Psychological Analysis of Sex Offenders - Lab Report Example

? Psychological Analysis of Sex Offenders of Affiliate Registration of sexual offenders is important since it deters offenders from repeat offenses, protects communities from the offenders and assists authorities in keeping track of the offenders. The federal codes with regard to registration and/or publication of offenders are just guidelines and the stated are mandated to construct their own legislations. The state of Minnesota has its own legislations which include the Minnesota Statute 243.166 and Community Identification Act. Over the years questions have been raised regarding constitutional challenges and concerns. Introduction Over the years the approaches to legislations governing the registration and the publication of sex offenders have always been primarily geared towards reducing the probability of repeat offences. The general realization is that sex offenders always demonstrate the tendency to repeat the sexual offences when relevant measures are not taken to sensitize the public and to construct deterring mechanisms. The essence of having sexual offenders register themselves is to ensure that during parole, the parole officers can keep track of the progress and ensure that the offenders are not in circumstances that might tempt them to repeat the offences. Although, various states are responsible for establishing their own systems and procedures when it comes to registration and publication of sexual offenders the federal government has existing laws to act as guidelines. The guidelines are clearly outlined in the “Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children Act of 1994, Megan’s Law of 1996, and Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996” (Maddan, 2008, p. 10). The logic behind the sex offenders’ registration and publication in most states is to ensure that the offenders are dissuaded from undertaking repeat offenses, to sensitize and protect the public from sexual offenders and to assist the authorities in keeping track of the offenders’ records and to ensure that the offenders comply with both state and federal regulations. The paper will look at the strategies that have been employed by the state of Minnesota in ensuring that sexual offenders comply with the federal codes regarding the registration and publication of sexual offenders. In addition the paper will also address the extent to which the approaches employed by the state of Minnesota helps in preventing repeat offences by the offenders, sensitizes and protects the public and assists the authorities in keeping track of the movements and activities of sexual offenders. State Regulations in Minnesota Statistics from the state of Minnesota have prompted authorities within the state to construct legislations to ensure that communities are effectively notified of any sex offenders living within their neighborhoods. According to (Minnesota Police Department, 2011), most sexual offenders target people that know them and apparently trust them. In addition, most offenders who had been to prison were found to engage in child molestation, incest and rape with people who knew them very well. Therefore the legislations within Minnesota have always been geared towards addressing the issue of notifying communities concerning offenders living within their neighborhoods. The legislations include the Minnesota Statute 243.166 and the Community Notification Act of 1996. The general realization is that it is usually inevitable to have sex offenders living among other members of the community due to law provisions that require offenders to spend a specific period of time in prison. In Minnesota the state regulations only require offenders to spend only two thirds of their sentences behind bars and the rest free but under the supervision of probation officers. Once the sexual offenders have been released and they will be required to adhere with certain registration regulation depending on the risk levels they have been assigned. Like most states Minnesota assigns sexual offenders one of the three levels of risk. Level one is assigned individuals deemed to pose the least risk while level three s assigned individuals deemed to pose the greatest risk. Level two is intermediary between the two in terms of risk they pose. The levels are assigned by a group consisting of psychologists, criminal justices and lawyers of the victims. The essence is to protect the public from probable repeat offences (Zollar, 2003). Procedural Guidelines In Minnesota the court is usually responsible of informing and offender of the registration requirements. However, in the event that the court fails to do so for one reason or another the correction agents can also inform the person of the requirements. The provision is clearly stipulated under the Minnesota Statute 243. 166. 2. In subdivision three of the same Statute the law requires that the correction agent is responsible of informing the offender of the need to register in another state in case the offender works or goes to school in the other state. As necessitated by BCA (Bureau of Criminal Apprehension), an offender is required to register with the authorities and provide information with regard to residence, fingerprint and photo after release or after the official registration of the offense. In Minnesota the information required includes: primary and secondary residential addresses, addresses of any property owned that is within Minnesota, employment addresses and the make, year of manufacturer and model of the vehicle driven by the offender. Any changes made to the offenders primary or secondary addresses must be made known to the corrections agent assigned the offender. Once every year the offender will be required by the BCA to return a verification mail sent by BCA. However, in instances where the offender is identified as being sexually dangerous the verification is sent four times a year. In most instances, the registration period goes on for 10 years, until the end of probation period or until the authorities deem it necessary. According to a research conducted by (Maddan, 2008, p. 14), the one, two and three follow up period were effective because most offenders repeated the offenses within these periods. In other instances, lifetime registration may be required by the state authorities of Minnesota. The instances include: where the offender has been identified as being a recidivist (a person convicted of a similar offense that required registration), persons who use violence to commit sexual acts that include but not limited to penetration (Juveniles can only be included in this category when they cause the death of the victim in the event and juveniles who have been passed as adults) and persons who have uncontrolled tendencies to commit sexual crimes (Zollar, 2003, pp. 12-14). Penalties for Non-Compliance According to the provisions of the Minnesota BCA, an offender is required by law to ensure that all the information provided in the registration is true and verifiable. An offender who intentionally provides false information during registration is “guilty of a five year felony.” In addition the court can in its discretion provide a jail term that does not comply with the minimum jail term when it deems necessary to do so. These provisions are stipulated in the Minnesota Statutory 243. 166. 5 (Zollar, 2003, p. 16). The court has the right to subject such a person to a one year jail term for first non-compliance and more than two years for subsequent non-compliances. In the event that an offender fails to register their address, the offender is subject to a jail term of one year and one day for first time and more than one year for subsequent failure to register (Minnesota Police Department, 2011). In Minnesota there are currently over 18,000 sex offenders and the general observation is that one out of eighteen of the offenders usually violate the registration requirements (Officer Forums, 2010). The penalties given to violators are therefore well fetched because with the extent to the violations observed the general realization is that they pose a great danger to the public. Constitutional Challenges The registration requirements for sexual offenders require that they provide information with regard to their primary and secondary addresses. In the event that such information is disclosed, the observation is that it is not only the offenders who suffer from the privacy disclosure but the family of the offender and in other instances the information concerning the victim. Such disclosures give the notion that there is to some extent the violation of the privacy rights of individuals who did not commit the crime. Since there is usually a widespread public outrage towards sexually offenders, the public might sometimes extend the stigma to the family of the sex offender. In other instances the victim may also be stigmatized due to the disclosure that they were sexually offended. With the emergence of internet technology and the publication of information with regard to the sexual offender, the aspect of informing the public so that it can protect itself seems to have been overstepped. When information regarding a sexual offender is published over the internet the realization is that “it is no longer a community that knows about a specific offender, his address, and the particulars about his crime, but the entire world…” (Hodgson, 2008, p. 227). The federal government has also particularly criticized the methodologies used by most states in labeling sexual offenders as predators therefore requiring them to register for life. Such a case was observed in the state of Pennsylvania where the federal government refuted such as attempt as being “constitutionally repugnant” (Hodgson, 2008, p. 228). Such constitutionally challenges are also evident in the state of Minnesota. The determination of the level that an offender should be accorded is usually left to a group consisting of psychologists, criminal justices and lawyers of the victims. There is no assurance that the offender will be awarded the levels fairly because the process is determined by the consensus arrived at by the members of the group. Constitutional Concerns The constitutional concerns about the registration and/or publication of sexual offenders is that to some extent it secludes the offenders from communities, while at the same time denying them the right of integrating and associating with the communities effectively. The research by (Maddan, 2008) reveals that repeat offences occur mostly during the first three years. However, in Minnesota offenders are compelled to a registration period ranging from 10 years to life time. The general observation therefore is that most registration requirements are usually geared towards punishing the offender rather than protecting the public (Hodgson, 2008). Offenders who are usually released from custody are the one who have served their terms and according to state laws have been deemed fit to be granted parole. Therefore, when such victims are subjected further punishment it beats logic of the whole idea behind granting them parole. The perception is that the sexual offenders are being subjected to excess punishment which is in violation of their constitutional rights. Hodgson gives the example of a community where the authorities used the registration information to organize sexual offenders within a particular neighborhood and therefore locked them out of the entire community. As much as such moves might be deemed as geared towards protecting communities, there is also the realization that some of them are excessive and unwarranted. In addition, the disclosure of the information concerning a sexual offender also places the offender’s life at risk of the public outrage that might result in injury of the offender. Conclusion The essence behind the sexual offenders’ registration and publication is to: prevent the offender from repeating the act, provide the public with enough information so that the public can protect itself from the offender and give the authorities enough information to track down the movements and activities of the offender. The primary codes that address the registration and publication of sex offender in most states include the Megan’s Law, Pam Lychner Law, and Tracking and Identification Act. The codes are meant to act as guidelines and states are at will to implement their own legislations with regard to registration of offenders. In Minnesota the provisions are found within the Minnesota Statute 243.166 and the Community Notification Act. These provision ensure that sexual offenders that have been granted probation or released or have been registered duly register with correction officers. The information the offenders are required to provide include both primary and secondary addresses, address of their place of employment and registration number, year and make of their vehicles. The registration and/or publication of sexual offenders have also raised constitutional concerns and challenges. Some of them include the infringement on the privacy rights of the offender, the offender’s family and the privacy rights of the victim. The constitutional challenges and concerns have been major issues in Minnesota. References Hodgson, J. F. (2008). Sexual Violence: Policies, Practices and Challenges in the United States. California: Greenwood. Maddan, S. (2008). The Labeling of Sex Offenders: The Unintended Consequences of the Best Intentioned Public Policies. New York: University Press of America. Minnesota Police Department. (2011). Sex Offender Community Notification. Retrieved January 3, 2011, from Minnesota Police Department: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/police/crime-prevention/sex-offender.asp Officer Forums. (2010). Non-Compliant Sex Offenders. Retrieved January 4, 20100, from Officer Forums: http://forums.officer.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-63119.html Zollar, J. (2003). Sex Offenders and Predatory Offenders: Minnesota Criminal and Civic Regulatory Laws. Minnesota House of Representatives Research Department . Retrieved January 3, 2011 from www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/sexofdr.pdf Read More