Saturday, November 9, 2013

FL - Public Defender Says Putting Minors On Sex Offender Registry Increases Recidivism

Juvenile sex offenders
Original Article

10/09/2013

By RYAN BENK

House lawmakers Wednesday attempted to square the state’s sex offender laws with the prospect of what to do with juveniles who break them.

Fourth Circuit Public Defender Rob Mason argued before the subcommittee that trying minors in the adult justice system only makes it more likely that they will re-offend. What’s more, he claimed any children placed on sex offender registries become more likely, not less, to commit a similar crime again.

Research shows that the re-offense rate of children who commit sex offenses is extremely low. However, the harm done by forcing a child to register for life – a juvenile sex offender, is great,” Mason said.
- It's extremely low for adults as well.

Mason cited a recent Human Rights Watch study that showed children as young as twelve were registered as sex offenders in 20 states. Florida’s Department of Juvenile Justice is currently one of only three agencies that can recommend a person be placed in the state’s sexually violent predator program.


8 comments :

Mark said...

"Fregger replied, "You' 17!? Oh man, I thought u were like 21! Lol!" Yet another police genius. "He has paid a severe price," said Ezgar. "He has lost his job, his reputation and will be incarcerated like the criminals he used to investigate." What a shame - isn't it? Now Fregger will get a taste of what it will be like when he gets his "three hots and a cot."

Mark said...

“This is an awkward conversation to have with your kid, I know that, but it’s a conversation that needs to happen,” said SDPD Officer Jordan Wells." Just what the hell is so "awkward" about parents sitting down with their kids and discussing and laying down the law about "sexting?" OMG!

Mark said...

These type of messes have been handled before by my firm and you know what? Where are the nurses that are supposed to be PRESENT when particular exams are being performed? You would be surprised when even patients will not ask for an "objective" eye, and also if the doctor is wearing latex gloves! Theses are a legal messes because of the very thin line between an exam and sexual misconduct!!! Ladies, next time ask where the latex gloves are and request an objective eye for crying out loud!!!!

NJ45143112 said...

Are you kidding me?!
"He has paid a severe price..." but may not have to register as a sex offender if the judge is feeling generous...

Oh, the humanity!
6 months in prison?!
Take that you naughty, naughty boy!

Sex Offender Issues said...

We agree. Isn't it ironic that we always hear that police and others in positions of authority are "held to a higher standard" when the facts dispute that? The average citizen who did the same would get a lot more punishment, but the "Good Ole' Boys" get slapped on the wrist.

NJ45143112 said...

Ironic but now wholly unexpected...
They talk about him "having full knowledge of what he was doing and that it was illegal" but that sword seems to have 2 edges: the one that cuts him for his ignorance and the one that defends him from prosecution based on his position...
In Biblical terms, we may look to Paul as a great persecutor and then turning from his evil ways and becoming one of the greatest evangelists of all time. In the case of this guy, one would hope that the scales fell from his eyes and he got a first hand experience (as noted above) of what the other half sees. He won't have his position anymore but maybe, just maybe, his fall from grace could have a positive affect elsewhere or on others in his position that consider themselves superior...
The old adage that "power corrupts" will likely never go out of style...

Sex Offender Issues said...

Agreed

MS said...

If he solicited, received and possessed sexually explicit (nude) photos of a minor....why wasn't he charged with possession of child pornography? As a member of the sex crimes unit I'm sure he has served his share of search warrants to bust people for possession of CP (even if's a topless selfie) and this guy gets charged with distributing harmful matter to a minor? Seriously!??! If he received sexual photos from a minor...that's possession of child pornography and should have been charged with that. Nice!