NY: Bill wants to add Tier I (low level) registrants to sex offender registry
A newly introduced bill in New York, co-sponsored by Andrew Molitor, is once again pushing a familiar approach: expand the public sex offender registry. This time by including individuals already classified by the state as low risk.
Under current law, New York distinguishes between risk levels for a reason. Level 1 individuals are assessed as presenting a low likelihood of reoffense and are not listed on the public registry. The proposed legislation would eliminate that distinction, making everyone publicly searchable, regardless of risk classification.
Supporters argue this closes a “gap” in public awareness. But that framing ignores a critical point: risk-based classification systems exist to guide policy with evidence, not fear. Expanding public registries to include low-risk individuals does not address the root causes of abuse, nor does it meaningfully improve prevention. Instead, it risks diluting law enforcement resources and overwhelming the public with information that is not context-driven. Like many registry expansions before it, this proposal is rooted in a reactive response to an individual case, rather than a measured, data-informed strategy. Time and again, isolated incidents are used to justify sweeping policy changes, even when those changes fail to address how and why abuse actually occurs.
If lawmakers are serious about protecting communities, the focus should shift toward prevention: education, early intervention, and accountability in the environments where harm is most likely to occur, not least likely. Broadening public registries may create the appearance of action, but it does little to stop abuse before it happens. At some point, we have to ask whether these policies are making people safer or simply making it easier to say something was done?
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is election season isn’t it?
This is similar to what happened in Eastern WA State when tier 1 were not published until one lady got a burr under her saddle and got the state to publish them despite not being necessary.
NY’s risk-based tier system is broken. If you don’t believe me, google the alleged crime spree that inspired this bill.
We are a public safety organization. If we are going to oppose this bill effectively, then we better have a good answer to the question of, what would have prevented this Tier I registrant from allegedly doing all those awful things. Simply pointing out that it would have been “unlikely,” or that this Tier I registrant is innocent til proven guilty, may keep us from facing the issue.
Would public notification have prevented some of these alleged re-offenses by this Tier I offender? Bill sponsors say probably yes. Do we say no? If so, then what about this case makes us say that?
Or is the problem NY’s risk assessment tool? Is it too unscientific? Or the tiering assignment process itself. If THAT’s what caused the problem, then I would agree that that’s where the bill sponsors are making a mistake. But we need to look more closely.
Some members have used this forum to call for a risk-based tier system, including off-ramps. If we want to keep that idea alive, we had better start understanding what happened in NY.
Like most members, I am usually skeptical of public safety legislation inspired by a single criminal. But this is different.
Some of my fellow commenters below have explained this bill as the result of corporate greed, public brainwashing, or (gasp!) democratic elections. But these sorts explanations I think fail to address the core issue and don’t help us function as a public safety organization.
Whyyyyy does society keep going backwards with this topic? Andrew Molitor was elected to the assembly in 2024 and the next election is this year. Appears to me that this assemblyman is trying to make a last ditch effort to have something relevant on his service record. So I guess this is one reason.
” This closes a “gap” in public awareness.”
That purported claim and respones is very telling. In fact, it’s an admission that everyone with this label deserves to be “outted” and shamed. Wanting full disclosure because “we can’t have these people living in the shadows” is overly vigilant mob-think. It’s an extention of the “release the list” virtue signaling chant in a quest for justice I see in the comments everywhere.
Thanks to the media and dramatized crime procedurals, public perception is based upon the false notion that everyone on this list is doing Epstein level sh*t. Including those not listed as T1.
So once again the general consensus from the brainwashed public is that “more is better” when in fact that assumption is based upon the faulty reasoning that the registry is a legitimate public safety tool to begin with. It’s not. It’s a faith-based fantasy.
This legislation reeks of corporate greed.
Seems like all the law makers in all the states, instead of working on real world issues, they have to find ways to make our lives Hell on the registry. A what point are these rules teetering on probation? I feel they are already there and am sure I am not alone.