The Evidence-Based Case for Ending Sex Offender Registries

Sex offender registries promised to keep survivors and communities safe by limiting where people convicted of sex offenses can live, work, learn and volunteer. It requires them to publicly register where they reside and work. But studies show these laws fail to keep us safe, while they create an underclass of people who struggle to find a good job and safe place to live. Learn why registries have failed and the movement to end them.

Moderator: Josh Hoe, Policy Analyst for Safe & Just Michigan

Panelists:
Miriam Aukerman, Senior Staff Attorney ACLU of Michigan
Judith Levine, Journalist, Feminist & Co-Founder of the National Writers Union, Co-Author of “The Feminist and the Sex Offender: Confronting Sexual Harm, Ending State Violence
Vincent Schiraldi, Senior Research Scientist Columbia University School of Social Work

Related posts

One Thought to “The Evidence-Based Case for Ending Sex Offender Registries”

  1. Phil

    This was a very weak block / video post. They radically enacted the law and added to it as they saw fit with complete disregard to the evidence and truth.

    There are tons and tons of reports / research of which are generated year after year for the past 5 or 6 decades concerning sex and sexual offenses or offenses of a sexual nature.

    Why are we still arguing over the rules of the registry. We should ONLY be discussing the truth and EVIDENCE since our justice system relies solely on EVIDENCE.

    Do you need help in finding and reading these publications / research findings of which are published & paid for from our very own government resources.

    The registry is a Crime Against Humanity pure and simple:

    (Element 2 & 3) “attack” not limited to use of armed force
    Vasiljevic, (Trial Chamber), November 29, 2002, para. 29, 30: “In the context of a crime against humanity, the phrase ‘attack’ is not limited to the use of armed force; it also encompasses any mistreatment of the civilian population.”а See also Kunarac, Kovac and Vokovic, (Appeals Chamber), June 12, 2002, para. 86 (same).

    (Element 4) the attack must be “directed against any civilian population”
    Kunarac, Kovac and Vukovic, (Trial Chamber), February 22, 2001, para. 410: To show crimes against humanity, one element is there must be an attack “directed against any civilian population.”

    (Element 5) Systematic: Blaskic, (Trial Chamber), March 3, 2000, para. 203: “The systematic character refers to four elements which . . . may be expressed as follows:
    [1] the existence of a political objective, a plan pursuant to which the attack is perpetrated or an ideology, in the broad sense of the word, that is, to destroy, persecute or weaken a community;
    [2] the perpetration of a criminal act on a very large scale against a group of civilians or the repeated and continuous commission of inhumane acts linked to one another;
    [3] the preparation and use of significant public or private resources, whether military or other;
    [4] the implication of high-level political and/or military authorities in the definition and establishment of the methodical plan.”

Leave a Comment