Supporting Mandatory Sentences and Community Notifications

Apologists for sex offenders argue that mandatory sentencing, registration and community notification laws are somehow violations of the offenders' human rights. They argue that labeling someone as a sex offender worthy of lifetime designation and registration is unfair. The arguments of the apologists are senseless.

What were the offenders thinking? 

It is unfortunate that registered sex offenders were not considering their futures when they chose to commit the crimes that resulted in their being designated as sex criminals. When criminals make conscious choices to offend they also tacitly choose to live with the consequences. Remember the old saw, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."  

Registration and notification are reasonable alternatives to lifetime incarceration 

Some criminals may consider it overly punitive to be designated as sex offenders for life and thus become subject to community notification laws. The notification laws were created because of tragic past events. A history of sad crimes involving offenders who victimized nearby citizens led to today's laws. An alternative might be to protect citizens from repeat offenders by imprisoning sex offenders for life. In prison, offenders would have no chance of re-offending. While neither option is perfect, notification laws are reasonable alternatives to lifetime incarceration. Surprisingly, some offenders agree that registration laws are a good thing. According to a July 2007 study conducted by Tewksbury and Lees (1), registered sex offenders commonly believe that community members who consult their local registry will be vigilant about both watching registrants in their neighborhoods and informing other neighborhood residents about registered sex offenders. The research stated (p. 392): This sentiment is expressed clearly by Preston, a child molester and lifetime registrant: I think it’s a good thing. If my being there and the other people being there will help cut down on the child sex abuse and all that, then it’s a damn good thing. Or, in the more concise statement, Andy, who has been on the registry for 9 months for conviction for more than a dozen counts of sodomy with a 14-year-old boy, states, “I think people should be knowledgeable.”  

Assessments are poor indicators of future danger 

Polygraph tests and plesthymography are imperfect indicators of either truth or sexual arousal patterns. Pre-sentence assessments that attempt to measure the danger potential of offenders are also inexact. Assessments are unreliable as predictors of future behavior. Many offenders are master manipulators who have spent their lives trying to convince others, including psychologists, that they are trustworthy. Offenders will often appear in court as harmless individuals. Many do not have physical characteristics of aggressive threatening individuals. They may appear to be gentle sympathetic persons when in fact they are the opposite.  

Don't weaken the existing laws 

Apologists for sex offenders argue that existing laws should be weakened. Before weakening the existing laws policymakers should ask: If the laws are weakened, how many innocent people might be to placed at risk simply because offenders are inconvenienced by existing notification laws? Until rehabilitation is perfected and recidivism prediction methods are accurate, mandatory sentences and community notification are reasonable alternatives. 

Note: 

(1) Tewksbury, R. and Lees, M.B. (July 2007). Perceptions of Punishment: How registered sex offenders view registries. Crime & Delinquency. Vol. 53. No. 3. pp. 380-407.