The Legislative Trends Dealing with Sex Offenders
Legislatures and other public officials have a hard job creating policies that will protect individuals and communities against sex offenders. Over the past 50 years a large number of sex offender laws have been created at the federal, state, and local levels. Some of the laws have been repealed or modified substantially, while others are among the cornerstones of contemporary sex offender management efforts (Legislative Trends in Sex Offender Management, 2008). The effectiveness of the laws currently being used has been mixed. As discussed in previous post, laws such as Jessica’s and Megan’s law have positive and negative aspects, and some people believe the negatives are starting to outweigh the positives. For example, Jessica’s law has been criticized for the pushing many sex offenders “underground,” making it harder to track and monitor them before the law was enacted. The increase of legislation geared for sex offenders has led to an increasing number of individuals to whom the laws apply. This has led to increases cost with implementation, detrimental effects on family members and a false sense of safety in the community.
Policy makers believe that the cure to protecting the community and individuals is to enact laws that heavily restrict and monitor sex offenders and they are overlooking the negative effects of these laws. More and more laws are being enacted without much evidence of their effectiveness. For example, Megan’s Law alone cost millions of dollars. “Costs associated with the initial implementation as well as ongoing expenditures continue to grow over time. Start up costs totaled $555,565 and current costs (in2007) totaled approximately 3.9 million” (Zgoba et al., 2008). There is this high cost without strong evidence of effectiveness. According to Zgoba et al., (2008), Megan’s Law has not effect on first time offenders, shows no demonstrable effect reducing sexual re-offenses, has no effect on the type of sexual re-offense or first time sexual offense and Megan’s Law has no effect on reducing the number of victims involved in sexual offenses.
Not only are sex offender laws costly and not very effective but have negatively affected family members and created a false sense of safety. Studies have found 86% of family members experience stresses, 77% feel isolated and 45% feel afraid for their own safety because of their relation to the registered offender. Family members often reported persistent feelings of hopelessness, depression, and frustration as they adjusted to life with a registered sex offender (Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009). The laws have done an injustice to the community by creating a false sense of safety. The laws lead community members to believe that most children are being sexually abused by strangers. The so called “Stranger Danger” is overly feared by the public without much statistical backing. Strangers are responsible for only 7 percent of reported cases of juvenile sex crimes, according to the Justice Department. I believe the over emphases on “Stranger Danger” has allowed people to ignore or have the wool pulled over their eyes about the real threat to children being someone the child knows. Thirty-four percent are victimized by their own families, and 59 percent of cases occur among friends and only about 115 out of 260,000 children kidnapped each year are snatched by strangers (Arlidge, 2006). So if there are such negative effects of these laws and a lack of evidence showing effectiveness, why are there a plethora of sex offender laws being enacted?
The main reason is the misconception the public has of sexual abuse and sex offenders, which leads legislatures to enact more and harsher laws to make the public happy. There is no legislature who wants to look soft on sex offenders and legislatures want to make the public happy. The misconception about sexual abuse and sex offenders is fed by the media. “The media’s interest in this issue is important, because research demonstrates that the nature and emphasis of such attention may instill fears about public safety and the potential for victimization; it can also perpetuate myths and misinformation about the individuals who commit sex offenses and the persons who are most likely to be targeted (Legislative Trends in Sex Offender Management, 2008). The media does a tremendous job of creating myths and making the public believe that these myths are facts. Some of these myths include: sexual victimization is on the rise, sex offenders target strangers, and sex offenders have higher rates of recidivism then other types of offenders. However, statistics do not show those statements to be true but the public possesses a lack of correct information know believe otherwise. These misunderstandings can exacerbate constituents’ already understandable concerns and lead to the call for additional measures for safeguarding themselves and their communities. This leads law makers to enact such laws as: civil commitment, mandatory minimum sentences, expanded registration and community notification requirements, and proximity laws such as residency restrictions (Legislative Trends in Sex Offender Management, 2008).
Based on the history of sex offender laws, there will continue to be new laws enacted and old laws amended or thrown out all together. I believe the key to future legislation is policy makers making informed decisions based on research and evidence, not just knee jerk reactions to the few horrific cases spattered all over the media at any given time. Of course there needs to be sex offender laws to protect society but they should not be spit out of the legislator like throwing out trash, without a second thought. There needs to be collaboration with legislatures to try and makes sure laws are use rational deployment of resources that can maximize impact and desired outcomes within the sex offender management system, whether driven by goals of deterrence, punishment, incapacitation, and/or rehabilitation (Legislative Trends in Sex Offender Management, 2008). Legislative policies should be evaluated with research and monitoring and there needs to be increased accountability for the system to do its best to make informed policy adjustments. Sex offenders are a part of the community and legislation needs to be in place to protect the community and individuals but I believe policy makers need to think more about policies and possible impacts instead of being so quick to pass sex offender legislation.
References
Arlidge, C. (2006). Should California voters approve Jessica's Law? no. CQ Researcher, 16(31),
737. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Legislative Trends in Sex Offender Management. (2008). Office of Justice Programs. Center for
Sex Offender Management.
Levenson, J., & Tewksbury, R.. (2009). Collateral Damage: Family Members of Registered Sex
Offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice: AJCJ, 34(1/2), 54-0_7. Retrieved
March 1, 2010, from Criminal Justice Periodicals. (Document ID: 1711533721).
Zgoba, K., Witt, P., Dalessandro, M., & Veysey, B.. (2008). Megan’s Law: Assessing the Practical and Monetary Efficacy. http://soissues.d2g.com/SODocuments
