NP Rank:
America has pioneered the harsh punishment of sex offenders...
... does it work?
Every American state keeps a register of sex offenders. California has had one since 1947, but most states started theirs in the 1990s. Many people assume that anyone listed on a sex-offender registry must be a rapist or a child molester. But most states spread the net much more widely. A report by Sarah Tofte of Human Rights Watch, a pressure group, found that at least five states required men to register if they were caught visiting prostitutes. At least 13 required it for urinating in public (in two of which, only if a child was present). No fewer than 29 states required registration for teenagers who had consensual sex with another teenager. And 32 states registered flashers and streakers.
There is a very interesting and important debate in criminology and beyond about what should constitute a sex offence and how sex offenders should be dealt with. By and large, this debate does not concern cases of assault of a minor by an adult for example (which are relatively straightforward, as definitions go), but rather cases of sexual contact between teenagers, one of whom is 'underage'. As reported above, 29 US states require that teenagers who have sex with other teenagers are registered as sex offenders.
But are they really sex offenders? That is the central question and just one example of the 'net-widening' measures introduced in the US through attempts to reduce sexual offences. But do these measures work? My instinct is that they very much do not.
Georgia has more than 17,000 registered sex offenders. Some are highly dangerous. But many are not. And it is fiendishly hard for anyone browsing the registry to tell the one from the other. The Georgia Sex Offender Registration Review Board, an official body, assessed a sample of offenders on the registry last year and concluded that 65% of them posed little threat. Another 30% were potentially threatening, and 5% were clearly dangerous. The board recommended that the first group be allowed to live and work wherever they liked. The second group could reasonably be barred from living or working in certain places, said the board, and the third group should be subject to tight restrictions and a lifetime of monitoring. A very small number “just over 100” are classified as “predators”, which means they have a compulsion to commit sex offences. When not in jail, predators must wear ankle bracelets that track where they are. Despite the board’s findings, non-violent offenders remain listed and subject to a giant cobweb of controls. One rule, championed by Georgia’s House majority leader, banned them from living within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop. This proved unworkable. Thomas Brown, the sheriff of DeKalb county near Atlanta, mapped the bus stops in his patch and realised that he would have to evict all 490 of the sex offenders living there. Other than the bottom of a lake or the middle of a forest, there was hardly anywhere in Georgia for them to live legally. In the end Georgia’s courts stepped in and suspended the bus-stop rule, along with another barring sex offenders from volunteering in churches. But most other restrictions remain.
It seems that, despite large differences in the behaviours of these people (and the threat that they pose), they are all really treated the same by the system and by wider society. This means that the majority of these people will never be given adequate treatment, a chance to rehabilitate, or a way to reengage in society. As such, offending doesn't decrease, and measures become tougher.
So laws get harsher and harsher. But that does not necessarily mean they get better. If there are thousands of offenders on a registry, it is harder to keep track of the most dangerous ones. Budgets are tight. Georgia’s sheriffs complain that they have been given no extra money or manpower to help them keep the huge and swelling sex-offenders’ registry up to date or to police its confusing mass of rules. Terry Norris of the Georgia Sheriffs’ Association cites a man who was convicted of statutory rape two decades ago for having consensual sex with his high-school sweetheart, to whom he is now married. “It doesn’t make it right, but it doesn’t make him a threat to anybody,” says Mr Norris. “We spend the same amount of time on that guy as on someone who’s done something heinous.”
No one needs to be told that sex offending is serious and worrisome but labelling everyone the same does nothing to reduce to reduce the problem. This, to me, is a very dangerous vicious circle.



Comments (0)