Sensible Sex Offender Restrictions

Elizabeth, the doyenne of sexinthepublicsquare.com left a comment asking what a rational sex offender registration scheme might look like.  I have often commented that I think sex offender restrictions are here to stay, are not necessarily the blanket evil that many of my on line colleagues posit and are notoriously irrational as usually enacted.  Elizabeth's comment then challenges those of us interested in such issues to come up with a more rational alternative.

For myself, I think the chief evil of 90% of the current laws is the utter lack of effort to separate out true predators from one-time mistakes.  When teenagers sending sexy cellphone pictures to each other or 15 year olds having sex with 13 year olds or 30 year old convictions become lifetime registrable offenses, I think we have a problem.

My proposal then is the following:

REGISTRATION

1. An individual psychological evaluation using a scientifically based objective scoring system should be used to determine likelihood of recidivism.  The problem with subjective evaluations by "experts" is that no one wants to be the guy who "cleared" a sex offender who then commits some subsequent act.  No system is perfect, objective scoring may allow for a more objective view of the evidence rather than overly relying on the "what if."
2. An objective scoring system would take into account, but not fixate, on what the offense of conviction might be.
3. Create a public registry and a private registry.  A private registry would allow the police to keep awareness of those individuals screened out as "low risk" but not expose these individuals to the same level of opprobrium experienced by the more serious offender.  "High risk" individuals would be placed on a public list but some click through screen should be put in place warning of criminal penalties for harassment of individuals on the list.  Even "low risk" offenders could be screened out from certain types of jobs but this type of screening is already in place and does not require public exposure.
4. The objective evaluation process could allow for the movement, over time and based on objective reevaluation, either from or to the public registry.
5. A federal law or interstate compact would make the laws more consistent between the states to allow for predictability for offenders and authorities.  Restrictions and registrations should be kept completely away from municipalities or the patchwork of resulting laws would create a compliance nightmare.
6. Objective criteria should be used to determine whether offenders are a risk to their own children.  Too often offenders commit a crime which shows them to have a certain proclivity (a man who likes underage teenage boys, for example) and that crime is then used as a weapon in the subsequent family law proceeding or child protective case to show that the offender is a danger to individuals that do not fall into the sphere of the offender's sexual desires (like infant female children in the example above).  The knee jerk reaction is easy, the reality can be very hard to witness.

RESIDENCY & WORK RESTRICTIONS

1. No sex offender should work with children.
2. It is not practical to completely prohibit offenders from simply being within a school zone at any time given that roads often travel very close to schools and day-cares.
3. Prohibiting an offender from actually having a home within a certain zone may be unopposable but such restrictions should not, as a practical matter, prohibit residency within areas commonly considered residential.
4. Exceptions should be made for long-standing family ties to a certain home within a school zone.  If the offender gets out of jail after 10 years and has no support system other than mom who lives 1999 feet from a school, it is in society's interest to allow the offender to live there.  There should be a way to allow residency within otherwise prohibited zones under similar circumstances.
5. Sex offenders should not be arbitrarily denied opportunities for worship or education.

I could be persuaded that each of the above suggestions is not wise or could be supplemented by additional detail.  I invite anyone with an interest in the topic to submit away.

Comments

[mike boothby]

I find your outline to be truely comprehensiable, being a convicted sex offender from 22 yrs back. I was caught under the retroactive back law. If there is any help you can offr me or anything i can do to help the cause please let me know. Since my crime ive raised 5 kids and had no further crimes of thiis nature

[Magz]

How refreshing ! Someone actually writing out changes that would be beneficial to all ! We really do need to concentrate more on the Coueys, Duncans,etc, rather than the guy at the office party that ends up on the registry for pinching some broads butt.

[Betty Schneider]

Comments
Please visit www.therapy-key.com.
We're requesting petitions for confidential treatment (with many strict conditions) for unreported molesters who want to seek help.

Also, if you see fit, we would appreciate your adding Therapy-Key to your list of resources.

Thank you,
Betty Schneider
Director, Therapy Key

[Betty Schneider]

Please visit www.therapy-key.com.
We're requesting petitions for confidential treatment (with many strict conditions) for unreported molesters who want to seek help.

Also, if you see fit, we would appreciate your adding Therapy-Key to your list of resources.

Thank you,
Betty Schneider
Director, Therapy Key

[lawdoc]

1. The problem with an Independent Psychological Exam is that it is also subjective and susceptible to bias. Even the objective tests need to be interpreted. Clinical psychologists that derive significant business from evaluating sex offenders may start to write exams that please the prosecutor. Maine already had a shakey history of psychological evaluation of criminal defendants to determine if they are insane before the Mark Bechard case.
2. Would 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.
3. I agree with passing state legislation to prohibit the municipalities from residency restrictions. I agree that history of a sex offense should not automatically be used to decide family law cases. There is a long chain of inferences that need to be proven before deciding issued of custody. What purpose does it serve to separate a 20 year father from his children because he had an affair with a 15 year old girl? What danger is a exhibitionist to his teenagers? Is supervised visitation needed for a father that frequented prostitutes?
4. I don't believe the blanket restriction "No sex offender should work with children." is sensible or practical. How about this? As a condition of sentencing, a sex offender should complete a course of treatment. After treatment an evaluation can be made by the clinical treatment provider. The evaluation can place someone in low, moderate, or high risk to offend against children. For those certified in the low risk category, there would be no work restriction. Clinical treatment providers would need to have their evaluations peer-reviewed for internal and external consistency. This is just one suggestion to balance the need for public safety against permanently stigmatizing and relegating a whole group of people to second class citizenship.