What Everyone Should Know About Sex Offenders

When a person is convicted of a sex offense, we are expected to be able to rely on the courts to have been accurate and fair in their prosecution of the charges. What the final ruling of the court is, that is what we the public are expected to believe. It is common knowledge that some innocent people are charged from time to time and even convicted for many years before their innocence comes to light. Sometimes they never have the chance to prove their innocence. This is the case when a person is compelled to enter a guilty plea when they are not guilty of anything. The admonishments of the court are such as to prevent the offender from pursuing relief after entering a guilty plea. This leaves prosecutors with a very powerful advantage of being able to create ways to compel the pretrial detainee to enter into a plea agreement. These tactics are inclusive of threatening witnesses over the telephone where it can not be proven or using the persons children or other family members in a threatening manner to relate that if they do not enter a plea agreement one or more family members will be brought in for questioning on anything the prosecutor wishes to concoct. They let it be known that there will be indictments sought on other charges either against a family member or the detainee. At this point the court appointed attorney will instruct that they can not fight all of these indictments and that a plea is the best course of action. It is a concerted effort to keep the case from going to trial when they have little or no evidence. This is done as the public demands that we prosecute sex offenses by whatever means necessary.

When innocent people are railroaded into the system, it creates a number of problems for the public. Besides the obvious cost to prosecute and confine these people, one of the other problems created include the clouding of the sex offender registry. When the sex offender registry is clouded with persons who were innocent, it has the public looking at them when their sights need to be on the real offenders. The sheer numbers in the registry cause the public to become sensitized and overwhelmed because you don’t know which ones are real and which ones are not. Looking at those numbers it is reasonable to conclude that not all of them did what they were convicted of. With so many of them assigned a risk level of 5, meaning that they are very likely to re-offend, it is obvious that these risks were assigned to the innocent as well. Which evidences a serious flaw in the assignment of this risk factor by the risk management team.

Another problem created by the merciless railroading of people who happen to get in a situation to be accused is one which targets even more innocent people. The family of the wrongfully accused suffers beyond comprehension. The children suffer loss of support and loving contact, as well as having to cope with the improper label placed on their parent. That parent then has the virtually impossible task of seeking employment in a job market that further punishes sex offenders by not hiring them. It is presumed acceptable that a few innocents be convicted in order that we get the guilty ones. But when one innocent is railroaded, you are affecting a rather large group of innocent people as their family suffers too. We wish to protect our citizens, but who protects them from this kind of prosecution which maliciously attacks without provocation or just cause in the sole interest of obtaining a conviction at all costs?

What the public needs to know is that among the many in the sex offender registry, there are innocent people who were convicted through less than fair circumstances. This can be dealt with in many ways to insure our safety. Any solution is inclusive of getting to know those who have been convicted. By observing their actions and knowing their routines we can see for ourselves where the threat lies. In getting to know these people we can see the circumstances by which they were convicted. It would be wise to get the innocent ones out of the registry so we can focus on the sex offenders that pose a potential threat in being left to their own devices. Once again I wish to emphasize the importance of public interest in these sex offenders in such a way so as not to shun them or drive them into seclusion. Those offenders who do have problems need to be recognized as individuals with a mental malady that is best kept under control with positive and consistent attention from an understanding public. Nobody likes the result of a sex offense. “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” This holds true in matters regarding the sex offender. Malicious persecution and scolding the offender upon their release from prison to let them know what a dirty rotten scoundrel the public thinks they are does nothing to effect a positive outcome. Driving them into seclusion and into someone else’s community does nothing to ensure the offenders successful reintegration with society. These negative actions only serve to exacerbate existing frustrations and emotional trauma which already plague most sex offenders. Responsibility for recidivism does not rest completely on the shoulders of the offender. The public shares in that responsibility as they now know this is a sex offender.

Fear should not be a governing factor in the treatment of sex offenders. Religion and politics should not become involved either. How a sex offender is received and treated by the public plays a major role in their ongoing therapy. The fact that some people who are innocent get caught up in the system should mandate understanding, but with caution. It is prudent to keep in mind that as long as there is an audience, the sex offender is not likely to perform.