What Do Victim/Survivors Actually Think About Sex Offender Registries?
There’s a an interesting new study published in the International Review of Victimology that takes a closer look at an assumption that has shaped sex-offender policy for decades: that public registries exist because victims and survivors want them.
The study, performed by Kelly Richards of Queensland University of Technology in Australia came to a surprising conclusion. The participants’ views were not uniformly in favor of registration, as people might assume. The responses were (as described by the researcher) complex, diverse and sometimes contradictory. Survivors did not simply say, “Put them on a registry. We want this.”
Those who supported registration generally did so for utilitarian reasons — they believed information might help people protect themselves or their children. They were not primarily motivated by revenge or a desire to punish people further. But even many supporters questioned how much information should actually be made public. Some favored limited information rather than names, addresses and extensive personal details.
The study also found something that should give policymakers serious pause. Victim-survivors repeatedly expressed concern that public notification could produce vigilantism. This was the most common reason given by participants who opposed registration. They worried that publishing information could encourage members of the public to take the law into their own hands, creating another cycle of violence and harm.
But the concerns did not stop there. Participants worried that public registries could create panic and a false sense of security. On one hand, publishing information about registered people could cause communities to become unnecessarily fearful and anxious. On the other hand, people might conclude that they are safe because they know who the “sex offenders” are — while completely overlooking the fact that a registry only identifies people who have been convicted and required to register and ignores the fact that most sexual harm is committed by someone not on the registry.
Perhaps most importantly, the study challenges the idea of the “vengeful victim.” The author specifically concludes that it is a myth that victim-survivors hold uniformly vengeful views or are categorically more punitive than everyone else. Instead, participants were often “torn” about the registry. They could simultaneously want children protected while recognizing that publicly identifying people could cause additional harm, vigilantism, stigma and social destruction. That should matter when politicians say they are passing registry laws “for the victims.” Have they actually asked them?
The study points out that sex-offender laws are often enacted in the names of victims — including the laws that created registration and notification systems. Yet research into what victim-survivors actually think about these policies remains surprisingly limited. The author concludes that governments may be assuming what victims want rather than actually listening to the diversity of victim-survivor perspectives.
Most sexual offenses are committed by someone known to the victim. Do they want their perpetrator (who might be a relative, close family friend, a once-loved acquaintance) punished forever?
And the study offers an interesting alternative. Rather than publicly identifying individual people, the author suggests that governments could provide evidence-based education about sexual violence generally, including information about its prevalence and the fact that many perpetrators are never detected. That approach could help people understand and prevent sexual violence without the same risks of vigilantism, public panic and false reassurance. Isn’t this what FAC has been saying all along?
To be clear, this is not an argument that every victim or survivor opposes registries. They don’t and FAC would never suggest otherwise.
What this research demonstrates is that like perpetrators of sexual harm, victims and survivors of sexual harm are not a monolithic political constituency. They have different experiences, different perspectives and different ideas about what actually makes communities safer.
If we are going to continue passing laws in their names, the least we can do is listen to them.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This should be a wake up call to everyone who wants government to “do something.” BE REAL SPECIFIC about what you want them to do. Otherwise, you will get something quite unexpected.
Seriously, how many active offenders or predators are still free because their families do not want to their family member and their families related to anyone on the list?
“You call the cops, we ALL pay the price!”
“It’s not worth it, just avoid the person (man or woman).”
Hear hear @FAC! Well said!
My opinion only is laws that were, and are, enacted in the names of a victim are created under extreme emotional duress by politicians, activist groups instead of common sense. When the feds enacted SORNA did they realize the level to which some states would take these laws. The amount of inconsistencies from state to state and level at which constitutional rights have been taken away. Never to be given back. The minutia that LO and activist groups have created around a nonsensical approach to one group of people that are held to an impossible standard. Or the degree to which homelessness, joblessness, unfair treatment, substance abuse, and other societal effects would happen. I would like to see a study done in the US and compared to Australia. Would results be the same or different? Especially since the US tends to create a high level of perpetual victimhood and the government has a law that will make right what has been wronged.
I remember back in 2009, we had one of those worst case scenarios in Cincinnati. A 13 year old girl was murdered by a guy convicted of murder but also had a petty sex offense of some sort not related to the murder, but the petty offense became the local media focus.
There was a push to shut down this treatment program in the area but the family of the victim opposed that idea and spoke in support of the program. But the city council ignored the victim’s family’s pleas and passed a resolution condemning the program, then had the audacity to say they did it for the victim’s family.
I do have to add I think the results of this study might be different if conducted in the US, when being a victim can get you set for life, see John Walsh and Lauren Book and Elizabeth Smart as examples.
Well said. Almost all “tough on crime” policies in the USA are tied to someone’s financial gains. From private prisons, to GPS, to federal funding , etc. Ron Book took being an absentee father to give himself more power and Lauren used her terrible victimization to create a very profitable “not for profit”. Who is worse? Those that commit these crimes which are obviously terrible crimes or those that parlayed their victimization into a way to make millions and harm just as many millions with no distinction to humanity or harm to families? Make no mistake they don’t care about society at large but only their own money making “halos”. Victims deserve justice and perpetrators deserve accountability but this is not what is happening.