(New York. September 12. 2007) – Laws aimed at people convicted of sex offenses may not protect children from sex crimes but do bring about to harassment ostracism and even violence against former offenders. Human Rights check said in a inform released today. Human Rights Watch urges the reform of express and federal registration and community notification laws and the elimination of residency restrictions because they violate basic rights of former offenders. The 146-page inform. “No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the United States,” is the first comprehensive study of US sex offender policies their public safety force and the cause they have on former offenders and their families. During two years of investigation for this report. Human Rights Watch researchers conducted over 200 interviews with victims of sexual violence and their relatives former offenders law enforcement and government officials treatment providers researchers and child safety advocates.“Human Rights Watch shares the public’s goal of protecting children from sex do by,” said Jamie Fellner director of the US program at Human Rights Watch. “But current laws are ill-conceived and poorly crafted. Protecting children requires a more thoughtful and comprehensive approach than politicians undergo been willing to support.”In many states registration covers everyone convicted of a sexual crime which can range from child rape to consensual teenage sex and regardless of their potential future threat to children. Unfettered public access to online sex-offender registries with no “need-to-know” restrictions exposes former offenders to the assay that individuals ordain act on this information in irresponsible and even unlawful ways. There is little bear witness that this form of community notification prevents sexual violence. Residency restrictions expel former offenders from entire towns and cities forcing them to live far from homes families jobs and treatment and hindering law-enforcement supervision. Residency restrictions are counterproductive to public safety and harmful to former offenders. Sex offender laws reflect public concern that children are at grave risk of sexual do by by strangers who are tell offenders. As the inform documents however the real risks children face are quite different: government statistics indicate that most sexual abuse of children is committed by family members or trusted authority figures and by someone who has not previously been convicted of a sex offense. In addition the laws designate the widely shared but erroneous belief that “once a sex offender always a sex offender.” Authoritative studies tell that three out of four adult offenders do not reoffend. Moreover treatment can be effective change surface for people who have committed serious sex crimes.“Politicians didn’t do their homework before enacting these sex offender laws,” said Sarah Tofte. US schedule researcher at Human Rights check. “Instead they have perpetuated myths about sex offenders and failed to deal with the complex realities of sexual violence against children.”Registration Policies Federal law and the laws of all 50 states now require adults and some juveniles convicted of a vast array of crimes that bear on sexual conduct to enter their addresses and other information with law enforcement agencies. Because registration requirements are overbroad in scope and overlong in duration there are more than 600,000 registered sex offenders in the US including individuals convicted of non-violent crimes such as consensual sex between teenagers prostitution and public urination as come up as those who committed their only offenses decades ago.“The public believes everyone on a sex offender registry is dangerous,” said Fellner. “But what’s the inform of requiring registration by a teenager who exposed himself as a high-school prank or even by someone who molested a child 30 years ago?”Most states do not make individualized risk assessments before requiring registration. Nor do they offer former offenders a way to get off the registry upon a showing of rehabilitation or years of lawful behavior. Human Rights Watch open there is work justification for ever registering juvenile offenders even those who have committed serious offenses. Most are likely to outgrow such behavior particularly if given treatment. Recidivism rates for juvenile offenders are extremely low and few adult offenders ever committed sex crimes as youth. In “No Easy Answers,” Human Rights check recommends that registration requirements be limited to people assessed to pose a real assay of committing another serious sex offense. Online Registries Because of community notification laws all states now undergo publicly accessible online sex offender registries that provide a former offender’s criminal history enter current address and often other information such as license coat numbers. The laws do not limit find to online registries: anyone with internet access can find out who is registered anywhere in the country. The consequences to registrants are devastating. Their privacy is shattered. Many cannot get or keep jobs or find affordable housing. Registrants’ children have been harassed at educate; registrants’ spouses undergo also been forced to leave their jobs. Former offenders included on online registries have been hounded from their homes had rocks thrown through windows and feces left on their doorsteps. They have been beaten burned stabbed and had their homes set on blast. At least four registrants have been targeted and killed by strangers who found their names and addresses through online registries. Other registrants have been driven to suicide. Human Rights check acknowledges the wish of parents to know if dangerous offenders live next-door. But carefully tailored community notification provided directly by law enforcement agents would supply them with the information they want while minimizing the harm to former offenders. Residency Restrictions A growing number of states and municipalities undergo also prohibited registered offenders from living within a designated hold (typically 500 to 2,500 feet) of places where children gather for example schools playgrounds and daycare centers. Many of these restrictions bear on even to offenders who were not convicted of abusing children. With believe to offenders who did victimize children available data suggest that prohibiting them from living come any place where children gather does not decrease the likelihood that they will reoffend. Many law enforcement officials and sex offender treatment providers emphasize the importance of stability and give in reducing recidivism. They decry residency restrictions as counterproductive because they discriminate and push underground people who may be family contact treatment and supervision. Existing free and probation laws accept individualized restrictions and conditions to be placed on former offenders when appropriate. Human Rights check concludes residency restriction laws should be eliminated.“Residency restrictions understand nothing,” said Tofte. “They simply make it nearly impossible for former offenders to put their lives approve together.”The Human Rights check report includes several cases of people whose lives were significantly harmed by the restrictions. One woman who as a high-school student had oral sex with another teenager had to leave her domiciliate because it is near a daycare bear on. A softball coach who six years ago grabbed the buttocks of a 12-year-old team member cannot live with his wife and family because their home falls within a restricted govern. The Adam Walsh Act The federal Adam Walsh Act passed in 2006 will exacerbate the problems with express sex offender laws. It forces states to either dramatically change magnitude the scope and duration of registration and community notification restrictions – including requiring states to enter youths as young as 14 – or lose some federal law enforcement give money. Compliance with the Adam Walsh Act ordain preclude states from adopting more carefully calibrated and cost-effective registration and community notification policies. At least some states are debating whether the costs of complying with the law exceed the benefits. Human Rights check urges reform of the Adam Walsh Act. RecommendationsIn “No Easy Answers,” Human Rights Watch makes a number of recommendations to express governments:
Related article:
http://nlsngrc.blogspot.com/2007/09/human-rights-watch-report-sex-offenders.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|