Arizona parents who want to find out whether a suspicious e-mail has been sent by a registered sex offender now can check the sender’s e-mail address against the state’s database of convicted molesters.
Utah residents can sign up for e-mail alerts to notify them when a sex offender moves into their neighborhood.
Wisconsin’s online registry provides maps to let users know exactly where the closest sex offender lives.
And in Texas, the state’s sex offender registry — which includes more than 54,000 people — now features information ranging from offenders’ work addresses to their nicknames and even shoe sizes.
The four states are among more than two dozen that quietly have added a wide range of new services — and new categories of information — to their online registries of convicted molesters. All 50 states have publicly searchable sex offender registries, which are accessible through a
national database kept by the U.S. Justice Department, a Web site that averages 2.3 million page views a day.
STATE SEX OFFENDER DATABASES GROW
| |
The new features come as states approach a July deadline to comply with the Adam Walsh Act, a 2006 federal law intended to crack down on the estimated 674,000 registered sex offenders in the United States. The law was named after the murdered 6-year-old son of “
America’s Most Wanted” host John Walsh, who was informed by police in Florida on Dec. 16 that his son’s killer was identified after more than 25 years.
The Adam Walsh Act requires all states to adopt the same minimum standards for registering and tracking sex offenders, including the information they post online. Under the law, states must include where sex offenders work and go to school, the cars they drive, the aliases they use, the crimes they have committed and more.
The law also calls for some juvenile offenders as young as 14 to be included in online registries, though many states so far have balked at that provision, arguing that juveniles should not be singled out publicly.
Many state lawmakers, corrections officials, advocacy organizations and members of the public have criticized the Adam Walsh Act, questioning its costs, demands and whether aspects of it do more harm than good. The posting of new information about sex offenders also has drawn criticism. Blogs and other Internet forums have buzzed as visitors voice frustration over the trove of details now available to anyone at the click of a mouse.
“The Justice Department says it’s there simply for information and not for punishment. If they were in our shoes, I think they’d reconsider,” said Carlos Robles, 32, a registered sex offender in Austin, Texas. Robles — who received probation for engaging in consensual sex with a 16-year-old when he was 20 — said nonviolent and low-risk criminals should not be included on the Texas registry.
States are under pressure to comply with the Adam Walsh Act by July — or lose 10 percent of their share of funding under a federal grant program that pays for state and local police programs. No states have been deemed compliant with the Adam Walsh Act yet, though they can apply for a pair of one-year extensions.
At least 13 states last year and 12 states in 2007 passed laws authorizing the collection of new information from sex offenders, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). Some states passed the laws on their own, while others did so specifically to meet federal Adam Walsh Act demands, NCSL said.
While some of the new laws stipulate that the collected information can be posted only on internal law enforcement Web sites, many states are adding some of it to their public registries as well, in accordance with Adam Walsh Act requirements. Wyoming, for instance, is among a dozen states where residents can view license plate numbers or vehicle descriptions of the cars driven by registered sex offenders.
A Stateline.org analysis of all 50 state sex offender registries, conducted in December, found:
- All states include information about the crime committed by each sex offender or, in some cases, general information about the victim. New York, for example, includes whether sex offenders committed their crimes against family members.
- At least 29 states provide mapping to show exactly where sex offenders live. Some states offer significantly more information on their maps. Washington state shows where sex offenders live in relation to schools, day care centers and other places where children gather.
- At least 19 states allow users to sign up for e-mail or other alerts to inform them when sex offenders change status, including when they move. North Carolina allows residents to sign up for telephone alerts as well.
- At least 18 states list information about where registered sex offenders are employed, though details vary by state. West Virginia, for example, posts only the city and county in which offenders are employed, while Virginia provides the name of the employer and the company’s address.
- At least 13 states post information about the cars sex offenders drive, such as vehicle make and model or license plate.
- At least four states — Arizona, Colorado, Florida and West Virginia — allow users to search for sex offenders by their online identifiers, such as e-mail address or instant messenger screen name.
Those who support the surge in new online information say it can help law enforcers, parents and other members of the public keep a watchful eye on sex offenders, including many who are described as sexual predators and have used the Internet to commit their crimes.
Supporters say states like Delaware — where each sex offender’s profile includes a phone number to contact the police agency responsible for monitoring the offender — are innovators that provide useful information that can be helpful for reporting and even deterring crime. Other states that allow users to provide tips directly to police through their sex offender registries include Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin.
In Connecticut, state Rep. Mike Lawlor (D), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is pushing for the state to include more information in its sex offender profiles, including whether victims are male or female, an adult or a minor and an acquaintance of the offender or a stranger.
“On Connecticut’s registry, only the technical name and number of the crime of conviction is listed, which is meaningless to citizens hoping to make decisions about the risk of a nearby offender,” Lawlor recently wrote in an opinion piece published in the Hartford Courant.
But the expansion has generated resistance from civil libertarians, privacy groups and a small but growing number of advocates for sex offenders who say some of the new information could subject former offenders to harassment or even violence. Media reports in recent years also have tied sex offender suicides to the public registration requirements they faced.
Critics say some online information, such as the size of offenders’ shoes in Texas, serves no reasonable law enforcement purpose.
“I’m just curious, how is that keeping us safe?” said Mary Sue Molnar, who helped found Texas Voices, a support group for registered sex offenders in Texas. Molnar said one recent change to Texas’s registry — the posting of offenders’ places of employment, in accordance with the Adam Walsh Act — has caused law-abiding offenders she works with to lose their jobs.
Battles over the Adam Walsh Act and similar state-level laws are playing out in state and federal courts around the country. Most have focused on whether the act’s requirements can be applied retroactively to those who committed their crimes before such laws were approved. Legal experts say few major cases have challenged the new information being included in online registries.
Leonard Sharon, a criminal defense attorney in Maine who has defended sex offenders, said it could be difficult for lawyers to win lawsuits asserting sex criminals’ right to privacy. “Your right to privacy is restricted once you’ve been convicted,” he said.
Meanwhile, a crucial undercurrent in the debate over the expansion of online sex offender information has been whether the information itself is reliable. A December report by the inspector general of the Justice Department found that public sex offender registries run by the states are “inconsistent and incomplete.”
“The public,” the report said, “cannot use the state information…as a reliable tool to identify all registered and non-compliant sex offenders in their communities.”
Moreover, if state Web sites inaccurately list firms that employ sex offenders, companies could be “stigmatized or potentially jeopardized by vigilante responses, however infrequent they may be,” said Wayne Logan, a law professor at Florida State University who has studied sex offender laws.
Another twist is that not everyone who is listed on state sex offender registries is a sex offender, according to Kristen Anderson, director of case analysis with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which monitors 57 sex offender registries, including those of the states and overseas territories.
Fourteen states include non-sex criminals in their registries, including arsonists and drug offenders, Anderson said. She said she did not know which 14 states because some information submitted to her organization from the states is provided anonymously.
But perhaps the most contentious aspect of the Adam Walsh Act — its requirement that states add some sex offenders as young as 14 to their publicly accessible registries — appears no closer to being resolved, even with the law’s rapidly approaching deadline. Logan some some states have a “principled objection” to posting personal information about young offenders online.
While many states have included some juvenile offenders in their online registries for years, Logan said, those offenders usually were convicted as adults. The Adam Walsh Act, by contrast, would include those convicted in special juvenile courts for aggravated and other serious sexual crimes.
Many states are wrestling with whether to adopt that requirement. Wisconsin, for instance, has collected information from 1,900 people who committed their crimes as minors, said John Dipko, a spokesman with the state Department of Corrections. But the details are published only on the state’s internal Web site for law enforcement — not on the public registry.
“Our statute does not give us authority to do that,” Dipko said.
Powered by
By Carlos Robles on Jan 14, 2009 4:01:50 PM
Lawmakers need to take responsibility for their creation of this monster they have created when it comes to sex offender laws and reform these laws in order to use the federal funding, and grants productively, and for the sole perpose in protecting citizens all over the country from dangerous offenders, not where age was the only factor.
These laws have created a terriable burden not just on the offenders, but on their family and friends. When any employer see's those two words sex offender, they past judge ment to fast and decline the employment of the offender, reguardless if the crime was just bassed on age and no violent act.
If lawmakers through out the country want to make the wrong right, then they should penalize employers for discrimination, that or help offenders in finding employment with in their career background. The system has failed our country already and federal agents, and local law enforcement agencies are stretched out thin, and are taken time out from catching true offenders.
Remember that those true offenders are always on the run and running away from there problems, and issues. Yet those that have complide with the system, year after year, have to deal with new and harder laws that do not prove an end, it is almost like the system is setting those on the registry up for failure, even if "Age Was the Only Factor".
Report as Offensive
Sex Offender Legislation is Harming Countless Men Women and Children
By cfc america on Jan 13, 2009 7:24:25 PM
You always year it...
Some horrific crime is cited, Jessica, Jacob, Jason, Susy.. was murdered... disappeared... then comes the panic.
A politician, eager for a name and a political position sees an opportunity to gain favor and they put forth some hastily drawn law aimed at punishing persons who commit these heinous crimes.
The media knows all about it, they create thousands of television shows where some little boy or girl is kidnapped by some sex pervert... and Millions of complacent viewers tune in to see all the twisted sex and violence.
That is what America thrives on, twisted sex and violence.
But how many crimes are prevented by the new law?
How many people are actually harmed by the new law?
Is the new law even constitutional??
These questions are never asked. As the sole purpose for most of these laws is to line the pockets and further the careers of the politicians involved in the process and implementation of the law.
Look at Bobby Jindal! He violates his oath of office every day he is in office and upholds the totally Unconstitutional application of the Retroactive Sex Offender Registry in Louisiana.
All public officials take an oath to uphold the constitution.
The United States Constitution states?
Article 1, Section 9:
No bill of attainder of Ex Post Facto Law Shall be passed.
Why then do these politicians continually disobey our Constitutional Rights and pass laws which are forbidden, and nobody stops them?
http://www.cfcamerica.org
http://www.crimesagainstchildren.com/
http://collateralvictims.com
Thousands are crying out because of the ignorant, unconstitutional laws being passed which are creating a new underclass of Americans, the Sex Offender... just like the Blacks were named ****s, the Indians called Just Savages... the new group to ostracize is now the Sex Offender and their Children, and Wives.....Somebody has to stop the madness.
Report as Offensive
Online Sex Offender Laws
By Margie Furlong on Jan 13, 2009 3:24:19 PM
Why create new and tougher laws for sex offenders when the existing laws are unjust and counterproductive? Laws created from mass hysteria, panic, confusion and the media; do little or nothing to make the public any safer.
The broad definition of the term "sex offender" has devastated many individuals who are guilty of no more than a one time lapse of good judgment. Contrary to popular belief, many so-called "sex offenders" are of no risk to the communities in which they live and work. The public disclosure of personal information is a violation of oneâs rights and the ability to re-integrate into society. The current public disclosure of all considered "sex offenders" has severely hampered the ability of these individuals to secure employment.
Countless history lessons, throughout our educational years, have focused on a group of individuals to persecute. They have included, but are not limited to, Lepers, Christians, Hebrews, Jews, Blacks â both in the form of slavery and as a segregated group in the 1950âs, American Indians, etc. Letâs not forget the so-called Witches of Salem. Laws were cast upon them that were unfounded and absurd today. In the 2000âs where we have much more technology and weâre âsmarterâ, we have begun the persecution of sex offenders. There are no programs, at least that I can find, that would assist former offenders with their re-integration into society.
Please consider researching the facts. As the public becomes more educated concerning the unjust "grouping" of all who have been deemed "sex offenders", registry reform must follow. The laws, as currently structured, have created an over-blown registry that will continue to grow out of control. It is time for fact-based laws that will benefit society as well as the offender.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Report as Offensive
Law helps predators hide
By Rika W on Jan 13, 2009 2:51:14 PM
The laws of many states have--and continue to--do what research (and some commenters here) have stated as best: focus on the true predators. In fact, New Jersey restricted notification to only those whose mental health evals showed them likely to re-offend...and New Jersey's recidivism rate is HALF the national average, meaning their system leads to FEWER victims. Florida, on the other hand, has massive notifcation schemes, and is one of the most dangerous states in which a child may grow up.
However, AWA requires states to abandon successful programs like New Jersey's, adopt unsuccessful ones like Florida's, and will name the majority of sex offenders as the "most dangerous" based upon crime committed rather than liklihood to re-offend. That means a rapist released from prison forty years ago will be treated like a diagnosed pedophile just released yesterday.
And who will be more likly to re-offend? Lawmakers don't want you to know, apparently.
(Incidentally, Parents for Megan's Law gave Florida's laws an A+ in the same year those laws failed to protect Jessica. The group have New Jersey--with their low recidivism rate--a failing grade. Go figure.)
Report as Offensive
Wake up people
By Steven Berlandi on Jan 13, 2009 11:27:05 AM
Very good article. I would like to mention first that few sex offenders are predators. Few will repeat. Also all the hype created by a few heinous crimes has made something that is so harmful that what ever good could come out of it has been lost. The registry has anyone and everyone on it. The only way we can understand as common everyday people. People who really don't understand the laws and unless have been place in a situation involving either being a victim of a sex crime or prosecuted for one. We as the general public are at a loss what to do or think. We have been told so many things about sex offenders. One is that they always repeat. If this is so then why are there 647,000 on this registry that we think we need to know every time they breath. One would think they would be already back in jail for life.
Many point out that information somehow is power. Ok I will give you that one. But what happens to this power? What do we do with it? The original idea was so we would know who the predators were. The ones most likely to offend again. Good idea. Now that we have 647,000 registered sex offenders nation wide who are these people. You don't know do you. So we as a populous have no choice but to feel all are a danger. So what happens? We class everyone on the list as the same. We don't want them to live next ot us. Work with us. Even go to church with us.
Painting each and everyone with the same brush of misunderstanding has lead to many murders of ex-sex offenders. The thoughtless dissimilation of information has taken homes from them and their families. It has made it so they can't hold a job if they get one as someone will spread the news. I wonder who they are protecting. People on this registry come form all walks of life. We want to think they are no more then animals and treat them as such. We have e-mail alerts. A web site to track these animals. Lifetime registration for all in some states. Why? Does it make us safer? Not really as 97% of the new crimes are committed by people not on the registry.
So now we spend our time worried that some judge didn't do their job when sentencing and punishing these people. We worry that they are out there committing new crimes if we don't watch them very closely. We feel helpless as politicians spread the big lie that 50% repeat. I feel most can see where this is all going. So why don't we put a stop to all the hysteria? We fear what we don't know. We feel if we have enough information we will finally be safe. We are not safe. We are now confused. We have no idea who is a danger and who has been rehabilitated and is now trying to support their family and live a normal life. Being afraid we react in the only way we know how to do. We ostracize all of them. We make it so they can't work, rent or even live.
Fear is a great tool for politicians. We as a populous have the right to be safe. All of the families in a community need to feel safe and have the right to be productive and live as well as they can. Given that why do we feel we are in a position to destroy anyoneâs family with laws that destroy their ability to maintain a home for their family. Yes this is also their children. If it saves one child then its all worth it. What about the children that suffer from these laws? What about them? Who are we as a populous to take away their future.
We need to back these laws back down to what they were originally intended to do. Trim this back to where we know who the dangerous ones are. The ones that are repeat offenders deemed predator. The ones that posse a treat that as a populous ,we have a right to know about. Let the ones that have paid the price and rehabilitated themselves go. Leave them alone to grow and prosper as they should. Let their children have a stable life. One free from one of their classmates spreading the news that they found out on the internet or from some over zealous miss informed person in the neighborhood. Stop spreading fear for the sake of the children.
If we as a populous want to play citizens on patrol do it with the ones that posse a threat. Really if we don't get a handle on this we are going to spend all our time in our homes as we won't feel safe to even go out. How is that fair to anyone. Stop the lies. Stop the hysteria. Stop and take a look at what is really going on and then reform these laws that have gotten so out of control.
Report as Offensive
By Susan Kenney on Jan 13, 2009 10:49:22 AM
All rational people looking at this article have to realize just by the sheer number of people on the registry how out of control this is. There is usually a huge difference between a sex offender and an actual molester or predator, and so many do not deserve to be on it. They have taken their punishment, learned their lesson, and want nothing more than to be productive citizens contributing to our society.
In our age of technology, this is going to hit a lot of people closer to home than they ever thought possible. With our judicial system as broken as it is, unless you have the right political connections and the resources for a high power attorney, you don't stand a chance of getting your side heard.
Restructure the registry and use it for what it was originally intended. That is to keep track of the serious predators who are a threat. I think it will eventually self-defeat itself because it will become so commonplace for people to be registered that people will quit paying attention to it. At least that is my hope if nothing is done to rectify this.
Report as Offensive
Corrupted Laws
By Brian Yates on Jan 13, 2009 7:01:13 AM
The Adam Walsh Act is very deceptive in that it claims to protect children when, in fact, it harms many.
Most sex offenders do NOT re-offend according to the Department Of Justice and several university studies. Many have committed non-violent crimes such as streaking, one-time voyeurism, and teens who had consensual sex with other teens.
Children related to these offenders suffer collateral damage and, as mentioned in this article, some states list young children on public registries (often for non-violent crimes like playing doctor).
Plus, public registries incite vigilante violence from cults like Absolute Zero United who believe all sex offenders, regardless of offense, should be murdered.
In California, the homeless population has increased by over 800% because of zoning laws which are proven ineffective at keeping anyone safe, especially when such laws encourage violent offenders to stop registering.
The AWA and similar laws are based on feel-good mentalities that only benefit vote-getting politicians. The AWA costs states millions to implement and raises tax dollars.
It is time to reform sex offender laws, so that only real predators are on registries. This will help law enforcement do a better job of tracking them since currently they are overburdened watching thousands of people who pose no risk.
But also, we need to give them therapy, employment, and housing while they are monitored. Statistics show a much lower re-offense rate with these class of offenders when they are in a stable environment.
Lawmakers should base their decisions on facts, not hysteria generated by the media. I would definitely go with data provided by the DOJ over CSI hype any time.
It is time to change these far-reaching laws.
Report as Offensive
Way out of control!!!
By Walt Howard on Jan 13, 2009 12:09:09 AM
I think the sex offender focus is way out of control. These lawmakers are, in my opinion, traitors! They have circumvented the protections afforded ALL citizens by our Constitution and Bill of Rights for over two decades now. Remember this statement?: "The greatest tyrannies are always perpetuated in the name of the noblest causes." Thomas Paine.
I believe that eventually, these offenders will rise up and become subversives, or even domestic terrorists due to the abolition of their GOD given rights.
Sex offenders indeed have the LOWEST rate of recidivism among ALL the criminal types, yet our lawmakers have found easy targets to experiment with diminishing civil and human rights protections that exist in our constitution and bill of rights.
Just because someone's on a registry, or not allowed to live in a certain neighborhood is not going to stop an offender from attacking. In fact, I can prove beyond a doubt that these laws increase the likelihood of a re-offense.
People will never understand how bad these laws are until someone close to them is affected, persecuted, and discriminated against.
Wake up lawmakers, you are fertilizing anarchists.
I personally think that most of you are con artists using this "sex offender" bashing as a means for support because you lack the understanding for the real issues plaguing America today. You certainly have no resolution other than to abolish rights for people who've made mistakes and payed the price. I think it's called "double jeopardy," but I'm sure you lawmakers will have some con story as to why it doesn't violate the constitution. Lawmakers in America are undereducated, superficial, and hypocrites. I've yet to meet a down to earth and compassionate lawmaker that serves the public interest even when it's unpopular.
You people disgust me, and I hope the people wake up and remove you all from your playpens. We've had enough!!!
If you can't find better solutions to social problems that have plagued mankind since the dawn of civilization, then get the hell out of office.
Walt.
Report as Offensive
Sex Offender Issues
By Mary Molnar on Jan 12, 2009 10:22:56 PM
Great informative article. However, I think the word "molester" is over-used. Bottom line: Not all "sex offenders" are "molesters". Not all "sex offenders" have committed dangerous, heinous offenses. The goal of Texas Voices: Differentiation! Current "sex offender" laws have reached out and snagged thousands who pose no threat to children or society. Many have committed misdemeanor type offenses. Offenses which should not be registerable for life. Offenses that were neither violent, dangerous nor harmful. The registry is certainly not keeping anyone safer.
Report as Offensive
Research shows registries increase danger
By Rika W on Jan 12, 2009 3:24:46 PM
Researchers at Columbia Universtiy found that community notification INCREASES recidivism amoung registered sex offenders.
They also found a decrease in reported crimes amoung family and close friends by first-time offenders. However, that shouldn't really be taken as a positive. Why? Because child advocacy groups have been saying for ten years that notification laws DECREASE the liklihood an abused child will report the family member.
So we're spending billions to create and maintain a system shown to increase recidivism by the already-convicted, and shown to decrease the liklihood a victim will seek intervention.
Besides, if the registry system worked as it was billed--to keep all registered sex offenders from ever harming another person--we'd still be left with over 90% of sex crimes untouched. After all, the Department of Justice found less than ten percent of sex crimes were committed by registered sex offenders.
And while we're on the subject of law enforcement, perhaps someone can consider why the rise and broadened scope of registries has corresponded with a large DECREASE in the percentage of sex crimes solved?
The registry is an expensive experiment based on theory, and the facts on the ground have proven the theory wrong. Alas, since so many have banked their future, earnings, and reputation upon the faulty theory, it's unlikely any of them will back down.
It's often said that policies are worth it if it "saves one child." Is it still worth it if it harms just one child? Unfortunately, for many, the answer is a resounding yes.
Report as Offensive