Both Sides Now
By Don and Grover
“To change society for the better, we must seek common ground with those who disagree with us. We do so by comprehending fully what they are saying, and finding points of agreement. Then we can work for consensus. Permanent change is not accomplished like a boxing match, in which the winner delivers the knock-out punch. Rather, genuine and lasting improvement is like buying a home where both sides gain their first priorities.”
(adapted from a quotation of Greg Satell in the Harvard Business Review)
A phone conversation between us (Grover and Don) distilled several possible points of agreement with those who advocate for a registry. At one time we were both in full agreement with those advocates, but now can see the value of both sides of the matter. We see faces, not just ages and categories. Everyone involved is a person, and deserves a hearing. Both perspectives produce a ripple effect for families, friends, and community.
1. We agree that children need to be protected from those who offend sexually. We need to particularly protect them from violent offenders and repeat offenders. Why not all offenders? Because most do not repeat their offenses.
2. We admit that some people on the registry repeat their offenses. The best research indicates this is a small fraction of registrants. But precautions should be taken, especially for violent and repeat offenders.
3. We agree that there can be value in having a registry. If we return to the registry as it was first conceived—a private registry used only by law enforcement to track the most dangerous offenders—the likely harm to registrants and their families would be minimized.
4. We agree that child pornography hurts children. Those who are photographed, particularly when they are subjected to abuse in the process, suffer for what they experience. Those who look at child pornography are likely to suffer as well, because of the addictive aspects of such viewing.
5. We agree there must be laws against the sexual abuse of children. The emotional harm of objectifying and using children for such purposes is unconscionable. I, Don, have maintained this for more than three decades of teaching at the college level, encouraging students to scrutinize those they hire that work with children. I have advocated that qualified professionals be involved in the scrutiny.
6. We affirm that society also must end its exploitation of children. Children are used to sell many products, from hamburgers to underwear. The objectifying of either children or adults is dehumanizing.
7. We agree that children need to be taught to avoid those who act in a seductive manner or who give them unwanted attention. This avoidance can be taught by parents or teachers, but it should be done occasionally rather than on an ongoing process.
8. We affirm that leaders should try to be concerned about all children, including the children of people on the registry. The effects of registrant laws upon these youngsters are too often ignored by legislators, police, and the courts. In most cases, the offending parent is unlikely to repeat their actions. Thus the healthiest protection is provided when the registered parent is allowed to stay in the home. We are suspicious of those who suggest that the state or representatives of the state make better parents than the actual parents. As a last resort state intervention is sometimes needed, but usually the child is better understood and cared for by the biological parents. Laws need to be amended to empower parents to protect their children, regardless of the parents’ registry status.
9. We affirm that both the state and parents can win if harsh but inadequate laws are removed from the books, and fewer and more flexible laws are substituted. This is not a win-lose situation, but it can be a win-win for everyone to pass laws that do not hurt children, including those with a parent on the registry. Too many of the present laws encourage the marginalizing and silencing of children because of age and perceived inadequacies of thinking. On occasion even adults can learn from children. Victims of any age need to be heard.
10. We affirm the typical person on the registry. We need to see most registrants as capable of learning better behavior, with professional help. This has been tried and repeatedly proven to be of value. Therapy has proven to be of great benefit, particularly when therapists use a wide variety of tools and are not severely limited by requirements set by the state. There should be encouragement of innovative approaches to therapy, including registrants learning to understand how children think, not merely the avoidance and fear of youngsters. Support groups that bring accountability and affirmation of progress can also be an invaluable aid to emotional health.
11. Members of law-enforcement, corrections, as well as prosecutors and judges need to increase their concern about the impact of incarcerating those who are needed by the family to provide income and security. Teachers should not be asked to play a parental role, and registrant parents should be welcomed into the parent role even in the school context. For a long time it has been recognized that strong parents can better help their children achieve success in life. This is particularly likely when parents are allowed access to teachers and other leaders in the school, without prejudice. Teachers and school leaders are people too, and like all humans they have been known to fall short in their actions with children. There is a need for teachers and parents to work together to protect children. We need to strengthen families, not weaken them with ineffective laws.
12. We affirm that good research must be employed in the study of registrants. Such research reveals that distance from schools, libraries, malls, and other public facilities that children need, makes no difference in recidivism or the amount of sexually-based crime that takes place. We must resist the temptation to make laws on the basis of rare but extreme cases. Most of the time, such laws never deter such crime. To make a typical registered parent the victim of harsh laws will make it difficult for them to find housing and jobs. That weakens the basic foundation of society: the family.
We need a safe world for our children, where people are free from entrapment by either the police or by those seeking illegal activities. Protecting children is a key principle of good parenting that all parents must assume. Human rights advocates and families with children can work together, if they better understand one another. Both registrants and non-registrants can win as flexible laws can be introduced that replace the excessively restrictive laws we now have. We need a careful balance of protecting children—a vital task—while questioning those restrictions that restrain the ability of registered citizens to be healthy and productive parents. Those who might hurt children in the future are probably not on the registry. Most future offenders will be first-time offenders. They are probably in the life of the family and child already, and probably are trusted by all who know them. But they are not listed as sex offenders.
Genuine solutions for problems in this area await creative people who can help the state and country find positive solutions through win-win compromises, while at the same time enhancing the human qualities of everyone involved. The common assumption that those on the registry are all bad, is an assumption that must be corrected. Registrants must be seen as they are. Very few are rapists or child abusers. They have learned, with the help of therapists, that what they did—from peeing in public or viewing child pornography to actual contact with a child—that these things hurt children. But we must strengthen parents in their efforts to protect their children, including protecting them from a criminal justice system that too often seeks separation of children from parents before an adequate analysis indicates if there is real danger.
As noted earlier, most registrants are unlikely to repeat their offenses if jobs, housing, and community support are available. But the present system makes these kinds of support unlikely because of the restrictions of laws and the prejudices of many. Registrants can make good neighbors and even community leaders, if given the chance. Too often they have been stripped of their humanity in jails and prisons, and if such brutality and rejection continues in the outside world, it becomes likely that some will turn to another area of crime to survive and support their family. Acceptance and encouragement can prevent that possibility. Rigid, unbending laws encourage deviance.
But if given a chance to succeed, on equal footing with others who have succeeded, entire families need not be lost. We need to have good housing, healthy food, transportation, and nearby education available for children and parents, so that families will be healthy. We must not abandon a whole class of people because of our imagined ideas of what they are like. Give registrants a chance.
It is often difficult for registrants to even ask for fair jobs and housing after incarceration because of their shame and regret. But lives change for the better when there are opportunities. Registrants may have skills that can help any organization run more effectively. Proficiency and civility by everyone are to be valued, as well as humanizing the restrictions so they can be of genuine benefit. Rules such as not being allowed to attend parent-teacher conferences must be removed. All parents who are not violent should be welcome to ball games, concerts, and graduations. Parents must be allowed to act like parents to be the best possible parents.
Both sides can win if legislators and others will think creatively in this area. Leaders need to examine how laws affect families and communities before restrictions are introduced. Few laws are truly innovative; nearly all proposed laws already exist in some form somewhere. The least we can do is explore how effective such laws are, before we begin demanding them in our communities. Most restrictive laws do more harm than good, both for registered families and families in general. By following the suggestions mentioned here, both sides can win the argument. Each wins by receiving what they give—the freedoms and protection guaranteed by the constitution.
In response to all those who responded to this post, “Both sides now”, I want to thank each and everyone. I will concede and agree to complete and total abolishment of the registry. This in its self is an example of coming together and working towards finding equitable solutions to problems we all face in this day and age.
The registry is a shaming tool that does harm without providing value. Isolation and shaming have never been good or effective public policy. Once on a registry— the harm is done. State sanctioned harm simply creates more harm while giving a false sense that it’s helping. I am sad to see the views of the authors shared on this site.
I’m not offended by statement number 3 I just believe if you agree the registry should be used for LE what stops politicians going back to where we are now. I understand there needs to be compromise and we need evidence based debate otherwise it’s another pig in a poke.
Thank you for this submission. I am not on board about the registry having value for some. But I do appreciate the view and I read it as more of a concern as there are people who are of concern, but my goodness that would a handful of people. So how do we deal with that? It is complex.
A lot of great points are made here, things we all know, but need the public and legislators to know. The way you have expressed all of this is well written.
Members offended by the notion, “there can be value in a registry as it was first conceived,” rooted for the registration scheme proposed in ALI’s Model Penal Code, did they not?
I lost interest in reading when you laid out your 3rd statement. The registry has NO value at all, not even to the police. If a person is a danger to society, then it is more than likely to assume the police know who that person is. A registry is not needed to “monitor” that person.
If a person is a “violent” and/or “repeat” offender, then he has no business being on the street. An extremely long prison sentence would be more appropriate and only that would keep the public safe, not the registry. It would be pointless to have a registry to track the most dangerous offenders because it will not stop anyone from committing a sex crime. Again, if a person is such a danger to society, he needs to be behind bars, not listed on a registry that does nothing.
Please do more research and know the facts before submitting something like this again.
Exactly right. A person who is on probation or parole can be monitored. A person who is listed on the Hit Lists can do whatever they want. “Monitoring” those people is a dumb lie for dumb, gullible people.
Will Allen
Remember This, No One Can Predict The Future Action’s Of Someone Else!
And IF ‘They’ Could Predict The Future, WE Should All Put in As Many Dollars As WE Can and Have Those Persons Go To The Casino and Bet Everything, As They Can Predict The Future, And We Will All Be Billionaires!
CORRECT?!?!?
No One Can Predict What Will Happen In The Future!
@Discusted in Michigan, thanks for educating the uninformed
Hello Authors:
Thank you for writing what I feel is an excellent article.
There is one point, though, that I think you should consider.
You kept mentioning that all ex-offenders should be given a second chance except for the “violent” and the “repeat offenders”.
As to “repeat offenders”, I agree. (Just my opinion.)
But the State of Florida broadly defines any crime against a person (directly) to be “violent”. Let us not confuse the words “brutality” and “violence”.
For instance, softly caressing the backside of a minor child while hugging and cooing softly is considered “violent” by the state of Florida because it is a crime against a person, directly. Even though the crime did not involve “brutality” it is considered to be extremely “violent”. (If I had stolen the child’s bicycle, instead, or bashed in their house windows with a sledgehammer, I would not have been convicted as a “violent” felon.)
Yes, some of us physically caressed children in inappropriate ways, but we learned, through therapy, why we acted out in such ways and how to avoid reoffense. Most of us never reoffend.
Were our crimes “violent”? (I was certainly not “brutal” nor “intimidating” nor “threatening”.)
Am I, and the rest of registrants who committed “violent” crimes, to be permanently excluded from your plan for a second chance?
You state “All parents who are not violent, should be welcome to ball games, concerts, and graduations.” Did you really mean to exclude about half of the registrant community, or should you have said that “All parents who were not convicted of brutality or force should be welcome to ball games, concerts, and graduations” ?
Are we to be thrown under the bus?
Respectfully,
We can put repeat offenders in prison. Perhaps have them on parole eventually. Hit Lists play no role in public safety.
Very well written
Sorry, but you lost lost me at “We agree that there can be value in having a registry.”
It is like saying it is okay to leave at least one head of the hydra. As long as the registry exists in ANY form, the rest of the heads will grow back next time we have a high profile case.
The problem with our so-called movement is we’ve been doing all the conceding. We’re still too desperate for a minor victory. We’ll concede ten touchdowns if it gets our offense back on the field for a one yard play because it is at least positive yardage.
I don’t personally believe it is our duty as Registered Citizen activists to promote registries in any form. LEO-only registries would still bring much of the same BS that we fight right now. The list would still be subject to public record. We’d still be subject to police checks with USMS pigs adorned in full SWAT regalia. We’d still face penalties for failing to register.
No, I’m not conceding this, and so that brings the rest of this article into question.
Sorry but this is not a message I can support.
Member submissions do not necessarily reflect the views of FAC. We agree that there is no value in the registry.
We do have diverse opinions and approaches. That’s understandable. I will, however, agree to disagree with them on a few points. There is just no way, in my opinion, to salvage this FUBAR registry scheme. And with our culture being more openly hateful in recent years, I don’t trust a registry even if it was just accessible by the pigs.
I agree.
All government blacklists must be abolished. Cancer grows back. It must be fully excised.
Yes Derek…I Agree With You 1000%!
NEVER CONCEDE!
After stating the registry had value all the other points become meaningless. The registry has no value and even if it’s for LE what good would it do when most offenses are committed by 1st time offenders.
“Genuine solutions for problems in this area await creative people who can help the state and country find positive solutions through win-win compromises, while at the same time enhancing the human qualities of everyone involved.”
We first need to find a way to start this conversation and overcome the emotion, fearmongering, and public safety talking points. Unless the legislator has a family member on the registry and lives it firsthand, in their mind, there is no upside to this conversation. To this point, the research and data that has produced copious amounts of data that the current system does not work, has not changed the status quo to garner votes. I believe that the financial cost of all the foregoing legislation that each taxpayer/voter pays – from the cost to write/pass the law, to the cost of incarceration (and the incarceration time disparity between state and federal adding to this cost), to the societal cost of dealing with non-productive second-class citizens, to the cost of law enforcement trying to make since of all the laws is the solution.
I passionately believe if the public knew the cost to their own pockets, they would be our greatest asset in changing these draconian laws.
Things is, there is no “middle ground” with registry proponents. They will bombard you with false data and emotional manipulation as to why the registry is “necessary.” They’ve never produced anything substantial to support their arguments. All their claims are selfish, biased and fear-based.
You’re wasting your valuable time trying to reason with them, for they have no sense of shame, guilt, or truth.
It’s not our jobs to correct a lie. It would be akin to convincing anti-vaxxers that the Covid vaccine is safe and beneficial to all humanity. Yeah, ain’t happening.
Those who hate and persecute registrants are absolutely rabid. They cannot be reasoned with.
Fortunately, these rabid curs are in the minority.
Unfortunately, their self-righteous indignation is LOUD, and politicians pander to this crowd of hatred-spewing, youth-exalting mad dogs.
Really, the minority? I wish that were true in my experience. Every person I have met that later found I was a “Sex Offender” abhorred me and shunned me after that.
I realize many will disagree with Item 3– a police registry. But the authors are right. The one advantage our movement has over our opponents is that we have evidence on our side. And, last I checked, the evidence indicated that PUBLIC registries are ineffective, and that police registries— such as the UK maintains for most offenders— may be slightly effective.
And non-public police registries confer additional benefits— they sharply reduce community political pressure for ancillary laws such as residency restrictions, exclusion zones, etc.
I do think we need to avoid the slippery slope of labeling someone a “violent or repeat offender” (Items 1 & 2) and throwing them under the bus. If someone had that background but spent the last 15 years re-integrating into the community in a law-abiding way, will we still label them that way?
Perhaps “high-risk”is what we mean.
I would affirm that risk assessment tools, flawed as they are, should be part of the process and should be further developed and refined. And people should be rewarded for their efforts to reduce their risk level, with incentives to seek removal.
I, and many many others, totally disagree. Having your name listed on a registry, even if only the police have access to it, will NEVER prevent someone from committing a crime, nor will it keep the public safe. Think about it…if I write your name and information on a piece of paper or store it on my computer so only I can see it, how will that protect the public from something you might do? How would it prevent you from breaking the law? It won’t.
Laws are written to punish people who do something wrong, not to protect the public. For those who believe laws are in place to protect the public, tell me why people continue to break those laws.
Registries do NOTHING to protect the public. They only continue to punish people who are on them.
I don’t agree to all of this, and I think that some of it goes overboard.