{"id":8033,"date":"2007-09-12T13:51:23","date_gmt":"2007-09-12T18:51:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2007\/09\/12\/sex-offender-study-released-by-hum"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:53:43","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:53:43","slug":"sex-offender-study-released-by-human-rights-watch","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2007\/09\/12\/sex-offender-study-released-by-human-rights-watch\/","title":{"rendered":"sex offender study released by Human Rights Watch"},"content":{"rendered":"

T<\/strong><\/em>he international civil rights sentinel, Human Rights Watch<\/a>, has just released the study that we mentioned<\/a> last Sunday, “No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the US<\/a><\/strong><\/em>” (Sept. 12, 2007). Click for the News Release, “US: Sex Offender Laws May Do More Harm Than Good<\/a>: End Registration of Juveniles, Residency Restrictions and Online Registries” (Sept. 12, 2007), or for the Summary<\/a>. The Report’s mainpage<\/a> also has links to individual sections. You can download<\/a> the entire 148-page report in a pdf file, or purchase<\/a> a copy from HRW. Here is the opening excerpt from the News Release:<\/p>\n

“Laws aimed at people convicted of sex offenses may not protect children from sex crimes but do lead to harassment, ostracism and even violence against former offenders, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Human Rights Watch urges the reform of state and federal registration and community notification laws, and the elimination of residency restrictions, because they violate basic rights of former offenders.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n

“Politicians didn’t do their homework before enacting these sex offender laws. Instead they have perpetuated myths about sex offenders and failed to deal with the complex realities of sexual violence against children.<\/em> ”<\/p>\n

– Sarah Tofte, researcher for the US Program of Human Rights Watch and author, “No Easy Answers.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Chapter IX covers Residency Restriction Laws<\/a>. Here’s what the Summary<\/a> says on that topic:<\/p>\n

Residency Restrictions<\/strong><\/p>\n

Among laws targeting sex offenders living in the community, residency restrictions may be the harshest as well as the most arbitrary. The laws can banish registrants from their already established homes, keep them from living with their families, and make entire towns off-limits to them, forcing them to live in isolated rural areas. For example, former sex offenders in Miami, Florida have been living under bridges, one of the few areas not restricted for them by the residency restriction laws of that city.<\/p>\n

There is no evidence that prohibiting sex offenders from living near where children gather will protect children from sexual violence. Indeed, the limited research to date suggests the contrary: a child molester who does offend again is as likely to victimize a child found far from his home as he is one who lives or plays nearby. A study by the Minnesota Department of Corrections found that individuals who committed another sex crime against a child made contact with their victim through a social relationship.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the laws apply to all registered sex offenders regardless of whether their prior crimes involved children. It is hard to fathom what good comes from prohibiting a registered offender whose victim was an adult woman from living near a school bus stop. Stories of the senseless impact of residency restrictions are legion. For example, Georgia\u2019s residency restriction law has forced a 26-year-old married woman to move from her home because it is too close to a daycare center. She is registered as a sex offender because she had oral sex with a 15-year-old when she was 17.<\/p>\n

Some lawmakers admit to another purpose for residency restriction laws. Georgia State House Majority Leader Jerry Keen, who sponsored the state\u2019s law banning registrants from living within 1,000 feet of places where children gather, stated during a floor debate, \u201cMy intent personally is to make [residency restrictions] so onerous on those that are convicted of [sex] offenses \u2026 they will want to move to another state.\u201d5 Yet people who have committed sex offenses must live somewhere. For those who do pose a threat to public safety, they should be able to reside in communities where they can receive the supervision and treatment they need, rather than be forced to move to isolated rural areas or become homeless.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The News Release summarizes the Report’s recommendations to state governments:<\/p>\n

\n

Recommendations <\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00b7 Refuse to change registration and community notification laws to meet Adam Walsh requirements [relating to listing juvenile sex offenders];<\/p>\n

\u00b7 Eliminate residency restriction laws;<\/p>\n

\u00b7 Limit registration requirements to people who have been convicted of serious crimes and who have been individually assessed to pose a significant risk of reoffending; and,<\/p>\n

\u00b7 Prevent unlimited dissemination of registry information by eliminating publicly accessible online registries. Community notification should be undertaken only by law enforcement officers and only about those registrants who pose a significant risk of reoffending.<\/p>\n

\u201cEveryone has the right to live free of sexual violence.\u201d said Tofte. \u201cStates should craft laws that will protect this right in a fair and sensible way.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This important Report deserves to be read — especially by lawmakers and those most interested in finding realistic and effective ways to protect children from sexual abuse. We need to heed the words of Jamie Fellner, director of the US program at Human Rights Watch:<\/p>\n

\u201cHuman Rights Watch shares the public\u2019s goal of protecting children from sex abuse. But current laws are ill-conceived and poorly crafted. Protecting children requires a more thoughtful and comprehensive approach than politicians have been willing to support<\/em>.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n

update<\/strong><\/em> (Sept. 14, 2007): See our post “Patty Wetterling tells ‘the harm in sex offender laws<\/a>‘”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

in autumn wind
\na homeless crow
\nis blown<\/p>\n

……………. by Kobayshi Issa<\/a>, translated by David G. Lanoue<\/p>\n

\n

ocean sundown–
\na child jumping up
\nfor one last look<\/p>\n

………… by Barry George – Tinywords.com<\/a><\/em> (Sept. 12, 2007)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The international civil rights sentinel, Human Rights Watch, has just released the study that we mentioned last Sunday, “No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the US” (Sept. 12, 2007). Click for the News Release, “US: Sex Offender Laws May Do More Harm Than Good: End Registration of Juveniles, Residency Restrictions and Online Registries” (Sept. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[3513],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8033","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-lawyer-news-or-ethics"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-25z","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8033","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8033"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8033\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12466,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8033\/revisions\/12466"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8033"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8033"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8033"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}