Last year [2015], a judge convicted 19-year old Zachery Anderson of criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree. Law enforcement officers arrested him after having consensual sex with a 14-year old girl he met online. She led him to believe that she was 17-years old–one year past the age of consent in the state of Michigan. The girl and her family are impartial and take responsibility; they pushed for leniency. Despite this, the judge sentenced the college student to 90 days in jail, 5 years of probation, and required him to register as a sex offender for 25 years. Amanda Y. Agan at the University of Chicago defines a sex offender as an individual who engages or even attempts a sexual crime. Both sexual and non-sexual offenses constitute
…show more content…
Sex offender legislation has become a major topic of concern due to its conflicting disadvantages. The 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (AWA) mandates that convicted sexual offenders must register on a public database that notifies the community. The AWA violates the privacy of convicted sex offenders, has collateral consequences, and should be reassessed and reformed. The sex offender registry violates the privacy of the offender. Mary P. Brewster, professor of criminal justice at West Chester University, conducted a study on the content of these databases (706). These registries …show more content…
The database is immensely broad. To begin with, convicted offenders are branded as dangerous individuals for life. Demonstrated in Anderson’s case, the law requires convicted offenders to update their registration for up to 25 years. In addition, the database groups all convicted offenders into one, regardless of the severity of the offense and whether they pose a threat. Additionally, the registries are not always elaborate or accurate; they do not provide case transcripts or complex details. This hinders the public from distinguishing reintegrated, first-time, or wrongfully convicted offenders from recent offenders who pose a threat. For instance, there are a variety of circumstances that could place an individual on the registry, including urinating in public. This false representation subjects them to unwarranted discrimination and prejudice. Proponents argue that sex offender registries were created to protect and serve the public, with disregard to the offender. Although sexual offenders are criminals, it can be agreed that every individual deserves the right to equality. In addition, the prejudice towards convicted offenders is no different than prejudice regarding gender, race, sexuality, and disability. According to Catherine Wagner, 42% of sex offenders in Kentucky reported job loss due to registration. 31.6% to 45.3% of registered sex offenders in Florida,
Sex offender legislation has become a major topic of concern due to its conflicting disadvantages. The 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (AWA) mandates that convicted sexual offenders must register on a public database that notifies the community. The AWA violates the privacy of convicted sex offenders, has collateral consequences, and should be reassessed and reformed. The sex offender registry violates the privacy of the offender. Mary P. Brewster, professor of criminal justice at West Chester University, conducted a study on the content of these databases (706). These registries …show more content…
The database is immensely broad. To begin with, convicted offenders are branded as dangerous individuals for life. Demonstrated in Anderson’s case, the law requires convicted offenders to update their registration for up to 25 years. In addition, the database groups all convicted offenders into one, regardless of the severity of the offense and whether they pose a threat. Additionally, the registries are not always elaborate or accurate; they do not provide case transcripts or complex details. This hinders the public from distinguishing reintegrated, first-time, or wrongfully convicted offenders from recent offenders who pose a threat. For instance, there are a variety of circumstances that could place an individual on the registry, including urinating in public. This false representation subjects them to unwarranted discrimination and prejudice. Proponents argue that sex offender registries were created to protect and serve the public, with disregard to the offender. Although sexual offenders are criminals, it can be agreed that every individual deserves the right to equality. In addition, the prejudice towards convicted offenders is no different than prejudice regarding gender, race, sexuality, and disability. According to Catherine Wagner, 42% of sex offenders in Kentucky reported job loss due to registration. 31.6% to 45.3% of registered sex offenders in Florida,