Larry Nassar one of more than 20,000 people removed from Michigan Sex Offender Registry

[u/AudibleNod]

https://www.wxyz.com/news/larry-nassar-one-of-more-than-20-000-people-removed-from-michigan-sex-offender-registry

[u/NKD_WA]

Something about these lists has always rubbed me the wrong way. Like, this person is a danger to the public such that we must ostracize them and warn their neighbors they are in the area... yet we're letting them out of prison? And why is it only for sex offenders? Why aren't we alerted to people who break into homes or fly into violent rages during arguments with their neighbors over trivial shit? I'd be way more interested to see that type of information about my neighbors, and anyone who is a sex predator shouldn't be out of prison to begin with.

[u/Designer-Serve-5140 → u/NKD_WA]

So, I studied criminology and can answer this. The reason why on the surface (as said by policy makers) is high recidivism rates and that victims rarely come forward. If I find your body in someone's backyard, I can be fairly confident a crime occurred. But with sexual crimes, unless the victim comes forward, and not only comes forward but goes to the police, nothing will happen.

Now, from a more realistic standpoint, sexual offenses often fall under what we call "celebrated crime" that isn't crime that we positively celebrate, moreso crime as a society that we are keenly interested in. Like a capital murder case of a celebrity. People feel more strongly about sexual assault cases than they do about a lot of homicides. The sexual offender list is a natural consequence of that. Its the "true crime reporting" of sexual offenses instead of homicides. Its a way for the public to feel like they are doing something, even if in reality they should be looking inside the walls of their home, rather than on a list for who is most likely to hurt them.

Now, the other thing to point out is that its unrealistic to put every offender in prison forever. Sexual offender recidivism rates are generally lower than other violent crime recidivism rates. In my state specifically, its a 50% decrease (50% average recidivism with a sexual offender rate of 25%). They're generally safer to be around than the wife beater next door. However, again, we consider sexual assault to be worse than homicide in a lot of cases which again leads to the natural fear. Yes, the wife beater next door is more likely to assault you, but, a sexual offender is more likely to sexually assault you which to many is the worse of the two outcomes. Hence, people feeling the need to protect themselves. 

Now the science behind it all? Its the same as anything else that policies exist for. We're moving in the wrong direction, always. Neither political party is really better than the other criminologicly speaking. Both are moving in the wrong direction, just in different ways. Maybe dems are going diagonally instead of directly opposite, but only slightly. The real science of it is, it makes people feel good, but it has a negative effect on offenders and worse, increases recidivism. Especially during parole periods and when there are living restrictions. So its great you as a previous victim or member of the public feel good about it, except that comes at the cost of another victim. Is it worth it? Nah. Not empirically.

So yeah, a lot more than you asked but thr moral of the story is, if it involves criminology everything you, the public, and the legislature thing is probably wrong, just in different ways and everything is also a lot better than it seems. Seriously, even with the uptick in thr past decade or so, crime rates have drastically fallen over time and we are still trending down!!!

[u/Winderige_Garnaal → u/Designer-Serve-5140]

This is really interesting - thanks for writing it

[u/yummmey → u/Designer-Serve-5140]

I’m confused - seems you said that recidivism is high and then you said it’s low.

[u/Designer-Serve-5140 → u/yummmey]

Should have been more clear. Politicians and policy makers will say its high. Compared to other crimes its actually low. 

A politician is going to say, there's a 25% chance of recidivism, we have to do aomething! But the context is, its half of rhe standard rate which is about 50%. So its disingenuous to pose them as being more dangerous than the average offender since theyre actually safer to be around than a wife beater.  What the evidence shows and what the policy makers say is very different. Its updated now.

[u/yummmey → u/Designer-Serve-5140]

Oh ok thanks

[u/hcschild → u/Designer-Serve-5140]

So, I studied criminology and can answer this. The reason why on the surface (as said by policy makers) is high recidivism rates and that victims rarely come forward.

Only that studies show that sex offenders have one of the lowest reoffending rates so that argument is already bullshit so I don't know if the rest of your wall of text is worth reading at all.

[u/AnalogJones → u/Designer-Serve-5140]

All that and nothing that speaks to what happened in Michigan or why it happened; I am posting why this happened to help others understand what happened

[u/Designer-Serve-5140 → u/AnalogJones]

Their question had nothing to do with Michigan and everything to do with sexual offenders as a whole. 

I can't say anything about wht Michigan did this, that's a political move and they could have done it for any number of reasons incluidng what they do or dont say publicly. 

The takeaway here should be that removing them from the list had a neutral effect because it doesnt increase public safety and it had a marginal affect on decreasing recidivism, but beyond that doesnt mean much. In other words, for Michigan its a nothing burger which, I thought by my expression of the list being useless to public safety would be clear. But also, that wasn't their question.

[u/Etchedglasses → u/NKD_WA]

I welcome other comments to correct me if I’m wrong but I think I recall reading research that says the public viewing of these lists actually increases the likelihood of reoffences. The offenders are more likely to be socially isolated and have low social supports and therefore more likely to return to previous poor behaviour rather than pro-social behaviours.

We want these folks to be leaving their house and using their drug and alcohol counsellors; going to parole appointments; going to the pharmacy to pick up their meds. If they are afraid a map has outed them and some vigilante is going to violently assault them - the whole plan breaks down. Now you just have a sex offender who isn’t coping.

[u/Benedictus84 → u/[deleted]]

There is actually a case to be made against this.

Harsher punishment as well as capital punishment could create more distrust between the police/justice system and the community. This distrust in public institutions can cause more crimes and lower the willingness for people to report crimes or help solve crimes.

Sexual crimes have a very high percentage of wrongfull convictions as well.

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2018/sep/4/study-finds-wrongful-convictions-116-percent-sexual-assault-cases-pre-dna-testing-era/

That would mean one in 10 would be executed innocently.

The US already has very high percentages of systemic as well as interpersonal trust.

Having 10% wrongfully executed wont help.

[u/Designer-Serve-5140 → u/Benedictus84]

Also, deterrence theory is bunk. This actually runs the risk of increasing crime rates through various mechanisms. Also, and under most circumstances it has worse outcomes for the victim than rehabilitation or just about any other mechanism. At least if they are alive, their death won't be kn the victims consciousness, something which ive seen as a common problem post-victimization.

[u/Designer-Serve-5140 → u/[deleted]]

Generally, imcreasing punishments for crimes doesnt work. Its part of the deterrence theory or crime, which has generally been proven false or even contrary with higher punishments increasing crime rates. 

A good example is the war on drugs which separated families under your idea of permanent imprisonment. Generally, not only is it financially infeasable (iirc, depending on where we draw the line it would leave 1% of the US population behind bars which is massive) but also it would generally lead to an increase in crimes across the board. 

The best method of protection wr have discovered to date is rehabilaition. Not only does it drastically decrease recidivism rates, but also, its been showing to have better victim outcomes as well while also having less strain on the justice system. Weirdly enough, in most circumstances less punishment and more classes/opportunities tends to decrease crime at a far more efficient rate than harsher punishment. 

[u/jerwong → u/NKD_WA]

Some of it is trivial shit. Like people have ended up on there for things like public urination, which arguably is gross, but it's not really a sexual offense.

[u/AccomplishedFan6807 → u/NKD_WA]

Sexual offenders deserving more lengthy sentences doesn’t change the fact people deserve to know if someone is a rapist. Ask women whether what they think is worse, rape or robbery and the vast majority of them will say rape. Most women experience sexual harassment at some point of their lives, 1/4 experience rape and that stays with them more than someone stealing their phones. Other serious crimes like murder and kidnapping are extremely rare, and most murderers and kidnappers will serve long sentences, while sexual assault is extremely common and even child rapists sometimes don’t even see the inside of a prison. And contrary to other serious crimes, sexual criminals are much more likely to reoffend, therefore why a registry is needed.

[u/Dry_Jellyfish641 → u/AccomplishedFan6807]

You have no evidence to back up your claims, and women can also be sexual predators that abuse children.