I am not sure I understand the purpose of it.
An LGBT activist who organises gay prides and has a helpline thingy for people wanting advice on coming out was convicted last year for (Twice) attempting to meet fifteen year olds on a bang and go dating site.

He was sent on one of those courses which apparently prevent further offences, which is lovely.

But. He is still dealing with (very often) young teenagers at a vulnerable time, so if he is a danger, how is this ok?

Or, if the anti-sex-offending program is so effective that he is no longer a danger, why is he having to sign on the register? It makes no sense at all.

Are the SOR. Really a waste of time as over 80'000 on it in the UK with most needing to be visited by police public protection officers twice a year taking up vast resources on a crime that has a less than 2% reoffending rate.
I would say anyone who has been put on the register can work with anyone under the age of 18 or being a vulnerable person of any age.
A sentence below 30 months is 10 years on reg and 30 months and over is a life on the SOR.
I know of no other crime where there is a register

I saw a statistic in an article recently. Registrants in the USA are less likely to commit a sexual crime than people not on the register.

The article debunked almost every other aspect of such registries too. As a public policy, there's absolutely no justification for maintaining it, because it simply doesn't work.

IF... the desired effect is public protection. But that's not the desired effect. The real purpose of these registries is to dispossess and disenfranchise a targeted sector of the population, which they do very successfully.

I don't understand Randall; if those on the register are less likely, surely that is a good thing?

Randall wrote:
I saw a statistic in an article recently. Registrants in the USA are less likely to commit a sexual crime than people not on the register.

The article debunked almost every other aspect of such registries too. As a public policy, there's absolutely no justification for maintaining it, because it simply doesn't work.

IF... the desired effect is public protection. But that's not the desired effect. The real purpose of these registries is to dispossess and disenfranchise a targeted sector of the population, which they do very successfully.

But doesn't that indicate that surprisingly, the registers actually work? Therefore hooray?

It could be argued post hoc ergo propter hoc that being on the register deters recidivism, but this would be incorrect.

Most people convicted of a sexual crime in the USA were previously unknown to the police. As a cohort, people NOT on the register are more likely to commit a sex crime than people ON the register.

Registry provisions have no rational connection to risk management. The best example is residency restrictions, where a registrant isn't allowed to live within 2000ft of a school or playground or whatever. There's no correlation between distance from these places and recidivism. Obvious really, when you remember that most people can walk 2000ft to molest children in a park if they really want, or not... In addition, almost all child sexual abuse occurs within a family home setting.

Recidivism is extremely low for the great majority of registrants. However there is a very very small number of committed and predatory sex criminals who have a high rate of recidivism. It would make sense to allocate resources to these, rather than to people whose recidivism rate is similar to the likelihood that an unconvicted person will commit a sexual crime.

Are you saying there shouldn't be a sex offenders register?
I fully understand all of you (and i do mean ALL of you on here) being a bit confused by the fact that people get branded paedophiles for going with a 15yo or whatever....
But....folks,I hate to break it to you but there are some seriously vile child abusers out there.Sex CRIMES do happen.People ARE fucked up.
A six,seven year old can NEVER consent to ANY form of sexual activity....You would have to be seriously warped to even consider they can.

Donald Trumpton wrote:
Are you saying there shouldn't be a sex offenders register?
I fully understand all of you (and i do mean ALL of you on here) being a bit confused by the fact that people get branded paedophiles for going with a 15yo or whatever....
But....folks,I hate to break it to you but there are some seriously vile child abusers out there.Sex CRIMES do happen.People ARE fucked up.
A six,seven year old can NEVER consent to ANY form of sexual activity....You would have to be seriously warped to even consider they can.

I am questioning the effectiveness and point of it, when someone signing on the register is allowed to be in a position of trust with young people at a vulnerable time in their lives.

Thing is its a 'one size fits all' which is stupid. Yes some nasty f,,,ers out there and yes the need to be watched but the SOR calms the masses in to thinking all is great.
The police are supposed to make visits upon the registrant at least twice a year and the registrant must present themselves to a police station annually to sign, so in most cases they see you 3 times out of 365 days other than that you are free to wander.

Where is the flexibility to bring an offender off the register if they feel they are getting on in life or to extend it if they feel the person could still carry out more offences after its run out.

No other crime no matter how bad carries this type of monitoring.