If registries are not ended, I fear eventually there will be more people on registries than those that are not. The prisons will be so overcrowded that there will have to be super prisons.

All other felons when done with their sentences get another chance. And many of them re-offend. They still are not put on a registry. But many of us never got a 2nd chance and were retroactively put onto the registry, and yet some felons have 10, 15 even 20 crimes and no registry.

I see that Derek and I cited the same study at the same time, one that encompassed arrests from before there was any registry.

By now, y’all and I and FAC I think can all agree that almost all sex crimes are committed by people WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN CONVICTED OF A SEXUAL OFFENSE. They would not have been eligible to have been listed on the registry whether there had been one or not. THAT’S why we don’t need registries. (I previously cited articles suggesting “no criminal record,” but I see folks aren’t comfortable going that far, and that’s ok).

Why am I making a big deal out of this? In committee hearings, commissioners meetings, or communications with officials, you should know by now that people respond to, “almost all sex crimes are committed by people not on the registry” with some version of, that’s because the registry is great, and our sheriffs do a great job enforcing compliance. So the statement is an incomplete truth that plants a rhetorical trap for ourselves. (The statement, “REGISTRANTS exhibit low recidivism,” as worded is also a mistake, for the same reasons).

To summarize:

Most sex crimes are committed by those never convicted of a sex offense.
There is a low re-offense rate among those convicted of sex offenses.
This was true prior to the introduction of registries as we know it.
Registries have made no noticeable difference in these.

Are we on the same page yet? What am I neglecting?

Except that studies of actual arrest reports have shown that the number of arrests of first time offenses and repeat sex offenses remained constant in NY in the 10 years before and after the registry was implemented, so the claim that the registry works is simply wrong.

Source: Does a Watched Pot Boil? A Time-Series Analysis of New York State’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Law
November 2008Psychology Public Policy and Law 14(4):284-302
DOI:10.1037/a0013881

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232505213_Does_a_Watched_Pot_Boil_A_Time-Series_Analysis_of_New_York_State's_Sex_Offender_Registration_and_Notification_Law

Above source, taken from FAC’s research page, also points out that “the Association for Treatment of Sexual Abusers similarly found that 93 percent of sex offenses are committed by first-time offenders.”

Similarly, in Ohio in 1999, 92% of those convicted of a sex offense against a child and 93% of those convicted of a sex offense against a teenager were first-time offenders. (Moore KF. Report to the Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission: sex offenders.) (Note 23 of Bonnar-Kidd as linked on FAC’s research page at
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2820068/#!po=0.769231 )

Analyses by Sandler et al, linked more than once on FAC’s research page, “also showed that over 95% of all sexual offense arrests were committed by first-time sex offenders, casting doubt on the ability of laws that target repeat offenders to meaningfully reduce sexual offending.” Using arrest data going back prior to the registry, “the current study also found that 95.9% of all arrests for any RSO, 95.9% of all arrests for rape, and 94.1% of all arrests for child molestation were of first-time sex offenders. Thus, as none of these offenders had any prior convictions for sexual offenses, none of them were on the sex offender registry (or would have been on the registry had it existed) at the time of their offenses.” While Sandler et al specify first-time “sex” offenders rather than first-time offenders, that remains an important distinction from “registrants” if we are discussing the efficacy of the registry, wouldn’t you agree?

Did I answer the question?

Jacob, please cite a specific statistic or research. Neither link points directly to the research that backs up your statement of “over 90% of sex crimes are committed by those with NO CRIMINAL RECORD…”.

This whole issue is over a Governor brother in law avoided the registry until a new lady was hired at Registry Board and the man got placed on the registry. The Governor then fired her. https://all4consolaws.org/2023/03/or-judge-considers-requests-for-triple-damages-in-sorb-head-ouster/ Maybe this case will shine light on this issue.
Thought it was relevant to yours conversation.

I suspect that most sex offenses are committed by someone who for some reason or another did something out of character and are now paying a price by being on the registry. They would not commit another offense, registry or not. All the registry is doing is keeping peace loving, law abiding citizens from returning to society, getting a job, having a normal family life, and in many cases punishing family members. The time and effort that goes into maintaining the registry is no way justified in making anyone any safer…other than justifying a pay check for those who operate the registry. I have learned to tolerate the registry while I live a nearly normal life with my family and friends.

The registry prevents nothing except for life after one pays their debt. It’s a form of extended punishment, and is quite literally worse than probation (except for sex offender probation) in some states.

Well said, as always, Cherokee!

They are posted at FAC’s research page at https://floridaactioncommittee.org/press/articles-and-studies-containing-research/

For example, “sex offenses are, by a very large margin, committed by people known to the victim who have no criminal history, data show.” https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/may/15/ex-offender-registries-common-sense-or-nonsense/

For the same reason, we also need to use caution when citing the the low recidivism of “registrants.” The low recidivism of registrants is true but irrelevant, because we have been doing recidivism studies since prior to the registry as we know it, so it’s not the registry that’s producing those low recidivism rates.

Thank you, Education Committee, for engaging me on this important point.

The flaw in that reasoning is that any given lawmaker would have enough influence with prosecutors to keep his family members off the registry, regardless of whatever crimes those family members may have committed. Judges don’t make much difference – they just rubber stamp their signatures on whatever the DAs put in front of them as long as the signature block is correct.