{"id":662,"date":"2019-03-22T22:31:43","date_gmt":"2019-03-22T22:31:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hqnn.org\/hqpress\/2019\/03\/22\/2019322stranger-danger-reforming-connecticuts-sex-offender-registry\/"},"modified":"2020-09-05T19:34:53","modified_gmt":"2020-09-05T19:34:53","slug":"2019322stranger-danger-reforming-connecticuts-sex-offender-registry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hqnn.org\/hqpress\/2019\/03\/22\/2019322stranger-danger-reforming-connecticuts-sex-offender-registry\/","title":{"rendered":"Stranger danger?: Reforming Connecticut’s sex offender registry"},"content":{"rendered":"

There\u2019s a saying that it takes a village to raise a child, and in many ways it\u2019s true. Parents and guardians rely heavily on teachers, coaches and other caretakers to pick up the slack and provide a protective environment for their kids outside of the home.<\/p>\n

\n

Families depend on people like Laura Ramos and Christopher Merchant. Monday through Friday parents counted on Ramos, a young mother herself, to safeguard their students as a special education teacher at Central High School in Bridgeport. On the weekends, Merchant was trusted to instruct and encourage dozens of young athletes as the vice president of Plainfield\u2019s Little League baseball team. It\u2019s people like Ramos and Merchant, young professionals who have dedicated their careers to children, that bring parents peace of mind, give young people a role model and allow a community to thrive.<\/p>\n

\n

We can trust them, right?<\/p>\n

\n

In January, Ramos was sentenced to 10 years after pleading no-contest on two counts of second-degree sexual assault. Days later, Merchant was arrested after he allegedly used the internet to solicit sex from a 14-year-old boy. Child pornography was later found on his iPhone.<\/p>\n

\n

In addition to serving time, Ramos is also required to register as a sex offender. Should Merchant be found guilty, he\u2019ll do the same. But even as the Connecticut sex offender registry list grows longer, the assaults persist. Is the registry the solution to sexual violence or just an outdated system?<\/p>\n

\n

As controversy around the registry mounts and calls for its reform are made, the question remains: Is the registry today doing what it\u2019s intended to do?<\/p>\n

\n

Many would argue yes. Proponents of the registry assert that communities, and victims especially, deserve access to this kind of information in order to protect themselves, and that perpetrators surrendered their right the privacy the moment they committed their crime. Others disagree, arguing that the severe restrictions that come with being on the registry inhibit reintegration, rendering it counterproductive.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

The idea of a sexual registry as a legally mandated database dates back to the late 80s. In 1989, 11-year-old Jacob Wetterling was kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered in his small town of St. Joseph, Minn. Five years later, 7-year-old Megan Kanka was raped and murdered by her neighbor in New Jersey. These two heinous cases of violence against children are credited with sparking a national outrage that led to the passage of extensive legislation with the express purpose of penalizing individuals convicted of sex crimes.<\/p>\n

\n

The Jacob Wetterling Act of 1993 required any person convicted of a state offense against a minor to make their address known to law enforcement for 10 years after their release. Megan\u2019s Law, enacted just one year later, required that convicts not only make their personal information available to law enforcement, but that the community be notified as well.<\/p>\n

\n

“We respect people’s rights, but there is no right greater than a parent’s right to raise a child in safety.\u201d said then-President Clinton during a 1996 radio address. \u201cThat’s why the law should follow those who prey on America’s children wherever they go, state to state, town to town.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\n

This legislation was groundbreaking, as well as remarkably liberal in terms of expanding governmental power. The federal government was now able to deprive convicted sexual predators of their right to privacy, among other uniquely American prerogatives. The registry’s broad scope and invasive nature are at the center of why it\u2019s controversial today, but 20 years ago public opinion was overwhelmingly favorable.<\/p>\n

In 1998, The Washington Post profiled the Doyles, a young family in suburban Philadelphia. Each state was to decide for itself the manner and fashion in which to publicize a convict\u2019s information. Pennsylvania opted for an especially radical approach: sending Virginia Doyle\u2019s 6-year-old home from school with a \u201csex offender release notice\u201d in his backpack.<\/p>\n

\n

A long, careful discussion about Megan Kanka followed between the Doyles and their children that afternoon. \u201cI feel more comfortable, knowing they’ll be aware,\u201d Doyle said.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cSo much has changed since I was a child,\u201d a New Jersey mother told the Washington Post. \u201cYou never locked doors; now you lock every door. Maybe this is just something else we have to learn to live with.”<\/p>\n

\n

Widespread support for the registry was anticipated by lawmakers. During this period the media inundated audiences with startlingly high figures for recidivism. A fear of \u201cstranger danger\u201d was drilled into the minds of children across the nation. Parents were told to rest assured – the government was diligently compiling the names of all of these perverted individuals onto a neat list.<\/p>\n

\n

In the decades since the laws were first enacted, much of what was considered fact at the time has been debunked. Recidivism rates have been revealed to be generally lower for sexual offenses than other crimes, and we know now that strangers are often the least of our worries.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

\u201cI was a kid who grew up through this in the 80s when \u2018stranger danger\u2019 started, I heard the stories and watched the news.\u201d Beth Hamilton, associate director at the Connecticut Alliance to End Sexual Violence, said. \u201cIt\u2019s much easier to move through the world worrying about a stranger, instead of every single person you come in contact with.\u201d<\/p>\n

But that\u2019s just not reality, Hamilton argues. Among its many objectives, the Connecticut Alliance to End Sexual Violence, or simply the Alliance, seeks to change the common perception of who a sex offender is, especially among kids.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe go into classrooms and say \u2018close your eyes and imagine that a sex offender just walked through the door\u2019 and when we name the traits of this person, [kids say] \u2018white, overweight, drives a white van\u2019 and then we have conversations about why that mythology is so harmful,\u201d Hamilton explained.<\/p>\n

The registry has not evolved alongside our understanding of sex crimes and their perpetrators. The Connecticut registry, with its nearly 5,500 offenders, has remained largely stagnant in structure and function since its last major reform 1998. Across the state, many people are calling for a total overhaul.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\n

\u201cThe sex offender registry came about because of a heightened sense of stranger danger,\u201d attorney Christine Rapillo, chief public defender for Connecticut, said. \u201cAll it does is identify everybody. [It] doesn\u2019t determine how actually dangerous anybody is, it just puts every one of statutorily designated crimes on a list.\u201d<\/p>\n

Rapillo is a vocal critic of the registry as it exists today. She argues that not only does it lull people into a false sense of security, but it\u2019s actually counter-productive. The harsh sanctions imposed on registered sex offenders often leave them unemployed or homeless, impeding their reintegration.<\/p>\n

For many advocacy groups, reintegration is a primary concern, considered to be a key factor in preventing future instances of violence.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe really understand the impacts that sexual violence has on individuals…but we also have to think sensibly about the larger, system-based responses that we have,\u201d Hamilton said. \u201cWe fully support offenders having what they need to be reintegrated into society and successful. Ultimately what we know for offenders to be successful and not recidivate is access to support systems, jobs, safe and stable housing, education.\u201d<\/p>\n

Amanda Devan, a police sergeant with the Naugatuck police department, has dedicated much of her career to victim advocacy and the investigation of sex crimes. In addition to serving in law enforcement, Devan is also on the board of the victim advocacy nonprofit Jane Doe No More. She argues that the registry is not only theoretically flawed, but simply nonviable. She calls Connecticut\u2019s registry underfunded and ineffective. With only a handful of state officers assigned to the unit tasked with managing thousands of offenders, she argues, it\u2019s impossible to ensure compliance.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere\u2019s no way to track people. There\u2019s no checks and balances to ensure these people are living where they\u2019re supposed to,\u201d Devan said. \u201cGo ask Bridgeport how many people are noncompliant, go ask how many in New Haven, how many in Waterbury, in Hartford and New London. The police departments don\u2019t have the resources to do it and the state police are far understaffed to keep up with it.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

However, there are some that see value in a public, readily accessible registry and harsh penalties for convicts. Donna Palomba, founder of Jane Doe No More and herself a survivor of sexual violence, argues that these things are critical to avoiding revictimization.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cI do think that it\u2019s so important to keep the community safe from the core offenders of sexual violence,\u201d Palomba said.\u201cWe know that they repeat, and so it\u2019s important that we do everything we can.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Sandra Wilson, a criminal justice program manager at Post University and board member at Jane Doe No More, shares Palomba\u2019s sentiment.<\/p>\n

\u201cJust because you\u2019re on the registry that doesn\u2019t equate to you being a pedophile or a violent person\u2026[People who partake in sex in public or peeing in public] end up on the list too,\u201d Wilson said. \u201cSo I do think that reform may be necessary, but not abolition. Ultimately [it\u2019s] not perfect, but I do believe we have a moral obligation to keep our public safe.\u201d<\/p>\n

Few contest the notion that it\u2019s time for the registry to be reexamined. It\u2019s how this re-examination takes place and what any resulting reforms might entail, that\u2019s been hotly debated in recent years.<\/p>\n

In 2015, the Connecticut sentencing commission began to reexamine the state\u2019s treatment of sex offenders, questioning the \u201csystem of assessment, management, treatment, and sentencing.\u201d The commission proposed the development of a risk-based registry, which would be divided in two parts. The first would be a public registry divulging the names of those determined to be a risk to public safety. The second list, which would be available to law enforcement only, would include everyone else.<\/p>\n

The commission developed their proposal into a bill in 2017, but it failed to pass. Regardless, the commission continues its push for the registry\u2019s complete overhaul.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think it\u2019s very solid policy,\u201d said Rapillo, who serves on the commission’s board. \u201cIt doesn\u2019t at this point take people off the registry, but it does give people the opportunity to reintegrate back into society by making it less public, and I think that\u2019s an excellent first step.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\n

\n
\n

Nina Vazquez, Lucy Nolan, April Embelton and Beth Hamilton of the Alliance<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

Although the legislation being proposed by the commission has the full endorsement of the Alliance, the organization wants to be clear that it only supports registry reform that is rooted in \u201cvictim-based decisions.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI think the changes in the registry are good. But we don\u2019t want to go back in time, we only want the changes to go forward\u2026.we don\u2019t want people already on the registry asking to be taken off or moved to the law enforcement only registry, we don\u2019t want to let victims down,\u201d Lucy Nolan, director of policy and public relations with the Alliance, said. \u201cAll of the legislation we work on is always about the victim.\u201d<\/p>\n

Although the Alliance and Jane Doe No More are alike in their dedication to serving victims, Palomba still favors a more conservative approach than the one the commission and its proponents are advocating.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere is a difference between a perpetrator who violates another person versus peeing in public or things that don\u2019t involve another person,\u201d Palomba said. \u201cBut that\u2019s a slippery slope, and I do think that registry serves a big purpose. We just need to do everything that we can to ensure the safety of our community and also to not re-victimize.\u201d<\/p>\n

For others, like Amanda Devan, the idea of implementing a risk-based registry is appalling.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat\u2019s a completely ludicrous idea, a sex offense is a sex offense,\u201d she said. \u201cIf you\u2019re on the registry you had to have done something that was enough of a crime to put you there. Ask a victim what a medium risk sex offender is\u2026 If I was a victim I would say absolutely not because what makes what happened to me any less affecting than what happened to somebody else?\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Many look back on the government\u2019s behavior during the mid-nineties as rash, short-sighted and even reactionary. The sex offender registry was conceived and adopted with such fervor that its potential limitations and effects were largely overlooked. As a result, we\u2019re left with the task of settling the registry’s inherent flaws, like the inept letter system.<\/p>\n

\n

In spite of debate and differing perspectives, there is one point on which all advocates agree; the vital role of education in both serving victims today and preventing sexual violence tomorrow.<\/p>\n

\n

These crimes continues to be heavily stigmatized, and some suggest that erasing the sense of shame commonly felt by victims is the first step in addressing the issue.<\/p>\n

\u201cEducation is required. We need to talk about the fact that over 70 percent of victims know their rapist, whether it be acquaintance rape, date rape or child sexual abuse,\u201d Palomba said. \u201cMost importantly we need to dispel the myth that the perpetrator is the creepy guy in the alley…but I think that comes with education not so much related to the registry.\u201d<\/p>\n

Hamilton of the Alliance agrees, saying that the importance of early, continuous education cannot be emphasized enough.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe believe education should start basically from birth and never end,\u201d Hamilton said. \u201cWe focus less on stranger danger and a lot more on consent, healthy boundaries, bodily autonomy. My 2-year-old right now can tell you \u2018my body, my choice.\u2019 Those are the kind of prevention models we want to have for our kids. We don\u2019t just want to say \u2018don\u2019t take the candy from the man in the van\u2019 because it\u2019s so unlikely that\u2019s going to be their experience.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIf we actually want to move towards keeping our children safe and having no new perpetrators of sexual violence, that\u2019s what you focus on.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\n

<\/p>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Our understanding of sexual violence and its perpetrators has evolved significantly in recent years, and yet sex crimes continue to be a major concern. Meanwhile, the structure and methods used by sex offender registry has remained stagnant since its inception over 25 years ago, causing many statewide to ask themselves: Is the registry today doing what it\u2019s intended to do? <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":86,"featured_media":663,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[66,142],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-662","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-capstone-projects","category-homepage"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hqnn.org\/hqpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/662","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hqnn.org\/hqpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hqnn.org\/hqpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hqnn.org\/hqpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/86"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hqnn.org\/hqpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=662"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/hqnn.org\/hqpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/662\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2221,"href":"https:\/\/hqnn.org\/hqpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/662\/revisions\/2221"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hqnn.org\/hqpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=662"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hqnn.org\/hqpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=662"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hqnn.org\/hqpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=662"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}