Transparency, Context, and the Sex Offender Registry

A couple weeks ago, after receiving some court documents from an eager reader, I questioned the usefulness of the sex offender registry. The wise Dr. Newquist supported a point that guides North Dakota law, that the registry can do more harm than good and quite possibly turn some relatively harmless offenders into more desperate, dangerous criminals.

According to an August 2009 Economist article, the Georgia Sex Offender Registration Review Board sampled its registry and concluded that 65% of folks on the list "posed little threat." 30% were "potentially threatening," and 5% were "clearly dangerous."

Social media researcher danah boyd speaks to the Gov 2.0 Expo about sex offender registries as an example of how government transparency is not enough: we can release lots of data, but we must include context and help people develop media literacy so they can properly interpret that data.

Boyd provides a draft of the presentation text. Among the important passages:

The problem with the registry is not its intention. Of course we want to give people the tools to protect their children. The problem is also not simply one of transparency. In fact, the transparency of these lists allows us to call into question how our laws are enforced. The problems that stem from the registry stem from the fact that people misinterpret what the data means. When the list of registered sex offenders is made available out of context, it's easy for people to misinterpret what they see. And boy do they ever. In most of your minds, a registered sex offender is automatically Evil Incarnate. So when someone has that Scarlett Letter attached to their chests, they are immediately judged without the circumstances and situation being understood. Transparency may allow us to see who's registered, but for this information to be used effectively, it needs to be communicated in context. In short, we need people to not just have access to the data, but have access to the context surrounding the data [danah boyd, "Transparency Is Not Enough," Gov 2.0 Expo, 2010.05.26].

Boyd also notes that she has done research that adds some important context to the statistics about the danger of sexual solicitations minors face on the Internet:

Consider the statistic from 2006 that 1 in 7 minors are sexually solicited online. This statistic flew around the press and was employed by Attorneys General across the U.S. to argue that the Internet is dangerous for children. This statistic was from a highly reputable source - the Crimes Against Children Research Center. The problem is not the statistic; it is accurate. It's what it implies without further clarification. Most people interpret this statistic as suggesting that 1 in 7 minors are sexually solicited by older sketchy adults seeking to meet minors offline for sex. Yet, over 90% of sexual solicitations are from other minors or young adults and 69% of solicitations involve no attempt at offline contact. Finally, the researchers used the term solicitation to refer to any communication of a sexual nature, including sexual harassment and flirtation [boyd, 2010].

When boyd publicized this research, a state attorney general called and told her to "go find different data." When she stuck by her research, that AG proceeded to trash her in the press.

The lesson here is not that we can't trust statistics or that we shouldn't look to data. Quite the opposite: the lesson here is that when we get statistics and data, we need to get even more information to put the data in proper context.

Legal Question: Who Should Be on the Sex Offender Registry?

I have a journalistic and legal quandary. I'd like your input.

I received in the mail a court document—signed and stamped by the clerk of courts, receipt attached... it's legit. The document outlines an individual's conviction and sentence for pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge of "attempted sexual imposition." (Not rape, apparently: no penetration.) The crime was committed several years ago, in another state prior to the existence of our sex offender registry statutes. Subsequent statutes in that state appear to have required that individual to register as a sex offender for the past crime.

That individual currently resides in South Dakota. Yet that individual does not appear on our sex offender registry.

Now I'm still reviewing the relevant statutes. It appears that the same crime committed in South Dakota would not land an individual on the registry. SDCL 22-24B-1 includes felony sexual contact with a minor under 16 and sexual contact with a person incapable of consenting as sex crimes. But that statute also includes crimes committed in other states that land a person on that state's sex offender registry.

Now I'm not entirely comfortable with the existence of the sex offender registry. We don't have a murder or manslaughter registry (do we, Mr. Janklow?). We don't have a drug dealer or embezzler or DUI registry. Certainly all ex-convicts face criminal background checks and uncomfortable questions whenever they apply for jobs. But do we not impose this special legal burden on any other class of criminals, any of whom arguably pose as much social danger as sex offenders.

Still, the law is the law. If we have a sex offender registry, sex offenders are expected to register.

So some questions for you, gentle readers:

1. Under what circumstances can a sex offender from another state legitimately avoid registering on South Dakota's sex offender list?
2. Who does more harm—a man who gropes a 15-year-old, a man who kills a motorcyclist, or a woman who embezzles half a million dollars? (Feel free to expand the question with comparisons to other crimes of your choice.)
3. South Dakota requires lifetime registration of every sexual offender. Our neighbors in North Dakota notify communities only of high-risk offenders. Explains North Dakota:
   

   If the community was notified about every offender, it would dilute the usefulness of the information about the few offenders who pose a very serious risk to the public. Public notification about low-risk offenders may have the unintended effect of making them more risky. An employed sex offender living in a known location and who is participating in offender treatment is preferable to one unemployed, transient, and with no incentive to complete treatment [Office of the Attorney General, North Dakota Sex Offender Website FAQ #17].

   
   Should we change our registry to publicize the names of only the high-risk offenders?
   

---------------
Bonus statistic: According to this 2009 PDF map from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, South Dakota has more registered sex offenders per 100,000 population than California. The national average is 228 per 100,000; South Dakota has 325 per 100,000, the eighth-highest rate in the nation.

SD Youth Risk Survey: Sex, Drugs... But No Questions about Rock and Roll

Well, at least the kids are wearing both straps on their backpacks, like the covergirl from the new South Dakota 2009 Youth Risk Behavior Survey Report. We all know single-strapping is a youth health menace.

2170 high schoolers responded to the survey and told us some other unhealthy activities they are involved in:

• 22% rode in a car with a drunk driver in the last month.
• 27% were in a physical fight in the last year.
• 52% were bullied.
• 7% attempted suicide in the last year.
• 9% were forced to have sex.
• 26% had five alcoholic drinks in a row in the past month. That's 65% of the kids who report drinking any alcohol during the past month. In other words, 2 out of three kids drinking are drinking for the clear purpose of getting schnockered.
  
• 36% had sex during the past three months (I know, sex isn't inherently an unhealthy activity...)
• ...24% of those sexually active students drank or did drugs before doing the deed, and 38% didn't use a condom (o.k., that's unhealthy).
• 49% skipped breakfast three or more times in the past week.

On the good side:

• 77% didn't smoke during the past month.
• 58% of those who have smoked recently have tried to quit.
• 64% played some team sport during the past year.
• 77% watched less than three hours of TV a day.
• 80% were on the computer or the XBox for less than three hours a day.
• The percentage riding with drunk drivers (22%) has gone down every survey year since 2003, when the percentage was 37%. The state is apparently getting the message across to some kids and parents.
• Smoking has been trending downward, too.

Read the full PDF-format report here. Then tell your kids no beer for graduation.

Who's Got Chlamydia in South Dakota?

The counties offering the safest sex in South Dakota are Campbell, Douglas, Hand, Hyde, Jones, and Sully. At least that's the conclusion you might derive from the chlamydia rates reported in the new County Health Rankings compiled by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute. (Either that, or it's just tough to find anyone to have sex with in those counties, clean or otherwise.)

Lake County is in the middle of the chlamydia pack, tying with Yankton County for 27th out of 66 counties for infection rates. Parents, pay attention: we're actually the lowest of the college towns. Clay, Brown, and Brookings all have higher chlamydia rates; Lawrence and Pennington counties each more than double our rates. At 179 cases per 100,000 (practically, think just under 2 cases per thousand), we're above the statewide median of 129 but below the average of 335.

Pulling the average higher: Corson, Todd, and Dewey counties, which all break 1,000, and South Dakota chlamydia champ Shannon County, which has an infection rate of 2,076 out of 100K. That's a 2% infection rate, compared to state and national averages of about 0.3%.

Chlamydia Rates in South Dakota, by County, 2006
Place	Cases	Population	Rates per 100,000	rank per 100K
Shannon	287	13,824	2,076	1
Dewey	114	6,112	1,865	2
Todd	124	10,088	1,229	3
Corson	52	4,288	1,213	4
Buffalo	17	2,109	806	5
Charles Mix	60	9,224	651	6
Roberts	52	10,024	519	7
Walworth	25	5,425	461	8
Ziebach	12	2,706	444	9
Pennington	413	94,338	438	10
Minnehaha	675	163,281	413	11
Jackson	11	2,900	379	12
Custer	28	7,944	353	13
Lawrence	79	22,685	348	14
Hughes	59	16,946	348	14
Mellette	7	2,099	334	16
Lyman	13	3,929	331	17
Davison	57	19,035	299	18
Clay	38	12,867	295	19
Beadle	44	15,643	281	20
Brown	96	34,645	277	21
Codington	68	26,347	258	22
Bennett	9	3,543	254	23
Brookings	56	28,195	199	24
Miner	5	2,553	196	25
Moody	12	6,644	181	26
Yankton	39	21,779	179	27
Lake	20	11,170	179	27
Stanley	5	2,815	178	29
Harding	2	1,205	166	30
Tripp	10	6,066	165	31
Brule	7	5,167	136	32
Potter	3	2,321	129	33
Faulk	3	2,339	128	34
Deuel	5	4,301	116	35
Jerauld	2	2,071	97	36
Fall River	7	7,304	96	37
Day	5	5,778	87	38
Meade	21	24,425	86	39
Butte	8	9,374	85	40
Hutchinson	6	7,426	81	41
Hanson	3	3,690	81	41
Gregory	3	4,268	70	43
Aurora	2	2,905	69	44
McCook	4	5,851	68	45
Marshall	3	4,430	68	45
Perkins	2	3,025	66	47
Bon Homme	4	7,281	55	48
Kingsbury	3	5,464	55	48
Haakon	1	1,864	54	50
Lincoln	18	35,239	51	51
Union	7	13,745	51	51
Edmunds	2	4,062	49	53
Spink	3	6,923	43	54
Sanborn	1	2,517	40	55
McPherson	1	2,565	39	56
Hamlin	2	5,616	36	57
Grant	2	7,278	28	58
Clark	1	3,683	27	59
Turner	2	8,540	23	60
Campbell	0	1,494	0	61
Douglas	0	3,168	0	61
Hand	0	3,323	0	61
Hyde	0	1,551	0	61
Jones	0	1,067	0	61
Sully	0	1,435	0	61
Total	2620	781,919	335

Stay tuned for more analysis of these county health numbers!

Legislative Roundup: Toothless Legislation, Jail Bait, Beavers...

This week in the South Dakota State Legislature:

Genocide Concerns Us, But Keep Investing in Iran: The Senate Retirement Laws Committee stamped SB 21 "Do Pass." They did amend the state's request for unfettered investment in terrorist states. The amendment calls on the State Investment Council to "engage and promote compliance" with federal divestiture laws and authorizes the Legislature to "express its concerns" about state investments that may fund evildoers. In other words, more toothless paperwork. No sign yet of Rep. Lederman's promised legislation to outright ban the state from investing in Iran. Stay tuned....

Sex Sex Sex...: And you thought the budget would be all our legislators had on their minds. There are a slew of proposals relating to sex offenders and the life sentences our state imposes on them. There's also HB 1110, which eases the penalty for statutory rape for certain young and restless penetrators fondlers.

[Update 2010.01.24: HB 1110 primary sponsor Rep. Rich Engels drops by the comment section to clarify! See below! This bill is about sexual contact, not sexual penetration! Errors from the original post are corrected below—sorry for the mess!]

(Read carefully: this is tricky!) Right now, sex with someone under 16 is a Class 3 felony. However, if you're less than three years older than the victim, it's only a Class 1 misdemeanor.

HB 1110 changes the law to read thus:

If the victim is at least thirteen years of age and the actor is less than five years older than the victim, the actor is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Let's try to clarify, kids:

Under HB 1110, if you are this old...	...[correction] serious necking is a felony if she/he's this old (or younger)	..but a misdemeanor if she/he's this old
16	12	13–15
17	12	13–15
18	13	14–15
19	14	15
20	15

Correction: The rules on rape remain the same. basically, kids, don't go all the way! If either party is under 16, it may be rape... and it's probably stupid. And for pete's sake, don't do it a second time: HB 1110 makes second offense a Class 2 felony.

So under HB 1110, two legal adults, one 19, one 18, could perform the same act, sex heavy petting with a 14-year-old. The 19-year-old could get 15 years in the pen and a $30K fine. The 18-year-old could get a year in the county jail and a $2K fine.

Hmm... could we just issue stainless steel underpants to everyone and hand out keys with high school diplomas? (Now that would cut the drop-out rate.)

Darn You Beavers!: In the unnecessary legislation department, HB 1113 adds prairie dogs, raccoons, skunks, and beavers to list of critters GF&P can target on the animal damage control list. Thing is, current statute already says that list can include "other wild animals" deemed injurious to the general welfare. I guess certain legislators just want to say, "Skunks! Coons! Beavers! We mean you!"

Update 13:05 CST: But wait, there's more!

Tightening the Auto Insurance Noose: Driving without insurance could get harder: SB 87 would require folks registering any noncommercial motor vehicle to show their proof of insurance to the county treasurer.

Make Your Own Gun, Dodge Federal Rules!: A majority of the Legislature has already signed on to sponsor SB 89, which will exempt firearms, firearm accessories, and ammo made and used exclusively in South Dakota from federal regulations. Do whatever you want with your weapons, as long as you don't invade Minnesota.

Sure enough, the "Firearms Freedom Act" is a coordinated national effort. SB 89 copies language used in a "Firearms Freedom Act" proposed in Minnesota last year. Montana led the way, passing the first version of said law last year and now fighting Uncle Sam in court to keep it. Interestingly, the NRA may not be supporting this law.