Sex offenders deserve second chance

You know you’re in the Silicon Valley when you’ve
met your neighbors ““ once. You know you’re in Los
Angeles when calling your neighbors requires knowing their area
codes. You know you’re in Cuero, Texas when your
neighbor’s front yard has a two-by-two foot sign announcing:
“A registered sex offender lives here.”

I must admit, sex offender registries sound useful, and signs
sound even better. If I were going to move into a new neighborhood
with my (fictional) 5-year-old daughter, I would want to know
whether the creepy guy living across the street was a convicted sex
offender. And a two-by-two foot sign would save me the trouble of
checking the online registry or making a special trip to the police
department.

This has become reality for people in Cuero. According to the
Herald Democrat, the city unanimously passed an ordinance requiring
high-risk sex offenders to announce their presence with a sign.

I’d also love to know whether the girl next door is a
heroin addict and whether anyone in the near vicinity watches
porn.

Watching porn is not exactly the same as committing a sexual
offense (it’s rather far from it), but it’s similar in
that it’s unnecessary information. In one case, you’re
assuming someone’s future actions based on their past
actions, and in the other you are aware of a person’s sexual
fantasies, which could lead you to draw conclusions about what they
do in “reality.” No one’s sexual fantasies are
“normal.”

The idea behind a sex offender registry is that if everyone
knows the creepy guy across the street is a violent sexual
predator, then everyone can keep an eye on him. You can set up a
system through which someone can bring him flowers or cookies once
a week to make sure he’s still living there.

While it is strictly illegal to use this information to harass
someone, it’s impossible to know someone is, say, a convicted
child molester and not treat them differently. Once people have
served their time, they should be able to continue on with their
lives without this extra stress.

I understand the desire to have sex offender registries, but
they don’t accomplish what they are intended to and are
therefore unnecessary.

The argument in favor of registries assumes (a) most sex
offenders are of the violent predator variety (they’re not),
and (b) sex offenders’ recidivism rates, or the rates of
relapsing into criminal activity, are high, according to
PrisonerLife.com.

The truth? According to the Mercury News, the recidivism rates
of sex offenders have been quoted from anywhere as low as 6 percent
to as high as 13 percent (there wasn’t a huge change between
the time before the registries were implemented and after, so we
can’t attribute this low percentage to them). And something
that has remained relatively consistent is that the recidivism rate
of sex offenders is much lower than those of other crimes,
according to a study by the U.S. Department of Justice, titled
“Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released in 1994.” The
study also noted that the only crime with a lower recidivism rate
is murder.

Just compare the recidivism rates of sex offenders to the
overall recidivism rates of criminals in the United States, a
number well over 60 percent, according to Wikipedia.org. Those who
are no longer in prison aren’t likely to repeat their crime
and don’t need to be put on a registry.

And realistically the man or woman who’s most likely to
harass your son or daughter is not that creepy guy next door or
that convicted sex offender around the corner. It’s most
likely going to be someone your child knows, such as a family
member or a friend.

Once offenders are out of prison, they have served their
sentence ““ their punishment is completed. If we really
believe all convicted sex offenders are dangerous enough to repeat
their crimes, then they shouldn’t be back on the street. And
why don’t we have a convicted murderer registry? I know I
wouldn’t want my daughter raped, but I don’t exactly
want her killed either.

In California we have an online database of all registered sex
offenders. With a quick search of my current address I was able to
locate all registered sex offenders within a two-mile radius of my
apartment. The Web site provides their names, convicted offenses,
physical descriptions and known aliases, and even a picture.
Whew.

The idea behind these laws is mainly to protect children. State
laws requiring the registration of sex offenders, restrictions on
where they live, and so on are called Megan’s laws. A federal
version of these laws was first passed in 1994 as an amendment to
the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children Act, which requires
all states to have systems of notifying the community when a high
risk sex offender is released into the area.

The laws are named after a 7-year-old girl in New Jersey who was
raped and killed in 1994 by a convicted sex offender who lived
across the street from her. While this is a gruesome story and I
can certainly understand the family’s pain, it is one story.
Most convicted sex offenders are not going to commit another crime,
and they shouldn’t be punished because a minority of their
population hasn’t learned its lesson. Yes, any form of sexual
violence is a heinous crime and perpetrators need to be punished,
but we can’t take it over the top. If someone is deemed safe
for society we need to treat him as such.

The United States is built on a system of giving people second
chances (our president did get Cs at Yale). And while I’ll
probably be the first to say I do not tolerate sexual offense of
any form, people need to be given the chance to change.

E-mail Lara at lloewenstein@media.ucla.edu. Send general
comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.