By Sean Hughes

Postcards From the Edge

Eight postcards arrive from the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office, with the names of eight men classified as sexual predators, all living at the same address within a few blocks of your home in Fairmount. In addition to your own children, you know there are lots of other children living in the area. St Clair Heights Park and a swimming pool are nearby.

What would you do? Tina Maser, a single mother of five in a low-income neighborhood, faced this situation earlier this year.

She called the telephone number on the postcards for the sheriff's department and expressed her concern. She was told the only restriction for housing sexual offenders is they can't live within 1,000 feet of a school. Because there was no school within that radius, they were allowed to be there.

Outraged, Maser called her representatives in Columbus. After receiving the same explanation, she was told there was nothing she could do about that particular house, which was a halfway house for offenders. But working locally to gather support for some kind of initiative, she might be able to get lawmakers' attention and effect some change.

Maser wasn't going to wait that long. She contacted the local media to shine the light of their cameras on the situation. Channels 5 and 64 responded, and it was soon discovered that a charter school was moving in behind the house. The former offenders were in residence first and there was no provision in the law that could force them to leave, according to the Ohio Attorney General's office. But pressure by the media and community concern won out, and the state-funded house was disbanded.

On the surface, it seems Maser achieved a significant victory, fighting an uphill battle against a system that protects the rights of convicted criminals at the risk of defenseless children. It's the kind of story politicians like to hold up as an example of the notification system at work: successfully empowering individual citizens with information so they can protect themselves and their families and prevent future crime.

But if you go just beneath the surface, the consequences are not so simple -- and not so positive.

As if to illustrate the complexity of any crime of a sexual nature, there was a neighbor who commiserated with Maser over the number of offenders moving into Fairmount neighborhood. He showed a reporter where to find the offenders' group home. When he was outside, he welcomed Maser's children to play in his yard. Then, through one of his relatives, Maser found out about the neighbor's criminal past, including a sex offense charge in 1996.

Maser sent her children away to set about on a deliberate campaign to get him out of the neighborhood. She admits she never talked to the man about the charges or tried to understand his current situation. She called the television stations and managed to get one of them to do a segment, showing the front of his home. He moved the next day.

Proud of her accomplishments, Maser is now on a mission to demand longer minimum sentencing for all sex offenders. Without having done any research on public policy or the nature of sex crimes, she carries a petition with her wherever she goes, collecting signatures for her cause.

"These people should never be allowed to live with the rest of us, especially not in areas infested with children," she says.

The mix of fear, ignorance, hatred and contradictory information in Maser's actions are indicative of the law that inspired it. The implementation of the Ohio Sexual Offender Registration and Notification law in 1997 has had complex and unintended ramifications.

With so many state and local public service agencies impacted by the law -- courts, corrections, probation, parole, law enforcement -- it's difficult to know where to start asking questions. Sheriff Simon Leis, the person charged with implementing the program in Hamilton County, declines to discuss it.

'Where the boogey men are'
Victoria Beck, a social policy researcher at the College of Mount Saint Joseph, isn't surprised by the confusion surrounding this law and the difficulty in finding real-life information.

"Despite the proliferation of sex offender notification statues, research on the impact of offender notification on the notified community has been limited," she says.

After receiving a postcard in her mailbox, Beck tossed it in the trash without any thought. Later it occurred to her that maybe she should have paid closer attention. This led to her study whether notifications have the desired effect. While preliminary only, the study points to areas of concern for policymakers.

"The general goal of notification legislation is to reduce the risk of sexual victimization by stimulating protective behavior in community members," she says.

Is the goal being met?

Notification causes people to become more fearful about being victimized, according to a paper she co-authored with Larry F. Travis, a professor of criminal justice at the University of Cincinnati, recently published in the Journal of Criminal Justice. This fear heightens awareness about the safety of children, elderly parents and others. Some who received notifications took extra precautions such as installing extra lights on the outside of their homes and instructing children about basic safety such as not talking to strangers.

While Beck finds those results encouraging, she notes a significant flaw in the system.

"I'm concerned that some of the people subject to notification are not the boogey man that we perceive them to be and are being harmed by the policy," she says. "On the other hand, as a mother, I want to know where the boogey men are. It's hard."

The "boogey men" Beck refers to is the same population Probation Specialist Ed Tulius refers to as the "one-percenters." Tulius has worked for 15 years with juvenile and adult offenders in the probation department.

"There's a 1 percent population out there that are criminal in nature no matter what we do, but they create the huge outcry for harder law enforcement and tougher punishment," he says. "They're going to be repeat offenders. The rest commit their first crime, get their supervision behind them and you never hear from them again. Those aren't the people the general public cares about. It's the one-percenters that keep the offenses fresh in our minds."

An avid supporter of the notification program designed for that 1 percent, Tulius recognizes that the other 99 percent are painted with the same brush.

Karen Johnson, the Channel 64 reporter who covered the story in Maser's neighborhood, recognizes that the media can contribute to the perpetuation of inaccurate perceptions. She sees the sensationalism in these kinds of stories when she watches the news herself. Part of the problem is the range and immediacy of broadcast news.

"I think, with any story, TV's a lot different than newspaper," Johnson says. "We found out our story at 2 o'clock and we have to go and put it on for the 10 o'clock newscast. We only have a couple of hours. We're limited here; usually a news story's about a minute-and-a-half long. So the reporter really has to be selective about the information you put out there. When you have all this information, you have to pick the bits and pieces -- the most powerful, the most important."

'Here's a condom, figure it out'
Megan's Law, signed by President Clinton in 1996, requires local law enforcement agencies to notify the public about convicted sex offenders living or working in their communities. Megan's Law was inspired by the case of 7-year-old Megan Kanka of New Jersey, who was raped and killed by a convicted sex offender who lived across the street.

Stuart Bassman, a Cincinnati psychologist who's been treating sexual offenders, victims and families of both for 25 years, calls the sex-offender notification law "a simplistic, naive answer to a complex problem."

"It's extremely difficult," he says. "A person might think an offender is a pedophile, which is one of the nine different types of paraphilia. 'Paraphilia' means to act out in a sexually disruptive manner. There are so many different variations, but there's this broad categorization by which someone is judged.

"It is a mental disorder, and the community really needs to be educated about what these mean. So what does this mean when someone has voyeurism, the tendency to peek in windows? It's the same thing as understanding alcoholism: What does it mean when somebody's alcoholic? This is not an excuse. There are no excuses. But this is an explanation."

Information by itself, Bassman says, is as useless as "Just Say No." Letting people know that a former sex offender is living in their neighborhood plays into the hysteria, fear and anger that the crime inspires without including the empowering component of what to do with that data.

"It's like saying, 'Here's a condom, figure it out,' " Bassman says. "What do you do with it? When do you put it on?"

Johnson, the Channel 64 reporter, spoke with a number of Cincinnatians while preparing her stories; she was surprised at the ignorance about the notification program.

"There are so many questions: 'Why is this happening? Why wasn't I notified?' It's a huge issue because a lot of them are uninformed," she says. "You know and I know we can go the sheriff's office Web site and find out if there are any of these people living in our area. But there are so many people out there who don't know that."

While the station is committed to following community-based stories, Johnson says there are currently no plans to provide more complete information about the nature of sex crimes.

"If something happened in the community, then that story idea would probably get accepted and we'd probably do it," she says. "But it's one of those that we shouldn't wait until it happens to do it."

Bassman believes community notification is good for heightening awareness.

"But they don't teach you how to deal with this information," he says. "So when I see a woman whose son's been sexually molested, she says, 'Dr. Bassman, what do I do?' That's an excellent question. She doesn't know what to do with this information. She doesn't know, in a sense, 'What steps do I take?' Just telling someone, 'They're an offender,' how is that helpful?"

Stewart, a former sex offender convicted of gross sexual imposition with a minor, recognizes the danger that can result from a little bit of information. He's willing to talk about his past, but he's selective about who he talks to.

"I don't just up and put myself up on Front Street," he says. "That's giving someone the knife and wanting them to cut your throat."

Stewart spoke on the condition that his last name and community residence be withheld.

Alone at lunch
Lawmakers tout the power of the information on the sex-offender postcards, sheriffs' Web sites and e-mails that 19,746 people receive via the Ohio Attorney General's Web site. But they don't address the misinformation and misperceptions that run through the minds of the people who receive that information. Myths about the nature of sex offenses and the people who commit them are perpetuated, so former offenders must deal with preconceived and often wrong notions. But they aren't the only ones.

The modern scarlet letter doesn't only brand former offenders; it results in the exposure of their family and friends as well.

"The moms who receive their sons after they've committed their crime -- gone to jail and gotten out, perhaps lost their apartment and return to their family, where that address becomes known and so the mom's, the sister's, the cousin's -- they now give up their privacy of their address. They become secondary victims," Tulius says.

The name of a father, aunt, sister, brother or cousin posted on a Web site, e-mailed across the state and mailed to everyone within 1,000 feet of his or her home means tens of thousands of people know about the crime. Family and friends are frequently subject to the same ridicule and torment the offenders themselves experience.

Worse still, a system that publicly shames former offenders -- and all who know them -- also impacts the victims. Fred, a former sex offender who has not committed a new offense in 18 years, argues against the notification program for this reason. He spoke on the condition his last name and community be withheld.

"I'm in agreement with notification if it was to the sheriff's department, to the legal enforcement departments and made available to those agencies that have need for the kind of information that would use it to the benefit of their organizations, like for child care," he says. "To take it any further than that can be harmful and very embarrassing to the victims of those who are being notified about. Example: I take and offend two or three kids in my neighborhood. They don't want everybody to know they had sex with me. Now all of a sudden, every neighbor within 1,000 feet gets this notice. Parents are going to talk about it. That child now has to lie if someone says, 'Hey, did Fred touch you?' because of the shame. He's been victimized twice -- once by me and then by having to hide."

The destabilizing effect of notification extends to the former offenders themselves.

Tulius sees this first-hand with his probationers and the difficulty they have securing and retaining employment.

Photo By Maurice Mattei

Psychologist Stuart Bassman, who treats both sex offenders and victims of sexual abuse, says shame helps neither. The sex-offender notification program provides minimal information, with no education on what to do once you know who sex offenders are and where they live, he says.

"It makes it much more difficult for an employer who has a trusted employee -- who made a bad choice -- for him to keep him on the payroll because of public scrutiny, because of that stigma now attached to that employee," he says. "So they choose to let a good person go who has the ability to be rehabbed, but they're not willing to take that chance."

Lilly, the wife of Stewart, the former sex offender, describes the experience her husband had in a factory, a job he secured through an employment agency upon release from prison.

"When he started working there, he said that nobody would sit with him at the lunch tables, so he thought word had gotten around," she says.

Fred couldn't even find a job.

"I applied with the city," he says. "One job was working with the sewer department and the other was a road crew, nothing to do with children. They were civil service tested. I was number one on both tests and they called me up and wanted me to work with them. I said, 'I've been convicted of gross sexual imposition with a minor.' They said, 'OK, we'll get back to you,' and I never heard from them again."

Chasing them out
The same thing happens when former offenders attempt to secure housing. In addition to the difficulty in finding a place that's not within 1,000 feet of a school, the number of places willing to accept tenants with a record is limited.

Clermont County Sheriff Tim Rodenberg recalls a former offender who was "leap-frogging" from one residence to another.

"He didn't have a home," Rodenberg says. "He was released and living in hotels. He'd register at one motel and of course we'd notify the motel and the people nearby. The motel manager would see that and they wouldn't want him living there, so they'd throw him out. He'd move a quarter mile down the road to another hotel. We'd have to go through the whole notification process again, and of course they'd find out about it and they'd throw him out."

Rodenberg has seen how residents mobilize against former offenders.

"In apartment complexes or mobile home communities, they've gone to the manager and requested that the management throw them out," he says. "They're so incensed that they've got a sex offender living in their neighborhood and they're not pleased with that and they want action taken."

One former offender was confronted by a woman brandishing a notification postcard in his face, telling him he had no right to live in her neighborhood, according to Bassman.

He says the woman yelled, "How dare you live in the community? How dare you live here? You have no right!"

The offender replied, " 'How can you say that? You don't know anything about me.'

"She said, 'All I know is you did this' -- waving the post card -- 'and you shouldn't have.' He said, 'But I see you going to church every Sunday. What kind of attitude is that?'

"She said, 'Don't you talk to me!' and stormed away."

One of the law's unintended consequences is the ghettoization of sex offenders, forced by legal restrictions and economic realities to cluster in low-income neighborhoods.

"The general populace doesn't realize there's this limited corridor where sex offenders will be moving in," Tulius says. "Eventually all these guys are going to be huddled in these corridors. And that makes sense. Where are they going to be allowed to live? In these particular areas. They're going to be clustered closer and closer together. The people in the community may find it to be of concern. The sex offenders are concerned because they want to be good by the law -- it's why they maintain their registry -- but their options are very limited. The offenders are all huddled up. Then parole and probation get concerned, because we've got all these guys in one place and that doesn't look good."

In low-income neighborhoods -- with limited access to technology, low rates of computer literacy, the intimidating nature of using public computers and bridging the experiential gap of trusting information from law enforcement -- the notifications are not likely to inspire empowerment so much as fear and panic.

Some schools have also reacted in hostile manner to the presence of former offenders, according to Dave Singleton, executive director of the Prison Reform Advocacy Center.

"One of the clients we represented is enrolled in a professional school right now," he says. "Within a month of getting out of prison, he enrolled in the school and he disclosed his record. The school admitted him. They signed a contract with him -- and afterward the corporate office got nervous and they threw him out. We brought suit to get him back into school. It's just really tough. He's trying to get his life together."

Even some religious institutions, self-proclaimed sanctuaries, shun former sex offenders. Stewart experienced it first hand.

"As soon as I was released from prison, I was excommunicated from the church," he says. "I'm in the process of working my way back in. I have to prove myself, not only with the church but with the members."

His wife Lilly is quick to point out that the excommunication was done quietly.

"It was never a public announcement," she says. "It was only a few church leaders who knew. The excommunication didn't say, 'You're not worthy to be among us, get out.' It took away blessings he had in the church. It was a much easier thing with what Christians are taught about forgiveness. But let's get real. Word does trickle down, and there were some people who were very cold to Stew -- not to me. But they were a little bit peculiar to me, like they were wondering, 'Where do you fit in all this now?' "

Set up to fail
It's common knowledge in the corrections, probation, parole and support services field that stable employment and housing facilitate successful reintegration of a former prisoner into the community. If someone has a place to live and can pay her bills, she's less likely to resort to crime to meet her basic needs.

Yet the sex offender notification system, touted as a crime prevention tool, actually creates hurdles to that kind of success. Tulius worries about those who try but wind up feeling defeated.

"There are very few advocates for the bad guy," he says. "So they get cast in these labels and they're doing their very, very best to change. And yet some communal factions, be it their housing or their employment, really stroke them with that broad brush and make it that much more difficult for them. And in fact create such a mood that they are going to be giving up on themselves -- or as we say lapsing 'What the hell's': 'You're gonna label me this, so . . .' And it's not that they're going to re-offend, but they're prone to dysfunctional decisions and outcomes so they'll set themselves up to fail in some other way, to commit another kind of crime."

Just as Tulius, Singleton wants to see former offenders succeed for their sake as well as the community's.

"I can understand a sexual predator being released from prison certainly making people nervous," he says. "To have someone who is out of prison, no place to live, no job prospects -- that's worse. It's shortsighted.

"It's in all of our interests to see all the folks who come out of prison succeed. We don't want to see more crime. President Bush said in the last State of the Union that America is the land of second chance, and when the gates of the prison open the path ahead should lead to a better life. We want people who have harmed the community in the past to come out of prison and have an opportunity at a better life, because when they have a better life we all benefit from that."

This kind of statement makes it sound as though the prison system is about rehabilitation and empowering former offenders with the tools to become law abiding, productive citizens. Nothing could be further from the truth, Beck says.

"For the past 20 years we've had this 'penal harm movement,' " she says. "It's all about increasing punishment. This is where the notification program is coming from. It's coming from this increased punishment mode: Let's increase sentence length, let's increase the types of crime individuals can be convicted of, mandatory sentencing, longer sentencing. Clearly we are more punitive, yet we have to do something with these individuals when they return to society."

Stewart says his conviction and prison term made him realize he didn't want to be the person he'd become. He wants to change. While in prison, he had access to all kinds of helpful information. But there was no support or guidance by the prison system. He was left to his own devices to figure out how to effect change in his behavior.

"I knew that I had to change my life," he says. "I went to the library and read, looked at journals. If you want to find out about it, then it's there."

He also helped establish an informal support group in prison. Prisoner initiated, the group was given a room for meetings but nothing else.

After completing his three years of court-ordered group therapy sessions, Stewart is now a voluntary member of a chapter of a national support group. He attends meetings regularly as a way to continue monitoring his behavior.

"The ability to air my concerns, my feelings, what's going on at any given time so that I don't get a buildup of depression, anxiety because these are triggers," he says. "When I know that I have a lot of tension that's building up, I know this makes me vulnerable to act out.

"There's no cut and dried way for a person to come to a place where they are aware of themselves enough to say, 'This is not going to happen again'. I know what happened and I know the things that caused it to happen. I know the things that led up, that made me place myself in that situation that made this happen."

If ordered to seek individual therapy, a former offender has an opportunity to work with a professional to learn about her behavior, learn what is socially acceptable and develop tools to manage her illness and the demands of life outside prison. But not all former prisoners can pay for private counseling, and public resources are already stretched thin.

Stewart believes those who want to find the resources will.

"Everybody finds their own way, if they desire to," he says. "If the desire isn't there, then it's not going to happen. It's about what they desire for themselves, what they desire for their family, their loved ones, their neighbors."

Ugly secret
Sheriff Rodenberg has a hard time with the notification system because it relies on former criminals to obey the law after being released from prison.

"The one thing I see is a problem with this is pretty fundamental and you don't have to be a genius or a lawyer or cop to figure it out," he says. "This law requires sex offenders to do certain things and comply with the law. It puts on them an affirmative duty to legally comply with rules and regulations. While some of those people -- many or even most of them -- might, it's a sort of a contradiction to have someone convicted of a very serious crime to be a law-abiding citizen by complying with a registration requirement protocol.

"We do find that some of these people do disappear and reappear at various places. If they fail to register and they come in the community or they move somewhere and if they don't do what they're supposed to, they could get lost in the cracks."

Given the intensity of public attention and problems notification causes former offenders, it's not surprising that some are willing to run the risk of not keeping their registration current.

While it appears this limitation has the potential to undermine the entire notification system, the most significant issue is an ugly secret that's been well-kept for years. Less than 14 percent of all sexual assaults against children are committed by strangers; the rest are committed by family, friends, teachers, coaches and other people known to the victim, according to Beck.

For Fred, the relationship with his victims was extremely important. It was part of the process of setting up his targets.

"It would take me six months to a year to romance them and to pamper them, get to know the family, that kind of thing," he says.

Photo By Maurice Mattei

Publicizing the names, addresses and photos of sex offenders is part of the "penal harm movement" in law enforcement, according to researcher Victoria Beck. That approach limits options for housing, employment and rehabilitation.

By his own admission, after so many years he was so good at it that he was able to put his hand between a little girl's legs while her mother and his wife were in another room.

Families already struggling to deal with incest, date rape or any other form of sexual assault by someone they know now face the additional dilemma of reporting the crime and subjecting their loved ones -- the perpetrator, the victim, the family and friends -- to the harsh reality of notification.

Most sexual assault goes unreported because families and our society are not equipped to deal with this problem, Bassman says. His greatest concerns about the notification program revolve around the additional damage done to all involved.

"It's making it good and bad, good and evil, so it's a shame-based mentality," he says. "They're trying to control behavior, and it's not going to work. And what it also affects is the person who is the victim, because they are going to feel ashamed. They're going to feel like they did something wrong."

The very system that aims to enhance public safety -- by letting the community know where the perpetrators are -- can drive both offenders and victims into hiding.

'Fear, nightmare and gore'
The more carefully the notification law is examined, the more problems are found. This, according to Beck, is the result of public policy that isn't based on sound principles.

"What we know in the field is that a lot of policies are not implemented based on research, rather based on politics or public outcry," she says. "Not necessarily that that's a bad thing, but if you want an effective policy, it should be based on research first: What's going to be effective? Is this working? Instead of saying, 'Did it work?' do a pilot project and see how it works, then decide if it works well enough to justify the cost of it."

Having photographs of suspects readily available for identification purposes and keeping track of former offenders under supervision are useful. However, Bob Cornwell, executive director of the Buckeye State Sheriff's Association, hasn't heard of a single case in which the law enforcement database of sex offenders has helped a single sheriff's department identify or eliminate possible suspects or solve a new crime more quickly.

Rodenberg points to the system's limitations.

"This whole sex offender (program) is as good as far as it goes," he says. "It's not the protection that your average person might think. Not every sex offender has to register; it's only limited to the more serious sex offenders. It's only a small percentage of the sex offenders that you're going to find out about."

Furthermore, the law doesn't require sheriffs to notify key segments of the community. Even though all sexual offenses are covered by the notification law, notifications are limited to residents within 1,000 feet of the former offender's address, schools and day-care centers. Agencies supporting other groups who are primary victims of this type of crime -- women, seniors, gays -- aren't included. Additionally, significant portions of youth services do not receive automatic notifications, including recreation centers and churches with after-school programs.

Tulius doesn't see notification as a deterrent for preventing his probationers from re-offending.

"Deterrent? I don't know," he says. "I've got sex offenders who've repeated their crime while on supervision and required to register and those two elements weren't enough."

A host of people impacted by the law can't find much good to say about it. But despite all the obvious problems, it's not likely to go away any time soon. The reason is obvious to Tulius.

"Fear, nightmare and gore all in one," he says. "(Registration) promotes fear, creates paranoia and it's good to run a political game on because you're tough on crime. And what worse crime is there than a sex offense?"

Tulius and Bassman agree that the first component of making this law accomplish something good is the awareness that nobody can prevent crime.

"There have been sex crimes since the beginning of humanity, so this isn't going to go away with prevention," Tulius says.

"You can take certain steps to identify certain factors, but these things are going happen," Bassman says. "We can lessen the risk. You can take certain preventative measures, but it's coming."

Even though he opposes the notification system because of all the damage it does, Bassman recognizes that the infrastructure in place has raised awareness about sex crimes. He sees this as an opportunity for politicians to make good on their original promise of empowering people by adding an educational component to the law.

Tulius wants to see this education begin in the home.

"We can educate our kids," he says. "It's not about strangers who abduct children. That's not what happens. The majority of sex crimes are because the victim knows the abuser and the abuser knows the victim very, very well. It's those social relationships that need to be reviewed, and earlier detection and earlier prevention needs to be in place."

Stewart and Fred say it's important to stop depersonalizing offenders. Singleton agrees.

"People need to hear about the success stories, because all we hear about are the failures," he says. "People need to know that there are sex offenders and others who get out of prison, put on their clothes every day and go to work and are just trying to make ends meet like the rest of us. When folks meet people who've been in the criminal justice system, they see that they're human beings like the rest of us. They've had some problems and you may not be able to imagine yourself being in their shoes exactly, but the more that you can see they're a human being just like you, then the easier it is to see and believe that they should get a second chance and get to move on with their lives."

Singleton sees a prominent position taken by community leaders as a powerful tool.

"Some leadership from the elected official here, like the prosecutor and the law enforcement folks, to say, 'Look, we really need to make sure that this notification process is not abused and that people have every opportunity to succeed' -- that's the message that needs to be said loud and often because, absent that leadership, we're going to have more stories of men and women running up with cards and saying, 'Get out of this neighborhood,' rather than thinking, 'OK, these folks are living amongst us, how can we best prepare ourselves but also help them to succeed, because we don't want folks to commit more crime and be held back,' " Singleton says.

More shame to come
Ohio has nearly 12,000 registered sex offenders, 1,080 of whom live in Hamilton County.

Tulius is concerned about the ramifications of the anniversary of the registration and notification program.

"2007 will be the first year of the 10-year registration graduates of being a sexual offender," he says. "What studies will come about when we have one of our first graduates in 2007 commit a repeat crime or a more heinous crime? He made it all the way through. He was hyper compliant with probation or parole, he was hyper compliant with his registry requirements. On that 12th month on the first day when he's not required to register and he commits a crime, everyone's going to say, 'We didn't have him registered long enough.' "

Beck points to a frightening trend.

"One of the fears is that (registry and notification) would be expanded to other types of offense," she says. "It has, to burglary and robbery. Then when you have individuals that have committed those types of offenses that seem less heinous to us than child molestation, they have difficulty."

Ohio already has license plates with DUI plastered on them. What's next? Who is next? Tulius doesn't see an end in sight.

"People want smaller government but more personal rights," he says. "But then you have to have policing involved in that and consequences when there is crossing of the line, and then the funding runs out, or it's under funded or never gets funded."

The issue of sex offenders in neighborhoods will re-enter popular consciousness with the opening of The Woodsman, starring Kevin Bacon in the role of an offender released from prison.

The danger is assuming we can find the one answer, the one solution. Sex offender registration and notification appears to be that "one solution," but it's proving to have serious consequences. A more thoughtful look by lawmakers, experts and the public can result in more realistic policies and constructive steps toward dealing with sex offenders.The immediate prospects aren't good. House Bill 473, ready to be signed into law by Gov. Bob Taft, requires sex offenders to move if a school opens within 1,000 feet of the place they already live. As their numbers grow, their options keep shrinking. ©

All Sex Offenders Are Not Created Equal
When a person is sentenced for a sex crime, a judge determines which of five offender classifications applies. Some sentencing guidelines require a specific classification and term of notification, while others are left up to the judgment of the court.

Sexual Predator is defined as a person who has been convicted of a sexually oriented offense and who is likely in the future to commit additional sexually oriented offenses.

Offenders can be classified as sexual predators in one of the following ways:

· The offender is convicted of a sexually violent offense with a sexually violent predator specification, or

· The court, after holding a hearing, determines that the offender is a sexual predator. Offenders designated as sexual predators are subject to address registration and verification for life (unless a juvenile judge terminates the sexual predator designation for a delinquent child). Sexual predators are subject to community notification provisions and the reporting requirements at 90-day intervals.

Child Victim Predator is an adult (or juvenile age 14 or older) who is convicted of a child-victim oriented crime and is likely in the future to commit additional offenses. Offenders designated as child victim predators are subject to registration verification requirements for life unless a judge modifies or terminates them.

Habitual Sex Offender is a person who has been convicted of committing a sexually oriented offense a second time. Offenders designated as habitual sex offenders are subject to registration and verification annually for 20 years after release from prison. A sentencing judge may also subject a habitual sex offender to community notification.

Sexually Oriented Offender is a person who has been convicted of committing a sexually oriented offense but who has not been designated as a sexual predator or habitual sex offender. Sexually oriented offenders are subject to registration and verification annually for 10 years after release. These offenders are not subject to neighbor or community notification.

Habitual Child-Victim Offender is an adult (or juvenile age 14 or older) convicted a second time of a child-victim oriented offense. Habitual child victim offenders are subject to registration and verification annually for 20 years after release.

Photo By Maurice Mattei

David Singleton of the Prison Reform Advocacy Center says even colleges have taken a hostile approach to former offenders trying to start over.

What You Don't Know Can Hurt
There are many misconceptions about sexual offenders.

Myth: Strangers commit most sexual assaults.

Fact: Most sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim or the victim's family, regardless of whether the victim is a child or an adult.

Myth: The majority of sexual offenders are caught, convicted and in prison.

Fact: Only a fraction of those who commit sexual assault are apprehended and convicted. Most convicted sex offenders eventually are released to the community under probation or parole supervision.

Myth: Most sex offenders re-offend.

Fact: Reconviction data suggest that this is not the case. Further, re-offense rates vary among different types of sex offenders and are related to specific characteristics of the offender and the offense.

Myth: All sex offenders are male.

Fact: The vast majority of sex offenders are male. However, females also commit sexual crimes.

Myth: Sex offenders commit sexual crimes because they are under the influence of alcohol.

Fact: It is unlikely that an individual who otherwise would not commit a sexual assault would do so as a direct result of excessive drinking.

Myth: Children who are sexually assaulted will sexually assault others when they grow up.

Fact: Most sex offenders were not sexually assaulted as children, and most children who are sexually assaulted do not sexually assault others.

Myth: Youths don't commit sex offenses.

Fact: Adolescents are responsible for a significant number of rape and child molestation cases each year.

Myth: Treatment for sex offenders is ineffective.

Fact: Treatment programs can contribute to community safety because those who attend and cooperate with program conditions are less likely to re-offend than those who reject intervention.

Myth: The cost of treating and managing sex offenders in the community is too high -- they belong behind bars.

Fact: One year of intensive supervision and treatment in the community can range in cost between $5,000 and $15,000 per offender, depending on treatment modality. The average cost for incarcerating an offender is significantly higher, approximately $22,000 per year, excluding treatment costs. (2000 numbers)

What To Do: Suggestions from the Experts
In the face of an overwhelming amount of information, it can be difficult to know what questions to ask and what steps to take to be more responsible for our own personal safety. Some of the experts in the field have ideas about where to begin.

Ed Tulius, probation specialist

"Coming from the home, moms and dads cannot be so trusting or cannot just simply dump their kids on a particular program and expect that their kids have been well supervised. If a coach is taking on a ball team, hurray for all volunteer coaches out there and scout leaders and youth ministers who don't put their hand on kids and don't have those stinky thinkings. I know from being a coach myself, but I know that I become a glorified babysitter at times. I know my kids extremely well on the soccer field and I know what I'm capable of doing with the free time that I have with the kids who've been dumped. I think there needs to be a little bit more accountability with parents as to how they review the resources that are out there."

Bob Cornwell, executive director of Buckeye State Sheriffs Association

"Citizens need to be more aware of their surroundings. It makes them more self-conscious of their surroundings. We don't see anything because we're not looking for anything."

Stuart Bassman, psychologist

"The key is education. The problem is that people who sexually offend are going to be your husbands, your wives, your daughters, your sons. I mean, it's one thing to see them as Saddam Hussein thousands of miles away, but these are our family -- people who act out -- and there's this sense of putting this mark on them, this scarlet letter on them. How is this healing?

"Ask the question 'What do I do with this information?' It's a good one. Then go in search of the answers."

Dave Singleton, executive director, Prison Reform Advocacy Center

"We as a community have to find a way to let folks who've done bad in the past get a chance to get it together and be productive. We can't be looking to make life as difficult as possible. That can result in a relapse back into criminal ways, which hurts us all."

Stewart, former sex offender

"People have the idea that the sex offender is a monster with horns and a ferocious beast. And I think they need to know that if we make a mistake and we're aware of that mistake and how to deal with that mistake -- how to deal with our own lives and not create any more problems within our community, and we have a desire to love everybody enough to make ourselves free of that and knowing ourselves enough -- has got to be the answer for it. Because if I don't try to understand myself, try to understand my past and what's created the problems I had, then I'm as bad off as when this all started. I think it's important to be able to talk to people about this, with people who won't use it against me."

Fred, former sex offender

"Everybody looks at offending behavior that is something overt -- hand in the crotch, something physical that you do. It isn't. The most destructive behavior is the covert. It sets you up to feel worthless, to feel shame. It is so subtle. Aunts and uncles, grandmas and grandpas do it all the time, even moms and dads: 'You're really popping out there, girl.' Or the boy is taking a bath and the aunt happens to see his pee-pee and says, 'Look at the size of that member.' We think that's funny. We've got to look at what's going on in that child's mind. When that little boys hears that, he's gonna start thinking, 'There's something wrong with me. My aunt thinks . . .' Or when the opposite occurs: 'He's so tiny.' That's even worse. How many girls do you know from your background who as teenagers walked around slumped over? They're embarrassed, they're shaming. We teach shame and evil. We do a lot covertly.

"Secrets within the family are a so powerful thing. Very, very few children will break family loyalty and will talk openly to their parents about something that's going on, especially if it happens to be a relative."

Lilly, wife of a former sex offender

"I believe the public achieves a sense of security from Megan's Law and all of this. They think, 'Oh, we're safe. Our children are safe because we know exactly where these people live,' not taking into consideration how great a number of offenders are not criminal offenders yet. But they are offending. It makes me angry when people think, 'We've got the lid on this,' because it's so wrong."

-- Margo Pierce