Are sex offender registries unconstitutional? (employment, crime, government, state)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Personally, I agree with this ruling, and have argued this exact point for decades now. For the government to place someone on a public list for whatever crime, and specifically notify this person's neighbors that they are on that list, regardless of how well-meaning or beneficial, represents an additional form of punishment, beyond the sentence they(as an individual) were given. That's wrong and unconstitutional.
My problem with the registry that so many assume that anyone on it is a rapist. There are other ways to end up on the registry. For example, depending on local laws, being caught peeing in public can land you on the registry.
Don't worry folks, any minute someone will come on this thread and go wacko over the need for such lists, thereby eliminating any possibility of a serious discussion. It happens every time.
I always think back to a neighbor we had when I was a kid. We kids were always warned to stay away from "Bob". Years later I learned that "bob" had simply had a nervous breakdown and for a short time had been in an insane asylum (yes, we had them back in the 1950s, and the one for our area was quite notorious -- Willard in NYS). As an adult I was saddened to think back to how that poor man was ostracized for a minor nervous breakdown, from which he pretty much recovered.
On the one hand the recidivism rate for sexual offenders is fairly high, but on the other, the idea that they become a kind of "anti-citizen" on a list who can't find employment or housing because of their past offenses, even if they've served time for them, is problematic. I don't know what the answer is.
My problem with the registry that so many assume that anyone on it is a rapist. There are other ways to end up on the registry. For example, depending on local laws, being caught peeing in public can land you on the registry.
Have you looked at a registry? They are quite specific. They state the crime as well as the ages and sex of the perpetrator and victim(s).
If you are on a registry for peeing in the bushes, it will be pretty obvious that you are not a degenerate. But let's be honest, what prosecutor wastes their time on a person on the way to sing in their church choir while feeding the homeless who simply needed to answer the call of nature.
On the one hand the recidivism rate for sexual offenders is fairly high, but on the other, the idea that they become a kind of "anti-citizen" on a list who can't find employment or housing because of their past offenses, even if they've served time for them, is problematic. I don't know what the answer is.
I think sex offender registries give the public a false sense of security, they check it when renting or buying a home and feel safe when there are no sex offenders in the area. The thing is most sex offenders are known to or related to their victims 90% of child victims know their offender, with almost half of the offenders being a family member. Of sexual assaults against people age 12 and up, approximately 80% of the victims know the offender. So people would do well to worry more about cousin Billy than whether or not a sex offender lives on their block.
In my opinion if the people on those lists are dangerous enough that we need to know where they live, then we need to change the law to keep them in prison, not release them and put their pictures on a website. I don't feel safer knowing where sex offenders live and it doesn't change the way I live my life because for every one of those pictures on the registry there are probably a hundred sex offenders who haven't been caught.
It sort of reminds me of the big campaign in the 80's with LE telling everyone to get their kids fingerprinted what they didn't explain was that 99% of the time the only reason LE would need a child's fingerprints would be to identify a dead body, it certainly didn't protect them from harm but parent's were led to believe it would.
I'm not entirely sure if sex offender registries would be considered unconstitutional. You have a right to privacy, but the state can take away any right they want so long as there is due process. To my knowledge, you cannot be made a sex offender unless you commit a crime. Therefore, there is due process.
The argument that's it's cruel and unusual might work though.
As the article notes, average citizens may use the registry to harass or possibly even threaten registrants. And indeed, that seems to be the only real purpose of a sex offender registry. I'm unaware of any evidence that suggests the registry has done anything for public safety.
I tend to favor criminal punishment that is more rehabilitative. I see no potential for the registry to act as rehabilitation. A sex offender (which is a surprising broad term it seems) should learn not to be a threat while in prison. To me, having a registry for post-prison is basically just a lazy way to not address the failures of the prison system.
And naturally, some sex offenders never actually go to prison. If they aren't serious enough for prison, they can't possibly be so dangerous that we all need to know where they live.
I'm not entirely sure if sex offender registries would be considered unconstitutional. You have a right to privacy, but the state can take away any right they want so long as there is due process. To my knowledge, you cannot be made a sex offender unless you commit a crime. Therefore, there is due process.
The argument that's it's cruel and unusual might work though.
As the article notes, average citizens may use the registry to harass or possibly even threaten registrants. And indeed, that seems to be the only real purpose of a sex offender registry. I'm unaware of any evidence that suggests the registry has done anything for public safety.
I tend to favor criminal punishment that is more rehabilitative. I see no potential for the registry to act as rehabilitation. A sex offender (which is a surprising broad term it seems) should learn not to be a threat while in prison. To me, having a registry for post-prison is basically just a lazy way to not address the failures of the prison system.
And naturally, some sex offenders never actually go to prison. If they aren't serious enough for prison, they can't possibly be so dangerous that we all need to know where they live.
I believe that the issue was public access to the registry.....having sex offenders register and keep LE informed of their address, car make and model, etc. is OK..as long as LE are the only ones that have access. It makes sense that LE would have such a database.
In a larger sense, as was pointed out to me, all crimes are pubic record--and anyone can, with little trouble and minimal expense--find out if someone has a conviction.
So the public access registries are, IMO, just a placebo for the public.
There is, however, the deterrent effect of having people be aware that if you commit a sex crime, your life will be ruined and everyone will know what you did. The prospect of such severe public shaming could deter some people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
