Solution
In the midst of an overburdened legislative and law enforcement system based on the sex offender registry, it is clear that it is failing at the objective it was created for. However, the political issue around the registry, fueled by public opinion, creates significant challenges to eliminating it. A substantial portion of the population believes having access to the information helps to safeguard their families.
A proposed solution is to restructure the database as well as the process which is used to determine if a person should be required to register. It is based on the premise of risk assessment, which would be composed of various criteria and individual evaluation factors (Sethi, 2014).
The purpose of the new system would be to essentially filter registrants on their risk of reoffending, violent crime, or other factors which may endanger the safety or well-being of the public. It would guarantee the rights and provide an opportunity to rehabilitate any non-violent or underage individuals while protecting the community from high-risk offenders. It would consist of limiting community notification to only those who benefit from the information (i.e., sensitive employment).
Residency restrictions would be imposed only in cases of public danger. A more sensitive, flexible, and comprehensible approach is established to sentencing and review of registration in order to evaluate on a case-by-case basis to determine any restrictions. Furthermore, supervision and periodical review of registrants would be established to maintain competency but also provide support for rehabilitation (Human Rights Watch, 2007).
Advantage I
A national survey suggests that the usage of the national sex offender registry remains at about 45 percent amongst the public. However, a majority have reported doing so on infrequent occasions and typically without a specific purpose or concern. The registry, in its current form, fails to serve as a public awareness mechanism. Instead, it leads to an increase in irrational behavior and specific targeting of offenders from the few people who proactively research the information (Harris & Cudmore, 2016). The issue around the registry is emotionally charged since news publicity horrifies many families about the safety of their children.
There is a belief that eliminating the system would remove a critical deterrent mechanism against violent offenders since that is what it was advertised to do. Similarly, lawmakers avoid the issue since it may compromise political capital (Editorial Board, 2017). The suggested reform would restructure the registry as a tool for public protection and awareness. Since only high-risk offenders would be registered, it would be more practical to engage community notification, creating a safety net without eliminating the system that provides information if requested.
Advantage II
A significant advantage of the proposed solution as its impact on law enforcement. State-level police are responsible for managing, monitoring, and acting upon the information in the sex offender registry. Numerous agencies have voiced concern about the effectiveness of the database as it does not serve as its primary role of supporting law enforcement in monitoring and investigating sex crimes. The sheer number of registrations wasted significant police resources on bureaucracy and the monitoring of non-dangerous criminals.
The lack of uniformity, crime-specific information, or risk assessment in the registries across jurisdictions significantly challenges any utilization of the database for law enforcement purposes (Harris, Lobanov-Rostovsky & Levenson, 2016).
The proposed solution would seek to alleviate the unnecessary burden of law enforcement, allowing it to refocus its resources on proactive monitoring of high-risk offenders and investigations involving potential sex crimes. Many news stories that focus on high profile abduction and rape cases (with an emphasis on the necessity of such databases) have mentioned that due to strained resources, police were unable to investigate or competently monitor dangerous criminals thoroughly. The burden of filtration and registration would be transferred to the judicial system or a specially created panel, providing more opportunities for law enforcement field operations.
Advantage III
The concept of public protection is based on the premise that those on the registry are more likely to commit a sex crime again. However, the rate of sex offender recidivism remains relatively low. Meanwhile, the restrictions on practically all aspects of life create social and psychological factors that may lead to homelessness, suicide, or other criminal activity. The advantage of the proposed solution is that it will be more conducive to offender rehabilitation.
Countries that practice community support of the reintegration of offenders into society have shown that offenders are more likely to modify behaviors, preventing recidivism. Social inclusion is supported by the education of both the public and the offender, creating understanding (Höing, Petrina, Duke, Völlm & Vogelvang, 2016).
The proposed system will filter out low-risk offenders, which would eliminate any social stigma or strict regulations that could hinder rehabilitation. Furthermore, the proposal to limit access to the registry only to parties that would benefit from the information would further ensure a reduction of public stigmatization. If restriction measures are modified, it will reduce factors such as loss of housing that may place an offender in a critical situation, which is more likely to drive recidivism rather than social reintegration.
Transition
The solution to restructure the sex offender registry with a competent filtration and supervision mechanism has shown evidence of being a practical aspect. Despite practical and ideological advantages, any reform is faced with certain transitional flaws, which may require time and implementation experience to address. Proponents of strict sex offender laws will use such aspects to politicize the issue and maintain the status quo. In an evidence-based discussion, it is critical to outline any disadvantages a new system might have and attempt to address them during the restructuring process.
References
Editorial Board. (2017). Finally, some clearer thinking on sex offenders. Los Angeles Times. Web.
Harris, A. J., & Cudmore, R. (2016). Community experience with public sex offender registries in the United States: A national survey. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 1-22. Web.
Harris, A. J., Lobanov-Rostovsky, C., & Levenson, J. S. (2016). Law enforcement perspectives on sex offender registration & notification. Web.
Höing, M. A., Petrina, R., Duke L.H., Völlm, B., & Vogelvang B. (2016). Community support for sex offender rehabilitation in Europe. European Journal of Criminology, 13(4), 491-516. Web.
Human Rights Watch. (2007). No easy answers: Sex offender laws in the US. Web.
Sethi, C. (2014). Reforming the registry. Slate. Web.