July 8, 2013
"In Opposition to the Mandatory Registration of Juvenile Sexual Offenders"The title of this post is the title of this short paper by David Katner, which is now available via SSRN. Here is the abstract:
The mandatory registration of juvenile sex offenders incorrectly assumes that the same dynamics of adult sex offenders apply to juveniles. In doing so, this group of juveniles is labeled and placed in a category that will ultimately hinder their development, rather than contribute to their rehabilitation. Accordingly, this mandated registration will have a negative effect on these individuals along with society as a whole based upon how they are perceived by others in the community and their lack of ability to contribute to the greater good.
July 8, 2013 at 05:19 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "In Opposition to the Mandatory Registration of Juvenile Sexual Offenders":
I agree that rehabilitation is the route to go. We have so many sexual predators who might have been helped with early intervention. No one comes out of the shoot a sexual deviant. I believe something happened along the way. Where were we then? Where were we when that child was being abused? Little thought is given to a person's ability to "contribute to the greater good." We have become a throw away society. Our prisons are full of people we threw away instead of trying to help them. Most get out, so then what?
I am an advocate for inmates--former high school English teacher.
Posted by: Mary Lynn McDavid | Jul 9, 2013 6:33:05 AM
| "Where were we when that child was being abused?" |:: Inmate Advocate
I was in my community working for the criminal justice system, supporting law enforcement groups, and urging the punishment
of the abusers.
| "Our prisons are full of people we threw away." |:: Inmate Advocate
Our prisons are full of insanely evil people who continue to abuse after parole, and 2nd & 20th chances, and who want your misplaced affection so that they can manipulate and hurt you, as well.
-- With my father and I at state and local facilities (with feds), we have over a 1/2 century of experience with prisoners.
-- "Advocate": /HS students/ are not synonymous with /inmates/.
Posted by: Adamakis | Jul 9, 2013 8:48:20 AM
In the Internet Age, many of those incarcerated, adult and juvenile, are there simply because they viewed something inappropriate on the internet.
Hard to believe but it happens everyday. We are filling our prisons with people who made a one-time mistake in judgement, intentionally or accidently hitting "Share" on a file. These are not pedophiles, child molesters or hard core criminals by any means, they are folks like you and I, or your kids who use the computer. Would you want your kid or your grandfather for that matter, incarcerated for 5-10 years because they accidently came across child porn on the internet, got curious, looked, and it downloaded to your computer. You could end up incarcerated too if it's your computer they're looking at. Time to change the laws to keep up with the fast paced internet or we're going to see a whole lot more young people and old people incarcerated for being human and taking a look at free stuff on the internet.
Posted by: kat | Jul 9, 2013 9:31:28 AM
Hopefully, we shall fill our prisons [or better still, execute] with such as sex offender Klunder.
July 8, 2013 | Iowa Family Pushes for New One-Strike Law: Iowa girl found murdered last month .. Emily Schettler of the Des Moines Register reports that 15-year-old Kathlynn Shepard was kidnapped and murdered by a registered sex offender, who previously served 20 years in prison for kidnapping and assault. She and 12-year-old Dezi Hughes were abducted May 20
after getting off a school bus [Hughes escaped a hog pen].
Michael Klunder, a registered sex offender who authorities say kidnapped two central Iowa girls last month before hanging himself, was involved in the murders of two eastern Iowa cousins last year. The new "one-strike" law would mirror a law
passed in California and would allow judges to sentence sex offenders who commit violent crimes against children to
life in prison without parole.
-- CJLF.org, seemydeath.com
Posted by: Adamakis | Jul 9, 2013 1:00:04 PM
The comment thread so far is a CLASSIC example of how two extremes of an issue dominate the rational discourse over "correctional" system protocols. The article clearly indicates juvenile malfeasance, with each act unique in its own circumstances. One side views the "average" offender as an innocent, accidental porn downloader, while the other side views the "average" offender as a violent, psycho rapist who will never be rehabilitated. With absolutely no way of bridging that gap, this explains why sex offender issues can NOT be left to irrational devices, and should be divorces as much as possible form the legislative effect until all rational points have been factored.
I've worked with sex offenders since the 90's, and have notice a marked difference in how the correctional system, which includes both incarceration and rehabilitative components, have changed. My own mission in the beginning was as a family reconciliation specialist to ensure that family-induced victims (such as father-child) were able to reestablish normal relations. This has worked to the point where every reconciliation effort I've been involved in were 100% successful in preventing recidivism. However, with the new focus on punitive-centric measures, reconciliation services had been discontinued back in 2008, because the focus was on separation of victim and offender if in-family, and with the registry, to segregate offenders from actual societal reintegration.
Yes, offenders are guilty, and the "average" offender has committed a crime that most people find unspeakable in the "ewwwww" context. But to demean the entire rehabilitative process for offenders whom are amenable to such, with the victims' interests paramount, is nothing short of sweeping the problem under the rug.
Sorry for this rant, and it has little to do with legal issues, but it has everything to do with trying to stop a problem based upon emotional diatribes. Yes, rapists who use force should go to jail for a long time, at least decades, and murderers as well. But the "average" offender is neither a tree-urinator or a mass rapist-murderer, and arguments should NEVER be structured as either case is the norm. Period.
Posted by: Eric Knight | Jul 9, 2013 1:28:36 PM
"Sorry for this rant, and it has little to do with legal issues, but it has everything to do with trying to stop a problem based upon emotional diatribes. Yes, rapists who use force should go to jail for a long time, at least decades, and murderers as well. But the "average" offender is neither a tree-urinator or a mass rapist-murderer, and arguments should NEVER be structured as either case is the norm. Period."
I agree with you 100% but I would like to point out that it is the politicians (aka lawmakers - think Sensenbrenner, Schumer, Foley et al) who are the primary lying perpetrators of fictional, emotional diatribes. These are the lying idiots whom the media never challenge and the gullible public eats it up hook, line and sinker! Either that or it directly affects them (media) positively (think viewership) and they are unwilling to kill their own golden goose.
Each act is unique with its own set of circumstances but SORNA paints with a broad brush and treats EVERYONE the same, whether they have harmed anyone or not!
It is unconstitutional bullc--p!
Posted by: albeed | Jul 9, 2013 11:27:30 PM
Should laws and regulations meet Daubert standards if trial expert evidence must? The Supreme Court used tthat idea in only two decisions, one being Brown v Bd of Ed. High time forchallenges based on that argument. Rational basis should become the toughest test, not the easiest test.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 10, 2013 8:59:10 AM
'-- With my father and I at state and local facilities (with feds), we have over a 1/2 century of experience with prisoners.'
career tunnel vision lifers I assume...
Posted by: todd | Jul 10, 2013 1:54:45 PM