Sex Offender Registries

While working at home yesterday, I received an automated phone call from the Wellesley Police Department informing me of an important announcement available on the Department's web site. The announcement indicated that a convicted sex offender, having complied with the Massachusets Set Offender Registry Law, was now working in Wellesley (although living elsewhere).  The web site includes a recent photograph of the offender.

I find Sex Registries troubling.  Many sex offenders no doubt pose a substantial risk of recidivism, and it is understandable that people wish to be forewarned.

But the registries seem unwise.  For starters, registries give the public a false sense of security.  Even if the residents of an offender's place of residence and place of work take precautions, the offender has innumerable other opporunities to recidivate in adjacent locations. So the effect of registries on the incidence of sex crimes is probably miniscule.

In addition, registries might, if anything, increase the chances of recidivism by making it hard for offenders to re-integrate into society.

So what can society do to protect itself against sex offenders?  The obvious answer is to make sentences for such offenses far longer.  That has a cost -- roughly $30,000 per year for incarceration -- but it is certainly effective so long as an offender is behind bars.  And since the likelihood of recidivism for sex crimes may well decline substantially beyond a certain age, the incidence of recidivism is likely to be low for sufficently old offenders.

Comments

[Mike Huben]

Once again we see bald speculation used as a rationale for a bizarre policy proposal.

"Even if the residents of an offender's place of residence and place of work take precautions, the offender has innumerable other opporunities to recidivate in adjacent locations. So the effect of registries on the incidence of sex crimes is probably miniscule."

That's speculation all right. And not very clever speculation, since there might be OTHER effects of the registry, such as creating an impression in the offender that it is easy for the public to learn of his past crimes and notice if he is committing new crimes. That could be a substantial deterrent.

"The obvious answer is to make sentences for such offenses far longer. That has a cost -- roughly $30,000 per year for incarceration..."

Let's try one of the libertarian solutions: equip the victims with axes and let them satisfy themselves. (Courtesy of David Friedman.)

But you know, for the money spent on a few person-years of incarceration, several studies could look into the effectiveness of these registries. That sounds like a much better thing to do than enact policy based on speculation.

[Alan Brown]

We need special communities where these offenders can live after they are released. Maybe we can make them sign a lifetime lease as a condition of early release.

[Jay]

I've long said that registration is wrong; the sentence should be the sentence. If we are not comfortable with people being released when they are, the sentences should be longer.

This is especially true if registration did not start as an explicit part of the sentence, but was added after the fact. It's especially wrong to say "your punishment will be X" and then impose additional punishment Y tacked onto the end of that.

[Nuno Palma]

Professor Miron:

An is it fair, from a libertarian perspective, that the public pays for the incarceration of criminals or potential criminals? Shouldn't they pay for themselves?

I would appreciate your opinion on this.