Sex Offender Registration in America: Controlling the Beasts Among Us

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

When convicted sex offenders have completed their prison sentences they are released back into society. Sex offenses continue to occur in American society. When sex offenders commit other sex offenses, the relatively isolated events get a disproportionate amount of media attention. The public naturally associates prior sex offenders with current offenses. Public frenzied response to media attention on anecdotal events further heightens the fear of the public of sex offenders. The public then engages in wild conjecture and manufactures unsubstantiated theories about sex offenders, calling for responsive legislation. Legislators pass laws to satisfy the public's demand for security and satisfactory laws. But the legislation is often as ill-considered as are the public theories that define the problem in the first place.
In response to the problem of sex offenses in America, the United States has passed Megan's Laws (and a host of similar legislation) to control the behavior of sex offenders. Such laws require that offenders register with the state of their residence, and that the public have access to information regarding the identities, offenses, and locations of such offenders in their area.
Registration and notification legislation is only as effective as its premises are true. The premises of Megan's Law-type legislation are that sex offenders are incurably sex criminals, compelled to commit sex crimes, that they have a higher recidivism rate than other types of criminals, and that registration and notification laws will both deter sex offenders from re-offending and forewarn the public so that it can defend against known sex offenders. Unfortunately, none of the premises are true.
Sex offenders are treatable. Sex offenders are not compelled to re-offend in the same way. And recidivism rates for sex offenders are far lower than they are for other major crimes. The facts undercut the wisdom of bringing registration and notification legislation against sex offenders. But the legislation brings with it a host of other problems as well.
Megan's-type laws give the public a false sense of security. Believing that they have identified the threat, the public may be less vigilant against the true source for sex offenses in America: most sex offenses are committed not by strangers, but by family and acquaintances.
Megan's-type laws have a suppressive effect upon property values in neighborhoods where offenders live. While the knowledge that a criminal is living among them provides some sense of security so long as individuals can monitor the actions of the offender, all potential buyers have access to information showing the presence of criminals in the midst of the neighborhood in which they are contemplating living. And buyers pay less for property near perceived threats to their security.
Megan's-type laws have a derogatory effect on both offenders and their family and friends. While many of us consider that the offenders deserve the "scarlet letter" such legislation places upon them, the distinction interferes with employment opportunities, school and social activities of family members. Residence restrictions further depress opportunities for offenders and actually have the effect of increasing recidivism rates.
Registration and notification laws regarding sex offenders were bad ideas in America in the mid-1990s, and they remain so today. Such laws are certainly a bad idea in the rest of the world, unless legislation can overcome the faults of the underlying premises and find new supporting premises. One obvious way to overcome the faulty foundation is to not make registration and notice a postconviction/post-penalty iteration at all, but to make it part of the punishment itself. In essence, this would be a modern version of the Puritanical "Scarlet Letter" ofthree centuries ago.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• [Abstract]
• Ⅰ. Introduction
• Ⅱ. Megan's Law, in general
• Ⅲ. The Premises of registration and notificationlaws are flawed
• Ⅳ. Better Solutions? Areas for further research
• Ⅴ. Conclusion
• [References]