If a person made a mistake, people would remember their name for a long time; if another person make the same mistake several times, people will also remember it for a same amount of time. People have the potential risk to make mistake. People could not guarantee that they would not make mistakes in whole lives. Some of people only made a mistake one time, they must be registered personal information on public department for many years in the life. Sex offenses are serious crime in America. Ordinary criminals are released; they can turn over and reintegrate a new life into society. The sex offenders are released will have restricted life. No matter where they move to, they must be registered with the local community to prepare their information, …show more content…
Richard Tewksbury’s research shows, “One large study of Uniform Crime Report trends in 15 states indicated that registration seems to have contributed to a reduction in sexual recidivism, but community notification has not” (Tewksbury 612). In fact, society and government should strengthen and adjust the source of sex offenders rather than force on the result which sex offenders have already registered. Registered sex offender information gives to sex offender’s family negative effects more than its functionality. Also Tewksbury’s experiment showed, because of legal restrictions, when sex offenders choice housing, they should be far away from school, day care center, amusement parks and other public places with specified distances ranging from 500 to 2500 feet (620). As a result, a large proportion of the housing is not available for sex offenders. They have to move to a faraway community, and they will lose part of their relatives. Sex offenders no longer live close to their family, the place is far away from work and public transportation. This action has increased registered sex offenders financial
This essay begins with the introduction of the Risk-Needs-Responsivitiy Model which was developed to assess offending and offer effective rehabilitation and treatment (Andrews & Bonta, 2007). The R-N-R model “remains the only empirically validated guide for criminal justice interventions that aim to help offenders” (Polashek, 2012, p.1) consisting of three principles which are associated with reductions in recidivism of up to 35% (Andrew & Bonta, 2010); risk, need and responsivity. Firstly, the risk principle predicts the offenders risk level of reoffending based on static and dynamic factors, and then matched to the degree of intervention needed. Secondly, the R-N-R targets individual’s criminogenic needs, in relation to dynamic factors. Lastly, the responsivity principle responds to specific responsivity e.g. individual needs and general responsivity; rehabilitation provided on evidence-based programming (Vitopoulous et al, 2012).
The following research will display an overview of the process in Texas on how sex offenders are registered along with the notifications that are followed after registration. Texas, as many other states, has a procedure which requires sex offenders to register with the local law enforcement agencies at the time of their discharge. In addition to registration, they must also comply with further probation regulations. Research has concluded that there are four basic phases of registration and notification. Beginning with offender notified, following the offender registration and community notified and ending with public notification
In 1994, twice-convicted sex offender Jesse Timmendequas raped and murdered Megan Kanka, a seven-year old girl who lived across the street. In reaction to this emotionally-charged crime, Megan's home state of New Jersey ratified a community notification bill - dubbed "Megan's Law" - just three months later. This fall, a national version of the law went into effect, mandating that all fifty states notify citizens in writing of the presence of convicted sex offenders within their communities. Certainly, society has a responsibility to protect children from sex offenders, and many feel that Megan's Law is the best course of action. However, others feel that it is an unwarranted intrusion into the rights to privacy of individuals who have already paid their debts to society.
Sex offender notification laws have been among the most widely discussed and debated criminal justice policy issues in recent years. Numerous studies have been conducted on various views of sex offender notification laws. A vast majority of these studies have mixed research, some showing that sex offender notification laws are more beneficial than harmful and should continue, and others showing the exact opposite. Reasons such as public safety, the fear factor, and the hope for future recidivism to go down are some examples of why many believe that sex offender notification laws are beneficial to society. Others believe that such laws are a continuation of punishment for those who were convicted of a sex offense.
In the event that a prisoner (particularly a sex offender) does complete rehabilitation, he carries with him a stigma upon reentering society. People often fear living near a prior drug addict or convicted murderer and the sensational media hype surrounding released felons can ruin a newly released convict’s life before it beings. What with resident notifications, media scare tactics and general concern for safety, a sex offender’s ability to readapt into society is severely hindered (554). This warrants life-skills rehabilitation applied to him useless, as he will be unable to even attempt to make the right decision regarding further crime opportunities.
As the system came in contact with younger and younger individuals in the sex trade, it was merely a matter of discussion, not action. It was through advocacy efforts, lobbying, and educational propagation that the message was reaching law enforcement officers, juvenile probation officers, and judges entrusted with upholding justice (Musto, 2013). Various community partners have been sought after to be trained and educated on minor sex trafficking that there was never a choice to enter the sex trade, rather an involuntary act of coercion by a traffickers (Musto, 2013). When the shift occurred from punitive to rehabilitative hope was planted for all those children still out in the sex trade fighting for their lives would not have to fear a juvenile Policies have proven to be counterproductive due to a multitude of fundamentally inapt bases to include: exaggerated statistical information inconsistently used; lack of protection safeguards for victims; inadequate resources on various levels; discretionary provisions that are incongruously applied; criminal conjecture; rigidity towards immigrant status in the sex trade; limited sanctions placed on traffickers; lack of fiscal resources; corruptive implications; and a complete lack of safety for children being reintegrated in the community (Vance, 2011). Ultimately, proving to complicate further the rehabilitation of children traumatized by sex
Finally, the third condition requires local and state law enforcement agencies to release all applicable information from state registration programs needed for the protection of the public (Corrigan, 2006, p. 271). While Megan’s Law has given community citizens the ability to be informed of sexual offenders in their areas and their demographic information, one must also consider the impact Megan’s law has on these offenders when they attempt to reenter society after incarceration.... ... middle of paper ... ... Levenson, J.S., Brannon, Y.N., Forney, T., & Baker, J. (2007).
The Recidivism Rate of Juvenile Sex Offenders between Uses of Legal Sentencing as Adults or Utilizing Psychological Treatment
Perception is not reality. The common assumption that the court system often treats female sex offenders differently than male sex offenders, the punishments of female sex offenders are more lenient than men who commit the same types of crimes, and the differences between male and female victims are all perception and not reality. Objective considerations to additional factors make the perceptions baseless. These additional factors solidify the factual differences between male and female sex offenders.
Ever since the bill for having a Canadian Sex Offender Registry was passed, in December of 2004, it has been a heated debate in many boardrooms across the country. On the one hand, there are the defence attorneys deeming it slightly mentally damaging and unnecessary for their client(s). On the other side of the coin, there are the individuals claiming it to be a great idea if used in the correct manner. A sex offender registry is only useful when used correctly, with updated and accurate profiles, while remaining conscious of charter rights.
Sex offender legislation has been encouraged and written to protect the community and the people at large against recidivism and or to help with the reintegration of those released from prison. Nevertheless, a big question has occurred as to if the tough laws created help the community especially to prevent recidivism or make the situation even worse than it already is. Sex offenders are categorized into three levels for example in the case of the state of Massachusetts; in level one the person is not considered dangerous, and chances of him repeating a sexual offense are low thus his details are not made available to the public (Robbers, 2009). In level two chances of reoccurrence are average thus public have access to this level offenders through local police departments in level three risk of reoffense is high, and a substantial public safety interest is served to protect the public from such individuals.
In the United States, as a condition of parole, sex offenders are typically required to register with law enforcement officials when released from prison. These officials notify the public of the offender’s release back into society and provide them with information such as the offenders address, and other personal information. Research indicates the notification system can have an adverse effect on the offender’s life, casting doubt on what the laws intended to protect the public. This paper will explore the background of sex offender registries, the relationship between the sex offender notifications and registration laws, and higher rates of recidivism in the United States. Introduction Sex offender legislation has become a controversial topic in the recent years.
In today’s society, juveniles that commit a sexual assault have become the subject of society. It’s become a problem in the United States due to the rise of sexual offenses committed by juveniles. The general public attitude towards sex offenders appears to be highly negative (Valliant, Furac, & Antonowicz, 1994). The public reactions in the past years have shaped policy on legal approaches to managing sexual offenses. The policies have included severe sentencing laws, sex offender registry, and civil commitment as a sexually violent predator (Quinn, Forsyth, & Mullen-Quinn, 2004). This is despite recidivism data suggesting that a relatively small group of juvenile offenders commit repeat sexual assaults after a response to their sexual offending (Righthand &Welch, 2004).
There are several identifiable psychological factors that increase the likelihood an individual will demonstrate deviant sexual behavior. One of the most important contributing factors is physical or sexual abuse endured as a child. According to Becerra-García, García-León and Egan (2012), sex offenders are twice as likely to report being sexually, emotionally, or physically abused as a child in comparison to other offenders. There are also other factors besides abuse that must be taken into consideration. A recent study on female sex offenders by Roe-Sepowitz and Krysik (2008) states, “the data reveal that many of the 118 female juvenile sex offenders came from chaotic and disorganized families and had poor parental supervision and serious school and mental health problems”. As Becerra-García, García-León and Egan (2012) discuss further, there are also personality traits that sex offenders are likely to possess, which makes it possible for psychologists to distinguish general characteristics of sex offenders. These personality traits can be identified using the Five Factor Model, which scales an individual’s level of neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.
Martin, R. (1996). Pursuing Public Protection Through Mandatory Community Notification of Convicted Sex Offenders: The Trials and Tribulations of Megan's Law. The Boston Public Interest Law Journal, Vol. 6, Issue 29