The Conversation: The Sex Offender Registry

7-5-2010 National:

The Forbes.com community argues all sides of this controversial list.

Last week Forbes Opinions columnist Lenore Skenazy pushed buttons with her incendiary column "Shred Your Sex Offender Map." It is well worth reading, not that everyone agrees with her premise: The registry is useless and hurts more than it helps.

No need to go into what it means to be a sex offender: a person who commits a sex crime. If only, laments Skenazy. What it really means shifts from one legal jurisdiction to another (sex with a prostitute will get you on the list in five states while it's urinating in public in 13 states). And is there a difference between a Mary Kay Letourneau, convicted of raping her 12-year-old student, and someone who was caught in a victimless FBI sting on Craigslist? Besides two years in prison for the former and six years for the latter, nothing as far as the registry and its fear factor are concerned.

She also points to all the wasted police time and attention in tracking the list. And what about the thought of your own child winding up a registered sex offender for dating the wrong high school freshman, for chrissake?

To date the column has 87 comments and an active discussion on ForbesWoman's Facebook page. Here, a highlight reel of some the most concise and spirited statements from the community.

LastTrain, a commenter on Forbes.com wrote: "The registry is filled with low- and no-risk offenders--people falsely accused, people lied to by someone underage, people who have been framed, even older teens who have offered a younger teen a ride in their car. There are also many legitimate sex offenders who are dangerous, repeat offenders."

But how is a concerned community member to know the difference when they're scanning the registry? LastTrain continued: "You will see an offender and a crime listed for them. You think you can tell the difference between someone who is a violent offender and someone who was a 19-year-old who had consensual sex with his girlfriend who happened to be three years younger? If so, you must possess some special powers. Both offenses can be listed as 'Aggravated Sexual Assault with Force.'"

The story of just such a charge came from rsolfighters, who shared how her husband of 14 years was charged for a sex offense at age 18 when he slept with a coed one year his junior at a college party.

A guilty plea and community service led to being grandfathered into Adam's Law, a 2006 child safety act named for Adam Walsh, and Megan's Law, which requires airing sex offenders' laundry lists of dirty deeds to the public for life. "Because of the restriction laws, we can't choose to live or accept jobs where we want to," she said. "The police have to check up on him every month to make sure he is living where he is [registered]. It's a waste of their time."

Nearly a third of the comments on Forbes.com told of their own stories of those of friends or family members who were placed on the registry for various reasons. In most instances teens were placed on the registry for dating girls just months younger, and their lives "are ruined."

By and large, though, commenters (often parents of young children) were unforgiving of sex offenders and appalled that Skenazy would think otherwise.

"Thank goodness for the Sex Offenders Registry," said ErnieB. "Not only is it helpful it is a right of every citizen to know if a sexual deviate is living in close proximity to their family. If you believe you have been wrongly singled out, then you should fight to get the registry changed. But don't take away my right to know about perverts because part of the registry may need to be modified."

Diana Dietzschold Bourgeois on Facebook wrote: "I think everyone should know if there are sex offenders living in their neighborhood so we can protect our children. Seems like the people that did not break the law should have the rights…not the criminals."

"Oh yes," said Audrey Magee on Facebook. "I want to know! I have two children and I check the registry list for my neighborhood once a month and will do it until the day I die!"

Gail Marie Beliveau had little sympathy: "My understanding is that a sex offender cannot be 'cured.' If they are let out, the fact that they 'served their time' means nothing."

Going one step further, Nokuthula Banda said, "I think sex offenders should be locked away for good. Anyone who forces themselves on little kids, or anyone for that matter, does not deserve to be free."

Motherof5 used to feel the same way--until she did more research. "There are five sex offenders living in my ZIP code. We looked into all of them. None of them are what I would see as a risk. Yet all of them are having all of their rights taken away: they can't get a job, they can't visit their kids in school. As a mother, I want to protect my children. But to punish these people like this, when they don't pose a risk, is so wrong that I feel a great deal of empathy for these 'sex offenders.' You know the system is wrong when you now feel empathy for 'sex offenders.'"

Fascismbegone agrees: "Sex offender laws obviously need reform so that we focus on the truly dangerous only. The original intent of Megan's Law was to do just this, but greedy politicians expanded laws beyond belief for their own benefit…We need reform."

But how? Pitbull 2010 said, "I think the Dugard case [referring to Jaycee Dugard, who was found after going missing 18 years] illustrates in a graphic way that the registry experiment is a dismal failure. We need to reform the laws and take them back to their original purpose, which was to be a tool for law enforcement only, and only repeat or violent offenders should be required to sign it. "

"What we should focus on is creating filters," agreed Allison 2010, "ways to separate the dangerous, risky criminals from the pack." ..Source.. by Meghan Casserly