Photo by 503 Girl. via Flickr

Recently, the Georgia Supreme court upheld a ruling that places non-sex offenders on the sex offender registry. The ruling comes from a case where an 18-year-old man was convicted of briefly detaining a 17-year-old girl during a drug deal gone wrong. The man did not assault the girl (only one year his minor) sexually, did not molest little children, and (I’m guessing) has no pedophiliac tendencies.

But even though there is no evidence at all that this man convicted any type of sexual crime, the 2007 Adam Walsh Act provides that anyone convicted of unlawfully imprisoning a minor should be placed on the sex offender registry for life.

For me, placing non-sex offenders on a sex offender list all but renders the list completely useless. If the sex offender registry is meant to be used as a tool to keep families safe from dangerous predators, placing any old convict on it—simply for the sake of publically shaming them—only serves to create the mirage of impending doom around us and does nothing to keep us safe.

If the sex offender registry is to be use as a real tool to keep us safe, we need to kick off all the people who are not convicted sex offenders and not a danger to our children.

Kick off the drunk college student who urinated in public. Kick off the 18-year-old who slept with 16-year-old girlfriend. Kick off the teenage girl who stupidly sent nude pictures of herself to her boyfriend. They don’t pose a threat to us and never will. Keeping them on the list only makes the list less useful for the rest of us who actually want to keep our families and our children safe.

James Gunter is the editor of The Crime Map and the director of social media for CrimeReports.com.

Search your neighborhood crime map at CrimeReports.com

John Gardner is accused of killing Celsea King and suspected of killing Amber Dubois

John Gardner has been accused of the death of 17-year-old Chelsea King and suspected in the slaying of 14-year-old Amber Dubois, who disappeared early last year and whose body was recently recovered. What makes this case even more disturbing is that Gardner was a convicted sex offender who had already served a prison sentence for child molestation and imprisonment.

Inevitably, the question being posed by parents and community leaders is, “why is this man free?” From there, many want to create “tougher” laws to deal with these offenders ( as I wrote about last week in this post). The problem is that there are already numerous laws in place to deal with sex offenders like Megan’s Law and Jessica’s Law that both deal with keep sex offenders away from children. The problem lies in enforcing those laws.

To explain more about this problem, I’ve posted an excellent news report by NPR that covers community outcry and the problems with the current system. Take a couple minutes to listen to the report:

James Gunter is the editor of The Crime Map and the director of social media for CrimeReports.com.

Search your neighborhood crime map at CrimeReports.com

Yet again, we find ourselves faced with the gruesome killing of a young girl at the hands of a registered sex offender. 17-year-old Chelsea King, was recently raped and murdered at a San Diego park, and John Albert Gardner has been charged with the crime. Gardner has already been charged with the attempted rape of another young woman in the same park and was originally convicted of molesting a 13-year-old girl, ten years ago—the crime that put him is jail for almost 6 years and landed him on the sex offender registry.

In the aftermath of this most recent case, I have read and seen news stories that have called for better enforcement of sex offender laws. Even Chelsea’s family recently called for tougher laws against sex offenders.

It is at these times, after unspeakable events occur, that parents, community leaders, and politicians, cry out, demanding “more,” “tougher,” “stricter,” and “harder” laws concerning sex offenders. Politicians expand the definition of sex offender to include sexting teens and “Romeo and Juliet” romances and they pass laws to further isolate sex offenders and retard their recovery.

However, writing recently in the Press-Enterprise, Sarah Burge, wrote that

The public has unrealistic expectations about the ability of tools like Megan’s Law to prevent sex crimes—especially the rare cases such as Chelsea’s involving lethal attacks by strangers.

The simple fact of the matter is, says Franklin Zimring, a professor at the UC Berkeley School of Law, “There’s no way to create a zero-risk universe for this. That’s not merely hard, that’s impossible.”

Even if we enact harsher sentences for convicted sex offenders, 70% of sex offenses are committed by relatives or close friends, and as many as 90% of sex offenses are committed by first-time offenders—meaning that the offender has no prior sex offense that would have put them on a registry. The registry, although helpful in warning us when convicted sex offenders live nearby, also creates the false sense of security that potential sex offenders are not around us all the time.

The best way to protect our children is not through over-legislating an already bloated sex offender system. The best way to protect our children is through education and trust. We need to be better at teaching our children how to respond when PEOPLE THEY KNOW touch them inappropriately—including telling us about it. Predators succeed because they manipulate children into keeping quiet. We need to teach our children that they can talk to us about ANYTHING, even if it involves something they think is scary.

We cannot discount our children’s feelings and intuitions. Listen to them and build a relationship with your children where they feel comfortable talking with you about sexual issues and about things that make them feel uncomfortable.

In the end, we are never going to be able to prevent tragedies like Chelsea King’s murder 100% of the time. There will always be random acts of violence that disrupt our lives and take the lives of the most innocent in our society. But we can help make sure that the 90% of first-time offenders don’t have a chance to go undetected among us.

For more information on red flags for pedophiles see: Profile of a Pedophile

James Gunter is the editor of The Crime Map and the director of social media for CrimeReports.com.

Search your neighborhood crime map at CrimeReports.com

Parents often try and figure out what a pedophile looks like, what they think like, what they sound like, and more. But the truth of the matter is that they don’t look any different from anyone else.

I recently talked with George Feder, a regular contributor to this blog, about his experiences with child molesters in prison. He gave me this bit of information:

I’ve met, spoken with, and gone to church with child molesters, and I didn’t know it. That happened over 20 years ago while I was in prison doing my time for burglary. These guys used to seek the secure feeling of carrying bibles, working in the prison church and staying close to the Pastor. They’re scared because they realize that almost the entire prison population would gladly cut their collective throats if they could get away with it.

George is right—child molesters, pedophiles, child predators, and other sex offenders, are highly vilified (not just by the prison community), but one could be standing right next you and you wouldn’t know it.

Definition of a pedophile

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s actually define what we mean by “pedophile.” Technically, a pedophile is an adult or older teen who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children, generally under the age of 12 or 13. True pedophiles are generally not sexually attracted to people their own age. This is different from someone who may have abused a child, but otherwise has age-appropriate sexual desires. In fact, not all child molesters are pedophiles. And, by extension, not all sex offenders are pedophiles.

As such, pedophiles—specifically—exhibit some characteristic behaviors that are not necessarily common to other child molesters, child abusers, or other sex offenders.

Characteristics of a pedophile

• Generally male—but not always, there are female pedophiles
• Usually single and with few close friends in his or her age group, preferring the company of children over the company of adults
• He or she will often refer to children in pure or angelic terms describing them as innocent, heavenly, divine, and pure
  They have hobbies that are child-like, such as collecting popular toys, keeping reptiles, exotic pets, or building plane and car models—these hobbies may be used to groom a child into trusting the pedophile, looking up to the pedophile, and thinking he or she is “safe” when around the pedophile

The target child

Pedophiles often seek out shy, withdrawn, or handicapped children, or those children who come from troubled, abusive, or neglected homes. These children are specifically vulnerable to a pedophile’s advances because they may easily welcome the attention that a pedophile showers on them and, as such, may be hesitant to disclose abuse to other adults. A pedophile may groom these children by showering them with attention, gifts, and trips to desirable places like amusement parks, zoos, concerts, or the beach.

In some cases, children are so neglected or abused by others that they may even develop a relationship where they may seek out abuse in return for attention and may become emotionally attached to their abuser. And a pedophile can encourage this behavior through manipulation by guilt, fear, and love that will confuse the child to the point where they don’t know what to do other than what the abuser tells them.

But a pedophile’s manipulation goes far beyond the child he or she may be abusing. Many pedophiles lull a child’s parents or guardians into a false sense of security by appearing to be extremely nice or especially “sweet” with children.

Some red flags

• “John was so sweet with those children at the party last night, he was in the basement playing with the kids all night.”
• “Did you know John has a large collection of toy robots? It’s so cute that he tinkers with them all the time, and the kids just love to go over and play with them.”
• “John in the nicest man I’ve met in the long time. The other night he brought over a big cake for us—out of the blue—then offered to babysit the kids, so I could have a few hours to myself.”

These extremely nice gestures not only serve to mask abuse, but when abuse is uncovered, other adults or friends may feel bad about bringing the attention to police because “he’s such a nice man. And he promised never to do it again.”

Unfortunately, there is no cure for pedophilia. There are treatment programs that attempt to help pedophiles overcome their sexual preference for children and help them not act on those desires, but true pedophilia is not 100% curable.

Pedophiles are able to act out their fantasies on children because they have access and time. You can prevent your children from becoming victims by monitoring other adults’ behavior around your children and looking out for red flags.

(Special thanks to George Feder for providing information and the impetus for writing this article)

James Gunter is the editor of The Crime Map and the director of social media for CrimeReports.com.

Search your neighborhood crime map at CrimeReports.com

Their most recent and most highly-impactful tool is a documentary (done in an MTV-like style) that follows a couple of cases of teen sexting and how the teens involved experienced horrible repercussions for their actions—from extreme harassment and embarrassment to being registered as a sex offender.

I’ve posted the entire documentary below (in 4 parts, about 45 mins total).  Take a look at the videos or watch them with your teen. They could prove a good starting place for an open discussion about what is and is not appropriate in cyberspace.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

In Lacey, Wash., A 13-year-old girl and a 14-year-old boy are being charged with distributing child pornography, and—if convicted—will be required to register as sex offenders. The Seattle Times reports that the boy was engaged in a relationship with another 14-year-old girl, during which he obtained an explicit picture of her. After the two broke up, the boy sent the picture to the 13-year-old girl, who then distributed it to other classmates.

Thankfully, the victim is not being charged as a sex offender like other young girls have been charged in the past. From what I can surmise, the only difference between this and other cases is that, in this case, the subject of the explicit photo did not distribute it herself.

Sex Offenders? Really?

I agree that what the two teens being charged did a horrible and despicable thing by passing around an explicit photo of another girl taken in confidence, and I think they should be given very serious punishments. But I question whether they should be required to register as sex offenders. Sex offender registries should be reserved for those people among us who are considered a threat to our communities.

Putting criminals on sex offender registries is somewhat of a popular pastime for outraged communities and reactionary politicians looking for quick, popular legislation to pass. But what is the purpose of a registry? Is the purpose to inform the community about possible dangerous threats, or is it about shaming people who have made mistakes?

Warning or Shaming?

If the purpose is simply to shame people charged with a sexually-related crime, then it has no real benefit other than ostracizing members of the community, pushing them to the fringes, and punishing them well beyond their criminal sentence. But if the purpose is to keep community members informed about habitual predators who may pose a threat to families and children, then the registry can be extremely useful. If implemented properly, a sex offender registry it can point out the people in the community who we need to know about and take caution around.

I find it hard to believe that these two young people pose any threat to my family and my children. Once their sentences have been served, they should be allowed to put their stupid, juvenile mistakes behind them, go on to college, get jobs, and make the lessons they have learned shape their adult lives for the better. Putting them on a sex offender registry simply serves to further dilute the registry with non-dangerous people, and stigmatize these young people so that they cannot enter back into society once they have paid their debt and cannot go on to become productive members of society.

In your area, contact your local and state representatives to enact smart sex offender laws that are actually useful to the community and do not simply serve to shame those who made stupid mistakes.

James Gunter is the editor of The Crime Map and the director of social media for CrimeReports.com.

Get on the National Crime Map at CrimeReports.com

Our goal has been simple:

To create the UK’s largest crime database, exposing Murderers, Paedophiles, Abusers, Perverts, Terrorists and Violent criminals, with the end result being a safer Britain for ourselves, our families, and our friends.

The Rat Book currently holds over 10,000 criminal profiles, and this figure grows by 100′s of new profiles DAILY – our work never stops.

Whether you use The Rat Book for your own protection, or to expose a criminal who has had an impact on your life (for the benefit of other users), we welcome you to our website.

In a recent story from the Birmingham Mail, local officials said that they were worried that the information on the site could be used for vigilantism or misinformation. The concern is valid. Certainly, a member of the public could get on the website, look at their area on the map, see that it contains 12 pedophiles, and then proceed to try and track those pedophiles down. But there are some limitations to the website’s information.

In the US, we have sex offender registries, complete with personal addresses. These registries are even mapped on websites, like CrimeReports. But the UK doesn’t have the same system, and they do not publish sex offender registries. So, when you look at the Rat Book website, all you can see is a region and a number (similar to the home office’s official crime mapping website). These regional numbers may be linked to a news story about pedophiles in the area. There are no addresses and no pictures (besides those found in publically accessible news stories).

The website does not publish unsubstantiated reports and ventures to backup each report with a news story. If the website is not publishing any more data than that which is available in local papers or in broadcast news, I fail to see how the site is as nefarious as local politicians make it out to be.

The one and only comment on the Birmingham Mail story, by “Pauline,” reads, “And the problem is??????????????????????????????????”

My sentiments exactly.

Do you think a site like this would be useful in the US? Or do we even need it since there are already sites that go well beyond this level of information?

James Gunter is the editor of The Crime Map and the director of social media for CrimeReports.com.

Get on the National Crime Map at CrimeReports.com



CrimeReports partners with law enforcement agencies to publish their crime data on the National Crime Map, which now includes data from nearly 700 law enforcement agencies across North America. CrimeReports low cost and quick integration has led to a current sign up rate of 50 new agencies per month.

“The real credit for our growth goes to our partner agencies, who have opened up their crime data to the public” said Greg Whisenant, founder and CEO of CrimeReports. “Essentially, we’re providing an inexpensive, powerful service to law enforcement agencies who already wanted to get this information to the public.”

CrimeReports has seen a steady rise in its traffic and users over the last year. CrimeReports currently has over 100,000 users in the U.S. and Canada who receive daily, weekly, and monthly crime alerts for their neighborhoods.

The CrimeReports website is free to the public allowing any citizen, anywhere in the world, access to the site to monitor crime in participating areas across North America. In addition, CrimeReports recently added national sex offender data to the National Crime Map, so users in the U.S. can see sex offender information in their area whether their local law enforcement agency is participating or not.

Currently, CrimeReports’ service areas cover more than 20% of the US population, mapping more than 10 million crimes last year and include major metropolitan areas like San Francisco, Boston, San Jose, Washington DC, Baltimore, Dallas, Portland, Los Angeles County, and others.

Additionally, more agencies are using CrimeReports to report information to their public constituencies than other popular social media tools such as Twitter.

“The real beneficiary of our service is the general public,” says Whisenant. “They have quick, easy access to timely crime information that they didn’t before. And law enforcement agencies have a new tool they can use to communicate with citizens and engage them in better crime prevention efforts.”

In addition to the website and iPhone app, CrimeReports has also launched Command Central, an internal law enforcement crime dashboard used to generate crime statistics, monitor trends, and help law enforcement agencies to implement CompStat and accountability management practices.

Get on the National Crime Map at CrimeReports.com

Last year, NPR and other news organizations reported that Miami-Dade county sex offender residency restriction laws were so strict that many sex offenders had no where to live except under the Julia Tuttle Causeway in tents and ramshackle huts. As many as 100 sex offenders lived under the bridge at any given time, creating both a public health and a public safety problem.

Now the problem has been alleviated by county commissioners, who repealed over 24 municipal laws and ordinances within the county yesterday in a 12-0 vote.

A More Practical Solution

The law that has been enacted across the county is a more practical solution that uses “child safety zones” instead of residency laws. The child safety zones are 300 ft. buffers around areas where children congregate, like schools, parks, etc. It is illegal for sex offenders to loiter within the buffer zones. The commission hopes that this will still provide community members with a sense of safety, at the same time, allowing sex offenders to find affordable housing.

Safer?

Forcing sex offenders to be homeless is not a practical solution, as the commission realized, but do child safety zones really make anyone safer? The vast majority of sex offenders are not child predators, and—overwhelmingly—those that are child predators have victimized children that they were related to or knew very well. As well, consider the difficulty in actually enforcing an invisible 300ft. barrier around “places children congregate” for loitering sex offenders, and I start to wonder if this more-practical solution is more for show than for actual safety.

Public Fear

The fact of the matter is that the general population is extremely scared of sex offenders. No one wants to hang out with a rapist or child molester, and no one wants them living next door. But I don’t believe the key is invisible buffers and legislating sex offender isolation.

The real key to keeping citizens safe from sexual predators is education. This is the reason we have sex offender registries. If local law enforcement and I know exactly where sex offenders live, we are all much more likely to be vigilant and keep our own neighborhood safe. If we all take to heart the fact that the great majority of all sex offenses are perpetrated against family members and acquaintances, we’ll all be more careful about who we associate with and who we let our children play with.

On the other hand, if we push sex offenders to live under bridges far from our neighborhoods, the less likely they are to appear on a registry, and the less likely we will know who they are.

When we know who they are and where they live, we have the power to stop them from reoffending.

James Gunter is the editor of The Crime Map and the director of social media for CrimeReports.com.

Get on the National Crime Map at CrimeReports.com

How serious is too serious when it comes to punishing the act of sexting by minors?

The Bowling Green Daily News recently reported that Kentucky state representative Jody, Richards, D-Bowling Green, has introduced House Bill 57—legislation that would lessen the punishment meted out for sexting by minors. Sexting is sending, receiving, or forwarding sexually explicit messages, photos, or images via cell phone, computer, or other digital device.

According to the article, minors would be charged with “a simple violation” for their first offense, and a misdemeanor for all following offenses.

Richards introduced this bill, the article said, in response to harsh punishments for sexting in other states. For example, one teen in Florida was registered as a sex offender for the next 25 years because of sending a nude photo of his girlfriend to friends.

Richards further explained her reasoning:

Sometimes kids or young people, not realizing the long-term damage they’re doing, can take pictures of people and publish them or send them out to others. We wanted to do this in a way that would be a punishment but not a lifelong taint.

Perhaps the most troubling thing is the casual stance some teens have toward sexting. The article quoted one girl that reflects this attitude:

Yeah, it happens a lot, my friends do it all the time. It’s not a big deal. Sometimes people will get into fights with their exes, and so they will send the nudes as blackmail, but it’s usually when or after you’ve been dating someone.

Instituting a less severe punishment for minors seems reasonable because, as all of us that were once at that stage in life can attest to, teens have a difficult time thinking through the consequences of their actions. Listing them as a sex offender at such an early age takes away the second chance that they are in need of.

What do you think? Please leave a comment below with your thoughts and feelings.

Samuel Hislop is a regular contributor to the official internet safety blog of the iKeepSafe Coalition.You can learn more about child internet safety and ethics by visiting iKeepSafe.org.

Search your neighborhood crime map at CrimeReports.com