Deeply Flawed Sex Offender Registry Needs Rethinking

2-29-2012 Connecticut:

Study shows vast majority of sex offenders don't re-offend

If you go to the state's sex offender registry, you will come away with two impressions. One is that most sex offenders are child molesters. The "Welcome" section begins; "The Department of Emergency Services & Public Protection strives to keep the children of Connecticut safe each and every day. The protection of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens is a top priority ..."

The second, and really the justification for the registry, is that sex offenders are a constant threat to reoffend. "50% of sex offenders reoffend," we learn from the presentation.

The first of these is merely misleading. There are a wide spectrum of sex offenses, from child molestation and sexual assault to prostitution and non-contact crimes such as voyeurism and public indecency.

The second, assuming we are talking about committing another sex crime, is spectacularly inaccurate. The real number of sex offenders who are convicted of another sex crime in Connecticut is not 50 percent — it is 2.7 percent. You may be surprised and you should be troubled.

The number comes from an extensive study of recidivism among sex offenders in the state (see http://www.courant.com/sexoffenders), recently completed by the Office of Policy and Management. The study tracked 14,398 men for a five-year period following their release or discharge from a Connecticut prison in 2005. In that cohort, 1,395 men had a previous arrest for a sex offense, 846 had a conviction and 746 served a prison sentence, either the one ending in 2005 or an earlier one, for a sex offense.

Looking at the 746 men who had served time for a sex crime, 27, or 3.6 percent, were arrested and charged with a new sex crime; 20, or 2.7 percent, were convicted of a new sex offense; and 13, or 1.7 percent, were returned to prison for a new sex crime. Many among the 746 committed other crimes — many for parole violations or violating the conditions of the sex offender registry — but not sex crimes.

The surprisingly low rate of recidivism among convicted sex offenders raises at least two public policy issues. Connecticut has an intensive supervision and treatment program for sex offenders, starting in prison and moving to case management in community settings. Some have criticized this approach, but some think it is making a major difference. It would be helpful to know if it is, and whether it can be applied to other kinds of criminals.

The second issue involves the sex offender registry. If the people on the registry overwhelmingly aren't the ones who are committing the new sex crimes, as the study indicates, then perhaps the registry idea needs to be reviewed.

The state's sex offender registry currently has nearly 5,400 names on it. They are not there because of the risk they pose, they are there because they committed a sex crime. The risk is assumed. But it turned out the assumption is mostly wrong.

There are, to be sure, some dangerous predators deservedly on the list. But there are also a variety of others — Internet fantasists, exhibitionists and others who are risky only to themselves.

If the registry is not protecting the public, then it might be worth weighing it against the collateral damage it imparts. Some experts have told me people will not report certain crimes such as incest to keep a family member off the list and avoid the social stigma, the modern scarlet letter.

Sex offenders trying to reintegrate into the community need decent housing and a job. Good luck. Sex offenders all too often end up in homeless shelters — and are sometimes sent back to jail for not keeping their quarterly residency forms current. A former parole board member told me of an 18-year-old was convicted for sleeping with his 15-year-old girlfriend — known as a "Romeo and Juliet" crime — who then married the girl and had a child, but couldn't go to the child's school because he was a sex offender.

Connecticut ought to consider doing what Minnesota does, which is to divide sex offenders by risk and only put the predators, the ones judged to be risks, on the public registry. And if the registry isn't providing the protection it promises, then maybe resources should be shifted to where they could do more good, perhaps to education and prevention programs in date and dorm rape, domestic violence and similar behaviors. ..Source.. by Hardford Courant