Two weeks ago, I was having lunch with two german young men, ages 22 and 24. Through conversation, we somehow arrived at the topic of sex offender registries, which I explained are US databases open to the public that allow you to see the names, home addresses, and crime classifications of convicted sex offenders. They were aghast. Immediately ensued questions such as,"If you believe someone has served their due time, why would you continue to label them?" "Are these people safe" "How do they get jobs" "If you think they're still so dangerous, why are you letting them free?"

I was baffled, to say the least. I had never given any consideration to sex offenders' safety or humanity--I held the opinion that they gave up their right to a normal life the second they took away another person's right to their body. However, that's easy to believe, and harder to defend. It's impossible to classify all sex offenders as equal seeds of evil. Reform is possible in some cases and impossible in others. As a society, we need to get serious about making that distinction, and examining the effectiveness and morality of sex offender registries.

Let’s begin by looking at how they came about. In 1994, seven-year-old Megan Kanka was raped and murdered by her neighbor Jesse Timmendequas, a convicted child rapist. One month later, the New Jersey General Assembly passed a series of bills that would require all sex offenders to be registered in a public database. The arguments that called into question the constitutionality or ethics of the bill were shot down by the bill's’ main proponent, assemblyman Paul Kramer, who stated that had these laws been around in the first place, “Megan Kanka would be alive today”.

It is hard to oppose Kramer’s bill in the face of such a heart wrenching statement. And, a quick review of Timmendequas’ criminal history shows just how easily Kramer’s statement was supported. In 1979, Jesse Timmendequas was convicted of sexaully assaulting a five year old, and after failing to attend counseling classes, was sent to Middlesex Adult Correctional Center for nine months. In 1981, he pled guilty to raping a seven year old, and was sent to Adult Diagnostic & Treatment Center for six years.

Then, in 1994, Timmendequas raped and killed Megan Kanka. Of course, when such tragedies happen, we are quick to beg the question: what could we have done, and how can we make sure this doesn’t happen again? At the time, and still now, Mr. Kramer’s solution felt like a straightforward one, and effective prevention tactic. However, a step back reveals just how problematic a public sex offender registry is, and how it fails to actually address the flaws in our justice system's approach to sex offenders. The problem with sex offender registries can be broken into two parts: 1) People we do not trust to use the internet, walk past a school yard, or otherwise be free, should not be released in the first place. 2) Not all sex offenders are equal, and we don't have an unfettered right to people's criminal history--including sex offenders.

I know that last statement may sound preposterous. I get it. Hopefully, as I explain, you'll understand where I'm coming from. Let's start with the first issue: Jesse Timmendequas, and other pedophiles or people who have been deemed as dangers to society (Timmendequas' psychiatrists at the treatment center deemed him a continued threat, but had to release him regardless) should never be released in the first place. Pedophiles and psychopaths cannot be stopped from committing crimes simply by inserting their name and address into an online database. Had a sex offender registry been in place in 1994, it's possible that Megan Kanka would still be alive. But, you’d be hard-pressed to convince me that he would not have simply sought out another victim ten miles north.

Our laws continue to be structured in a way that allow such dangers, like Timmendequas, to re-enter society after short-lived prison sentences. Currently, in Colorado the minimum jail time for a Class 3 felony where repeated sexual abuse of a victim under 15 by a trusted adult has occurred is four years. Just this April, a California judge took off ten years of Rojano-Nieto's prison sentence, who in December of 2014 sodomized a 3 year old, because the judge believed that Nieto did not “appear to consciously intend to harm (the victim) when he sexually assaulted her.”

Let that sink in for just a moment. In Colorado, a trusted adult with a pattern of sexual abuse towards a minor can get away with just a four year prison sentence. In California, there is a judge who seems to believe that sodomizing a three year old and accidentally hurting somebody’s feelings fall under the same moral framework. Timmendequas, after being found guilty of raping a child for the second time, was sent to a correctional facility where staff deemed him a continued threat to children, and he was still released after just six years. So, let’s be very clear: we do not need sex offender registries, we need longer mandatory sentences for sex offenders. No offender should be released unless they are deemed as non-threatening to society by psychiatrists and/or other relevant professionals.

We also need to get real about sex offenders: they are not all equal. Rojano-Nieto and Timmendequas are not equal to nineteen year old Zach Anderson, who had sex with a girl who claimed to be 17, but was discovered to be fourteen. Zach Anderson, by the way, will be on the National Sex Offender registry for the next 25 years, cannot use the internet, and cannot have a smartphone. Furthermore, high school boys and other men who commit date rape must get counseling and undergo serious psychiatric evaluation, rehabilitation and serve jail time. However, to label them as a sex offenders for twenty or so years under the same database as serial rapists and child molesters is a unnecessary, unfair and dangerous. They are not being punished for their crime, they are being demonized and villainized as human beings in a way that makes it impossible for them to reenter society and have a chance at a normal life. To have your name, address, and criminal history dating back twenty years open to the public is not making society safer--like I said, if someone wants to commit a crime, a registry won't stop them--instead, it puts people who have already served their time in danger.

I am not saying that date rape or any other form of sexual assault is not a horrifying act of maliciousness and callousness that can affect a victim for life. However, I do believe that not all rapists are certain and continued threats to society, and that there are circumstances in which rapists can be rehabilitated and trusted to re-enter society.If they have been deemed safe to re-enter society, that should be the end of their sentence. Their offense should not be public knowledge, nor should their address open to public view. That is not justice, that is persecution.

You may ask, "What about the victim? They don't get to carry on.".

That is in part true. The survivor will feel the weight of their tragedy forever, perhaps. I also think it's degrading and patronizing to say that victims do not get to carry on and lead happy successful lives. Survivors of sexual assault are not bound to their that part of their life- they carry on, become educators, politicians, doctors, teachers, mothers and fathers.

In conclusion, sex offender registries are ineffective and unethical. We must invest more in psychiatric evaluations, so that dangerous people are not released into society, and so that people we do deem safe to re-enter society do not serve more than the prison sentence handed to them.