by Tom Schiavon

Created on: February 09, 2009

On January 1, 2008 Ohio became one of the first states to implement the Adam Walsh act, which requires states to create a classification system to rate sexual offenders and predators. The system creates three tiers of classification, the third being the highest, which more accurately group sexual offenses and the likelihood recidivism than had the previous divisions. Prior divisions merely separated convicted offenders into two groups-Sexual Offenders and Sexual Predators.

This is a positive step, and while it may still require all offenders to be registered, it may alleviate some of the fear that surrounds those convicted of sexual crimes. A person who looks up a sexual offender can now have a somewhat reliable guage for determining the threat that an indiviudual may present to their community. Studies have shown a large gap in the recidivism rate for different types of offenses (see Wall Street Journal article, and laws such as this may decrease fear and allow sexual offenders to become part of society again, which lowers their risk of re-offending.

There will likely be much misunderstanding on the issue. It will apear to some that the State of Ohio has "gone soft" in regard to protecting the public from the menace posed to society by sexual offenders and predators (or as some prefer to call them, perverts and sickos). This sentiment is understandable, but the state has a duty to deal with its citizens in a manner that it best suited to protect them, not merely what seems to be the case according to conventional wisdom. The reality is that many knee-jerk laws have been passed that made it difficult for sexual offeners to find any place in society, thus pushing them toward homelessness and re-offense. The problem became so ubiquitious in Kansas that the State Attorney's office lobbied for the repeal of a restrictive registration law that was causing offenders to become homeless for lack of shelter, the end result being that the state lost track of the offenders. Were a classification system in place it may have allowed for certain offenders to find a home more easily and providing alternatives for those who are more dangerous to society.

The classification system will also likely allow law enforcement officials to more accurately focus their attention on those who are most likely to pose a threat. A system that does not differentiate requires that all offenders be monitored equally, draining much needed funds and giving little return on investment.

Learn more about this author, Tom Schiavon.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.