The U.S criminal justice system has enacted various policies to reduce criminal activities. One such policy is the sex offender registration policy. According to the U.S constitution, it is a federal crime for sex offenders who are compulsorily required to register according to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act to knowingly fail to register or update a registration as required (Zgoba & Ragbir, 2016). The sex offender registry exists in both the state and federal stages. Sex offender registration is the practice of requiring the convicted sex felons to register with law enforcement and periodically update information about their details such as employment status, residence among other details. The main aim of the registration laws was to provide legal authorities with a database that will monitor the already convicted felons and assist in investigations in case of new allegations. The U.S government has been keen on augmenting the sex offender registration policy since it has assisted in reducing the number of sexual violence cases. Providing the public with such information safeguards them from sexual predators. This paper will address the U.S current sex offender registration policy description, its policy improvement solutions, and the implementation of prevention and programs associated with the sex offender registration policy. California was the first state across the U.S to formulate and implement the sex offender registration policy in 1947. Subsequently, Washington followed suit in 1990. It established the community notification of sexual offenders due to increased complaints in the number of sexual violence crimes. This made Washington become the first state to make public the names of sexual offenders. It was not until 1994 when only a few states made it mandatory for sexual offenders to be registered with the local law enforcers. Sexual offenses against children in the U.S were rampant in the 1990s (Briggs, 2020). At this time, the U.S government applied stringent measures that focused on safeguarding its citizens against crimes considered to be of stranger danger. Several reports indicated that individuals who had earlier been convicted of sexual crimes such as rape were four times more likely to be in detention within the first 3 years of jail release than non-sexual felons in the same year. Individuals convicted of sexual offenses averaged an eight-year sentence to serve for not less than 4 years in federal prison. According to a 2003 report, Over 9,500 sex offenders were released, and out of this number 4,200 had been detained for child sexual abuse (Morris, 2017). Across the U.S, cases of pedophiles have been on the rise, with the recent case of Jeffery Epstein, who was later found dead in his Manhattan, New York maximum prison. Across the U.S, sex offender registration and notification has had a positive impact in reducing the number of sex offenders. The policy has created awareness leading to an effective monitoring and evaluation strategy for sexual-related crimes. This policy does not only help in preventing sexual offenses but also specifically curb the issue of repeat sex offenses. According to Harris et al. (2017), the sex offender registration policy in the U.S is effective and efficient in lessening sexual crimes by providing general dissuasion. It was found out that the non-public registration policies were effective in lessening sex crime arrests because of heightened police monitoring of the prevailing sexual offenders. Additionally, the sex offender registration policy has changed most sexual offenders into seeking rehab services. Most sexual offenders have cited mental health issues when asked why they commit sexual crimes (Brown & Grady, 2018). This policy has created a culture of change, bringing about a sober-minded population free from all sexual-related crimes. The U.S government has also supported individuals who have committed to change with protection against the exploitation of the general public. Since they face hate and condemnation from their community, the government has formulated laws protecting sexual offenders. It has come up with seminars and training to help sexual offenders deal with stigma and avoid cases of depression that lead to mental health problems. The major limitation of the policy is that of general deterrence. With evidence of general deterrence, the impact of a sexual offense is typically attributed to the elevated perception of the hazard of detection and punishment. However, the panic of probable social consequences can outweigh or equal the fear of the legal consequences, which further heightens the probability of deterrence (Klyuchnikov, 2020). Being publically identified as an offender conveys many jeopardies. These can include the lack of respect from peers or relatives who might also socially distance themselves from the sex offender. It also involves the risk of social sanctions where one might lose their spouses, friends, or even a job. Ample evidence suggests that when one is publically identified as a sexual offender, the outcomes are severe for adult offenders and their families in general. Other consequences include harassment and threats, property damage, and physical assault. The policy lacks a specification where the sexual offender can reside. Registered sex offenders have the right to reside near a daycare or school. This can be very alarming and uncomfortable due to the lack of control to safeguard the children against a repeat of the sexual offense. The sexual offenders are prone not to change, and there is a higher probability of indulging in the same acts of impunity. The sexual offenders tend to relapse and are capable of committing the same offense to the school-going children. Children care workers feel that it is essential for the law to protect the children against exploitation by sex offenders (Thompson & Thomas, 2017). This can be achieved by ensuring they are secluded and reside away from daycares and learning institutions. Every American citizen has fundamental rights and freedom that protect them against bad governance. Sex offenders are no different and thus should be accorded proper treatment regardless of the nature of their crimes (Lowe, & Willis, 2019). Activism is one strategy that can aid in safeguarding the life of sex offenders across the U.S. Activism entails peaceful demonstrations, which challenge the existing laws. Activism against the oppression of sex offenders can be achieved in courts. It can also be achieved by creating awareness to the general public regarding the facts of sexual felons and the circumstances regarding the current legislation. This practice helps in preventing harassment of sexual offenders leading to a peaceful co-existence between non-offenders and offenders. The National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws is tasked with annually arranging seminars to deliberate on the sexual offender statute. The association is backed by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, who work to safeguard the lives of individuals convicted of sexual felons. This association of lawyers has, over the years, challenged ordinances governing sex offenders in the various federal courts across the U.S (Williams, 2018). Back in 2014, more than 15 metropolises were indicted by the National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws based on the wrongful implication of sexual offenders across California. The association's efforts culminated in the Supreme Court of California declaring that the residency restrictions of the sexual offenders were unconstitutional. This was because the restrictions were unfair and culminated into counterproductive impacts. The residency restrictions of sexual offenders lead to more problems than they offer solutions. Activism that helps sexual offenders overcome victimization from the general public is essential, as it gives them a voice to champion for their rights. This practice is essential in protecting sex offenders against harassment and the stigma associated with sexual offenses. Activism as in the past has been used to offer a lifeline to individuals who feel marginalized or unwanted in society. The U.S government should listen to the demands of the various associations that champion the rights of sexual offenders. This leads to an economy that is free and fair. The sex offender registration policy tends to deny the offenders their freedom of expression and creates uncertainty in legal service delivery (Harper et al., 2017). The U.S constitution is open and gives the government the authority to have an obligation to protect individuals and take appropriate steps in safeguarding their well-being. On the macro level, the sex offender registration and notification policy have been challenged by several constitutional and other grounds, generating the importance of the rights of every U.S citizen. Individuals challenging the policy have been backed by the international community, such as the WHO, which has cited gaps in the equal protection, and the due process used in developing the policy. There have also been efforts by the Supreme Court of the U.S to upholding the laws relating to sex offense registration, such as the case of Smith V. Doe in Alaska (Logan, 2018). The case upheld the reasoning that sex offender registration is subject to civil measure and should be designed to protect the people and not as a punishment. On the micro-level, abating the social segregation of persons who have been convicted of sexual violence creates a culture of fear and leads to a more depressed population. The effectiveness of sexual offender registries is only limited to the general public but does not help the victim in becoming a more improved individual (Gesser, 2021). The policy creates uncertainty and tension among sexual offenders, who risk losing their jobs and their peers and family members. The U.S government should work to protect individuals against harassment and deliberate consequences. One of the strategies to ensure effective activism on sex offender registration is developing adult-focused prevention initiatives. Such initiatives would include offering training and educational seminars on the importance of positive activism (Laws, 2016). Defending sexual offenders can prove to be a hectic task, especially when the offenders have been incarcerated multiple times. Positive activism should only defend the offenders who are ready and willing to change. Once a sexual offender is protected by activism, they should show signs of improvement and an eagerness to change. This promotes the possibility of the U.S government listening to the suggestions of activist groups defending sexual offenders. The U.S government should also create designated areas where sex offenders can reside. This approach will aid in safeguarding their lives and protect them against exploitation by the general public. Daycares and schools tend to submit complaints about the sex offenders when a sexual offender resides near their premises (Lussier et al., 2020). A special designation area where the sex offenders will reside will make it possible for the U.S government to monitor their involvements and reduce the chances of sexual offenses. This practice will also aid the U.S government in providing guidance and counseling to sexual offenders. The U.S government should also work towards forgiving sexual offenders who have shown signs of improvement and are ready to change. One might have committed a sexual offense ten years ago, but that does not mean that one is prone to repeat the same mistake. The government should be lenient and understanding to sex felonies who seek rehabilitation. Every criminal deserves a second chance to amend whichever crimes they had committed in the past (Eric & Patrick, 2018). However, this should be done by observing stringent measures with the application of specific rules and regulations.
Conclusion
The U.S criminal justice system is flexible enough to adapt to future changes in its various policies. The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act is among such policies that require adjustments in the future. The act has led to the victimization of individuals, regardless of their wish to change and turn out to be better American citizens. California was the first state to implement the policy, followed closely by the state of Washington, which became the first state to make its sex offender registry public. The sex offender registration policy has several strengths, such as that of reducing the number of sex-related crimes. However, the limitation is that it causes general deterrence. Subsequently, to improve on the policy, positive activism is required in safeguarding the rights of sexual offenders. The U.S government should be open to critics and invite any positive ideas that lead to the improvement of the sex offender registry policy. The U.S government should formulate various strategies and programs should that ensure the sex registration policy is not oppressive. Sex offenders should be heard and given a second chance to reconcile with their past.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
References
Briggs, F. (2020). Children in the 'care and protection' of the state. From victim to offender , 62-99. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003115755-4
Brown, A., & Grady, M. D. (2018). Helplessness and hopelessness in adolescents who commit sexual and Nonsexual crimes. Victims & Offenders , 14 (1), 15-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2018.1539687
Eric, B., & Patrick, L. (2018). From the 'sex offender' to sex offending. Sexual Offending , 392-399. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315522692-20
Gesser, N. (2021). What you expect is not what you get: The antitherapeutic impact of sex offender community notification meetings on community members. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law . https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000303
Harper, C. A., Hogue, T. E., & Bartels, R. M. (2017). Attitudes towards sexual offenders: What do we know, and why are they important? Aggression and Violent Behavior , 34 , 201-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.011
Harris, A. J., Walfield, S., Lobanov-Rostovsky, C., & Cubellis, M. A. (2017). State implementation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. Justice Research and Policy , 18 (1), 24-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525107117745645
Klyuchnikov, A. Y. (2020). On sex offender registry. Lex Russica , 73 (3), 140-150. https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2020.160.3.140-150
Laws, D. R. (2016). Sex offender registration and community notification. Social Control of Sex Offenders , 121-139. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-39126-1_8
Logan, W. A. (2018). Challenging the Punitiveness of "new-generation" sorn laws. New Criminal Law Review , 21 (3), 426-457. https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2018.21.3.426
Lowe, G., & Willis, G. (2019). "Sex offender" versus "Person": The influence of labels on willingness to volunteer with people who have sexually abused. Sexual Abuse , 32 (5), 591-613. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063219841904
Lussier, P., McCuish, E. C., & Cale, J. (2020). Once a sex offender, always a sex offender? Understanding Sexual Offending , 189-223. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53301-4_6
Morris, T. (2017). Registration without Representation: Treatment of Foreign Sex Offense Convictions under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. Liberty UL Rev. , 12 , 71. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/lunlr12§ion=7
Thompson, D., & Thomas, T. (2017). The resettlement of sex offenders after custody: Circles of support and accountability . Taylor & Francis.
Williams, M. (2018). The sex offender housing dilemma: Community activism, safety, and social justice . NYU Press.
Zgoba, K., & Ragbir, D. (2016). Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). Sexual Violence , 33-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44504-5_3
