Does a sex offender live on your street?
By Sandy Morris on Jan 25, 2010 in Family-N-Friends
- Image via Wikipedia
There is no easy way of saying it but do you know whether there is a sex offender living on your street or in your neighborhood? Maybe you should take a little time and study the maps of your home area. Take a moment and look at the picture in this post. Looks like a nice photo. It is Kenny Ray Morris, a convicted sex offender. So don’t just think sex offenders are dirty old men… they could be your preppy neighbor.
Prior to 1994 few states required convicted sex offenders to register their addresses with local law enforcement. As recognition of the severity of this problem grew, Congress passed the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Act, 42 U.S.C. §§14071, et seq. (“Wetterling Act”). This required each state implement a sex-offender registration program or a 10 percent forfeiture of federal funds for state and local law enforcement under the Byrne Grant Program of the U.S. Department of Justice. Today, all fifty states and Washington, D.C. have sex offender registries.
The registration alone was not enough came after the tragic murder of 7-year-old Megan Kanka by a released sex offender living on her street. Do you know who lives near your kids? The public outcry created a call for programs to provide the public with improved information regarding released sex offenders. In 1996 Congress passed a federal law mandating state community notification programs. Megan’s Law, section (e) of the Wetterling Act, requires all states to conduct community notification but unfortunately did not set out specific forms and methods, other than requiring the creation of internet sites containing state sex-offender information. Beyond that requirement, states are given broad discretion in creating their own policies. What followed was many different versions of notification sites.
There are currently more than half a million registered sex offenders in the United States. Sex offenders pose an enormous challenge for Congressional policy makers: they evoke unparalleled fear among constituents; their offenses are associated with a great risk of psychological harm; and most of their victims are children and young adults. As policy makers address the issue of sex offenders, they are confronted with some basic realities
- Most sex offenders are not in prison, and those who are tend to serve limited sentences
- Most sex offenders are largely unknown to people in the community
- Sex offenders have a high risk of re-offending
- While community supervision and oversight is widely recognized as essential, the system for providing such supervision is overwhelmed
Despite states’ implementation of the Jacob Wetterling Act, the increased mobility of our society has led to “lost or missing” sex offenders. The “lost and missing” are those who fail to comply with registration duties yet remain undetected due to the inconsistencies among state laws, coupled with the burden faced by authorities to keep track of the increasing number of offenders.
The U.S. Congress finally recognized this problem and acted. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act was signed into law on July 27, 2006. This sweeping law mandated specific registration requirements for sex offenders in all states. Once all the states come into compliance with the Adam Walsh Act, within three years, the disparities among the state registration laws will be eliminated and sex offenders will no longer be able to slip through the cracks in the system. However, the states are still held to high standards for reporting and keeping the registry up to date.
One of the biggest changes with the law was that the Adam Walsh Act mandates that specified information about sex offenders must be released to the public. Each state must create a publicly-accessible and searchable website that provides consistent information about the offenders in its registry. This created a better tool for the public in their efforts to protect themselves from sex offenders living in their communities.
Letting the law enforcement offices manage the database does give police officers access to information in the event of missing children. For additional information on child predators:
Map of the US with counts on offenders
US Department of Justice Sex Offender Website
10 Comment(s)
By Mom in MD on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
This article mentions the key point that law enforcement is overwhelmed by these new requirements. What it does NOT say, is that the vast majority of the people the AWA is forcing states to register and track are not in any way, shape, or form dangerous predators! Studies readily available to all of these lawmakers have shown time and again that only about 5% of all sex offenders (this is including all three Tiers, as the AWA is going to require) will re-offend with a new sex offense. And of that 5%, barely 1% are seriously dangerous persons (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003).
Add to that the fact that roughly 90% of all new offenses are not committed by registered former offenders, and roughly 93% of all sex crimes against children are actually committed by someone KNOWN TO THE CHILD, and trusted by them. Not by these predators.
The registry, as presented by the Wetterling act and the AWA, does not work, wastes billions of taxpayer dollars, and gives parents a false sense of security.
By lmom on Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
I would be curious to know just where you get that sex offenders are at high risk of reoffending. The Department of Justice Statistics states that only 5.3% of those convicted of sexually based offenses have been arrested for another sexual offense within 3 years, and many state studies state much the same thing. Long term studies indicate that as time goes on, an offender who has not repeated his offense is even less likely to do so.
Over 90% of all new sexually based crimes are committed by someone who is not on the registry, so even over a long time, former sex offenders are not re-committing sex crimes.
There is one statement that I really agree with, though. Law enforcement is overwhelmed. They are tasked with keeping track of people who are little or no risk to the community. Romeo and Juliet cases, those convicted of public urination, and in some cases (in Wisconsin and Georgia, at a minimum) people who are on the registry for something that had no sexual element at all! These officers can’t keep track of everyone on the list and still do an effective job of maintaining safety in the community. So maybe we need to re-write the laws, this time from a rational perspective.
By Smacktalk on Jan 26, 2010 | Reply
So what is your personal vendetta against this young man, Sandy Morris? Other than proclaiming him a convicted sex offender, what is your need to expose him like this? Was he convicted of an actual sex crime – against a child? – or was he 19 with a 17 year old girlfriend? Or caught mooning? Or pee-ing behing a tree?
Do tell, Sandy Morris, since a life obviously must be ruined, let’s ruin it with gusto!
It’s election year, and open season on sex offender witch hunts.
By Sandy Morris on Jan 26, 2010 | Reply
I do not have a vendetta as you call it against this young man. He was a photo that was already on the internet. My main point was that not all bad guys are ugly.
I value children and feel that they need protection not only from people they are related too who abuse them but from strangers as well.
By Sandy Morris on Jan 26, 2010 | Reply
There is not a national system that works 100% or close. My whole goal is to make people aware of the places they can go to for information. Whether the information is what they need to have handy if someone takes their child to what to look for in their own neighborhood.
Think about it Mom in MD saving one child is priceless. It does not matter whether the sex offender is a stranger or someone in their family. We need to stop it all together. I live in an area near 2 very heinous crimes against small children and feel that we need to do more to protect and safeguard our kids.
What do you suggest we do?
By Sandy Morris on Jan 26, 2010 | Reply
Imom I understand where you are coming from however, I submit this thought to you. Generally speaking most sex offenders know that they are on a probationary period after they are convicted so that the 3 year time statistic is of little value because generally they report to the Department for up to 2 years.
I agree that more than a majority are committed by someone the child knows and who might not have been on any type of registry but that does not make it right.
We need to protect our children and keep them safe. There is just so much that law enforcement can do and you are right that we might need to re-work our laws so that they are uniform state to state and center on the actual offenders not just lewd behavior in public.
My goal is to provide information to help parents by having the necessary information handy should something happen and to make them aware of the need to protect their kids by not being so trusting.
Living where I do is near 2 really bad sex crime events and both children were killed afterwards so I am more sensitive to this issue.
By Diane on Jan 26, 2010 | Reply
So,
Sandy Morris,
Is your last name, the new “Smith” and Jones”?
I wonder how you came uppon this without having “Inside information” Care to share your fermiliarity withus on your relationship so we could better understand how you happened upon this person with your same surname who is a SEX OFFENDER!!!!!
You know , they say that most offences happen not from stranger danger but from people we all know and trust , such as neighbors and RELATIVES!
Do you know him?
Just a thought, care to respond?
Diane
By Sheeple Herder on Jan 26, 2010 | Reply
Sandy I think the problem is that people are so completely misinformed about this watered down sex offender registry that knowledge does not equate to power in this situation.
I think we would all agree that government almost always gets it wrong no matter how simple the task it is rife with corruption and personal agenda’s yet people some how think that this government program is somehow different.
The facts of course tell a different story every single state and federal study done in the past 15 years has shown that sex offender recidivism is actually extremely low and that treatment does in fact work yet turn on Nancy Grace or any of the Mainstream media’s and you are told a different story.
They never quote a source for this myth it is just considered to be true. Politicians and the Media are basically “for profit” businesses and if one truth rings down through the ages it is “fear sells”.
There is almost no actual Journalism today as the Media’s priorities have changed over the years from public service to entertainment and profit.
If you can combine sex and violence in a single story that translates into huge ratings and profits there is just no money in telling the truth.
The U.S. Marshall’s and many other federal agencies stand to gain BILLIONS from AWA so they load up a news crew and ride around from state to state doing “compliance sweeps” trying to convince people they are making a difference.
If a politician or agency can appear “tough on crime” for an election year soundbite that translates into funding and votes and if anyone “dares” do some research or attempt to inject a little truth into the debate they are labeled “sympathizers” or soft on crime it’s political suicide.
It’s ironic you mention the Wetterling act are you aware that Patty Wetterling is now on record against a public registry system? Never heard that?
Look it up you might be surprised to learn all the information out there where professionals and even victims rights groups come out against these laws.
A rare side effect of these bad economic times is however occurring.
The Adam Walsh Act passed at a rose garden photo opp has been passed by only one state so far with some like California rejecting it outright.
Politicians are being forced to actually look at the costs of yet another feel good do nothing law as apposed to the loss if they do not comply.
They are forced on a political level to weigh the benefits of enacting yet another useless yet popular S.O.law with the realization that they will be responsible for putting their state further in debt with absolutely nothing to show for it.
There are no registry “success stories” to capitalize on later and while they could waste the money in boom times they are now forced to worry about cost versus results.
State courts are awash with lawsuits as these laws are challenged and when these suits reach the U.S. Supreme Court it is doubtful they will again pass constitutional scrutiny.
As the politicians keep one upping each other trying to look “tough on crime” we are all guilty of ignorance and sloth as we allow civil rights and the truth to be damned.
Do you really think they will stop with the sex offenders? What’s next the DUI registry?
If our goal is actually preventing new crimes and tragedies this vicious cycle of ignorance must stop.
There are 700,000 people on the registry nationwide if these myths were true we would be knee high in abductions assaults and murders on a daily basis yet this is not the case.
Someone recently did a study on child abductions and discovered that statistically a child could be left on a corner alone for 750,000 years without incident yet American children are now growing up in front of the television hostages to the fear and panic of their helicopter parents who are fed a daily ration of hype and outright lies that their children are not safe.
We need to root out the truly dangerous and clean up the registry. You fail to include any other information with the young man’s picture you posted. Did he rape a 5 yo? Was he a romeo and Juliet offender with a slightly underage girlfriend?
Your post speaks volumes as it does not seem to matter once you get the “label” your exactly the same as the creep that killed Jessica Lunsford.
Sex Offenders are not a label they do not ascend from the lower regions they are your sons,fathers,uncles,friends,teachers,coaches,policeman,husbands and more and more wives so yes their not trench coat wearing old men they could look like anybody because they could be anyone.
The registry is a dismal Billion dollar failure and the Dugard and Foxwell cases bear that out in a tragic way.
Perhaps if police were not forced to focus on all these people and maybe just on the truly dangerous the registry might yet prevent it’s first crime?
Sandy I could post links and references to back up everything I have said here but I invite you to post some verifiable information that backs up your article.
Please post some links that show high recidivism rates? Please post some information on all the crimes the registry has actually prevented?
Please show me all the wonderful accomplishments of the Public Sex offender registry I can post thousands of failures.
Resptfully
S.H.
By P. Intears on Jan 26, 2010 | Reply
Information is a valuable resource, the only trouble is that most sex crimes are committed by first time offenders and are members of the family or are intimate with the family. USDOJ states that sexual offenders recidivism is 2.5% compared to other crimes. 95% of new crimes are done by people not on the registry. In that sense, you may know where the person lives who was caught, but what about those that haven’t been caught?!? Treatment also lowers recidivism and is more cost effective than “feel good” laws passed by legislators looking to turn a quick vote. Don’t be suckered into the belief that just because someone is listed on a registry for a sex crime that your children are safe. These laws are nothing than placebos for Americans who don’t, can’t or won’t do the research on their own!
By Sandy Morris on Jan 26, 2010 | Reply
Diane,
Since you ask I will tell you that this baby boomer only wishes to help protect children. If making people aware of how to check the known publications provided by the government agencies then so be it. I have no axe to grind or cross to bare I just want to help keep kids safe. I want parents to know what to compile “just in case” and what to do if they would need to do something.
You are correct about most offenders being known by the child or family. It is also a sad truth that we do not see the signs until it is too late. Sometimes I think we are too trusting with our kids and who they are around.
Thanks for the comment. I sure have stirred up a hornets nest I guess.