Sex offenders: Some may be taken off registration list

1-2-2011 Texas:

Some of the vast work involved in tracking sex offenders in Texas might be alleviated through an option to remove some on the list.

Chapter 62, Subchapter I of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure allows development of mechanisms for the early termination of registry requirements for certain offenders.

The whole, though, is still a work in progress, said Allison Taylor, executive director of Texas’ Council on Sex Offender Treatment.

“The problem is that we have been tied to federal law, and federal law requires the offense to determine the length of registration,” Taylor said. “What we’ve been working toward is basing length of registration on risk levels.”

Just reading the existing database, there are situations, especially when younger people are involved, in which one cannot easily tell if a “Romeo and Juliet” situation is at the heart of the requirement to register, or something darker, Taylor said.

“A lot of these juveniles get charged with indecency with a child, and that’s a lifetime registration,” she said.

Mary Sue Molnar, director of Texas Voices, a group that wants to see reforms to Texas’ registry system, said violent and dangerous offenders need to be closely monitored and punished appropriately.

But with roughly 63,000 people on Texas’ registry, “we’re less safe because law enforcement is wasting time and resources on people who pose no threat to anyone,” she argues.

Molnar started the organization because of her son, who at age 22 became intimately involved with a 16-year-old girl.

“It was so unbelievable that something like this would give him that label (sex offender) for life,” she said. “I feel like they did the wrong thing because it was against the law, but I think the punishment should fit the crime. At some point, someone should be able to serve their time and redeem themselves.”

A relative flood of incoming members in the organization, many with similar family stories, seems to indicate that others agree, she said.

“We just didn’t realize how quickly it would grow,” Molnar said of the organization’s rapid expansion.

The group wants to see changes like those described in Subchapter I, allowing people to petition to have their names removed from the registry, get away from residency restrictions and, most important, the “sex offender label.”

“A de-registration system needs to be put in place — and I think that can be done,” Molnar said. “It’s costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep up with everyone on that registry.”

And those costs could rise because all states must, by this year, implement SORNA, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, Title I of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.

SORNA provides a comprehensive set of minimum standards for sex offender registration and notification in the United States, according to the initiative’s website, and aims to close gaps and loopholes that existed under prior law while generally strengthening the nationwide network of sex offender registration and notification programs.

Among its additions are requiring recognized American Indian tribes to register offenders, incorporating a more comprehensive group of offenders and offenses for which registration is required, and also requiring offenders to provide more extensive registration information.

A 2008 report by Washington think-tank Justice Policy Institute estimated that it would cost Texas $38 million to implement the program if done that year.

So far, only four states — Florida, Ohio, Delaware and South Dakota — and two American Indian tribes have complied.

A recent study by Austin’s police department said implementing SORNA would increase the department’s workload by 175 percent because of the increase in verifications it would require, Taylor said.

“There’s no money for that,” she said. “States are in agreement that there need to be some minimums; however, you take away the state’s jurisdiction, and it’s not listening to what the research shows.”

The typical profile of a sex offender is somewhat different from what public perception — a predator likely to strike as many victims as possible — might be, Taylor said.

“The media’s portrayal of sex offenders doesn’t accurately reflect what 30 years of research shows us,” she said.

Adult sex offenders typically have low recidivism rates — 12 to 17 percent, she said. Juvenile offenders’ rates are even lower, ranging from 5 to 7 percent.

“The media uses ‘predator’ when they’re speaking regarding all sex offenders, and the fact of the matter is that all sex offenders, just like other criminals, don’t fit into one standard profile,” she said. “You’ve got varying levels of risk.”

Truly high-risk offenders make up about 8 to 10 percent of all those tagged as sex offenders, she said, with anywhere from a 55 percent to 82 percent recidivism rate within two years.

“I think we have taken steps within the state to identify truly high risk offenders, and with the civil commitment process, we’re monitoring those predatory populations,” Taylor said.

But removing low-risk or “Romeo and Juliet” cases from the registry — at least faster — could go a long way toward helping pare down the state’s lengthy list to a more manageable level, she said.

“Not every sex offender is the same,” Taylor said. ..Source..