There’s No Silver Bullet: Busting Myths about Sex Offender Laws

Article by Terrie Quinteros

"People want a silver bullet that will protect their children, [but] there is no silver bullet. There is no simple cure to the very complex problem of sexual violence." —Patty Wetterling, child safety advocate whose son was abducted in 1989 and remains missing

In the last decade there have been many new laws pertaining to people who commit sex offenses, including residency restrictions and new mandatory sentences. To the general public these may seem like a fine idea, but these laws are built on myths, hysteria and misconceptions. Worse, these laws shift resources away from preventing sexual abuse, supporting survivors, and creating community safety.

Some of the most unlikely but most passionate opponents to these laws have been sexual assault advocates from around the country, such as the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence (NAESV). The NAESV board of directors consists of leaders of state sexual assault coalitions and national law, policy, and tribal experts who promote public policy and advocate on behalf of the victim/survivors—women, children and men—who have needlessly suffered the serious trauma of sexual violence. Long-time advocates such as these work with tens of thousands of sexual assault survivors every year, providing immediate crisis intervention, advocacy, and long-term support.

To use an old saying, advocates are “in the trenches” with survivors. The National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, as part of their work for a world free from sexual violence, has spoken out against residency restrictions and mandatory sentences for people who commit sex offenses.

Why do advocates keep speaking out against residency restrictions and mandatory sentences for people who have committed sex offenses? People working to end sexual assault and sexual abuse recognize that if we do not understand why sexual assault occurs then we will not be able to stop it from continuing to happen. The root cause of sexual assault, they found, is the belief that some people are superior to others. When this belief is allowed to thrive, some people are seen as less worthy than others. In short, they are dehumanized. As long as anyone in our society is dehumanized, all violence, including sexual violence, will be possible.

The discussions that precede or follow these new laws often reveal that dehumanization is at their base. Mass public notification and online “sex offender registries” open to the general public have meant – for people convicted of sexual assault – public harassment, housing discrimination, physical assault, and in some cases, death by murder and suicide. Then, in turn, too many people respond to these concerns with apathy, because after all, “it’s just a sex offender.” That sort of indifference to the suffering of other people is dehumanization in action.

Advocates have pointed out that in addition to dehumanizing people, these new laws ignore most of what we know about when and where sexual violence occurs. Most sexual assaults occur in the home, and are committed by people known to the victim, whether the victim/survivor is a child or adult. Laws that focus on “stranger danger” are responding to the myths of sexual assault rather than the reality. By dispelling myths, we can stop wasting precious time and resources and focus our attention on supporting survivors and preventing future violence.

Myth: If convicted sex offenders can’t live in our community, we’ll be safer.

A number of states and locales are considering residency restrictions in which people who are convicted of sex offenses may not reside within a certain radius of schools, parks, skating rinks, certain neighborhoods, etc., and may not utilize resources such as group homes, homeless shelters and hurricane shelters. However, there is no evidence that these laws protect children.

In fact, states that have studied the issue carefully have found no relationship between sex offense recidivism and the persons’ proximity to schools or other places where children congregate. (For examples, read the Minnesota Department of Corrections’, “Level Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues, 2003 Report to the Legislature” or the Colorado Department of Public Safety’s “Report on Safety Issues Raised by Living Arrangements for and Location of Sex Offenders in the Community, 2004”).

Residency restrictions may actually decrease public safety. Iowa Department of Public Safety statistics show that the number of people convicted of committing a sex offense who are unaccounted for has doubled since a residency restriction law went into effect in June 2005 (Iowa Sex Offender Registry, data as of February 15, 2006). People who have committed a sex offense who continually move or become homeless as a result of residency restrictions are more difficult to supervise and monitor, thereby increasing the risk of re-offense. In addition, the establishment of sex offender residency laws is creating a domino effect: once a law is established in a community or state, the neighboring communities and states are considering similar laws so as to keep sex offenders from moving to their jurisdictions.

Fact: Research has shown that sex offenders with domestic stability (stable housing and social support) are less likely to commit new sex offenses compared to those offenders who lack such stability (Managing Sex Offenders in the Community: A National Overview, Lane Council of Governments, Eugene, Oregon, 2003).

Because residency requirements cause instability – which may increase the risk of re-offense – many people who want to prevent sexual assault oppose residency restrictions. That was one of the concerns about the residency restrictions adopted by the state of Georgia in 2006 which prohibited people convicted of sex offenses from living within 1,000 feet of anywhere children gather, including school bus stops. Just this November, the Georgia Supreme Court struck the new restrictions down, explaining, “It is apparent that there is no place in Georgia where a registered sex offender can live without being continually at risk of being ejected.”

Myth: Long prison sentences will prevent sexual assault and abuse.

Fact: Long mandatory sentences can have a number of negative consequences that serve to decrease, rather than increase, public safety.

These sentences can keep victims who were assaulted by someone they know from reporting the crime or getting any help at all. It can be very difficult for a victim/survivor when someone they know and possibly love assaults them. Along with anger, shame, and frustration they may also feel conflicted by a sense of obligation or loyalty to the person. These feelings of loyalty, obligation, and love may also extend out to other family members the survivor feels may be affected if they tell anyone.

Often survivors of any type of family violence don’t want anything bad to happen to the person, they want the abuse to stop and they want to heal from the assault. Long mandatory sentences may only deter a survivor from getting the help they deserve, if they believe the person hurting them could get a long prison sentence. Many survivors will choose not to report the crime at all in these circumstances.

When these policies silence victims, the result is society has less information about the prevalence of sexual assault. The less information we have about sexual assault, the less likely we are to help prevent someone from sexually assaulting someone else, and the less likely we are to help victims/survivors heal from sexual assault.

The recent passage of “Jessica’s Law” in Oregon is a clear example of what happens when myths about people who commit sex offenses drive policy. When “Jessica’s Law” was presented to Oregon’s Legislature in the spring of 2006, sexual assault survivors and advocates from across the state spoke out against the bill. The law sets mandatory sentences for some sexual assaults at 25 years. It also requires the state to supervise such offenders actively for 10 years after their sentences, and to track them for the rest of their lives. But people working “in the trenches” to stop child sexual abuse knew this was a bad law for Oregon’s children.

Fact: The majority of children who are sexually assaulted (estimated at 90%), are assaulted by someone they know and trust – a family member or friend of the family.

But this type of law perpetuates the myth of Stranger Danger, the misconception that strangers pose the most danger to adults and children. Long sentences are an easy, over-simplified, and expensive band-aid for a complex problem. They generally focus on stranger-to-stranger sexual assault, when we know that the overwhelming majority of victims/survivors will be assaulted by someone they know. Continually feeding adults and children myths and misconceptions puts people in harm’s way.

Myth: These long sentences hold offenders accountable.

Accountability cannot happen without the participation of the survivor. In their passage and in their practice, these laws leave out people who have been sexually assaulted. By focusing on punishment, which is expensive and in many cases dehumanizing, these policies draw focus and resources away from survivors. Advocates were worried about the tens of millions of dollars that would be needed to fund these prison beds – funds that could be going to prevention work or survivor services, or work for offender accountability.

In spite of passionate testimony from advocates and survivors of sexual abuse, the state legislature passed Oregon’s “Jessica’s Law” by an overwhelming majority.

Sexual assault is a complex problem, one that deserves careful analysis, thoughtful policies, and strong action – not knee-jerk reactions that make some people feel better while continuing to hurt the majority. The sexual assault movement knows that if we do not understand why sexual assault occurs then we will not be able to stop it from continuing to happen. By breaking through the myths that support residency requirements and mandatory sentences, we can stop spending millions of dollars on strategies that may actually increase the likelihood of violence. Instead we need to focus on supporting survivors, preventing future violence, and creating safer communities where no one experiences the horror of sexual assault.

This article originally appeared in the Fall 2007 issue of Justice Matters.