Negative Effects of Sex Offender Registry Policies (Coursework Sample)

Negative Effects of Sex Offender Registry Policies
Student’s Name:
Course Department:
Course Number and Name:
Instructor’s Name and Title:
Date:
Negative Effects of Sex Offender Registry Policies
Typically, there are several criminal acts more dreadful than sexual abuse. Whether violently attacked by the stranger or maybe preyed upon by the trusted adult at homes, schools, or any other place, victims who survive such abuse are frequently left to endure a lifelong way of sorrow, desperation, and a high degree of stigmatization (Chaffin, 2018). Regrettably, our American government has failed to adopt critical strategic plans that will significantly prevent sexual assault cases. Recently implemented laws such as Meghan's Policy, civil obligation legislation, the current trend in anti-sex offender laws, banishment zones, which limit sex offenders from living within certain geographical areas in the United States, all act toward the fears of the general public (Garfinkle, 2013). Therefore, in my opinion, considering a campaign to stop sex assaults, these particular legislations and measures do more harm than good to the sex offenders and victims.
Generally, the sex offender registry law was adopted for the sexual offenders who most often preyed on the children, which is according to the 1990s lawmakers (Sample & Kadleck, 2008). The primary purpose was supposed to be prevention but not punishment. Therefore, I have considered the following major factors to decide on my argument that sex predator’s registry policies do more harm than good to both sex offenders and the victim.
Firstly, people must understand that the realities of sexual assaults in American society today as most sexual crimes are conducted by the adults-family related members, friends, and church leaders. Unfortunately, they go unreported to the relevant authorities due to manipulating the sex victims, unconscionable decisions by other adults, or even both parties involved (Chaffin, 2018). Therefore, becoming the registered sex predator usually means that the general public has a right to know who you are and where you live. As required by the Federal laws, every American state should keep individual’s database residing in the country who have been convicted of sex assaults. All states put their databases online for the public to check (Sample & Kadleck, 2008). Hence, lack of privacy for these sex offender’s leads to collateral damages and even restrictions they experience beyond their official punishment in society.
Secondly, registry policies cause difficulty for sex offenders to find housing or get a job after completing their sentences. Usually, since sex offenders are still regarded as children predators, the American states ban generally them from living within certain geographical areas like schools, churches, homes, daycares, or other areas that children may gather (Tewksbury, 2015). These restrictions make it difficult for sex offenders to seek a job or housing in nearby places. These laws make it impossible for sexual predators to earn a living as well as adapt into the society.
Thirdly, the registry policies' primary purpose is to apply social stigma to support the legislation, which can usually lead to harassment. In my opinion, you do not require a sex offender registry to pass any of these federal policies, even though the registry promotes it. The registry was to provide parents the most appropriate approach they needed to support and protect their children in case any threat such as sexual assault, but the law could not be trusted to achieve such a plan (Chaffin, 2018). Generally, it is unlawful for individuals to apply sex predator registries for harassment but usually encouraged to apply them for social stigma. The line is always crossed as the recent survey indicated that about 45% of the sex offenders had been physically harassed. Some have also been harassed or threatened through phone calls or emails and messages by unknown people (Durling, 2016). Unluckily, other offenders also reported their family members had been harassed or threatened. Hence, the registry laws should not be applied to encourage sex offenders' stigmatization after completing their sentences.
Fourthly, it is evident that the registry does not conduct their duties effectively. Overall, the main question to answer is whether the benefits deserve the risks involved. The sex offender's intended use that the registry was offered was the proper protection of children, with little chances of sex offenders to attack and assault children sexually. Sadly, this responsibility has never been achieved. The proof of the registry's capability to prevent sexual abuse is still a long way to go. The evidence that residential limitations avoid sexual assault is generally non-existent. Some registered sex offenders continue to commit another sexual abuse to either children or mentally ill individuals (Durling, 2016). Hence, restricting sex offenders from residing near children, for example, does not stop recidivists from assaulting children sexually in American society. Therefore, I can bravely conclude that sex predators’ registries do not effectively prevent sex crimes, but they punish the offenders physically and mentally.
Finally, the sex offender's registry puts the trouble on everybody else to protect their children from sex offenders. More significantly, the way people think and view sex offenders or rapists differs from how people viewed child assault twenty years ago. Sexual criminals’ registries were supposed to be essential since sex offenders could not be prevented or even rehabilitated (Tewksbury, 2015). Therefore, the most appropriate way to stop sexual predation on children involves the parents managing their behaviors and their children to ensure that they stay protected fully from any harm. I think this is precisely the thinking that anti-rape and sexual assault activists have been advocating for on behalf of the victims in various human rights platforms. Th