The Case Against Public Sex Offender Registries

USA FAIR, an organization that advocates for an intelligent sex offender registry, suggests that such a registry would remain public but would limit those subject to public scrutiny. As the executive director of USA FAIR explains, “USA FAIR does not oppose the sex offender registry. We do, however, strongly believe that public notification should be applied only to the truly dangerous…” and “Let’s modernize the public registry by making it smarter, by using the vast body of research to stay true to the Kankas’ founding principle of targeting the truly dangerous….”

While fully agreeing that those accurately assessed to be clearly dangerous warrant stricter scrutiny if and when they are released into the community, Reform Sex Offender Laws, Inc.—RSOL—differs with its sister advocacy organization on the concept of a public registry. If the constitutional, civil, and human rights of even a small group of citizens are placed at risk, ALL are at risk of losing those rights. As long as even a small handful of people can be punished by public registration schemes, law and policy makers will continue to press for the inclusion of more people and more offenses.

USA FAIR cites the recently released Human Rights Watch study showing the futility, danger, and negative consequences of registering juveniles publicly, points with which RSOL is in full agreement.

This report, “Raised on the Registry,” (previously blogged about) and even more so their 2007 report, “No Easy Answers,” make it clear that a public sex offender registry is lacking in redemptive value for all offenders, be they juvenile or adult. This is echoed in “Registering Harm,” a report prepared by the Justice Policy Institute. Although this report’s focus is also on juveniles, the report unequivocally condemns the public registration scheme as mandated by the Adam Walsh Act as ill-advised and counter-productive, as shown in this introduction to the report:

Congress passed the Adam Walsh Act, a federal law that requires
states to include children as young as age 14 on registries — often
for the rest of their lives — in an attempt to protect our children from
sexual violence. But the Adam Walsh Act won’t keep our children safe.
Instead, this law will consume valuable law enforcement resources,
needlessly target children and families, and undermine the very purpose of the juvenile justice system.

Joining this condemnation are experts, psychologists, researchers, and government agencies. Notable among them is Dr. Jill Levenson of Lynn University and author of a significant number of studies and reports. While various aspects of the negative consequences are focused on, depending on the study and the author, one fact is consistent among everyone who has researched and written on this topic: There is no correlation between public safety and a public registry; there is no discernable impact on recidivism rates or sexual offending rates due to the public registry.

Public registries provide no measurable protection for children or the general public yet endanger the well being of children and family members of registrants. Several states have done before/after studies that show NO statistical change in arrests and convictions. While being a total waste of public resources with no benefit to public safety, public registries do put a great deal of money into the pockets of fear-mongers.

What then is the answer?

RSOL promotes laws and programs limiting registry access strictly to law enforcement agencies and boards of probation and parole. This is based on the belief, strongly supported by research and evidence, that even if public registries are scaled back to publicize only persons convicted of the most heinous offenses, this would only set the expansion process in motion again. In another twenty years, we would again be where we are now, registering even teen sexting and consensual relations between young people.

RSOL has the same goal as USA FAIR and every parent and child-advocacy organization, seeking the highest good for the safety of our children. A public registry does not enhance that good. The only registry RSOL can envision as being in any way useful is one entrusted exclusively to those trained and equipped to deal with it: law enforcement and law-enforcement-related agencies.

An intelligent registry is a registry that accomplishes its purpose. The purpose must be the enhanced safety of all citizens, and that will never be found in a public registry.

Another Dream

The very first post I wrote for this blog was one I did not intend to publish. It was practice, an exercise set by my blogging mentor while he was teaching me the ins and outs of a blog. I just let my thoughts go free and my fingers go wild and fanciful. I liked the result, but I tucked it away and returned to reality.

Today I read something that changed my mind. A very basic legislative attempt in Minnesota to begin correcting some of the problems with the state's sex offender program there has hit a roadblock.  Described as "modest first steps" by its proponents, the bill is being criticized by the opposition party, and the bill's author laments that "lawmakers who vote for it could be 'spun as being soft on crime and soft on sex offenders.' ” This perception, she fears, will assure its death because even those who believe in it will abstain from going on record as voting for it.

My posting on the comment board had to do with what legislators of integrity would do, and then I remembered my little blog post that was never intended to see the light of day and decided that its time had come. 

There have been times in this nation when legislators of integrity were willing to stand up and right horrible wrongs. Things go in cycles, they say--whoever they are--and maybe that time will come again.

Another Dream

One of our greatest civil rights leaders, Martin Luther King, Jr., stood in Washington, D.C. many years ago and told the nation that he had a dream. He dreamed of an end to laws and policies, written and unwritten, that ostracized and dehumanized millions of citizens based on nothing but their inclusion in a group that was different from the dominant group.

Fifty years later we are embroiled in another civil rights issue that threatens to rend apart the fabric of our nation. Once again laws and policies exist and are added almost daily that ostracize and dehumanize several million citizens based on their inclusion in a group that is as varied and diverse as were the millions of African Americans whose equality Dr. King dreamed of.

Under the huge umbrella of individuals who are affected by the policies that govern sexual crime today, specifically SORN and the Adam Walsh Act, are those who have nothing else in common. Some committed misdemeanors and some felonies. The acts of some were consensual while others were forced. Some are male and some are female. Some are children as young as nine. Some are men in their nineties who have lived half a century past the commission of a single offense. Some committed no crime; they were falsely accused and wrongly convicted. Some were not even accused; they are the husbands and wives and children and parents of those who were.

Like Dr. King, I too have a dream. I dream that another person, one whose face is unclear in my mind, will stand up in Washington, D.C., in a chamber where SORN is being discussed and debated, and will forcefully denounce the direction that these laws and policies have taken and are continuing to take us. In my dream, I can hear some of the words he will say.

“These laws were not based on facts or evidence. They were enacted hastily in response to a very few heinous crimes. Research has called the effectiveness of some of them into serious question and flatly contradicted others. We have made some serious mistakes. We must not compound those mistakes by continuing down the same path. We must build on what we have learned from our mistakes. We must enact laws based on evidence, on certainties, not on myths and half-truths and vaguely held beliefs. We must start over.”

In my mind the words echo from the Senate floor, through the halls of Congress, out from the windows and porticos, across the rolling lawns and onto the very steps of the Lincoln Memorial where, all those years ago, Dr. King shared his dream, a dream that helped undo generations of injustice and make the concept of equality for all a little closer to reality.

And in my dream, upon his chair of stone, I think I see Lincoln’s lips twitch in a half-smile, and further back, peering from the misty shadows, a handsome, dark face nods approval.

~~Shelly

Examining Chelsea's Law, Part II -- Who Will Chelsea's Law Effect?

Chelsea’s Law, signed into California law on September 9, 2010, by then-governor Schwarzenegger scant months after the court sentenced John Gardner to two life sentences without parole for the murders of Amber Dubois and Chelsea King is, at the heart of it, a compulsory minimum sentencing law. It allows life without parole sentences for adults who, if while committing a sexual offense against a child, kidnap, drug, bind, torture, or use a weapon. Life terms could apply for both first-time and repeat offenders. It also increases other penalties, including requiring lifetime parole with GPS tracking for those convicted of forcible sex crimes against children under fourteen.

According to available information, 74 individuals have been charged under Chelsea’s Law since its beginning, and eight have had their sentences impacted because of it. 

The father of Chelsea, Brian King, and CA legislator Nathan Fletcher, author of Chelsea’s Law, are now lobbying to extend the bill into other states with the goal being a version of the law in all states. Two organizations, Chelsea’s Light Foundation and Chelsea’s Shield, have been formed to further this agenda.

While agreeing that those who commit heinous acts need lengthy and stiff sentencing and monitoring periods, critics oppose first time offenders falling under the reach of this law. Critics further fear the law will, in application, stray outside reasonably narrow restraints. One critic, on reading the law, commented that, technically, it could apply to someone who pulls a victim a few feet into an alley—kidnapping—and touches him or her over clothing—sexual assault—and then releases him or her.

An attempt to identify those charged under the law, especially the eight who received impacted sentences, yielded skimpy but interesting results.

The first to be charged, when the bill was exactly one week old, was Joseph Cantora, 55, diagnosed mentally disabled in 1981, now accused of lewd acts against two young boys. The acts consisted of exposing himself and touching over clothing. Mr. Cantora had a history of sexual abuse charges involving children. He had spent time in a state institution, and, at a competency hearing, was judged to be mentally incompetent to stand trial. He was sent to a state mental hospital for people with developmental disabilities. 

A far more worthy candidate for Chelsea’s Law enhancements was found in David Lascelles, 50. Arrested three months after the enactment of the law, Mr. Lascelles, while having no previous charges for a sexual crime, was no stranger to the criminal justice system. He was on parole after serving prison time for a 2005 felony conviction. He was charged with the kidnapping and forcible rape of a 15-year-old girl he knew through a family friend. Under Chelsea’s Law, Lascelles was eligible for a sentence of 25 years to life without the possibility of parole. He pled to the charges without the allegations under Chelsea’s Law and admitted a serious felony prior and strike prior. He was sentenced to 42 years and four months in state prison.  

Unlike Lascelles, Frank Zsemlye, 27, had no prior record of any sort. In July of 2012, he allegedly followed two sisters into a public restroom at a park, shoved the 13-year-old into a stall, and fondled her over her clothing. When she screamed, he ran and was apprehended some blocks away. His bail, initially set at $100,000.00, was requested by prosecutors to be raised to $1,000,000.00. He is eligible for Chelsea’s Law enhancement because of the age of the victim, under fourteen.

One report showed a need for a competency hearing before trial, but research turned up nothing to suggest whether that has been done or, if it has, the result. With no trial yet, the fate of Mr. Zsemlye and application of Chelsea’s Law to his charges are unknown.

What is known is this: Frank Zsemlye is a young, possibly mentally impaired man, a stranger to the criminal justice system. Zsemlye pulled a 13-year-old girl a couple of feet into a bathroom stall and fondled her over her clothing for the few seconds it took her to scream. Disgusting act, yes; no child should be subjected to such violation. No one anywhere would refute that Mr. Zsemlye needs proper assessment and, based on that, proper treatment and punishment.

However, is it for the Frank Zsemlyes that Chelsea’s Law was crafted?  Do his actions, despicable as they are, warrant charges that could quite possibly result in a sentence of life without possibility of parole? If Chelsea’s Law is extended to other states, how many Frank Zsemlyes will face the possibility of life without parole for first-time offenses and for offenses that fall far short of the intended standard? Surely the most urgent question is how long will it be before legislators, as they historically do, add other qualifying offenses, ones that do not rise to the same level of seriousness and that cast a net over a much broader scope and larger scale?