anything less will simply not be politically viable. 

Lawdoc also questions whether

people on the private registry still have to submits change of address and change of work address within 72 hours? Would they have to give DNA samples? Would they have to give a photograph every year? Would they be charged a fee to register? A private registry for low risk sex offenders who have served their sentence still does not meet the criteria for a narrowly tailored law for a compelling state interest.

ME:  Most states also require DNA samples from all felons regardless of whether they are sex offenders.  I have not thought deeply as to fee issue.  I see no issues with a yearly photograph.  To me these are simply technical details.  I believe most of my clients on the public registry would be much happier on a private registry even if it came with a nominal fee and some minimal reporting requirements.  Notice I said happier-not happy.

 

 

Comments

[Gideon]

Elizabeth; that is precisely the principal problem with these registries and restrictions. To the best of my knowledge, NJ is the only state that has a risk assessment system and tiered sex offender levels.

If states are going to enact these laws, then they need to be done carefully and with minimal application - to those that are truly risks to society.

[Elizabeth]

I continue to be struck by the ease with which we conflate "sex offender" and "pedophile" (if that's the accurate term). Does it make any rational sense to suggest that a man who rapes women -- but has never touched a child -- should be barred from working with kids? Would we bar him from working with women? Blanket restrictions in general do not make sense to me.

Why do we not restrict where convicted batterers, or murderers or arsonists (just for example) can live? Isn't it because there is no social panic about arson or battery or murder? Doesn't supporting blanket restrictions for sex offenders simply reinforce the social panic around sex crimes? I take to heart what SexCrimeDefender wrote about political expediency, but I find it disheartening all the same.

[lawdoc]

I also have problems with involuntary therapy. It can lead to clients just going through the motion and not engaging in the process. That would be a tremendous waste of resources. However, I raised the idea of therapy for the instance of a convicted sex offender not wanting to be restricted in choice of work in a state which imposes work restrictions. Rather than have laws with blanket restrictions such as "no work with children", a convicted sex offender who is restricted from certain employment at the time of sentencing should be able to have such a restriction removed, if appropriate (low risk). The best way would be a combination of treatment, education, and professional evaluation. There are already programs like this for anger management, divorcing parents with children, and drunk drivers. A convicted sex offender could always decide not to participate and just live with the work restrictions imposed at the time of sentencing. In no way, do I support retroactive application of work restrictions.

[Gideon]

The problem I have with the mandatory therapy is the same with parole for sex offenders. They have to "admit" that they committed these offenses, even if they have continually maintained that they did not. They are almost always penalized for doing so. Requiring them to attend therapy would be something akin to that.