Temperment and Society

“Out of 747,408 Registered Sex Offenders, How Many Are Actually Dangerous?”

Allen avers that “these registries are especially important because of the high risk of re-offense by some of these offenders” (emphasis added).  As I note in [this July 2011] Reason piece, recidivism rates for sex offenders seem to have been greatly exaggerated. In any case, if protecting potential victims is the raison d’etre for the registries, shouldn’t they be limited to people who are likely to commit crimes against others?



From:  http://constitutionalfights.nibblebit.com/2009/03/

Crimes Against Children Research Center : Trends in Arrests of “Online Predators” (PDF file).
(Janis Wolak, David Finkelhor, Kimberly Mitchell)

Key Findings:
• Between 2000 and 2006, there was a 21% increase in arrests of offenders who solicited youth online for sex. During the same time, there was a 381% increase in arrests of offenders who solicited undercover investigators (UC) posing as youth.

• In 2006, of those arrested for soliciting online, 87% solicited undercover investigators (UC) and 13% solicited youth. (this can only indicate that undercover investigators were actively urging-on the solicitations)

• During the same period that online predator arrests were increasing, overall sex offenses against children and adolescents were declining, as were overall arrests for such crimes.

• Arrests of online predators in 2006 constituted about 1% of all arrests for sex crimes committed against children and youth.

• During the interval between the two studies (2000 ‐ 2006), the percentage of U.S. youth Internet users ages 12‐17 increased from 73% to 93%.1,2

• Although arrests of online predators are increasing, especially arrests for soliciting undercover law enforcement, the facts do not suggest that the Internet is facilitating an epidemic of sex crimes against youth. Rather, increasing arrests for online predation probably reflect increasing rates of youth Internet use, a migration of crime from offline to online venues, and the growth of law enforcement activity against online crimes.

• The nature of crimes in which online predators used the Internet to meet and victimize youth changed little between 2000 and 2006, despite the advent of social networking sites. Victims were adolescents, not younger children. Most offenders were open about their sexual motives in their online communications with youth. Few crimes (5%) involved violence.

• There was no evidence that online predators were stalking or abducting unsuspecting victims based on
information they posted at social networking sites.

• There was a significant increase in arrests of young adult offenders, ages 18 to 25. • Few of those arrested for online predation were registered sex offenders (4%).

Jefferson City, Mo. — The Missouri Senate has voted to require sex offenders convicted before 1995 to register with the state.

The state Supreme Court has ruled that the registry law does not apply to those people because the law took effect in 1995 and the state Constitution prohibits laws from being applied retrospectively.

Senators gave initial approval to a proposed constitutional change that would carve out an exemption for the registry law. The change would also retrospectively apply a prohibition on sex offenders living near schools and a requirement of felons to submit DNA samples.


One of the more disturbing provisions being considered by the Lege in adopting the Adam Walsh Act here in Connecticut:

(d) Any person who is a registered sexual offender under the laws of any other state who enters this state and fails to notify the Commissioner of Public Safety in writing not less than forty-eight hours prior to entering the state of the information required under this section or falsely reports such information shall be guilty of a class D felony.

Oh yes. There is nothing missing from that sentence. If you were looking (and correctly so) for a qualifying clause in that language that required an individual to establish a residence here before being subject to “registration” you didn’t find it because it’s not there. It’s in the proposed subsection (c).

Subsection (d), that I just quoted above, mandates that anyone entering the State, for whatever reason, notify Public Safety 48 hours in advance. This is so silly it’s scary. There are no exceptions for emergencies or unplanned trips or anything. At all.

So if you’re required to register in CA, and are driving through from Yankee Stadium to Fenway Park to see the Yankees play the Red Sox and you take I-95 or the Merritt or I-91 or I-84 (all of which pass through Connecticut), you have to call public safety.

Read text of Connecticut General Assembly Governor’s Bill No. 6384 bill here:
Sec. 5. Section 54-253



Here is a site that has been online for a while, you may find good information here:



Write a Reply or Comment

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTMLtags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>