[acb-hsp] A False Remedy for Sex Offenders

[peter altschul]

A False Remedy for Sex Offenders
  8/18/2011 Steve Chapman
  At age 14, J.L.  impregnated his girlfriend in a consensual 
encounter.  This was bad news on several grounds, the worst being 
that she was 15 months younger.  Convicted of rape for having sex 
with a 12-year-old, he will have to register as a sex offender -- 
for the rest of his life.
  Last month, the South Dakota Supreme Court upheld the verdict, 
while admitting it made little sense.  "Application of the 
first-degree rape statute to the present facts does not create an 
unintended absurdity," the justices concluded.  The absurdity 
must have been deliberate.
  J.L.  isn't the only person to be ensnared by ridiculous 
interpretations of laws affecting sex offenders.  A Michigan man 
convicted in 1984 of rape was supposed to report his home address 
to police after getting out of prison in 2002.  Being homeless, 
he tried to comply by providing the address of a homeless shelter 
where he got his meals.  Not good enough, said the Michigan 
Supreme Court a few weeks ago.  It said he can be sent back to 
jail for failing to file the address of whatever spot he laid his 
head each night.
  Sex offender registries once sounded like an urgent necessity.  
They came in reaction to publicized crimes in which children died 
at the hands of convicted sex offenders.  One of the most 
shocking involved a 7-year-old New Jersey girl, Megan Kanka, who 
in 1994 was raped and strangled by a paroled child molester 
living across the street from her home.
  New Jersey enacted "Megan's Law," subjecting sex offenders to 
registration and community notification, so police and citizens 
would be aware of known risks.  Today, all 50 states maintain 
registries and make at least some of the information available to 
the public.
  But this was a reasonable notion that has been damaged by 
indiscriminate expansion.  It's one thing to notify neighbors 
when a serial rapist moves in.  Many states, however, lump frisky 
teens in with violent adults.  Others, reports Jacob Sullum in 
Reason magazine, include mopes who were caught trolling for 
prostitutes or urinating in public.
  Some states also put broad curbs on where convicted sex 
offenders may live.  In Miami, many of them have taken up 
residence under a causeway for lack of an alternative.  This 
outcome may not warrant sympathy, but it makes it harder for 
police and citizens to keep tabs on them.
  Such flaws would be of minimal consequence if the laws served 
to prevent crime.  The surprising revelation is they don't.
  A 2008 report funded by the Justice Department found the 
original Megan's Law in New Jersey to be a non-event.  The 
policy, researchers documented, "showed no demonstrable effect in 
reducing sexual re-offenses" and "has no effect on reducing the 
number of victims involved in sexual offenses." The zero effect 
had a cost above zero -- nearly $4 million annually for the 15 
counties included in the study.
  A more comprehensive study was undertaken by Amanda Agan, a 
doctoral candidate in economics at the University of Chicago, and 
published recently in the Journal of Law and Economics.  
Analyzing data from across the country, she detected no tangible 
gains from this approach.
  "Rates of sex offense do not decline after the introduction of 
a registry or public access to a registry via the Internet, nor 
do sex offenders appear to recidivate less when released into 
states with registries," she writes.  Evidence from Washington, 
D.C.  shows no connection between the number of sex offenders on 
a block and the rate of sex crimes.
  That doesn't mean you and I are crazy to prefer knowing about 
the pedophile next door.  But it suggests the information offers 
no actual benefit.  After all, most convicted sex offenders do 
not go on to be arrested for new sex offenses, and more than 90 
percent of child victims are assaulted not by strangers but by 
relatives or other people they know.
  Sex offender registries may cause parents to focus on the 
remote peril while ignoring the more pertinent one.  And, as in 
the examples cited earlier, they can inflict harsh punishment 
that departs from common sense and does nothing for public 
safety.
  Shielding citizens from vicious predators is unquestionably one 
of the central functions of any sound government.  Megan's Laws 
were enacted in the sensible pursuit of that goal.  What they 
offer in practice, though, is counterfeit comfort.
  Steve Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the 
Chicago Tribune.