The public branding of sex offenders through online registries is a reaction to horrible, highly publicized crimes, such as the 1994 murder of Megan Kanka, in which strangers abduct, rape and kill children. But treating this sort of very rare crime as typical has led to a registration system that is unfair as well as ineffective.
Data from the Justice Department’s National Crime Victimization Survey indicate that more than 90% of sexually abused minors are assaulted by relatives or acquaintances — people they trust.
Furthermore, according to a 2003 Justice Department study, nearly nine out of 10 people convicted of rape or sexual assault have no prior convictions for this category of crime, so they would not show up in registries.
Sex offender databases are over-inclusive as well as under-inclusive. The panic that followed Megan Kanka’s murder produced an alarm system that often fails to distinguish between dangerous predators and lawbreakers with convictions related to nonviolent offenses such as public urination, streaking, adult prostitution, and teens who have consensual sex with other teenagers. They are all mixed together in the registries that states are required to maintain as a condition of receiving federal law enforcement funding.
It is not clear that a more narrowly targeted registration system would have a measurable impact on crime. A 2008 report commissioned by the New Jersey Department of Corrections found no evidence that registration had reduced recidivism rates among child molesters and rapists. Indiscriminate registries are even harder to defend, unjustly imposing lifelong burdens on people who pose little or no discernible threat.
Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine
Recent Comments