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 Some of the laws have been repealed or modified substantially, while others are among the cornerstones of contemporary sex offender management efforts (Legislative Trends in Sex Offender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

Sex Offender Treatment

“There are approximately 400, 000 registered sex offenders in the US alone and 8 out of 10 sex assaulters reported that their victim was under the age of 18. The median age of victims of imprisoned sex offenders was 13 years old” (National Alert Registry). So what are we doing to try and treat these offenders so they do not reoffend? There are different kinds of sex offender treatment programs and they are offered in different environments. For example, programs in the community and programs available to people incarcerated. Not every sex offender is qualified for a sex offender treatment program or wants to be a participant. There have been some studies done evaluating the effectiveness of sex offender treatment programs, which have had mixed results. More recently, there has been stronger evidence that sex offenders who participate in sex offender treatment programs have positive results with recidivism compared to sex offenders who did not participate. One study found treated sex offenders recidivated in 11% of the cases, whereas untreated sex offenders recidivated 17.6% over a five year period (Holmes & Holmes, 2009).

What are sex offender treatment programs? Sex offender treatment programs (SOTPs) are programs that are designed to help people who have been incarcerated for a sex offense or have an abnormal sexual problem, those who have treatment as a condition of their parole or those who are sentenced to treatment as a condition of their probation. If treatment is applied properly it can have a positive effect. “Effective treatment and management of sexual offenders can reduce sexual re-offending, thereby reducing human suffering and the cost associated with the processing and reincarceration of recidivists (Olver, Wong, & Nicholaichuk, 2008). A successful SOTP is based on its effect on recidivism and whether or not there is a decrease in recidivism. According to Winick and La Fond (2003), “the ultimate goal of sex offender treatment is the reduction of recidivism, some measure of that is the primary yardstick for evaluating treatment.”

There are different kinds of SOTPs offered in different settings. The two basic settings are community based programs and programs that are offered while offenders are incarcerated. Community based programs allow an offender to get treatment while not incarcerated. Community treatment allows the offender to hold a job, maintain a connection to family, friends, and society, and at the same time makes it possible to participate in therapy to change their attitudes and beliefs (La Fond 2005). The second setting for SOTPs is in prison, for people who have been incarcerated for sex crimes (i.e., rape, sexual assault, child molestation etc…). According to La Fond (2005), there are about 1,500 SOTPs available in United States prisons and about 39 states offer SOTPs. Prison-based SOTPs are often mandated for sex offenders as a condition of their incarceration. Most programs in prison revolve around group therapy. Group settings help with cost of SOTPs though it may not be ideal for sex offender therapy.

There are different approaches to treating sex offenders in SOTPs. Three basic approaches are cognitive-behavioral approach, psycho-educational approach and pharmacological approach. According to Bynum (2001), cognitive-behavioral approach emphasizes changing patterns of thinking that are related to sexual offending and changing deviant patterns of arousal; psycho-educational approach stresses increasing the offender’s concern for the victim and recognition of responsibility for their offense; and the pharmacological approach, which is based upon the use of medication to reduce sexual arousal. These three types of approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive but are often used in conjunction with one another. As of lately, the cognitive-behavioral approach is most often used.

One specific SOTP that is being used in Massachusetts is using a cognitive-behavioral methodology. The program has three components: pre-treatment, core treatment and maintenance. Pre-treatment is designed to prepare the offender for core treatment; core treatment involves primary therapy groups, psycho-educational classes, behavioral treatment, community unit and other activities identified in specific participants treatment plans (Hallett, 2006). The first two parts take place in correctional facilities and the last part takes place when the offender is out of prison. According to Hallett (2006), “Since its inception in 1996, more than 200 parolees have been supervised under the program, and none of these offenders have been returned to custody as a result of committing a new sex offense.” Overall the Massachusetts program has had a positive effect on recidivism.

SOTPs can work but with further analysis one can see the setting were some take place may hinder these programs. Since correctional institutions, such as prisons, are not very mentally healthy places in general, SOTPs can have difficultly being effective within prisons. Sex offenders participating in SOTPs in prison are often scared that other inmates will find out they are sex offenders and they might be harassed or hurt by other inmates. Inmates that are not sex offenders feel very strongly about people who commit sex crimes and often times try to punish sex offenders in their own way. Since therapy needs an open, honest, and respectful environment the culture in prison can make this very difficult and it can hinder treatment progress (Schneider, Bosley, Ferguson & Main, 2006). Sex offenders need to admit that they participated in sexually deviant behavior and this can be very difficult if sex offenders are scared to be attacked by fellow prisoners. SOTPs are difficult to implement as it is, but are even harder in the hostile environment of a prison.

Correctional facilities are not structured for the purpose of therapy and consequently there is very little privacy; making it hard for participates to be as open and honest as they might be in a private setting (Schneider et al., 2006). Since therapist and correctional officers have different agendas and goals (correctional officers need to maintain safety and therapist want to help the offenders) they are often at odds with each other (Schneider et al., 2006). This can be very counterproductive for the effectiveness of SOTPs in correctional institutions. Not only is the institution a problem in itself but it is also hard for sex offenders receiving treatment in that type of confined environment to understand and evaluate what circumstances they might come face to face with out in the real world. “If anxiety, depression, anger, rejection, etc. put offenders at greater risk for reoffending, those events experienced in the community will be different than such experiences in confinement” (Campbell, 2004). All of these factors of a SOTP taking place in a correctional facility can be hard to overcome for success after the offender is released and back in the community.

SOTPs can be effective but I believe they need to become more widely available because not all sex offenders are a lost cause. Many sex offenders if given the chance and the opportunity can change and move on to be productive members of society. I believe society and the criminal justice system need to have a more balanced approach between punishment and treatment. It is not best to lock up every single sex offenders, especially since treatment programs have improved and been shown to reduce recidivism.

References

Bynum, T. (2001, May). Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Sex

Offender Management.

Campbell, T. W. (2004). Assessing Sex Offenders. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher,

Ltd.

Hallett, A. (2006, December). Sex Offender Management Programming in Massachusetts.

Corrections Today, 68(7), 74-81. Retrieved April 28, 2009, from Academic Search

Premier database.

La Fond, J. Q. (2005). Preventing Sexual Violence. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Olver, M., Wong., & Nicholaichuk, T. (2008, March). Outcome Evaluation of a High-Intensity

Sex Offender Treatment Program. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(3), 522-536.

Retrieved April 11, 2010, from Academic Search Premier database.

Schneider, J., Bosley, J., Ferguson, G., & Main, M. (2006). The challenges of sexual offense

treatment programs in correctional facilities. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 34(2),

169-196. Retrieved April 28, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Winick, B. J., & La Fond, J. Q. (Eds.). (2003). Protecting Society from Sexually Dangerous

Offenders. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

The Castration Debate

The castration of sex offenders has been greatly debated with each side making strong points for its use or not. The facts are clear; sex offenders have some of the highest rates of recidivism. For example, child molesters have a 52% of re-offending while rapists a 39% of re-offending (Center for Sex Offender Management, 2001). These statistics show the treatment currently available for sex offenders is not having positive results, or is not available to many sex offenders. Whatever the reason current treatment has not reduced recidivism rates, the lack of results has led many to look to castration as the answer to reduce high rates of sex offender recidivism.

There are three different forms of castration including: surgical, vasectomy and non-surgical chemical castration. Surgical castration is when both testicles are surgically removed and a vasectomy is where a minor surgical procedure where the vasa deferentia (which transport sperm for ejaculation) of a man are severed, and then tied/sealed in a manner such to prevent sperm from entering the seminal stream for ejaculation. While chemical castration is where chemicals (medicine) are given to reduce libido and sexual activity and is not a form of sterilization (Wikipedia: Castration). Specifically, the drug used in chemical castration is Depo-Provera. Today, chemical castration is the form most addressed when talking about castrating sex offenders. The intent of chemical castration is to reduce a man’s sex drive and the ability to get sexual aroused. Statistics on chemical castration have proven that it works in reducing sex offender recidivism but some believe there is a moral principle that should limit the use of castration regardless of its utility.

Some reasons supporters give for castrating sex offenders include castration works, will reduce prison overcrowding and other treatment is not working. The simplest reason for people being in favor of castration is it works. Castration has a very high successes rate in reducing recidivism. According to Wright (1992), “the recidivism rate of sex offenders averages 80 percent before castration, but castration has worked to drop recidivism rates from 84 percent for non-castrated individuals to 2.3 percent for castrated individuals. These studies have also found that 90 percent of men reported they were satisfied with the outcome (Wright, 1992). Since castration reduces recidivism proponents argue it will also lower the prison population. Some supporters propose castration instead of incarceration. A sex offender would have the option to be castrated instead of a lengthy prison sentence. Supporters also believe other treatment is not effective. When compared with castration, other forms of treatment are not as effective. Compared to the 2.3 percent of recidivism of castrated offenders, the 12.8 percent for other kinds of treatment is high. There are no programs that compare to the effectiveness of castration (Wright, 1992). The supporters of castration make a strong case but there are also those who strongly oppose castration.

People opposing castration believe it is morally wrong; a form of cruel and unusual punishment and it does not get at the core of violence and anger surrounding many sex crimes. “As a criminal justice response to the chronic, dangerous sexual psychopath, castration of any kind is morally pernicious and pragmatically impotent. Castration must be rejected on the most essential go grounds: The ‘cure’ will exacerbate the ‘disease’ (Besharov et. al, 1992). People opposing castration believe it is wrong in its self to castrate another human being for any reason. They also oppose castration because they see it as a form of curl and unusual punishment. Their basis for this argument lies in the Eight Amendment, which guards against cruel and unusual punishment. People opposing castration also believe that taking away the sexual physical part of sex offending does not mean a person is cured from the violence behind the crimes. Castration will not remove the source of a violent sex offender’s rage and most sex offenders do not commit their crimes because they can’t help themselves but because they want to (Besharov et. al, 1992). For example, a man in Germany was chemically castrated and in 1980 he strangled and killed a seven year old girl. The castration did not treat his violent aggressive anger. The United States is not the only country having the castration debate but it is also happening in Europe.

Over the past decade the Czech Republic has allowed at least 94 prisoners to be surgically castrated (Bilefsky, 2009). While the Czech Republic believes castration is the best way to tame dangerous sexual predators while other European do not engage in castration. Dr. Martin Holly, a leading sexologist and psychiatrist, said none of the nearly 100 sex offenders who had been physically castrated had committed further offenses (Bilefsky, 2009). Statistics like that cannot be overlooked and prove castration works. However more European countries are debating over the use of chemical castration. “There is intense debate over whose rights take precedence: those of sex offenders, who could be subjected to a punishment that many consider cruel, or those of society, which expects protection from sexual predators” (Bilefsky, 2009). Poland is on the verge of giving judges the power to impose chemical castration on some pedophiles. Whichever side of the castration debate European countries decided to land on, I believe depends more on who is making the decisions and not on whether or not castration works. Evidence clearly shows castration will and does stop sex offenders.

I believe castration is a viable solution for some sex offenders and not others, therefore society has to draw a line between which types of sex offenders are going to be castrated and which ones are going to receive other forms of treatment. I believe there is too much evidence that castration works for it not to be used on sex offenders. Needless to say the debate will be an ever continuing one.

References

Besharov, Douglas J, & Vachhs, Andrew. (1992). Sex Offenders. ABA Journal, 78, 42.

Retrieved April 4, 2010, from Criminal Justice Periodicals. (Document ID: 8728461).

Bilefsky, D. (2009, March 11). Europeans Debate Castration of Sex Offenders. New York Times.

Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

Castration. (n.d.) In Wikipedia online. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org.

Center for Sex Offender Management (2001). Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Retrieved from

http://sexoffender.com/

Wright, L. (1992). The Case for Castration. Texas Monthly.

JESSICA’S LAW, HOW BENIFICAL IS IT?

“In 2005, 45 states passed more than 150 sex-offender laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. That was the most ever passed in a single year and twice the amount of legislation in 2004” (Arlidge, 2006). These are staggering statistics showing just how fearful society is of sex offenders related to child sex crimes. Jessica’s Law is one of the many pieces of legislation enacted to protect the public. Officially known as the Jessica Lunsford Act, Jessica’s Law, was named after a nine-year old Florida girl who was abducted, raped and murdered in February 2005. Jessica’s Law has some specific components: tracking serial pedophiles who have been released, longer mandatory sentences for serial pedophiles, use of non-removable global positioning devices (GPS), and residency restrictions (Jessica’s Law Proposition 83). The residency restrictions component prohibits sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a park, school or any place where children regular congregate. There have been unexpected consequences and many believe the law should be less all in companying of sex offenders. On the other hand, Jessica’s Law has a strong base of support from the public.

The rates of sex crimes against children have dropped over the last 15-20 years, but the public still believes sex offender laws, like Jessica’s Law, are needed and work. The public perception of sex offenders running rampant in their neighborhoods and children at risk on every corner played a role in Jessica’s Law being passed. People in congress pass laws in a knee jerk reaction because of a horrific crime highly published in the media; they don’t want to be considered a “supporter of sex offenders.” According to Arlidge (2006), “Tough, new sex-offender laws tend to pass unanimously, or nearly so. If there are flaws in some of the approaches, advocates for the get-tough approach say, that is only more reason to keep working to strengthen them.” Supporters of Jessica’s Law believe that mandatory sentencing needs to be in place because it removes judicial discretion. For example, in Vermont a judge gave a light sentence to a man who confessed to repeatedly raping a girl over a 4 year period (Arlidge, 2006). With mandatory sentencing in place, for sex offenders, this judge would have not have the ability to decide the man’s sentence but it would be based on his criminal act. Some statistics help to assure supporters that Jessica’s Law is working. A study done by Florida State University found that out of more than 75,000 offenders placed on home confinement, those who were tracked by GPS were 90 percent less likely to abscond or re-offend, compared with those who were not electronically monitored (Arlidge, 2006).

Jessica’s Law also has its strong base of critics who believe the law has had a lot of unforeseen consequences. Opponents against Jessica’s Law have a problem with there being no type of differentiate between truly serious sex offenders and others convicted of lesser charges such as urinating in public, or teenagers having consensual sex, or kids who expose themselves as a prank (Peirce, 2008). Instead all sex offenders are lumped in one huge category and receive the same punishment no matter how disproportionate it may be. The component of Jessica’s Law that is having the largest backlash is the residency restriction component. Most have criticized residency restriction laws because it creates problems for sex offenders to find a place to live and in the end makes it harder to track sex offenders. Since sex offenders cannot live within 2,000 feet of a park, school, or any place where children regular congregate, it makes living within any city boundaries virtually impossible. It also causes sex offenders to not register so they can remain in their homes, become homeless and ultimately makes it harder to keep track of them. Approximately 100,000 of the 550,000 known sex offenders nationwide have absconded, or gone missing (Arlidge, 2006). Jessica’s Law is banishing individuals who have already been punished by the law and many believe this violates constitutional rights (Peirce, 2008).

Another argument against residency restrictions is it takes away the sex offender’s support system which may lead to more crimes. “Critics say, offenders who comply but are forced to move because their homes are located too near to schools or other facilities that serve children often must go to rural areas with fewer support services. ‘We know that for people who have a tendency to violence, if they have no support or basic comforts, that really creates an incredibly heightened risk for re-offense,’ says Klein of the Association for the Treatment of Sex Offenders” (Arlidge, 2006).

Jessica’s Law also seems to make the case that most children are being sexually abused by someone they don’t know. However this is not what statistics show. 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. 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). These statistic are completely opposite of what the average citizen believes when it comes to protecting their children. Parents need to be protecting their children from people they know, not the strange man down the street.

There are obviously major problems with Jessica’s Law as it stands today but there can be things done in order to create a more efficient and lower consequences law. For example, there is a Minnesota model which mandates, restrictions should be based on a careful evaluation of the offender’s personal and family situation by a panel of law enforcement, victim advocacy and specialized treatment providers (Peirce, 2008). I feel this is a good model that has been put in place in Minnesota and would help with the problem of Jessica’s Law being all encompassing. This would also help to reduce the price of monitoring so many sex offenders who do not pose a risk for the public. Another solution that has been discussed in Colorado is creating a separate town for sex offenders. I think this could be hard to implement but could solve the problem of sex offenders disappearing and not being able to track. Law enforcement agencies would be able to monitor sex offenders and I think this solution could even help with treatment. On the other hand this could be discriminatory and very expense. Whatever the government decides to do, Jessica’s Law needs to be reformed.

So I leave it up to you, how beneficial is Jessica’s Law?

References

Arlidge, C. (2006). Should California voters approve Jessica's Law? no. CQ Researcher, 16(31),

737. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Peirce, N. (2008, February 11). Celebrated Sex Offender Laws Doing More Harm Than Good.

Nation's Cities Weekly, p. 2. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

http://www.personal-injury-info.net/jessica-lunsford-act.htm

Megan’s Law: Sex Offender Registration

People convicted of sex crimes are looked on by society as dangerous people especially when convicted of sex crimes done to children. The federal government enacted a law requiring convicted sex offenders to register addresses with law enforcement agencies notifying citizens, and allowing offenders to be monitored and tracked. The original legislation came in 1994, the Jacob Wetterling Act and was later modified in 1996. Megan’s Law modified the Jacob Wetterling Act allowing registry information to be disclosed to the public (Levenson et al., 2007). The goal of notification is to inform both the public and past victims in order to protect themselves. Megan’s law was established after the murder and rape of a seven-year-old girl named Megan Kanka in New Jersey. The crime was committed by a previously convicted sex offender. Her parents led the way making it mandatory for the public to have access to sex offender registries. Registration was the beginning, paving the way for notification and housing restrictions.

Megan’s Law has had positive results with the public and the public perception of safety. One positive, significantly fewer sexual offenders have been paroled after implementation of Megan’s Law (Zgoba et al., 2008). Megan’s Law has allowed community members to take precautions to protect family members. Studies found that community notification did increase altruistic behaviors to protect members of their households, although the findings are inconsistent with regard to self-protection (Zgoba et al., 2008). The positive effects of Megan’s Law have been so good; England has proposed a similar law “Sarah’s Law.” Sarah’s Law is intended to reduce the 21,618 alleged sex crimes involving children between April 2008 and March 2009 (BBC News). According to BBC news, “Under the measures, families will be able to ask police if someone with access to a child has convictions or has been previously suspected of abuse.” Citizens of England have had positive responses to the new Law. One person saying, “This is an excellent scheme to protect children. It is extremely important for parent to know background of people who are around their children” (BBC News).

On the other hand Megan’s Law has its flaws. Convicted offenders are confronted with finding and sustaining affordable housing, negative effects on family members and some sex offenders have to register based on minimal seriousness of a sex crime. According to Meloy et al., (2008), “Residence restrictions exemplify a moral panic over ‘stranger-danger’ and a widespread fear of ‘sexual predators’ that are based on a plethora of faulty assumptions. Most of the reasons used to justify the need for residence restrictions are either in direct contradiction to empirical data or, at best, associated with equivocal research findings.” Family members also suffer from registration laws. 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). Megan’s Law does not discriminate against any sex crimes. An offender has to register whether his crime was rape or a teenager caught sexting. Is it right that a teenager be braded for like as a sex offender for committing such a small crime? Should he be placed in the same bracket as a rapist or child molester? There are obvious flaws to Megan’s Law, but what do the statistics say. Does Megan’s Law work to reduce recidivism and protect children?

There have been studies done that find Megan’s Law does not reduce recidivism or first time sex offenders. Megan’s Law does have a positive effect on the community’s state of mind but does not match up with actual statistical findings. 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. Also costs associated with Megan’s Law have gone up. This may be based on the lack of effect on recidivism and prevention. “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). So if Megan’s Law is ineffective why do we still use it? Do all we care about is our state of mind, forget the statistics?

References

BBC News. Offender Alerts Maybe Expanded. http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/

Levenson, J., Zgoba, K., & Tewksbury, R. (2007). Sex Offender Residence Restrictions:
Sensible Crime Policy or Flawed Logic?. Federal Probation, 71(3), 2-9. Retrieved from
Academic Search Premier database.

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).

Meloy, M., Miller, S., & Curtis, K.. (2008). Making Sense out of Nonsense: The Deconstruction
of State-Level Sex Offender Residence Restrictions. American Journal of Criminal
Justice : AJCJ, 33(2), 209-222,309-310. Retrieved March 1, 2010, from Criminal Justice
Periodicals. (Document ID: 1866825981).

Zgoba, K., Witt, P., Dalessandro, M., & Veysey, B.. (2008). Megan’s Law: Assessing the Practical and Monetary Efficacy. http://soissues.d2g.com/SODocuments

SEXTING IS A SEX CRIME?

Sexting has become a widespread problem among American teenagers in recent years and has lead to many teenagers being tried for felony sex offenses. A 2008 survey of 1,280 teenagers and young adults found that 20% of teens (13-19) had sent nude or semi-nude photographs of themselves electronically. Additionally, 39% of teens had sent sexually explicit text messages (Wikipedia.com). Sexting is the act of sending sexually explicit messages or photos electronically, primarily between mobile phones. Teenagers across America are engaged in sexting and it may land them in federal prison, on the sex offender registry or ruin their lives. Teens are being charged for sending sexting and or possessing sexting images even though it is only between teens of who are not yet legally adults. Should we be charging teens with felonies and having them register as sex offenders for sexting or is there another way to handle sexting?

Current laws dealing with sexting are the same laws created to deal with adult pedophiles, which may require new legislation to deal with sexting. Under federal and state child-porn laws it is illegal to create explicit images of a minor, posses them or distribute them (Richmond, 2009). These laws were intended to prevent adult abuse of minors but with sexting are being used to punish minors who create and distribute images. With sexting the images are often of themselves taken by themselves, making them the “perpetrator” and the victim. In January 2009, Greensburg, Pennsylvania, child pornography charges were brought against six teens after three girls sent sexually explicit photographs to their male classmates (Wikipedia.com). Another example took place in Pennsylvania. Photos were found on a cell phone of a teenage girl and she was threatened by a District Attorney to attend a 10 hour pornography and sexual violence class or he would file charges of sexual abuse of a minor against her. If convicted she could serve prison time and have to register as a sex offender (Hamill, 2009). People have different opinions on the legislation in place for teens who are caught sexting. Most feel that the punishment does not fit the crime, while others believe teens need to learn sexting is not ok. Have a look at this video on sexting.

As you just saw in the video, the criterion for charging the teens does not have to be strong. As stated in the video, “All you look at is, is this a nude or semi nude or suggestive photograph-and is the person depicted in it a minor?....And that is enough to warrant a criminal prosecution for child pornography.” The prosecutor in the video stated that the current laws were not intended to be used the way prosecutors are with sexting. On the other hand, the officer agreed with the laws; even though the two parties consent, minors can never consent.

There is new legislation emerging to make the punishment for sexting not detrimental. “Vermont lawmakers introduced a bill in April 2009 to legalize the consensual exchange of graphic images between two people 13 to 18 years old. Passing along such images to others would remain a crime” (Wikapidea.com). Ohio lawmakers have proposed a law that would make sexting a first degree misdemeanor instead of a felony. Eliminating the possibility of the teen being labeled as a sex offender. Lawmakers realize there needs to be punishment sending sexually explicit material that someone does not agree to and sending of material people mutually agree to send between one another.

References

Hamill, S. D. (2009, March 26). Students Sue Prosecutor in Cellphone Photos Case. New York

Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com

Richmond, R. (2009, March 29). Sexting May Place Teens at Legal Risk. New York Times.

Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com

Sexting. (n.d.) In Wikipedia online. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/.

You Tube Video. Sexting Flirting with Felony. Retrieved from http://Youtube.com

Why are sex offenders and the crimes they commit important to study and talk about? Why is the public so interested in sex crimes and the people who commit them? Sex offenders and the crimes that they commit affect thousands of people all over the country and world; the statistics are shocking, 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys are sexually abused before the age of 18, an estimated 39 million survivors of childhood sexual abuse exist in America today (Darkness to Light). According to the Department of justice, there were overall 191,670 victims of rape or sexual assault reported in 20005 and only 16% of rapes and sexual assaults are reported to the police. But 1 of 6 women has experienced an attempted or completed rape. Many of the crimes these sex offenders commit are detrimental to victims, the community and society. Other crimes committed by sex offenders aren't as heinous or detrimental but still need to be examined. The crimes of sex offenders vary in seriousness, from petty or nuisance misdemeanors to rape and child molestation. In the recent past, since about 1994, laws have been passed to track sex offenders and prevent them from reoffending. Laws such as Megan’s Law and Jessica’s Law are two of the most widely discussed. Many feel these laws are working, while others believe they create civil rights issues for offenders and their family members. Sex crimes are becoming less visible and less likely to occur, but still need to be studied to further reduce sex from happening

Sex crimes and sex offenders are important to talk about because of the amount of people they affect every year. According to Holmes and Holmes (2009), there are currently more than 234,000 sex offenders in prison in the United States. Most of these offenders are people who have committed a crime like rape or other violent sex crimes. There are approximately 400,000 registered sex offenders in the U.S. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (2006) report that 14.8 % of women were victims of rape sometime during their lifetimes; 2.8% of women were victims of attempted rape at some point during their lifetimes. It is assumed these numbers are low since rape is widely believed to be an underreported crime. We know that sex crimes are being committed everyday but what can be done to reduce the frequency and repair the damage to victims as well as treat offenders?

Some people believe that sex offender treatment programs are a waste of time and money, while others believe treatment is better than just locking offenders up. These people believe that sex offenders are not treated they will continue to commit sex crimes when released. Treatment programs can contribute to community safety because those who attend and cooperate with program conditions are less likely to re-offend than those who reject intervention (Center for sex offender management, 2009). The only meta-analysis of treatment outcome studies to date has found a small, yet significant treatment effect—an 8% reduction in the recidivism rate for offenders who participated in treatment (Hall, 1995). Research also demonstrates that sex offenders who fail to complete treatment programs are at increased risk for both sexual and general recidivism (Hanson and Bussiere, 1998). Sex offender treatment can work but treatment doesn’t work for everyone. Treatment is important because something has to be done to prevent reoffending. At the same time incarceration is important because there needs to be punishment when people commit sex crimes. I don’t believe there can be one without the other. Meaning there can’t be punishment without treatment and vice versa. The topic of sex crimes and sex offenders is important because of the harm these crimes cause and the amount of people affected by these crimes every day. We need to study and evaluate why people commit these crimes and what can be done to stop them, treat offenders and repair victims.

References

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2005). Criminal victimizations 2004. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice.
Hall, G.C.N., "Sex Offender Recidivism Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of Recent Treatment
Studies," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 63 (1995): 802-809.
Hanson, R. and Bussiere, M. "Predicting Relapse: A Meta-Analysis of Sexual Offender
Recidivism Studies," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 66 (1998): 348-364.
Holmes, S. T. (2009). Sex Crimes: Patterns and Behaviors. California: Thousand Oaks.
CSOM. (2009). Center for Sex Offender Management. Retrieved from http://www.csom.org/