So it’s no surprise that people search the sex offender registration website to make sure that no one convicted of a sexual offense lives near them or more worrisome, their children’s school, day care or neighborhood park. The premise is simple: to make people feel safer in their community. But are they truly safer? Have we been relying on the wrong system?

Long before the world was introduced to the predatory behavior of people like Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby, lawmakers across the nation worked to deter victimization and protect citizens from sexual assault. They enacted policies governing individuals convicted of sexual offenses — known as sex offender registration and notification (SORN) laws. These policies allow for law enforcement to maintain a list to track and monitor sex offenders, and registry websites provide the public with registrants’ addresses and identifying information.

But do registration and notification policies actually deter individuals inclined to commit sexual offenses and protect citizens?

A new study of ours shows that these policies are not effective in deterring crime or protecting citizens. We summarized 25 years of research and 474,640 formerly incarcerated sex offenders. We found that such policies do not reduce sexual or non-sexual recidivism.

No reduction. At all.

If the policies are ineffective, then why do we have them?

These policies exist as a governmental response to community fear and outrage. There is political pressure to increase public safety. The problem is that these laws were enacted very quickly after child murder cases and became wide-reaching governmental mandates without research to back their existence and effectiveness. Fast forward 25 years, and the public and politicians are relying on window-dressing to feel safe.

This false sense of safety comes with real consequences.

First, sex offender registration and notification policies have had a net-widening effect, making more registrants eligible and for considerably longer periods of time even though individuals convicted of sexual offenses age out of crime, as do others.

Second, these policies use a “one size fits all” approach and misallocate resources and supervision to offenders with lower risk levels. The ever-growing registry has become a fiscal burden for states.

Finally, sex offender registration and notification policies continue to label and stigmatize individuals after they have served their time. Subsequent dehumanization disrupts any meager attempts to reintegrate the person back into society. Despite what seems like common sense, these policies create obstacles to the factors that promote law-abiding behavior: jobs, secure housing and social support.

There are better ways. We need to educate the public, law enforcement and policy makers that governmental oversight of registrants is not a feasible solution to protecting potential sexual abuse victims. This is not a call to “go soft” on crime, it is an encouragement to “go smart” on crime and use data to make informed decisions. This reimagining requires us as a society to confront the uncomfortable truth that those who commit sexual offenses are usually not strangers — they are more likely to be the most trusted figures around us — our loved ones, our babysitters, coaches, teachers and close family friends.

In the end, parents, community members, and potential home buyers and renters will continue to frequent the sex offender registration website, gathering a false sense of safety — potentially at their own peril — until we as a society are willing to address who the perpetrators of sexual violence are and accept the fact that sex offender registration and notification policies demonstrate little value in making a meaningful impact. Tough-on-crime policies are not always smart policies. It is time to do better.

Meghan M. Mitchell (mmitchell@ucf.edu; @MeghanMMitchell) is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Central Florida. Kristen M. Zgoba (kzgoba@fiu.edu) is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida International University. Alex R. Piquero (axp1954@miami.edu; @DrAlexPiquero) is chair of the Department of Sociology and Criminology and Arts & Sciences Distinguished Scholar at the University of Miami.

Source: Tampa Bay Times

Various anti-registry advocacy groups throughout the nation are in shock and dismay that a prominent newspaper such as USA Today would be engaged in doxing styled tactics where no criminal charges or allegations were levied by the Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital.

One of the first ethical codes of journalism is “Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.” What that means is there should be no harm to individuals that have committed no present wrong. Let’s face a self-evident truth. The average patient at a VA hospital is typically 60 years of age or significantly older. No child, if ever, as at a VA hospital. So, where does the USA Today story connect to future or potential harm? I would strongly argue that this was nothing more than a targeted smear, and perhaps personal, campaign to target someone on the registry to sell fear and newspapers.

A critical problem with the media and truth in reporting is that investigative journalism should cover serious crimes, political corruption, or corporate wrongdoing. None of these criteria were applicable. The VA assessed that it performed all the requirements for Mr. Lopez to contracts, which he was legally entitled to implement. Rather than providing a brief moment of hope and perseverance to perhaps praise Mr. Lopez for working diligently to supply at-risk veterans with supplies that could treat COVID related symptoms, the newspaper went negative. However, USA Today saw otherwise and became the de facto public policy strategist that perhaps sent a man to the unemployment line, created unnecessary fear, and sends a message that a crime committed over a decade ago is unforgivable.

USA Today should be highly ashamed of the tactics it pulled against a registrant trying to return to society by his only crime today of “trying to make a living.” Perhaps we ought to consider boycotting agents or companies that harm, similar to these circumstances? I won’t be reading or supporting USA Today for quite some time.

I just read this saying this week:  Raising a teen is like nailing JELL-O to a tree.  Truly made me laugh out loud…I can seriously see me trying this with ooey-gooey red JELL-O…and making an utter mess of it.  Sometimes that is how I feel as a parent.  One of the most challenging aspects I face is being a parent in a family with a registered citizen.  I am the wife of a registrant.  We have a child who has become a teenager.  As if raising a teenager isn’t challenging enough on its own, add all the registry restrictions by which our family has to live.  As a younger child, we were able to shield our child from the stigma of the registry.  However, our child is now at an age where every friend, parent, teacher, coach, and neighbor have access to online information revealing our  situation.  Our child is at the age where kids are starting to ask questions. Imagine being a teenager and questioned if your parent is on the registry because they ran across something on the internet.  People tend to sensationalize everything.  People love drama. People love gossip.  People forget there are real people behind the gossip.  We are NOT those kind of people. We understand that there’s a deeper side to people’s stories – that there are deep wounds that open up every time someone recounts your family story.

My family has entered the age of teenagers and dating.  There’s no handbook on navigating this space.  Do you have a sit-down with the girlfriend’s/boyfriend’s parents and share your family situation?  Do you just remain silent?  Do you just wait it out, knowing that high school relationships are often short-lived anyway?  Do you worry that your story will spread like revenge wildfire if your teen and their significant other ever breakup?  Do you let your child date “outside” the home so that the significant other is never at your house or in your presence, in order to keep your own family safe?  How is your child supposed to handle it when their significant other asks why they never hang out at your house?  Is your teen more vulnerable to accusations simply because a family member was accused?  These are the situations we face daily and I do not have the right answers.  I am not sure if there are any “right” answers.

As a parent of a teenager, there are things I have learned along my journey.  I have learned to be honest with our child, no matter how ugly the situation is.  It has always been age-appropriate level of information we share, of course, but always the truth.  When he was young and asked questions, we always answered.  He knew he could ask.  Sometimes the answer may be that it’s not really age appropriate right now but we will tell you more as you age.  We have worked on trust since he was very young, and that has been our greatest bond as a family.  As our child has aged, he has had to learn to manage the curiosity of others.  I am not there every time someone asks a question of him, so he has to be mature beyond his years and be ready to respond.  We have practiced “scripted” responses so that in the event he is questioned, he has an answer ready that is true but allows the conversation to turn in a different direction.

I do hate it for our son – he has to live two lives.  He is not ready to share our life story with every person in his life, as trust is difficult to come by. He has already seen those, who were his best friends, turn into different people seemingly overnight.  The teen years often do that.  He has come close to sharing his story, then pulled back.  This is something he has to gauge and it is a natural part of growing up.  He struggles because he is a true friend to others, very compassionate and sincere.  It is a challenge for him to not share his story – for that makes him feel dishonest.  But, he has had to grow up faster than most kids and find a level of maturity that others don’t have.  We are so proud of him.  I need to say that again – we are SO proud that he has navigated this ugly path along with us and been an emotional support for us when we aren’t at our best.  As much as I can complain about the absolute ridiculousness of the registry, I have to give credit in one thing.  It has made our son the man he is growing into, and we are beyond blessed. He is finding his voice.  He is extremely protective of his family.  He has learned to be a true friend who others can trust, because he more than anyone understands the need for true friendships and trust.

So here’s to all the parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, friends, and neighbors of those on the registry.  It’s a tough road but it is not impossible.  We live in a much different world than when I was young.  The conversations we have with our son have to reflect that.  I always heard it was more difficult to raise daughters than sons.  I disagree.  Any kind of parenting is a challenge, especially when the legal system continues to make laws which make living as a family so challenging.  Families do things together – but the registry is so limiting towards family-oriented activities.  Yet another thing we face daily – but we do our best.  So get creative in your family.  Surround each other with love, trust, and encouragement.  And when you’re struggling, remember….there are NCRSOL members who are walking a similar path.  You’re never alone.

Let it be said – Parenting ain’t easy!

As I always remind you, you must be the change you wish to see in the world.
Be a change agent…
– Phoebe

The fair is just another place in a long list of locations that registrants are not allowed to attend.  But WHY?  Do we stop anyone else from going to the State Fair?  I’m going to continue saying this – there is a huge drug problem in this area and yet we don’t stop drug dealers from attending.  The request to allow registrants to go the State Fair is not about the fair itself.  It is about human rights.  It is about the fact that the government has said a registrant cannot go there.  There is no valid justification as to why.  Yes, there has been a person or two arrested at the state fair.  However, what they don’t tell you is if that person was committing some kind of act at the fair OR if they were just merely on the premises.  Maybe they really wanted those gotta-have French Fries that were just featured on the news.  Maybe they were hitting up the deep-fried Oreos vendor.  Maybe they were standing in line for those giant-sized donuts I heard all about this year.  Like most of us, registrants are no different.  They, too, want to fill their bellies with deep-fried-everythings during the week of the fair!  Oh, and by the way, how much publicity was there about the 35 fair workers who were charged with drugs during a single night of monitoring their temporary living quarters?

Let’s forget the registry for just a moment.  Would it be fair to say to that someone with size 11 feet can’t go to the fair – for no other reason than we just have that rule?  Would it be fair to say that a recovering alcoholic couldn’t go since there’s a beer garden there?  Would it be fair to say that someone with animal allergies can’t go since there is a petting zoo there?  Is it really fair to restrict registrants from the fair for 30 years (the length of the registry), no matter what their charge?  You have people with misdemeanor charges who cannot attend for 30 years.  Just plain crazy.  Telling someone they cannot go to certain places because of a charge against them, for which they have already paid the penalty of imprisonment and/or probation, is not fair.  FAIR.  Now that word makes me laugh in the most sarcastic way.  The state “fair” is not “fair.”

To assume all registered citizens are a threat to society is a falsehood.  Do I think sex offenders are discriminated against?  I absolutely do.  I rarely use the word discrimination because I want to be really careful about how I and when it is used.  But yes – as a group, registered sex offenders are discriminated against. NCRSOL’s push to allow registrants to attend the state fair isn’t about the fair and the fries, Oreos, and donuts – it’s about your rights as a human.

NCRSOL – thank you for your voice.  Your members appreciate you.

You must be the change you wish to see in the world.
Be a change agent…