(833) 2-REPEAL
info@floridaactioncommittee.org
The registry does no good but we must have it anyway, says MA state rep
Paul Heroux, a Massachusetts State Representative, asks the question, do sex offender registries reduce recidivism?
He answers the question immediately.
No. Or at least that is what the empirical evidence and research on this issue shows.
Seems clear enough but Heroux is a lawmaker with a constituency that could turn on him so he tries to hedge his bets.
But that doesn’t mean we should not have them. The fact is that the registries don’t really do anything to improve public safety. They just make people feel safer and in control; unfortunately this is a false sense of security.
To restate his first paragraph: sex offender registries don’t improve public safety; they offer only a false sense of security.
Can he balance those facts against “but that doesn’t mean we should not have them”? He tries.
His arguments against the registry are a bit murky but the basics are there.
- Sex offenders are not all the same and we should not treat them as if they are.
- Because sex offender recidivism is very low, we can’t use past behavior of a sex offender to predict his future behavior.
His arguments for keeping the registry?
There is more to policy than just evidence-based practices. In politics and government administration, there is ever present concerns with effective policy and the optics of policy.
Ohhh. Optics of policy. That sounds so…important. Notice, though, that he separates the optics of policy from effective policy.
That separation earns him points for honesty.
His arguments for keeping the registry continue:
Now, while I already discussed that registries are a false sense of security, that they take time away from what does work, and that there is no evidence that they reduce recidivism, there is reason to keep them. Parents and the public want to know who have committed sex offenses. And since all criminal records are public information, this information should not be suppressed. However, the public needs to start to understand that sex offender registries don’t keep people safe. And the public also needs to realize that not all sex offenders are pedophiles. Most are people who will never re-offend ever again. The statistics are very clear about this. [My emphasis.]
His pro-registry arguments…
- People want to know who committed sex offenses.
- That information is already public information and shouldn’t be suppressed.
Heroux knows the truth: registries do no good. I’m glad he sees that.
He continues with a handy list of ways to guard against sex offenses, which does not include consulting the registry.
Then comes this muddled paragraph:
In addition to the person, the individual and the guardian being the first and best line of defense against sex offenders, we need to include who is a pedophile in our classification of the Sex Offender Level. In some states, pedophilia as a DSM diagnosis, is not included as a variable when determining who is a level 1, 2 or 3 sex offender. We need to make sure that we empirically evaluate the effectiveness of correctional treatment programs aimed at reducing sex offending. There is a lot that can and should be done. The point of this article is not to get into all of that; that point of this article is to highlight that sex offender registries don’t reduce sex offender recidivism.
He mentions two specific measures he thinks should be taken–we need to keep track of the pedophiles on the registry and we need to figure out if treatment programs are effective–right before saying he doesn’t want to get into all of that.
Researching existing sex offender treatment programs is an excellent idea. We ought to get into all of that.
According to Heroux himself, registered sex offenders–including any who might be pedophiles–are very unlikely to commit another sex offense, so why the special attention to pedophiles? Probably because there is no easier target than the fearsome pedophile and the suggestion that pedophiles get extra-special treatment on the registry is a sop to his pro-registry constituents.
That constituency must make him wary about flat-out stating the obvious:
We could abolish the registry with no effect on public safety.
Seeing Heroux write that the registry has no effect on recidivism is gratifying. Imagine how gratifying it would be if he could say that without adding to the restrictions imposed by the registry, that same registry that he says “[doesn’t] really do anything to improve public safety.”
Either it helps prevent further crimes or it doesn’t. It doesn’t.
Either it protects the community or it doesn’t. It doesn’t.
If only Heroux had gone a step further and talked about what the registry does.
It is used to keep registrants from finding employment.
It is used to keep registrants from finding housing.
It is used to encourage fear of people who are very unlikely to commit a sex offense.
It is used to keep parents from attending school events with their children.
It puts families in danger. Real, physical danger from vigilantes.
Sex offenders and their families are routinely affected in those ways by the registry and none of that helps to keep our communities safer.
Perhaps if State Representative Heroux hears from those who appreciate him saying as much as he did, he might find the moral courage to stand up for sex offenders and their families.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am registered as a sex offender. Since my victim was my grandson, I assume I would be listed a pedophile. I had accepted a plea bargain for 19 years probation (including four on community control) with adjudication withheld. (It seems the only benefit of that was to be able to say I wasn’t convicted.) I have attended sex-offender counseling for almost 20 years. I have continued attending on a volunteer basis after graduating from the program and completing probation several years ago. I attended counseling with my grandson while on probation and received permission to interact with him again. He is now 38, married, and has two children. Our families get together frequently and have a wonderful relationship.
I can honestly say that with my arrest, I immediately admitted my offense and with my family support and our Pastor’s help, turned my life around right then. With the sex-offender group counseling helping me master ways to overcome the old ways of thinking and acting. I wanted to be sure that I never hurt another individual. I can’t work with youth any longer (I was an educator with many years and no other offenses), so I focused on senior citizens. I run classes for them (esp. low-income seniors) helping them acquire refurbished computers and learning to use them in eight-month classes. I am now 80 and just retired as a University Professor in February 2014.
I am so grateful that my wife stuck by me through all this – as did the entire family and my employers and church friends. However, there were many rough times when I wasn’t sure we’d make it – but we did (celebrating 54 years together this year). We worry about the time we will need assisted living and can’t move into suitable living arrangements because they are all within the residency exclusion zones. Our son is in Alaska and we’d love to go see him but can’t drive or cruise to Alaska because that would mean going through Canada and I understand RSOs aren’t allowed over the border – although we can legally go to other countries. Although done with probation, the Broward Sheriff Deputies, in full battle gear, still come to the house monthly – even when we have a house full of guests. I visited Northern Florida and had to register there (as we have to do each time we travel anywhere) and was given a form stating that on Halloween, we would have to post a sign on the front lawn with 2″ letters high stating ,”No Candy Will Be Given Out at This House.” Talk about your marks burned on the forehead!
When I read about the California decision overruling residency requirements, I first thought it was the U.S. Supreme Court and I thought, “Now, we can move when and where we need.” Although disappointed when I saw it was only California, I thought positively that maybe FAC would be able to help get this ruling nationwide!
The negative impacts on both the RSO and the families are mentioned but words fail to convey the anxiety, frustration, and helplessness the Registry causes – especially in light of the realization that the evidence shows that it does little or no good. I liked the comments of the MA State Rep, Heroux, where he says, “Sex offenders and their families are routinely affected in those ways by the registry and none of that helps to keep our communities safer.” And I was especially encouraged to see our author point out that he recognized, “According to Heroux himself, registered sex offenders–including any who might be pedophiles–are very unlikely to commit another sex offense, so why the special attention to pedophiles? Probably because there is no easier target than the fearsome pedophile and the suggestion that pedophiles get extra-special treatment on the registry is a sop to his pro-registry constituents.”
I applaud FAC for bringing such information to us and I hope that as a group we can be effective in bringing better education to those who make these decisions.
Al,
Thank you for sharing your experience. It is very encouraging that you were able to accomplish so much (even re-uniting with your grandson). It is also very encouraging to hear that he has been able to accomplish so much too.
The CA decision only impacted California. In Florida, FAC is Plaintiff in a lawsuit that is challenging the residency restrictions and hopefully we will find some relief there.
With lifetime registration, housing for seniors is something that will become critical in this State and something they will need to start thinking about.
I would suggest starting sooner than later and contacting some social services agencies to see what they suggest. The sooner they realize the problem they will have on their hands, the less they will push for ineffective laws that will make life impossible.