Are there only189 ways to end up on the sex offender registry?

FACTOID:

The mystical 189 ways list.

Because I have been asked this question -it seems- umpteenth times, I researched it and here is what I found, two personal comments:

Comment from Damian January 3, 2012 at 1:15 PM:

My point is, with the registry being as OVERBLOWN as it is (there are 189 ways to get on that list, under the AWA), you can't tell who the "bad guys" are, and who the "made a dumb mistake as a young adult". You are stereo typing them all together, with a tiny, fine print ... ... ...

Comment from DonavonLace January 13, 2012 11:16 PM:

I hate to burst everybody’s bubble because it sounds like this issue is close to the heart but I have a few facts you need to know about. First the two guys in the story are the worst and system failed but to change laws that would affect 1000’s for one guy is just wrong. Everyone on the registry is not a child molester sorry that the truth. Florida has 57,000 on the list and growing because we have 189 ways to get on the list. If everyone on the list was a monster and touching kids you’d have 57,000 new sex case’s on the books well you don’t. Now some facts the re-offend rate for sex offenders is 5.3% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offe...) the only re-offend rate that’s lower is murder. Most of the new cases are guys that are not on the list and 98% of the time it is ... ... ....

Let me start with AWA, there is nothing in AWA (any Title within it) that a person (a non sex offender) would be prosecuted for and end up on the sex offender registry. AWA expands other existing laws, and if prosecuted under those laws a non sex offender could end up on a sex offender registry.

As to the second comment, about the number of offenses in Florida, that a non sex offender -if prosecuted for- could result in being placed on the sex offender registry. Don't know if 189 is correct, because laws change seemingly daily. Assuming it to be correct, at some point in the past, it speaks ONLY of one state and no other state.

So we end with this, are the other 49 states sex offender laws, exactly the same as Florida? Nope, so if we were to use Florida's number as a standard, we could end up with a national number of 9,450 possible laws any one of which could result in the person being placed on a sex offender registry.

Good luck checking either the 189 or the 9,450.

One closing thought, how many sex offender registries -nationally- have folks on them convicted of other types of crimes? California's includes arsonists, and some registries are titled "Sex and Violent Offender Registry" all sex offenders?

For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

Sex offenders are on the move

(Part) FACTOID & (Part) TRUTH:

Even though there are several problems within this study (see highlights below), it does show that a significant number of registrants are moving. Given that fact, one would think the study authors would want to know why, but they ignore that and draw conclusions based on, yet undetermined, not apparent in the study! While the technology used to record movement is valid, it must also include all the facts before drawing conclusions, here missing!

January 2013:

Geospatial technologies help track real-time movements of sex offenders

Convicted sex offenders continue to move freely within communities, including in restricted areas, despite laws designed to limit their movements. A new study, by Alan Murray from Arizona State University and colleagues, uses new tracking techniques to better understand the actual movements of sex offenders. This information can help develop effective strategies to promote public safety. The findings are published in a new book, Crime Modeling and Mapping Using Geospatial Technologies, published by Springer.

Sexual offenses, especially those committed against children, are of concern to both the public and policy makers. In response to these concerns, local, state and federal legislators in the US have passed a series of laws designed to reduce interaction between children and these potentially dangerous individuals. To date, the vast majority of research on sex offenders and residence restrictions deals with issues of housing availability and affordability. Very little work has focused on sex offender mobility, and residence trends in particular.

Murray and his team analyze sex offender residential movement patterns over a two and a half year period in Hamilton County, Ohio.  They used geographic information systems and a developed exploratory system (SOSTAT)* to uncover spatial behavioral patterns, which give important insights into offender reintegration, their mobility within communities and the implications of restrictions on both offenders and the community.

Their analyses showed that sex offenders appear to be a very mobile group. Over the two and a half year period, 65 percent of registered offenders changed residences. Although there was a noticeable trend towards fewer offenders living in restricted zones overall, worryingly, nearly a third moved from non-restricted areas into restricted zones.

The first flaw in this study is, authors ignore why there is movement? Authors simply make conclusions. Interestingly is, if 1/3 moved into restricted zones, in reality they would have been arrested. So what is the authors' definition of "restricted zones," were those zones actually covered by a local law? Did the authors arbitrarily create zones they believed should be covered by a law? Are the police not arresting registrants if they move into a restricted area -covered by a law-? All questions unanswered by the authors!

The authors conclude: "Over the years, changes in laws governing post-release activities of offenders were designed to monitor and track this group of individuals. Our study highlights that, despite these increasingly stringent laws, sex offenders move freely about communities and continue to reside in restricted residential areas. This mobility suggests that current policies may require modification to achieve their intended goals."

It appears these authors believe, that the purpose of registries is to prevent registrants from moving into any community. History has shown that the purpose of registries is, simply to know where registrants live in communities, not to prevent them from moving into communities, or from moving when they have a reason to do so (Often because of harassment or newly enacted laws [Remember, authors ignored looking at why registrants move])!

This example of the value of spatial analysis for crime analysis is featured in a new book Crime Modeling and Mapping Using Geospatial Technologies edited by Michael Leitner of Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge (USA). The book tackles various types of crime and places them in a geospatial context. As well as posing interesting questions on crime in such a context, the chapters also discuss applications and implementations of geographic information systems.

*Key components of SOSTAT include a map-based display, linked graphics, statistical measures and optimization models. ..Source.. by Springer

Study reveals when rapists reoffend

FACTOID (Part-1) & TRUTH (Part-2):

First the news article, then explanation why that is false, then what is true:

Legislator wants new look at sex-offender registry 10-5-2012 by Crystal Gutierrez

ALBUQUERQUE (KRQE) - Alarming numbers released in a recent study show the longer some sex offenders are out of prison the higher the chance they'll strike again. That has a state representative looking to toughen up the law.

There are hundreds of convicted rapists and child molesters who live in New Mexico and are ordered to register as sex offenders. The type of crime they’re convicted determines if they need to register for 10 years or for life.

It’s a requirement by law to keep better tabs on them so they don't claim more victims.

That's the main focus of a new study released by the New Mexico Sentencing Commission. It compiled information from studies that looked at more than 200 registered sex offenders, some just released from prison and others had been sentenced to probation.

The study showed five years after parole or probation begins about 15 percent reoffend. The study shows after 25 years back on the streets, that number jumps to 60 percent.

The study caught the eye of Democratic Rep. Moe Maestas, D-Albuquerque.

“Oh no, it's very alarming,” Maestas said.

Maestas said it shows New Mexico laws for registered sex offenders need to be tougher and more effective. He said they could start with adding a third tier to the state’s system. He thinks some on the list for 10 years maybe need to be on the list for 25.

“Maybe so, maybe so, and at the same time maybe some life-timers may be on the 25,” Maestas said.

He's considering adding that three-tier system for registering and he wants more requirements for those registered.

“IP addresses from their computer,” Maestas said. “Palm prints, updated photographs.”

However, he's up against a nationwide group called Reform Sex Offenders Laws. That group is completely against sex offender registries saying they're a second sentence and not effective.

RSOL Executive Director Brenda Jones said other studies show forcing molesters and rapists to register can lead to them reoffend because they claim it destabilizes them.

Jones said more restrictions would also be unconstitutional.

“Any kind of restriction after they completed their sentence after probation or parole is unnecessary,” Jones said.

The House bill Maestas is putting together would also require child predators who use the Internet or a phone to go after children to register as sex offenders.

---

Discussion:

PART-1: The study which the 60% recidivism rate is quoted from is: Lifetime Sex Offender Recidivism: A 25-Year Follow-Up Study by Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice Volume:46 Issue:5 Dated:October 2004 Pages:531 to 552 Author(s): Ron Langevin ; Suzanne Curnoe ; Paul Fedoroff ; Renee Bennett ; Mara Langevin ; Cheryl Peever ; Rick Pettica ; Shameen Sandhu
Date Published: 10/2004

That study has been severely criticized because of the method used to chose participants. "Given that the follow-up period in Langevin?s study was more than 15 years, all of the inactive (non-recidivist) offenders should have been deleted from the RCMP database." In other words, the people chosen for the study WAS NOT a cross section of ALL sex offenders, it was only recidivists.

PART-2: The article also mentions a "New Study" by the Sentencing Commission. That study is best described as a review of all sorts of other sex offender studies which do not pertain to the recidivism rates of New Mexico offenders.

The Commission Report itself mentions it tracked a total of 79 persons on probation, and 126 persons still in prison as of 2004. Offenders in the probation cohort were tracked for probation violations through January 2012 and tracked for prison admissions through May 2012. Of the 79 persons, only 1 (1.3%) was convicted of a new sex offense by 2012.

Offenders in the prison cohort were tracked for prison re-admissions through May 2012. Of the 126 offenders, 7 (5.5%) were re-admitted for a sexual offense, and 3 (2.3%) were admitted for failure to register.

The Commission Report stressed that their single-year cohort should not be generalized to presume recidivism rates for the whole state, and that the study is not "comparable" to the literature review which takes up most of the report.

All the other studies mentioned in the report merely took up space and none were relevant to sex offenders in New Mexico. It is shocking to see what some will go through to get the focus off what is relevant, and here, it misled the media to the erroneous and not relevant 60%.