The Obsession with Labels and Registries

The Facebook page was asking if the driver's licenses of sex offenders should look like this. To no surprise, the over whelming response was...yes.

Of course the intent of such labeling is based solely upon keeping society safe from dangerous predatory persons, right? After all, they have public access registries so you know if a sex offender lives in your neighborhood so you can stay clear of any interaction with them. It's all about knowing what lies in the dark shadows that otherwise is invisible to your naked eye or your unsuspecting intuition.

But I might not call issue to such labels if it were delved out in a more fair and unbiased manner. What I'm saying is that we really shouldn't just pick and choose how bad one crime is over another. We should label them all so we can each decide who is civilly acceptable to exist in our particular circle of safety.

For instance, I think we should label all convicted felons in this manner. After all it seems just as important to know whether someone is a convicted murderer next door or down the street as it is a sex offender. How about convicted drug dealers, drunks, domestic abusers, robbers, thieves or animal abusers? Aren't they just as much of a concern to the peaceful serenity of your neighborhood? I mean, I don't want to live next to a druggie or a thief, even though to look at them, they look and act like everyone else. But it's better to know right? Sure, everyone's made a mistake or two in their lives, some worse than others, but that's in the past and you've learned and moved on to be a better you in the world around you...but that's different, right?

I guess there was a reason why Scarlet Letter laws were written to protect people from being unlawfully labeled for their crimes. There was a time when they wanted to issue "Drunk Driver" license plates to those convicted of DUI's. Well that wasn't going to look to good for politicians, lawyers and other affluent persons in society where a good "public image" was important to their livelihood and standing in their communities. We can't allow some to be exempt while others are not because that's just plain outright discrimination. So how is this whole sex offender labeling any different? Does labeling really deter or affect the commission of crime or does it simply provide a means of making sure someone never re-enters society without constant suspicion?

Let's talk about sex offenders and how they differ from every other criminal act. Sex offenders are not only registered, but they are classified by three levels of severity. One assumes that a formal evaluation takes place to make this determination. It doesn't. It is decided by the courts. Also, stastically, sex offenders have the lowest rate recidivism of all violent crimes. The greatest violation offense committed by sex offenders is failing to report or register, not another sex offense. These violation offenses skew the stats so they appear to re-offend more than other crimes. Most sex crimes are committed by someone who has never been arrested for a sex crime before and is often committed by someone known by the victim. So the registry seldom yields any repeat offenders. Of course there are those that are truly monsters out there and are habitual offenders, but their numbers are much smaller than what exists overall on the nations registry. There are over 750,000 persons on registries in the US. The youngest that I am currently aware of is 9 years old. The mix of offensives stem from the most violent acts to public urination (lewd and lascivious) to underage consensual sex by boyfriend/girlfriend (statutory rape). All can carry the sex offender status and to the pubic eye, they all carry the same level of stigma of hatred and disgust. So is it fair to judge all them in the same light? Should the 9 year old be given a lifetime of stigma the same as the real predator that is on the same list? Many will undoubtedly still say yes. Yet the drunk driver that has been arrested numerous times, still drinks and drives and is an imminent danger and threat to everyone's safety (high recidivism) has no label or registry to help warn us of their dangerous behavior. So why not label and register them too? Remember they tried, but it was deemed unconstitutional.

I guess the idea of "public" labeling and registration is problematic, and perhaps allowing only law enforcement to maintain these "lists" would be something quite different. Of course they already have the means to put in a name and spit out a criminal history report when it comes to investigating a crime and rounding up possible suspects. But allowing the public to target those on any list, no matter what their crime may have been, sometimes creates some unnecessary hysteria and prejudice that may otherwise not be warranted if someone is just trying to integrate with a normal society. If we all had to openly expose our every indiscretion, as minor or serious as it may be, for a job, a loan application, a rental agreement or to simply volunteer to work, do you really want to be judged for your past rather than be accepted for your present practices? If you're saying "well my situation is different", is it really? Some may legitimately disagree. Luckily, at the moment, nobody cares about any other acts other than sex offenses...for now.

Wouldn't it be handy to know everyone's political position, their faith and whether they are pro-choice or not? Of course not. Can you imagine the road rage, the confrontations and the day to day drama? I guess that's why we don't wear of labels (other than the occasional bumper sticker) for everyone to see and judge. If everyone were to live their lives without judgement, stay aware of their surroundings, teach your family to be the same, then having the ability to point your finger at someone's mistakes would save the same finger pointing from happening to you.