Posted on 05/31/2019 3:50:15 AM PDT by Kaslin
With several septuagenarians competing for the presidency, the ghost of the 1990s looms over the 2020 race. Joe Biden has faced criticism for his sponsorship of the 1994 crime bill. President Donald Trump tweeted, "Anyone associated with the 1994 Crime Bill will not have a chance of being elected."
Here's some context. Violent crime rates in the United States began a steep climb in the mid-1960s and reached their peak in the early 1990s. Americans were extremely worried. Donald Trump, for example, recommended bringing back New York's death penalty in response to a much-publicized Central Park attack. Politicians listened. Many states passed tough anti-crime measures and in 1994, the federal government got into the act. Though Republicans criticized the federal crime bill for gun restrictions and what they called "pork," the measure passed the House on a voice vote and the Senate by 61-38 with many Republican votes.
Crime has dropped dramatically since. Was that due to the law? Doubtful. Crime also rose and fell in Canada at about the same rate during the same time period (though it started at a much lower baseline). Some possible causes that have been floated: abortion, immigration, cellphones and community policing.
In any case, there are good reasons to reconsider some aspects of the 1994 act and subsequent revisions, because we've had a chance to see the unintended consequences.
One feature of the 1994 law that has had baleful unanticipated effects was the adoption of sex offender registries. At the time, experts advised that sex offenders never reformed. To protect the community from those found guilty of such offenses after their return to society, registries would require them to identify themselves (sometimes even with signs in their windows). Understandably, penalties were particularly harsh for anyone who harmed a child sexually.
What the law's authors didn't anticipate is that children themselves would be caught up in this net. The Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia has been studying those effects.
The old assumption that sex offenders never change has proved mistaken. The national recidivism rate for all crimes is roughly 40 percent. The rate for adults who commit sex offenses is about 13 percent. For children, the rate is about 7 percent.
Sex offender registries in many states make no distinction between crimes committed by adults against children and offenses children commit against one another. Children as young as 8 years old have been required to register as sex offenders and remain on the registry for life.
Sometimes, children commit serious offenses. But children mature and change. Should a youthful offense or stupid mistake carry a lifetime punishment?
And not all offenses that can land you on a registry are serious. "Isaac E" pleaded guilty to "indecent liberties by forcible compulsion." He touched a girl's chest. They were both 12 at the time. But Isaac must post a new picture of himself every year, while the age of his victim is always listed as 12. This makes it appear to anyone who consults the registry years later that the adult Isaac assaulted a child.
Children who have been labeled sex offenders often struggle to lead normal lives after serving time. Strict rules limit where sex offenders can live or work. Some cannot live with family members who have children, and missing a deadline can result in a felony conviction for failing to register. "Gabriel" had been arrested for sexually touching a playmate at the age of 11. He did not reoffend, but he lived on the streets after leaving the Texas Youth Center at age 17 when he failed to find an apartment that would accept him. In a Catch-22 faced by many on registries, he was then arrested for failing to register a home address (a felony) and sentenced to a year in prison. Other offenses that can trip up those on registries: changing their Yelp account username, parking in a different place, failing to have mail forwarded to a new address.
A 15-year-old Pennsylvania girl who took nude selfies and posted them online was convicted of manufacturing and disseminating child pornography. She was charged as an adult and will remain on the registry for life.
A 16-year-old who had been on the Louisiana registry for two years told Human Rights Watch: "For sex offenders, our mistake is forever available to the world to see. There is no redemption, no forgiveness. ... There is never a chance for a fresh start. You are finished. I wish I was executed because my life is basically over."
We'll likely never know if the tough on crime laws we passed with bipartisan majorities in the 1990s worked or not. But surely some of the injustices -- like imposing lifelong pariah status on children -- cry out for correction.
This is what happens when you believe “it takes a village”. Parents aren’t allowed to be the ones to discipline their kids anymore for inappropriate behavior. The State has to step in & take over.
Now there was a mangled blender full of incoherent concepts unable to coalesce into a coherent thought.
Depending on the year, once accused your life is over, as mentioned in the article.
Even if completely innocent, or as noted in the article, just playing doctor.
How to separate the truly evil from the normal, won't happen in the present world because too many elites believe that there is no evil.
“And not all offenses that can land you on a registry are serious. “Isaac E” pleaded guilty to “indecent liberties by forcible compulsion.” He touched a girl’s chest. They were both 12 at the time. “
How absurd.
That’s why people are always amazed at how many “sex offenders” live in their area.
That’s because most of them are not REAL sex offenders.
Most of them are not a threat to anyone.
Hang, shoot, electrocute, gas, poison, all the REAL sex offenders and there would be no need for registration.
The central element to all four of the cases cited was that they should never have been prosecuted in the first place. Prosecutorial misconduct bordering on negligence.
The problem is the expanding scope of ‘sex crimes’.
The teens sending nude pictures shouldn’t be on the list.
The 16 year old having consensual sex with a 14 year old shouldn’t be on the list.
The 15 year old who violently raped should be on the list at least until someone proves they almost certainly won’t repeat the offense.
The 10-16 year old who repeatedly molested younger children SHOULD be on the list for life.
The problem isn’t the list. The problem is that we’ve lost the ability to discriminate, having levels of offense and distinctions.
It is due to liberals’ black/white morality. A bad date or using the term landlord is equated with hating women and wanting to turn them into sex slaves. That using a term now considered racist equals wanting to kill black people.
Reminds me of a Kansas newspaper editor, William Allen White, and his opinion of President Harding’s speeches.
“Armies of words marching over the landscape in search of an idea.”
In my State the crime is detailed.
Generally they are legitimate.
There is the correct description of the problem.
"Understandably, penalties were particularly harsh for anyone who harmed a child sexually. What the law's authors didn't anticipate is that children themselves would be caught up in this net. The Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia has been studying those effects. The old assumption that sex offenders never change has proved mistaken. The national recidivism rate for all crimes is roughly 40 percent. The rate for adults who commit sex offenses is about 13 percent. For children, the rate is about 7 percent."Certainly if the above stats are accurate, I am against the broad brush treatment of all sex offenders from young children up to old pervs, being treated the same way. I think up to age 25 or so there should be a chance for rehabilitation of non-violent offenders.
That said, my opinion hasn't changed, that violent or psychologially coercive penetrative sex by any adult over 25 on or with a child below the onset of puberty should receive the death penalty.
No problem with that. I wonder about this, though...
“One feature of the 1994 law that has had baleful unanticipated effects was the adoption of sex offender registries. At the time, experts advised that sex offenders never reformed.
[...]
“The old assumption that sex offenders never change has proved mistaken. The national recidivism rate for all crimes is roughly 40 percent. The rate for adults who commit sex offenses is about 13 percent. For children, the rate is about 7 percent.”
Does low recidivism = change, or just fear of more incarceration? Whether he re-offends or not doesn’t mean he’s changed.
I see your point; but the law is more concerned with behavior than motivation or thought control. If the net effect is the same, that is the end of the government's business in the matter. The person with the issue has to continue avoiding stressful situations like family birthday parties with lots of children, using internet filters, making wise choice of what work to do, where to live, etc.
I see your point; but the law is more concerned with behavior than motivation or thought control. If the net effect is the same, i.e. no more sex offenses, that is the end of the government's business in the matter. The person with the issue has to continue avoiding stressful situations like teaching, coaching or family birthday parties with lots of children, plus use internet filters, make wise choices of what work to do, where to live, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.