
“I'm a public defender. Clients prefer jail to registering as sex offenders” - jseliger
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/5/12059448/sex-offender-registry
======
fucking_tragedy
The problem with Godwin's law is if you cast something minuscule as being on
par with what occurred in Nazi Germany, you're undermining the actual horrors
committed by humanity during that time.

If you consider everyone that's taken a piss outside of a bathroom or the 17
year old who Snapchat's her boyfriend of the same age as sex offenders, you
put them in the same camp as someone who has committed real horrific crimes
with actual victims.

Hope to hell and back that you or someone you care about never find themselves
cast as a witch in this witch hunt.

~~~
unclenoriega
I think there is a risk on the other side as well. If this sort of equivalency
becomes common, it becomes easy to dismiss all sex offences as minor.

------
delish
This is from a linked memo from the California Sex Offender Management Board:

> One recent large study found a recidivism rate of 5.3%. The re-offense rate
> is the lowest of any crime category (except murder) and research shows that
> the rate and the risk continue to decrease every month and year that the
> offender remains offense-free in the community. [0]

This memo didn't name other crimes and rates. So I checked Wikipedia.
Wikipedia cites some study by the US's Department of Justice:

> Released prisoners with the highest re-arrest rates were robbers (70.2%),
> burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those
> in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%) and those in
> prison for possessing, using or selling illegal weapons (70.2%). Within 3
> years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of
> those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide. These are
> the lowest rates of re-arrest for the same category of crime. [1]

As mentioned in the vox article, this is evidence against, "once a criminal,
always a criminal," with respect to sex offenders.

[0]
[http://www.casomb.org/docs/Challenge_of_Locating_Programs_3-...](http://www.casomb.org/docs/Challenge_of_Locating_Programs_3-17-16.pdf)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism#Recidivism_rates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism#Recidivism_rates)

~~~
nosegoes
Data is tainted by the fact that robbery is nearly always reported, whereas
sex crimes (especially against children) often never are.

EDIT for source: [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/rate-of-child-sexual-
ab...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/rate-of-child-sexual-abuse-on-the-
decline.html?_r=0)

And CSA has fallen dramatically since the 90s, when the registry laws were
passed.

~~~
kavok
Hasn't all crime gone down since the 90s?

Edit:
[https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html](https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html)

So the answer is yes, crime has been declining since the 90s.

~~~
nostrebored
A crime rate decrease of 62% vs. 42% has an obvious difference in
significance.

------
bargl
I want to focus on one thing in here, because I disagree with a ton of the
article.

Some people on the list shouldn't be on there.

In digging around to answer nosegoes question to find one instance of someone
getting on the registry for peeing in public I found this site. It's
interesting to see a compilation of bullshit ways your life can get ruined.

[http://www.solresearch.org/report/Look_Whos_on_Registry_Now](http://www.solresearch.org/report/Look_Whos_on_Registry_Now)

This is an example of a broken system in the USA. The rules to get on the
registry are broken, but the idea of a registry in and of itself is, in my
opinion, good. As a parent I want people to be on there who abuse kids, but
also as a parent, I expect judges and police to know the difference between
child porn and a family member capturing memories.

~~~
zzalpha
_but the idea of a registry in and of itself is, in my opinion, good._

Based on what, exactly? Your gut?

Before you consign folks to a lifetime of punishment, I'd suggest you actually
analyze the data and determine if the concept actually yields a benefit, given
the objective costs in both dollars spent and lives ruined.

The criminal justice system should be designed to protect the public, and to
rehabilitate criminals. It doesn't exist to give you warm fuzzies through the
implementation of otherwise ineffective laws that achieve neither of those
goals.

~~~
conflagrate
The sex crime rate has been dropping faster than the general crime rate since
the 1990s when the registry was implemented.

~~~
zzalpha
Do I really need to break out the old correlation/causation saw, or is that at
least self-evident with this crowd?

------
swiley
At least with jail you have garnanteed food and shelter. Being a sex offender
means you're probably never going to be participating in society in any
meaningful way anyway and at least prison sentences tend to have an end.

------
FussyZeus
You can assign the death penalty to every offense above stealing and it won't
make a difference, the vast majority of actual criminals don't know or don't
care and the vast majority of defendants (in the US anyway) don't know or
didn't even think they committed a crime.

~~~
thescriptkiddie
You're probably going to get a lot of flack for making a claim that (in
America at least) goes against common opinion without backing it up with any
sources. Here are a few.

[http://nij.gov/five-things/pages/deterrence.aspx](http://nij.gov/five-
things/pages/deterrence.aspx)

[http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/05/when-to-
puni...](http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/05/when-to-punish-a-
young-offender-and-when-to-rehabilitate/prison-is-a-poor-deterrent-and-a-
dangerous-punishment)

[http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/20...](http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/2007/01/the_irrational_18yearold_criminal.html)

[http://www.businessinsider.com/report-says-long-sentences-
do...](http://www.businessinsider.com/report-says-long-sentences-dont-deter-
crime-2014-5)

------
jessriedel
I don't get how something like this gets published:

> The myth that those who commit sex crimes are more likely to reoffend is
> pure fiction; numerous studies, including those cited the California Sex
> Offender Management Board's recent report, noted that sex offender re-
> offense rate is actually lower than any crime other than murder. Indeed,
> research shows that only about 5 percent of new sex offenses were committed
> by previous sex offenders.

It's obviously true that "those who commit sex crimes are more likely to
reoffend" than the average citizen. The author tries to support his false
debunking with two completely distinct statistics that do not speak one way or
the other to the issue. Why doesn't Vox's fact checker flag this?

~~~
falcolas
> It's obviously true that "those who commit sex crimes are more likely to
> reoffend" than the average citizen.

How about vs. the average prisoner? Figures from other threads show that re-
offend rates for other crimes are anywhere from 15x to 35x more likely to re-
offend.

This is much more accurate of an indicator - compared to their peers, sex
offenders are much less likely to commit a crime again, yet they are the ones
for whom the punishment never ends.

~~~
jessriedel
> How about vs. the average prisoner? Figures from other threads show that re-
> offend rates for other crimes are anywhere from 15x to 35x more likely to
> re-offend.

This is a silly comparison. Most crimes are much less serious than sexual
assault, and so they simply happen more often period. (The recidivism rate for
parking tickets is almost 100%!) The number of crimes which are at least as
serious as sexual assault is much smaller. And all we know from this author is
that one of them, murder, has a lower recidivism rate.

~~~
falcolas
Again, using references from other threads, there are degrees of severity for
"sex crimes" \- everything from urinating in public, to consensual statutory
rape (i.e. Romeo and Juliet), viewing child pornography, making child
pornography, to actual assault and rape.

Which causes a greater public harm: urinating in public or robbing someone's
home? Is being beaten into unconsciousness obviously worse than being groped?
Is being killed kinder than living with rape?

There are shades of grey that the sexual offender list does not capture -
offenders are simply punished for life if their crime involves genitals.

~~~
jessriedel
I'm not arguing in favor of the current laws. I'm arguing against the this
particular misleading statement.

------
DrScump
The very premise of the title is faulty. It's not an either-or; such crimes
generally mandate sex-offender registry _even after parole or release_.

------
spraak
This is sad to read. :/ Can people convicted of this be around their own
children?

~~~
mgkimsal
i would think it would depend on the state, and the feeling of the other
parent/family. Had a friend who was convicted of possession of child porn.
I've no idea what the specific content was, but it was a mandatory 5 years in
prison, and his ex-wife petitioned for sole custody of their child, and I
think she'd tried to get all parental rights removed 100%. not sure if that
succeeded. he had another teenage daughter at the time who just... didn't get
to see him when he was in prison (michigan, but he was in prison in mass most
of the time). She's... mid 20s now? They have an OK relationship now, from
what I can tell.

~~~
nostrebored
Someone who engages in the exploitation of children probably shouldn't be
around teenagers.

Painting him as a sympathetic character is just wrong. The things that he
watched, and as a consumer encouraged to be produced have harmed children in
irreversible ways.

~~~
Oletros
If you're a 16 old girl with a picture of your boyfriend naked you can be
guilty of child pornography.

How is she engaging in the exploitation of children? This is the problem, that
a percentage of sex offenders are people like this hypothetic girl (or boy).

When a 18 years person can be guilty of sex offending by having ex with
his/her 17 old partner we have a problem

~~~
nostrebored
Your comment is orthogonal to the situation posed by the GP. And I would say
that if you're an 18yo who's looking at child pornography you should not be
around children, especially those to whom you have unfettered access to as a
parent/guardian.

>When a 18 years person can be guilty of sex offending by having ex with
his/her 17 old partner we have a problem

I'm not arguing that Romeo and Juliet laws are a bad thing (even though I
think that some state's implementations are too generous -- Georgia's laws
effectively mean you can be a college freshman sleeping with high school
freshmen). But when you're in the position that you're an 18yo with nude
pictures of a minor, you do effectively have child porn. You should know well
enough by that point to delete it. You are an adult.

A non trivial number of these pictures do end up on the internet. Do you think
that you should be a sex offender if as an 18yo you disseminate a picture of
your 16yo partner?

Do you think we should have a separate tier of images that are by definition
child porn, but because of who possesses them they are not considered to be
child porn? This will assuredly help actual offenders avoid the consequences
of their actions.

~~~
Oletros
> But when you're in the position that you're an 18yo with nude pictures of a
> minor, you do effectively have child porn

I would like to know why you're so radical in this topic. Perhaps because I'm
not American and attitude to sex here is not so puritan I can't understand it.

In the beach promenade we have a nudist beach, two meters apart, everyone,
including child can see nude men and women, or other child, and nobody cares
about it, they see it as normal.

I can see a lot of women breastfeeding in public and nobody cares.

The charges someone can face for peeing in the street is for uncivic behaviour
(normally 30€), but they are not charged for a sexual offense.

> A non trivial number of these pictures do end up on the internet. Do you
> think that you should be a sex offender if as an 18yo you disseminate a
> picture of your 16yo partner?

You're always taking the worst case. The problem is when your 18 years old
have pictures in his phone of his 17 years old partner and he/she is guilty of
having sex porn.

~~~
nostrebored
You think that sharing pictures of people under 18, who have given the
implicit notion that these are private pictures, is ok?

Because please dear god tell me that you're talking about the peeing in the
street or something, and that was just a poor quote placement?

There's a difference between going to a nude beach, where you have an
expectation of nudity vs. being in the street and taking out your penis. If
you're doing this repeatedly, then you have been repeatedly exposing your
genitals to people who have not consented to the exposure. There's a gigantic
difference.

Nudity and being happy with your body and happy with the body of others is
fine. The thing about nude beaches is that they are not sexual. People are not
creepy at nude beaches.

I'm asking you to engage in a thought experiment. I'm wondering where the line
for child porn begins and ends for you -- because its complicated is just not
a fine argument when it comes to legal systems.

I think that judges should use discretion when it comes down to cases like the
one you're talking about, but they only have to use discretion because it is
still child pornography by definition.

~~~
Oletros
> You think that sharing pictures of people under 18, who have given the
> implicit notion that these are private pictures, is ok?

Do you have problems with reading comprehension? Tell me were the heck I have
said that it is good to share the pictures?

------
nosegoes
>We must avoid "one-size-fits-all" labels for those convicted of a broad range
of offenses.

I don't know what the author is going on about. At least in my state (WA), sex
offenders are registered on a spectrum from I to III (most violent).

>Mario was a sex registrant because, as a teenager, he inappropriately touched
a fully dressed boy on two occasions.

Uh... so her sympathetic example is a serial child molester? Note she does not
say how old a "boy" or how old a "teenager" he was -- you can bet that the
"boy" was probably under 7 and Mario was a 19-year-old, otherwise she would
have given more details to make him seem more sympathetic (like she did with
"fully clothed").

I am more concerned about the victims of our laws regarding petty drug
offenses (i.e. small amounts of marijuana) -- those people are true victims.

~~~
graeme
This is a poor reply. There are 50 states, each with their own policies. Your
state may have better policies, but you can't make a national argument by
generalizing from your state alone.

And you're cherry picking a single example. The point is not that Mario is
blameless – is that they effectively have a life sentence for a crime which
did not carry a life sentence.

And relatively benign offences like public urination can carry a life
destroying sentence too. You didn't even address the misdemanour element.

~~~
bargl
I can't reply to nosegoes directly so I'm replying to you in the hope that
he'll see it.

[http://www.solresearch.org/report/Look_Whos_on_Registry_Now](http://www.solresearch.org/report/Look_Whos_on_Registry_Now)

[http://web.archive.org/web/20070315180914/http://www.msnbc.m...](http://web.archive.org/web/20070315180914/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17589219/)

There is your example for public urination.

I found other comments and stuff about people fighting to get these crimes
reduced to disorderly conduct, but I figured they wouldn't hold weight for you
so I dug a little deeper.

~~~
nostrebored
Juan Matamoros had been charged with two counts of Lewd and Lavacious behavior
at the time of that article being written. Pretty highly unlikely that they
were both from the single incident of public urniation. When you're publicly
exposing yourself repeatedly, maybe you should be a sex offender?

Man of the cases on solresearch mention that the people have been removed from
the registry. Which I know has happened to one person who has serially had
relationships with his underage students, starting at or before 16. He is no
longer on the sex offender registry list because he convinced a judge that it
was fine in his culture, and he didn't see the big deal. Anecdote, sure, but
people act like the sex offender registry is something that brands you
forever, which just isn't the case.

And ignoring that the registry has been wildly successful at reducing child
sexual abuse is a huge oversight. These edge cases, who in many cases have
legal recourse, outweigh the lives of rape and sexual assault victims?

~~~
bargl
I want to set the tone by saying, I can tell you feel strongly about this so I
want you to know that most people here (IMO) don't think the registry is a bad
idea, they just see poor implementation in places and think that updating the
rules surrounding it is an obvious step toward improving justice.

EDIT: >> Juan Matamoros had been charged with two counts of Lewd and Lavacious
behavior at the time of that article being written. Pretty highly unlikely
that they were both from the single incident of public urniation. When you're
publicly exposing yourself repeatedly, maybe you should be a sex offender?

Wrong, it appears to be pretty likely actually.
[http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2007-03-21/news/VOFFENDE...](http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2007-03-21/news/VOFFENDER21_1_matamoros-
deltona-incident)

"Haverhill police arrested Matamoros the next morning, charging him with two
counts of "open and gross lewdness," a charge used when a suspect exposes or
touches himself with the intent to shock or scare people."

Looks like he was charged with two counts for the one incident.

>> And ignoring that the registry has been wildly successful at reducing child
sexual abuse is a huge oversight. These edge cases, who in many cases have
legal recourse, outweigh the lives of rape and sexual assault victims?

Resources? Sounds like a WAG on your part... But lets assume it's true.

Just because I can defend one portion of this article does not in any way mean
I fully agree with it. A registry is a GREAT idea in my mind. I want to know
about people who should be on there. I take issue with stale laws and what I
consider lazy legislation that allows for stupid situations where it is
possible for someone to be placed on the sex offender list because they
urinated in public. It also dilutes the efficacy of the registry by including
people who really shouldn't be on there

>> outweigh the lives of rape and sexual assault victims

In what world does it have to be binary? I want the law to make sense! I
expect that our regulators find issues like this and close loopholes. Yes I
expect that we can keep people who deserve to be on the registry on there,
while removing idiotic loopholes that place people on the registry needlessly.

Lets agree that 1) the registry needs to be there 2) it has a net positive
effect 3) we must protect people from rape and sexual assault

I propose 4) pissing in the street not 2 or 3 (we may not agree on this one)
5) laws need to be updated and include common sense when a "bug" is found,
this one is no different

Please see my other comment for more context:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12038643](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12038643)

P.S. in my quick google search I found another anecdote by a man who had to
pay 14K in lawyer fees to get his charges dropped to disorderly conduct.
That's ridiculous to me! It seems like such a simple thing to fix.

~~~
nostrebored
I stand corrected -- Matamoros seems to be a dude who peed on a car once. I do
not think that is what the registry is for.

I still think that allowing for repeated public genital exposure is probably a
slippery slope.

I've read previously that nearly every case of this is not prosecuted until
exposure has been repeated.

