by William Jones

Created on: June 16, 2008   Last Updated: June 17, 2008

In response to the murder of one child by a convicted Sex Offender, we manufactured an entire set of laws. Out of them was, among other things, spawned local and national Sex Offender Registries, a recidivism risk accesment method, and a public notification protocal based on those risks. Known as Meagan's Law, they were adopted in ond form or another by all the States at the fervent request of the Federal Government.

Meagan's Law has been in effect now for well more than a decade. Now, self ascribed vigilante, John Walsh, has used his celebrity to amp up the program. I have to ask why. They appear to be little more than a good dose of more of the same; which brings up the question of the law's ability to effectively deal with the issue. If the program is ineffective, then how is more of the same going to help.

It's not. It can't possibly be. We are pointing the gun in the wrong direction. In an attempt to proctet ourselves from an uncomfortably distastful category of crime which we do not understand, we have childlishy lashed out at the most visible threat; the known offender. That is why after ten years the rate of Sex Offenses has not dropped in America, and people like John Walsh believe we need something more.

The problem lies wherein, that the known offender is the least risk category to commit a Sex Offense. Most municipalities keep the numbers well guarded, but the absolute highest risk for reliable recidivism rates comes from a U.S. Dept. of Justice study. It report's that 5.3% of Sex Offenders in thier study committed another Sex Offense within five years of their release.

If we can stop and do the math for a minute, that means that in the best case scenario that nearly 95% of Sex Offenses are committed by persons not previously convicted. I have found numbers as low as a 1.3% recidivism rate; which only makes this worse.

The law is clearly ineffective in dealing with the larger problem of Sex Offense in America. I think we can not debate that point. Tragically, it is also wasteful and unjust.

Many States are financially strapped, and some are for all intents and purposes insolvent. They can not keep up with what they have already, and are now being forced to accept more with these new laws. To make matters worse, many of these States are now in court having to defend themselvea against both civil and appelate filings. They have to. Without adopting a version of the Walsh Act, states face sanctions from the Federal Government.

The 'Civil Rights Watch'; a

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>