By Sandy . . . February 12, WKRC, Cincinnati, aired and ran a piece by David Winter about what they imply is a failure to protect children based on law enforcement’s handling of residence restriction laws for people with a historic sexual offense conviction. There was immediate consternation among NARSOL’s affiliates, and we wrote and sent the following to the news director of WKRC, Timothy Geraghty.

I read this piece with interest as I and the nonprofit organization I represent—the National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL)–have a keen interest in both the safety and protection of children and the lawful and evidence-supported management of people who have convictions for a prior sexual offense.

I kept waiting for it to get to the other side of the story and display even a modicum of balanced reporting, but sadly, it did not. What is the other side? That decades of evidence verify one thing in regard to residence restrictions: They are ineffective in protecting children from sexual harm, a stance supported by ATSA—the Association for the Treatment and Prevention of Sexual Abuse.

ATSA supports evidence-based public policy and practice. Research consistently shows that residence restrictions do not reduce sexual reoffending or increase community safety. In fact, these laws often create more problems than they solve . . . homelessness, transience . . . Housing instability can exacerbate risk factors for reoffending. Therefore, in the absence of evidence that these laws accomplish goals of child protection, ATSA does not support the use of residence restrictions as a feasible strategy for sex offender management.

A most important piece of this issue, and one that would improve this news story’s display of fair presentation of the facts, is why residence restrictions don’t protect children.

The idea behind the restrictions is this: If those who have committed these crimes against children in the past are kept from living too close to where children congregate, those children will be safe. It does seem logical.

However, IF people on the registry—those who have committed these offenses and a host of other non-child-related crimes—were the ones abusing children today, it would still be a foolish proposal. Is a registrant living 1,001 feet from a school safe while one living 999 feet is not? Do people on the registry not drive cars? Ride busses?

Why IF? Because people on the registry are not those who are sexually abusing today’s children.

As shown in this graph depicting information from the Department of Juvenile Justice, between 94% and 98% of those who have sexually abused children are the family members, peers, and other acquaintances, generally authority figures, of the victims–not an unknown person on the registry who has moved into the community.

In the largest and most comprehensive sexual recidivism study ever done, the Department of Justice discovered that after three years, only 5.3% of people with previous sexual offense convictions were rearrested for a new sexual offense, and only 2.2% of those were against a child.

Mr. Winter, in his berating Cincinnati in particular for the lax enforcement of state residence restrictions, praises other Ohio areas, writing, “Word seems to be getting around about cities, and their attorneys, that are tougher on people listed on the sex offender registry.” If he had investigated what some other states are doing, he might have discovered that Kansas law prohibits residence restrictions for the entire state for post-supervision registrants. The page on their DOC website pertaining to this begins with this statement: “Housing restrictions appear to be based largely on three myths that are repeatedly propagated by the media: 1) all sex offenders reoffend; 2) treatment does not work; and 3) the concept of “stranger danger.” Research does not support these myths, but there is research to suggest that such policies may ultimately be counterproductive.”

NARSOL asks that WKRC broadcast and write a follow-up piece informing their readers of the facts presented here. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or for additional information.

I was pleasantly surprised when Mr. Geraghty contacted me very quickly, soon followed by emails and a phone call from David Winter, the journalist and news anchor. The result was interviews with Brenda and, as he wanted to interview someone on the registry, NARSOL board member Philip Kaso.

The result is here.

Well done, all!

The post “Please print a balanced piece,” NARSOL asks WKRC–and they did! first appeared on NARSOL.