Eric Haskett was merely taking a nap in a car when he roused suspicion in a rural Frederick County neighborhood. A neighbor traced Haskett’s license plate to an address once used by a registered sex offender.
Then his girlfriend’s parents told him to scram; law enforcement officials, including three FBI agents, began investigating; and Haskett began fearing that the suspicions could cost him his job at a gag shop that sells such kid-friendly items as whoopie cushions.
If this sort of misunderstanding and overeaction keeps happening, public sex offender registries will become worse than useless. This case demonstrates that insufficient knowledge is a dangerous thing. If paranoia becomes rampant, it may come to the point where sex offender registries have to be removed from public view or we will need specific laws to protect those mistaken as sex offenders.
While people are panicking over the wrong people, trusted and unconvicted sex offenders will continue to have access to victims who may or may not be believed if they speak up.
Note: Also posted on my blog, http://abyss2hope.blogspot.com
Pingback: feminist blogs
Pingback: FeministBlogosphere
I recall reading that the biggest problem that police departments experience with their sex offender registries is underfunding. Either the computer and software are old and the networking is incompatible with other jurisdictions, or no one is sufficiently trained on staff and dedicated to preserving its accuracy.
Standards for these registries are appearing, but standards is still a plural word. Few departments have adequate budgets, and if underbudgeted, the pervs get pushed down the priority list.
I would not be surprised that in many jurisdictions, even determining who is accountable for the registries would be difficult.
It seems to me that there’s a serious problem with the category “sex offender.” A “sex offense” could be any crime from raping six-year-olds by force to photographing a consenting 17-year-old naked. There’s no reason to think these people are similar in terms of degree of moral blameworthiness, likelihood of recividism, or danger to children in the community. Why register sex offenders but not murderers or spousal abusers?
It’s even worse than that. A sex offender could be someone convicted in the past for a consensual homosexual sex act which is no longer a crime today.
Sadly, this seems to be the witch hunt du jour. As with any good witch hunt, logic, commonsense, and independent thinking are shown the door as hysteria and panic strut in, typically in the form of slick, polished politicians trumpeting about what a disgrace ____ is, and it needs to be stopped, and “THIS is what WE’RE going to do about it, so that you, John and/or Jane Q. Citizen can rest assured that 1) we will protect you and 2) we have nothing but your best interest at heart.”
As Tony points out, the system of labeling sex offenders is seriously flawed, to the point where the flaws take away from the registries’ purpose. I’m sorry, but someone arrested for peeing in public (an error in judgment, to be sure) should not be considered as dangerous as a serial rapist. That’s absurd.
* SOhopeful International. Original Intent of Megan’s Laws. 2005. 14 May 2006 .
Ex-husband in Georgia admits to slapping his exwife on the rear in a plea bargain; he did not realize that that meant listed on the register as sexual assault. He has been appealing since.
Are “intra-familial” sex offenders somehow entitled to more protection than those who rape non-relatives?
Ex-husband in Georgia admits to slapping his exwife on the rear in a plea bargain; he did not realize that that meant listed on the register as sexual assault.
Got a cite for that?
The issue of sex-offender registries listing people unlikely to re-offend, or with minor offenses, is separate from the issue here, i.e. misidentification.
“Are “intra-familial” sex offenders somehow entitled to more protection than those who rape non-relatives?”
That’s not really the issue. The thing is, they’re not nearly the same danger to the general public as someone who has sexually assaulted someone *not* closely related to them, so listing them in a public registry designed to help the public assess their risk to them doesn’t really make as much sense.
The issue is that police departments have dirty data and do not have the resources to clean it up.
In my state, sex offenders convicted before the registry was created are grandfathered out. There are also escape hatches for minor sex offenders- i.e. a 13 year old boy caught playing doctor with a 12 year old boy is above our state’s cutoff age but can avoid the registry by taking a class.
Misrepresentation notwithstanding, I am unconcerned with so-called minor sex offenders being included on the registry. First, remember that these registries have always existed, it is only now they are easily accessible to the public. Second, many minor offenses are really major offenses pled down. Third, I don’t think “minor” offenses are all that minor- I remember being terrified by a flasher when I was 11. I don’t think people should dismiss flashing, fondling or voyerism as harmless, since these acts in themselves are devastating to victims and often harbingers of more violent acts to come. If prosecutors and courts or juries decide a someone who photos nude 17 year olds is enough of a creep and criminal to go on the registry, then I trust their judgement.
The issue of sex-offender registries listing people unlikely to re-offend, or with minor offenses, is separate from the issue here, i.e. misidentification.
If a person isn’t on the register, then the issue of misidentification as that person doesn’t arise.
Megan’s Law wouldn’t seperate the two. Minor offenses (inappropriate touching even unintentional say at a party) would be classified the same as rape itself. This ruins lives. If you are put on the registry and the website as a sex offender when you only did a minor offense (I’m talking so minor it might have been a misunderstanding) along with rapists and there is no classification then that is wrong. Just the same as somone who punches someone in fight shouldn’t be viewed as a murderer when cuts and scrapes were the only injuries and no murder took place. If the offenses are seperated and the true predators are categorized as sex offenders then that would be fair.
Daran made an excellent point. This was a case of misidentification which speaks more to shoddy policework than a critique of the registry system.
I have mixed feelings about the system. I understand the potential benefits of the system to prevent future crimes. In my city, the local news agencies have chosen to run stories about apartment complexes who chose to accept registered sex offenders. While I understand the need to inform the public about the increased risk, the tactics used in reporting the stories were questionable. They suggested that noone should allow a registered sex offender to rent from them.
If we are going to let these people out in society, it doesn’t make sense to make life so hard on them that they genereate more resentment. It would be more fair just to maintain a special publicly funded institution to house them.
On one hand, we wish to allow rape victims to be allowed to convict their alleged attackers with a lower threshold of reasonable doubt than other crimes, yet we also maintain a special means of punishing those convicted above and beyond those who commit other serious crimes.
I wonder why we haven’t instituted a public registration of all those who are convicted of murder, or assault.
Daran, right, but this post seems especially subject to tangents.
I think the NIMBY problem with released criminals, especially sexual offenders, is a worthwhile discussion to have. How that relates to sexual offender registries is a big part of that. Maybe it’s too off topic for this thread, but it would be nice to have a thread for it.
See this discussion on Unfogged about an anonymous advice-asker who lives in the same apartment building as a registered sex offender.
A “sex offense” could be any crime from raping six-year-olds by force to photographing a consenting 17-year-old naked
Yeah. When our local sex offender database went online, I took a look at it. OMG, there were three sex offenders within two blocks of our house!
Luckily, that version of the database listed, in detail, what offenses they had been convicted of. Each of them had a picture of a [now] apparently twenty-something male who had been convicted of having sexual relations with a minor over the age of 15. The offenses were several years old too, which indicated these males may have been teens/very early twenties themselves when convicted. Creepy–somewhat. Scary–not really. I’m not going to get overly concerned about a guy that may have been convicted of having consensual sex with a 15-year-old when he was 19 or 20 (may have been == that’s what the database made it sound like). At 15, sure I found the concept of dating a 20-something kind of creepy, but I knew girls who would only date 20-somethings and threw themselves into situations where that would occur. I do blame society for both sides of that, and believe that a twenty-something male that decides to date/sleep with a 15-year-old girl has a shocking lack of common sense. A criminal enough lack of common sense to deserve being listed as a generic “sex offender” though?
I did more searches, and it seemed like the majority of convictions returned fell into the category of not-violent, slightly creepy. My opinion of the usefulness of the database is fairly low now.
Matt- the idea that prosecutors would convict AND require registration of someone who brushed up against someone at a party, or who urinated in public, is ludicrous. These are myths perpetuated by God knows who and God knows why, but it’s not true. I have been present at many interviews with low level sex offenders for my job, and I can tell you that what sounds like an overblown case of hysterical parents is usually really a very sinister act by a very creepy and selfish offender once you know the details.
hp- you are looking at the “harmlessness” of your area offenders from the point of view of an adult, unlikely to be victimized by a non-violent offender. But there registries are there for parents and employers who must protect those who are too naive and self-conscious to assert themselves against a predatory creep, even one who doesn’t use force. The 15 year old who had sex with your neighbor probably isn’t as sanguine about the relationship with the older man.
Elena,
Matt- the idea that prosecutors would convict AND require registration of someone who brushed up against someone at a party, or who urinated in public, is ludicrous.
In Arizona, they do get registered as sex offenders. Arizona classifies sex offenders in three categories. Minor offenses, such as these, are class 1. Class 1 offenders to need to register anytime they move, but they do not show up on the public sex offender website. They do show up in all police and investigative databases and could show up in an employer background check.
Who gets registered as sex offenders? Accidental brusher uppers and public urinators?
I know nothing about Arizona laws, but I know in Michigan public urination is not a sexual offense. The party thing is probably an urban myth. Look at it this way: a sexual assault conviction has huge hurdles to overcome to become a conviction. First, the victim has to report the crime, and we know that many sex crime victims don’t report. Second, law enforcement have to decide the report is credible and prosecutable, third, prosecutors do the same, fourth- a jury or judge makes a finding of guilt or there is a guilty plea. A fifth hurdle is the prosucutors have to determine that the crime warrants a plea offer that includes a crime eligible to be registered. Accidentally touching someone at a party isn’t going to clear these hurdles, especially the first one. Accidentally touching someone, and public urination sound like the drug possession equivalent to ” it was my friend’s”- common defenses prosecutors hear over and over.
A girl in my town, a 12 year old, was camping with her best friend and her family. The father stuck his hand down her shirt. I know this girl and her family. She was devastated, deeply affected by this sudden breech of trust and her first sexual contact with someone. Surely the man believed that it was only touching, and that a 12 year old was unlikely to have the cojones to tell on him. But she did. And now he’s a registered offender and he deserves it. A little public humiliation and censure is exactly what a creepy bully deserves.
I was falsely accused over 20 years ago. I spent 10 years in prison because I would not “confess” and thus denied parole. I’m still paying a price. Every damn day! The Sex Crime Witch Hunt is profit driven. Everyone makes money when a man is falsely accused – the police, prison guards, the prison building industry, prosecuters, defense attorneys, sex offender therapists, the media, and ect…. Now California is going to vote on forcing so-called sex offenders to wear GPS tracking for life! More profits!!!!!
A bit of anecdotal experience (meaning, I was warned about it, but it never happened to me …)
During my trips to New Orleans we were routinely given legal briefings about the state of police abuses of power within the city. One of the pieces of advice given was that if we were arrested for some minor crime, even if we knew we were innocent, it would probably be a lot easier on us in the long run if we just pled guilty, paid the fine, and went on with our lives.
The one exception was if we were arrested for public urination, which considering the state of things in New Orleans even today, is a pretty common occurance. No matter how discretely one might be about their public peeing, it would count as “Indecent Exposure” in New Orleans (and many other jurisdiction, so the Michigan law sounds like an exception), which is a sex crime. I knew people who were arrested for doing that who took every step imaginable, including having fellow relief workers (sorry, the pun is unavoidable!) act as lookouts for the police, who somehow managed to figure out that unauthorized urination had occured.
All that said, I have checked out the sex offender registry where I live and I don’t see a lot of 18 year old boys having sex with 15 year old girls entries. Nor do I see a lot of public urination entries. I also don’t see a lot of entries where a woman was swatted on the butt by her husband.
I do see more severe instances of statutory rape, or “indecency with a minor”, and I don’t think there’s any excuse for a 21 year old man to have sexual contact of any sort with a 15 year old girl. It’s easy to say “lapse in judgement”, but a girl or boy who’s in the 9th grade seems entirely too unlikely to be the kind of person who could convince an adult that they are really an adult as well.
The issue of sex-offender registries listing people unlikely to re-offend, or with minor offenses, is separate from the issue here, i.e. misidentification.
Not entirely; if it consists entirely of the sort of person I don’t want living where my stepdaughter passes on the way to school, I’m willing to accept a higher risk of misidentification than if I could conceivably be made to register for groping my girlfriend in a deserted parking lot once.
HP, there are about a dozen in my neighborhood.
Only there aren’t, since each alias is listed separately, and people arrested under several different names are listed several times — e.g., if the same person is arrested as Simon MacKenzie, Simon Richard Mackenzie, adn S.R. Mackenzie, that’s three listings.
Ok let’s start with me. I am 23 years old and I am married to a 57 year old sex offender. He is a kind and sweet old man. I love him with all my heart. I know for a fact that he could never hurt a woman let alone rape one. He was wrongly convicted of rape, as at the time of the “incidents”, the law was not in effect that stated the age limit of sexual acts and marriage. At the time of the “incidents” he was 19 and 21, both females were 14. He married both of them and had many children. 10 years after he had divorced the second of the two “victims”, he was arrested for the supossed crime.
My issue is he never hurt them, and they were married before they procreated. He has never been convicted of any other crime and he is not a bad citizen, yet he is listed as a Teir Three Sex Offeneder. Because his name is listed on the registry, he gets harrassed all the time (phone calls, hate-mail, people walking down the street).
This is a case as mistaken identity; Calling my husband a Sex Offender when he could never hurt a woman. I have personally talked to BOTH of the supposed “victims”. They both loved him and both denied him hurting them. They still talk to him through their children.
I cannot stand to sit by and watch what this “registry” is doing to the innocents in this world. Some people have mental issues and should be watched closely, but others made mistakes, or have been mistaken. These people should not be on this list. They should be left alone to live their lives peacefully.
Granted no one is innocent, but no one should be harrassed. It’s up to the God and Goddess to decide what happens to whom. So please, I ask of you to let go of harsh feelings towards others because of what they may have done in the past. They know by now what they did was wrong. Should we go around posting a list of all the people who stole $1 or more? How about those that committed a bank robbery? I feel that there should be no hostility in our communities. Let’s worry about our own lives and our loved one’s. Leave people whom you don’t know alone!
After all wasn’t it the prophet Jesus who said, “Those who have not sinned cast the first stone”?
Blessed Be.