When bad policies spread: The expansion of the “sex offense registry” model to other convictions
As anyone who cares about mass incarceration knows, bad policies often spread faster than the facts, especially when their rhetoric targets deep-seated fears. There may be no better example of such upside-down policymaking than conviction-based public registries, starting — but not ending — with sex offense registries.
Registry proponents argue that a searchable public database that provides personal information about people with certain convictions empowers individuals and families to make decisions that could reduce their risk of victimization. For instance, they might choose to avoid living next door to someone on a registry, or to hire someone else to walk their dog. In a nation where fear of crime has little to do with actual risk, this is politically popular. But there is virtually no evidence that conviction-based registries make communities safer; in fact, they cause harm, contribute to recidivism, and waste taxpayer dollars that could be spent on far more effective crime prevention strategies.
Despite these well-established facts, all 50 states and D.C. still have public registries for sex-based convictions, and over the past 20 or so years, many have doubled down on this model, creating registries for various other convictions, from white collar crime to DWIs.
The limited research on criminal registries suggests they do more harm than good
Researchers haven’t studied the efficacy of these newer registries much at all, especially compared to registries for sex-based convictions. The little scholarship that does exist generally concludes that public registries aren’t an evidence-based strategy for enhancing public safety or reducing recidivism. Scholars do seem to agree, however, that registries likely do more harm than good.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There have been registries for other offenses for years, just not at a national level. On the one hand, I don’t want people to suffer as I have suffered on this damned registry. On the other hand, maybe the feds should pass this law. Make the registry so bloated that it becomes useless. Watch them have to waste tens of billions on this registry only for it to collapse under its own weight. I can’t imagine having a podunk police force like the place where I register now having to deal with registering a few hundred folks over and over again.
When does the bloating come to be? How long does it take and will it actually happen? In the end, those who implement it will stop or be selective about it while still fulfilling it as they chose to continue to receiving other people’s money.
That’s a good answer, but, according to the Prison Policy Initiative, 19 million have a felony record, and 79 million in general have a criminal record. One thing I don’t know is how many of these are considered “violent.” There are many crimes that are only cobsidered “violent” bacause the law says it is even if there was no violence involved, just like how so many of us are convicted of ‘assault” when what we did niot involve violence, and in many cases, included a willing participant. “Violent” gets misused. Intriguingly, actual violence we saw on January 6th is considered by certain people a “peaceful” protesst, or even a “love fest.” So the very term “violence” is in itself relative to the agenda of our politicians.
Did anyone actually think if we give law enforcement a hammer they wouldn’t go looking for nails? Every time they get something attached to their budget they bend over backwards to feed the budget. Do sheriff’s offices really need paramilitary tactical units with tanks? They should be on a registry for swinging their tiny privates in public. It’s just more of the testostabro mindset that’s completely disconnected from reality. Same goes for the registry. That’ll claim they didn’t like the idea at first, but now that they have it, the company that writes their software and supplies their signature pads sure do love those subscription fees. It’s all about money and nothing about making communities safer.
These offices will happily receive the goods politicians appropriate for them in the bills they write and the politicians happily take the political credibility which comes with it during election season.
If you read this related article, these poor women are just now discovering what we have been shouting for decades:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/thc-tests-land-new-mothers-onto-child-abuse-registries/
Yes posted about this working to get connected to Marshall Project ty
We are working on connecting with Marshall Project as we speak
When people go looking for political credibility during election season, these are the low hanging fruit they create to pick in showing the populace they are working for them, no matter how bad they are in the end.
Also, they do charge mothers with fetal alcohol syndrome issues if they are examples of it, but they usually don’t stick in the end and the prosecutions are getting fewer and farther between.
I have a feeling the reason why prosecutions are diminishing is because of what this registry is doing to the women under it. As a group, women engender more sympathy than men, so their plight doesn’t fall on deaf ears as much as with us. Politicians and law enforcement see this, and may be trying to minimize the impact this ill-advised law is having, without going so far as to repealing it altogether. Perhaps that is how the registry complex will eventually get dismantled, when its impact is felt too close to home for those whom currently guard its gates.