Sex offenders should not be required to register their whereabouts; it is discriminating, invidious, and inequitable. Regardless of a crime, we are all humans, and our past should not eternally define a person. Disclosing private information, like that of a sex offenders whereabouts, can be considered a violation of our human right to privacy. Chastising people for a crime they have done their time is strenuous to them when all they hope to do is move on from their past. Not protecting the rights of sex offenders, and releasing their private information to “protect” the community can ultimately lead to a rise in crime rates as well. As human beings we are all entitled to the right to our privacy. Article #30 of our Human Rights states that
NO ONE can take those rights away, they are your rights. Article #12 states that “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interferences or attacks. Sex offender Registries violate the right to privacy. All registry information of sex offenders in any state are posted online and easily located. In North Carolina addresses, full names, birthdates, any marks or tattoos, inmate numbers, registry numbers, current pictures, and violation information can all be found online. Some may say that it is for protection, but there are limits to what protection of oneself is and infringing on someone's information is. From my own research I can say that there are 42 sex offenders living within a 5 miles radius of my address. Although there are both pros and cons to having this information available, the number of sex offenders near your residence should still be accessible, however disclosing all the other information is a bit overboard. In requiring certain housing laws, many sex offenders are left homeless leading to an increase in chances of going to prison. In the state of North Carolina any person registered as a sex offender is required to have an address or current location of residence on their registry. We are one of the many states that does not require a sex offender to move or live a certain distance from a school or daycare if one is located nearby or newly opened. In other states, like Florida, sex offenders are required to live at least 2,500 feet away from any school or daycare (ACLU Challenges Miami Law). How can one find a safe home when they are required to live a certain distance from any public facility with children? Miami, Florida is one of the many cities that is highly populated with homeless sex offenders; many of them live in warehouses near railroads and under bridges, These shelters are not safe or sanitary for anyone to live sustainably and carry on their life. The Constitution states that we are all entitled to lawmakers protecting our health, safety, and welfare, but these places do not provide any of those which is why the 2,500feet restriction needs to be reevaluated. Although the belief is that everyone can find their own home, this restriction does not allow freed sex offenders to look for a home because they have to provide their criminal background, as well as look for places that meet the distance restriction. It;s much harder to find a home when one does not
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).
Megan Nicole Kanka was a seven-year-old girl who lived in Hamilton Township, New Jersey. On July 29, 1994, Jesse Timmendequas enticed Megan into his home with the assurance of a puppy. Megan would never be seen alive again. Megan was brutally and sexually assaulted and then murdered by "two-time convicted sex offender Jesse Timmendequas." (p. 164) Timmendequas sex offenses did not start with Megan. Timmendequas had a criminal charge in a 1981 attack on a five-year-old and an attempted sexual assault on a seven-year-old. Hamilton Township 's community was shocked to know they had a two-time sentenced sex offender living in their community without their awareness. Following Megan 's murder by Jesse Timmendequas, several New Jersey citizens began
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.
Most states require that anyone convicted of a sex crime must register as a sexual offender in the National Sex Offender Registry. Registering in the sex offender registry could potentially be detrimental to...
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.
I am going to look at two books, which explain why people become sex offenders. The first book that I looked at examines four theories. These theories are psychodynamic theories, behavioral theories, biological theories, and empirical theories. The second book that I looked at showed some case studies of men that had committed sex offences and looked at some of the different things that caused these men to offend.
Some people might say that if a sex offender does their time in jail that is enough punishment. Others may disagree and say that more action needs to be taken because of stories like the little girl Megan Kanka, who was raped and killed by a sex offender. A sex offender who her parents were unaware of because there was no rule or law that stated anyone else needed to know. Soon after this incident happened, some states passed laws that required local communities to be notified when a convicted sexual offender moved to a specific area. These laws are different in every state. In some, the state requires that convicted sex offenders put up signs in the windows of their homes, so that the neighbors can be aware that a crime has been committed by that person. Some offenders are even required to send postcards to their neighbors, informing them of their crime. These specific states would like the neighbors to be aware of who is living near them. Almost as a “beware” so that they can take action by telling their children to stay away from the sex offenders. The internet also provides extremely convenient websites that allow users to locate addresses and photographs of the offender. The websites also include reasons why the offender was convicted. One of the reasons some say that the laws are too strict on sex offenders is because of people like the woman that actually lived with a sex offender. She was upset because she said he had already served his time and it was unfair to tell everyone in their neighborhood that he had committed that crime. Some of these offenders may constitute an unfair punishment, especially if they are the low-risk, one time offenders who have possibly learned their lesson the first time. It may be unfair becaus...
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
On March 26, 1999, six year old Opal Jo Jennings was abducted outside her grandparent’s home in Saginaw, Texas. The man responsible for Opal’s abduction and subsequent rape and murder was later revealed to be thirty year old Richard Lee Franks, a convicted child molester. Franks’ good behavior allowed him to be set on parole for a 1991 child molestation charge- a release that proved catastrophic to an innocent little girl and her family. In the same area, convicted killer and sexual predator Wesley Miller has been released several times over the past two decades under mandatory supervision. Each time being sent back to correctional facilities for refusal to attend treatment and was even convicted of stalking a Wichita Falls woman. Both men were release on good behavior and just required for monthly parole check-ins, nothing more. Is good behavior enough to send someone capable of such atrocities back into society? According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, sex offenders are four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for a sexual crime. As a member of the Judiciary system presiding over Tarrant County, you should survey necessary precautions to prevent the release of sex offenders who quite frankly are not ready to be assimilated back into the general population. Prior to release, sex offenders should be required to transition from prison life to the real world through various psychiatric programs and supervised living facilities (which are less severe than that of prison) that exam their ability to return to society without incident.
The extraction of evidence from sex offender suspects is a task that presents many challenges for officers of the law. The literature states that best practice guidelines for conducting investigative interviews of possible sexual offenders, emphasise the importance of asking open-ended questions to obtain a free narrative account of the situation at hand. (Read & Powell, 2011). Despite best practice guidelines, research suggests that investigators underutilize open ended questions, as well as, have difficulty adhering to the application of a free narrative interviewing (Wright & Powell, 2005).
Sex offender registry is very beneficial equipment, considering it protects the children and themselves from an unsafe environment. Majority of these sex crimes are major offences that should not be hidden or overseen. The sex offenders are released to the community under strict rules and regulations. They are not able to obtain any weapons. A sex offender do not just commit a “oops” crime. It is someone who could not control their sexual drive and went out to find their pleasure somewhere else. We don’t know how dangerous these individuals are. It seems that most sex offenders seem to be unpredictable. Most sexual offense occurs by someone we know, or we have come in contact with. Sexual offender who have committed a crime should most defiantly stay away from public playgrounds, due to the fact, that one of the little boys, or girls, may trigger their sexual thrive and who says they won’t commit a sexual crime again? As far as the job opportunity goes, they should have a chance of getting a job, just not a high quality job. These individuals should have taught about the consequences when they were committing specific crimes. We, the public, have the right to know if a sex offender is living in our neighborhood or
Privacy is a right granted to all American citizens in the Fourth Amendment which states “people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and lives against unreasonable search and seizures”. Although our founding fathers could have never predicted the technological advancements we have achieved today, it would be logical to assume that a person's internet and phone data would be considered their effects. This would then make actions such as secretive government surveillance illegal because the surveillance is done so without probable cause and would be considered unreasonable search or seizure. Therefore, access to a citizen’s private information should only be provided using probable cause with the knowledge and consent of those who are being investigated.
Every single state has a list. A list where people who have committed sexual offences are required to have their names, address, photo identification and in some states, they have to have their vehicle registered. This sex offender registry is unethical.
Privacy is important and holds values to certain people. Some don’t care and would rather have better security to feel safer. Whether you want privacy or not in the video founding principles by “Andy Rudalevige” he states Privacy isn’t