Teens and sex: When laws don't keep up with reality

10-9-16 National:

An 11-year-old girl in Michigan streaking in front of her brothers was charged with a sex crime.

A 14-year-old boy in Minnesota was charged with distributing child pornography after sending a photo of his genitals to a female classmate.

Another 14-year-old boy in South Dakota was charged with rape after getting his 13-year-old girlfriend pregnant.

These are all cases that have been worked on by Nicole Pittman, vice president and director of the Center on Youth Registration Reform in California.

She said that in many cases like these, laws that were meant to stop adults from harming children are being used to punish children for what is often normal child sexual behavior and exploration that would be better handled through counseling and education.

In the case of the Minnesota boy, Pittman said the only photo that he sent was of his own genitals.

“In theory, he is the victim, the subject of the child pornography, and the distributor,” she said. “These are very much exploratory, child-like behaviors. When we apply (adult laws) to children, it just doesn’t work, and it really does a lot more harm than good.”

Not only are these children charged with crimes, they are often put on sex offender registries that can follow them the rest of their lives. In Michigan, minors can only be put on the Michigan Sex Offender Registry if they were waived into adult court.

Benton Harbor lawyer Elizabeth McCree, who has handled juvenile cases in multiple states, agrees that applying adult laws to minors often doesn’t work.

“The laws are there for a reason,” she said. “If a 19-year-old guy sexually assaults someone on a college campus, that’s a clear case of sexual assault.”

But, if it’s a consensual relationship between two minors, she said education may be more appropriate.

She said children today grew up with electronics and don’t see sending photos as a big deal.

“They share everything about their lives on social media,” she said. “They don’t know it’s illegal, and they don’t think it’s wrong. If they don’t think it’s wrong, they’re not going to stop.”

That’s where education comes in. But, she said not all schools are educating students about the dangers of sending or receiving nude photos or of having sexual contact with other students.

She said the education needs to start in elementary school.

“Kids are getting introduced to this at much younger ages,” McCree said. “High school is too late. (Parents) need to talk to their children about this. They can’t expect the schools to do it.

Long-range costs

Pittman said putting youth on sex offender registries costs the country $3 billion annually in government costs and lost income.

“We are working with conservatives and survivor advocates to repeal youth registration laws, re-appropriate these resources and redirect them toward solutions that work to prevent sexual harm,” she said.

Even if a child isn’t put on a sex offender registry, she said the adult court system is harmful and costly. She said studies have shown that youth respond very well to education and counseling. She said 99 percent of minors who perform a sexual crime never do another sexual crime.

Pittman said she interviewed more than 500 people across the nation, including in Michigan, who were put on sexual offender registries as children. Based on her research, she wrote the 2013 report, “Raised on the Registry: The Irreparable Harm of Placing Children on Sex Offender Registries in the US” for Human Rights Watch.

She said children as young as 8 were placed on the Michigan Sex Offender Registry before the law was changed in 2011.

Berrien County Prosecutor Michael Sepic said that under today’s laws, minors under 14 who commit a sex crime do not have to register. He said minors 14-16 convicted of criminal sexual conduct in juvenile court have to register, but it is a non-public registry for law enforcement only. He said minors 14-16 who are waived into adult court face the same consequences as adults, including being put on the public registry. In Michigan, 17-year-old teens are automatically tried in adult court.

Violence versus normal behavior

Pittman said the laws often don’t differentiate between sexual violence and normal child sexual behavior.

“Unfortunately, we just really don’t have a handle on, in our society, what we call sexual violence,” she said. “When we put it into the child context, we’re really hurting a whole lot of kids.”

She said Minnesota was the first state to start a sex offender registry in the 1990s.

“It was a law-enforcement-only tool to identify people who have preyed on children and are considered dangerous,” she said.

But, as time went on, she said more and more people were put on the registry who are not considered violent. In addition, the registry was made public.

“Now, today, there are 875,000 people that are on registries,” she said. “It is not at all a useful tool. It is more of a data base. In many ways, it’s doing more harm than good.”

She said it is estimated that 200,000 of the people on sex offender registries were placed there while under 18. She said people on the registry can’t live near schools or parks. She said they have a harder time getting jobs.

Registry unconstitutional?



Pittman said the way Michigan treats people of all ages on its sex offender registry may be changing because of an August ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit that found the Michigan Sex Offender Registration Act is unconstitutional .

“It said that registration and that form of restriction after prison is punishment, and that was based just on looking at adults,” she said. “It will be a very interesting discussion when we talk about children that aren’t even convicted.”

She said part of the problem is child sexual behavior hasn’t been studied since the 1960s. Pittman said the courts are still using that information to decide what is normal child behavior.

“Behavior among children is changing left and right, especially with electronics,” she said. “The fact that we’re charging children with distribution, manufacturing of child pornography, sending pictures of themselves to their peers. We really need to get a handle on how we’re looking at and how we’re labeling our child sexual behavior.”

She said the country needs to reconsider how it handles child-on-child sexual harm cases. She said the courts label one side the victims and puts them through the whole legal process often for normal child behavior.

“In many cases, where someone is convicted of causing sexual harm in their family, the family can never live together, again,” she said. ..Source.. by LOUISE WREGE - HP Staff Writer

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Keep Kids Off the Sex Offender Registry

10-7-15 National:

It’s time to rethink the wisdom of including juveniles on sex offender registries. There is abundant evidence—reviewed in a new paper from my organization (That article is nested below this one here) —that the social costs far outweigh the benefits.

Starting in the early 1990s, all 50 states and the federal government began setting up public sex offender registries. Today, 40 of them include people adjudicated juvenile delinquent. People on registries face any number of challenges, including severe restrictions dictating where they can live, where they can work, and whom they have to inform.

The social benefits of the registration process, to the extent that they exist, are mainly limited to a small deterrent effect, estimated to be about a one-eighth reduction in sex offense recidivism among those who committed offenses as juveniles. But scholar Richard Belzer, who conducted our study, finds the net social costs are between $40 million and $1 billion a year.

When it comes to notification laws, the evidence is even starker. There are no identifiable social benefits to applying notification laws to those who committed offenses as juveniles, while the social costs range from $400 million to $2 billion per year.

Registration and notification laws are meant to protect the people who live in the same community as the registered offender. But ironically, Belzer found these are the people who bear the brunt of the cost of these laws. When it comes to notification laws, neighbors are actually saddled with three-quarters of the social costs. Property values and rental rates go down, schools must shoulder greater responsibilities, and businesses suffer.

For some recidivist pedophiles, these restrictions may make sense. But they’re not sensible for those tried in juvenile court. While there certainly are teenagers who commit real sex crimes, they’re probably a minority of those who end up on registries. Many are teens who were found to have had consensual sex with other teens. Others end up on registries for minor misdeeds like streaking or exchanging nude selfies, leading to charges of child pornography.

We aren’t suggesting that registration laws be done away with altogether. But there are steps we can take from an economic efficiency perspective to lower the social costs incurred.

Ideally, we should exempt juveniles from the registry laws altogether. In addition, we should retroactively remove registrants from the list who committed crimes that would not have landed them on there today. It’s important to note that many jurisdictions already take extensive steps to keep juveniles off the registry. Those who were listed before these more relaxed policies were implemented should see the same consideration today.

Finally, even if states feel they must continue juvenile registration, judges should at least consider granting stays of notification pending future good conduct. Recidivism rates for juvenile sex offenders are so low that they’re statistically indistinguishable from zero in many cases. Stays of notification would be cheap, easy, and require no changes in most state laws.

The juvenile justice system is based on second chances. In theory, its sanctions are supposed to be levied in the best interests of the accused. Requiring lifelong registration for juvenile offenders is economically inefficient. In addition, it undermines the ideals of forgiveness, second chances, and rehabilitation that are supposed to sit at the heart of juvenile justice. ..Source.. by Eli Lehrer

Nested article is below
The costs and benefits of subjecting juveniles to sex-offender registration and notification (The FULL REPORT)

Every state and territory in the United States has registration and notification laws that apply to adults convicted of, and juveniles adjudicated delinquent for, certain sex offenses. Most jurisdictions enacted these laws on their own, but expanded them in response to the Adam Walsh Act of 2006 (AWA).

Registration laws require offenders to appear in person to provide identifying information (e.g., fingerprints, DNA samples) and, at least once a year, to provide an updated current photograph. States vary with respect to the kinds of additional information they require, but the list is extensive. An in-person update also is required for any covered change in life circumstances. These include changes in residential, school, work or email addresses, screen names and even blog avatars.

The time allowed to complete each update is short. Failure to register or update an existing registration is itself a felony. Offenders may be covered by multiple states, each with its own rules and procedures. Notification laws make some of this information publicly available via the Internet.

Registration is calculated to produce about $200 million in social benefits per year. Social costs are calculated to range from $200 million to $2 billion, depending on the proportion of registrants listed due to offenses committed as juveniles. Thus, net benefits are calculated to range from -$40 million to -$1 billion per year, with present-value net benefits that range from -$2 billion to -$20 billion. This result depends on a small number of parameters. First, based on the best available study in the literature, which applies to all sex offenders and not just juveniles, registration is assumed to have reduced sex-offense recidivism by about one-eighth. This translates into an annual reduction of about 800 major sex offenses committed by juveniles.

Notification is estimated to produce no social benefits, with social costs per-year that range from $10 billion to $40 billion and present-value costs that range from -$100 billion to -$600 billion. About three-fourths of these costs are borne by sex offenders’ neighbors. This occurs because living near a registered sex offender – whether an adult or juvenile – has a substantial “disamenity” value. Costs imposed on juvenile offenders are calculated to range from $400 million to $2 billion per year. Costs on their families are calculated to add another 50 percent to these amounts. Additional costs on third parties are calculated as: $3 billion per year on employers for registry searches; $100-$500 million on employers for adaption and mitigation of employment issues; and $200 million to $1 billion on the public for registry searches.

Because notification cannot produce net benefits, the qualitative prospective benefit-cost analysis focuses on ways to reduce the social costs of notification. A number of reform alternatives warrant consideration to reduce the substantial net social costs of notification. These alternatives involve exempting certain fractions of registrants listed due to offenses committed as juveniles. High-quality risk assessment is necessary to minimize false positives. by Richard B. Belzer

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Missouri Supreme Court weighing adult sex offender registration for youth

See also: Missouri Supreme Court considers child sex registry case --and-- Missouri’s juvenile sex offender registry is challenged as unconstitutional

9-30-15 Missouri:

JEFFERSON CITY • The Missouri Supreme Court heard a case Wednesday that could have wide-ranging effect on children accused of serious sexual crimes.

The case involves a troubled, developmentally delayed 14-year-old St. Louis boy accused of sexually assaulting his 41-year-old adoptive sister. But it also could challenge the state’s little-known juvenile sex offender registry, and the juvenile court’s ability to place children on the adult registry.

The registry, unlike the adult version, is not public and is maintained by county juvenile offices. Certain individuals on this list no longer have to register when they turn 21. State law requires juveniles age 14 and older convicted of certain very serious crimes to register on the adult list.

Hundreds of juveniles have been adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court of serious sexual crimes that could qualify them for inclusion on the adult list. An adjudication of delinquency is akin to a conviction in adult court.

The teen, identified only by initials, was not certified to stand trial as an adult, but was adjudicated delinquent in August 2014 of a charge of attempted rape in the first degree after an assessment found him competent to proceed in court.

The teen was ordered to register on the juvenile sex offender list. But Patricia Harrison, who represented the teen Wednesday, said he would eventually have to register as an adult under state law because of his age and the nature of his crime. Harrison is a professor and director of the St. Louis University Law School Children and Youth Advocacy Clinic.

If the teen was one day stopped by police and they saw he had an adjudication for attempted rape but was not on the adult registry, Harrison said, he could be charged with a felony.

He “was 14 and adjudicated of attempted rape in the first degree, (so) the statute requires he be placed on that (adult) registry regardless of whether the juvenile judge felt that was appropriate,” Harrison said.

Forcing a teen to register as a sex offender for life violates both the Missouri and U.S. Constitutions, Harrison said, by imposing an adult penalty in a juvenile case, imposing cruel and unusual punishment and removing the juvenile court judge’s discretion.

But Assistant Attorney General Matthew Laudano said the teen was not ordered to register as an adult. Juvenile court judges cannot order him onto the adult list.

The state did not appeal the juvenile court judge’s decision to only require the teen to register on the juvenile registry, but Laudano said the attorney general’s office believes the teen’s crime likely falls under the category that could land him on the adult list.

The teen choked, beat and sexually assaulted his 41-year-old adoptive sister in 2014, according to court files. She is several inches shorter and substantially lighter than the teen.

Through tears in juvenile court, the woman said that it was as if her attacker “was a different person” and “didn’t have a soul that day,” court filings say.

To say that the teen had a troubled youth is an understatement, according to his lawyers’ court filing.

He was exposed to crack cocaine before birth, and was placed in foster care at 10 months. At age 1, tests showed elevated levels of lead in his blood, which can lead to neurological damage, behavioral problems and developmental delays. He was adopted by a woman who was thought to be his grandmother, although it later turned out she was not. He had limited contact with his father, who is currently in prison.

Although he never acted out sexually before the rape, he had been suspended twice from preschool by the age of 4 for “acting in a threatening manner and ‘punching holes in the wall,’” his lawyers’ filing says.

By the eighth grade, he had been in five different schools.

He has a range of developmental delays, an IQ of 61 and a series of diagnoses of mental disorders including ADHD, bipolar disorder and schizoaffective disorder.

In December 2013, his adoptive mother refused to pick him up from the hospital, and he was returned to foster care. He also needed mental health treatment that his adoptive mother could not provide.

The rape allegation was lodged in March 2014.

He was committed to the Division of Youth Services and ordered to register on the juvenile sex offender list and undergo therapy and treatment. There was a “great” possibility that he could victimize others if housed with them, court filings say.

The judge did not rule on a claim that the registry requirement in the law was unconstitutional for juveniles.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of itself and the Children’s Law Center Inc., made the same cruel-and-unusual punishment argument, saying that courts have long recognized that children “are both less culpable for their crimes and more capable of reform.”

The Supreme Court is not expected to rule on the case for weeks. ..Source.. by Robert Patrick, Alex Stuckey

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

“A Senseless Policy”

9-5-15 National:

Over at the Weekly Standard, Eli Lehrer, President of the R Street Institute and a Right on Crime signatory, has a new column up challenging the current practice of placing juveniles on sex-offender registries, which can often have long-term, adverse effects well into adulthood:

“At age 10, Maya R. did something that would disturb just about anyone: “Me and my step-brothers, who were ages 8 and 5, ‘flashed’ each other and play-acted sex while fully clothed,” she told Human Rights Watch researcher Nicole Pittman. After copping to the incident in juvenile court, Maya’s punishment was an 18-month sentence in a detention center, mandatory counseling, and a quarter-century of registration as a sex offender.

“Maya’s mistake had significant consequences for her life. With her name on a sex-offender registry, she faced harassment in college and ultimately dropped out. Facing huge barriers to finding housing, she spent 90 days in a homeless shelter. She fell into a deep depression. Despite a clean adult record and a life that eventually got on the right track—she did missionary work, married, and now has a child of her own—Maya can’t escape the “sex offender” label. She and thousands of others like her continue to be punished for mistakes they made as children.”

That last sentence captures a central point of Lehrer’s general theme: should youthful indiscretions—frequently marked by a lack of judgement gained through age and experience—cast a substantial legal pall over people, following them into later years?

While Lehrer acknowledges that, in general, sex-offender registries are “certainly popular”—indicated by overwhelming support for their creation in states that consider them—what isn’t clear, as Lehrer explains, is whether the public derives any benefit by way of increased safety in extending registration to juvenile offenders:

“There’s little evidence that youthful sex offenders remain a public danger. The largest meta-analysis shows that only about 7 percent of youthful sex offenders are ever convicted of another offense. Some studies have found reoffense rates as low as 1 percent. By comparison, 40 percent of adults convicted of serious crimes reoffend.”

Given such low recidivism rates for juveniles, the argument for keeping tabs on young offenders for years on end, even into adulthood—which, ostensibly, is to maintain public safety—is harder to justify. There may be cases that do, in fact, pose genuine risks to society, however, as Lehrer states, “prosecutors can avail themselves of the opportunity to file adult charges” as individual circumstances dictate.

Beyond this far lower likelihood that juvenile offenders will go on to recidivate, other factors merit consideration as well, according to Lehrer, including the fact that long term monitoring “wastes resources” that law enforcement and other relevant actors can dedicate to targeting “those who pose real dangers to society.”

To address these concerns, Lehrer suggests that federal incentives that encourage states to comply with federal classification of sex offenses—which include juveniles—ought to be eliminated. Additionally, states should “rejigger their registry laws,” says Lehrer, recognizing that while teenagers may need “counseling, punishments from their parents, and admonitions from other adults,” it shouldn’t be common practice to levy criminal sanctions against them.

Given the sensitive nature of this area of policy, it’s worthwhile to acknowledge that reforms to such registries are likely to engender resistance—especially in light of their popular support. As always, protecting victims of crime is of primary concern. However, as with other areas of the criminal justice system, we should also be prepared to examine instances where the pendulum has perhaps swung too far, in the interest of reducing the likelihood, as Lehrer concludes, of doing “little good and much harm.” ..Source.. by Michael Haugen

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...