This kind of fact-free journalism makes management of offenders who are at higher risk to re-offend much more difficult. Former offenders have a recidivism rate of around 5%. There are ways to determine who is more likely to re-offend. Those people are the ones that need to be monitored more closely, but they can not receive any additional attention because law enforcement is burdened with the other 95% of the ex offenders who are a very low risk of re-offending. These kinds of stories that promote myths rather than facts are part of the problem. Law enforcement is at the mercy of public perception. Until the public demands changes that actually improve public safety, nothing will change. The media deserves a large chunk of the blame for participating in such yellow journalism. We all deserve better from all media outlets. This is a serious subject and deserves serious treatment. I notice there are no citations for sources of the information stated. That would be because the only source for those statements is "everybody knows". Turns out common sense isn't very common. Bury your head in the sand if you want, but DoJ statistics clearly show that a child is much more likely to be abused at home or school than by a stranger. Strangers get all the attention because they are so rare. Meanwhile 10-23% of children are being abused in their homes, school, neighbors, etc and there's no outcry at all. It's fine to want to protect children. It's not fine to close your eyes, wish it were all better, and focus all of our attention and resources on a population that has been shown not to be part of the problem. The next person to abuse a child is not in custody and has never been caught. They are likely a family member or friend of the child. Let's not forget, sexual abuse is only one kind of abuse, yet they are all damaging to the child. Are we saying that emotional abuse doesn't count because it's not sexual? No, and these stories don't help, and do hurt.

Yrriarte - do you have any statistics or documentation for your claim that "sex offenders always reoffend"? Despite that statement, and the asinine slant of this non-news-article, both the DOJ and the CSOMB have assigned former sex offenders a reoffense rate of 5.5%, less than any other convicted criminal except a murderer. That is to say, LESS likely to reoffend than a drunk driver (85%), an arsonist, a burglar, a car jacker, a bank robber, etc. etc. etc. Just sayin' let's get some truth out here.

We have more of a problem with gang bangers and violent crime such as carjackings, home invasions and burglars than we do with sex offenders. Unless police go after the dangerous criminals, back off sex offenders.

Not sure yrrlate where you are deriving your facts from but the fact is that sex offenders have the lowest and I repeat lowest recidivism rate. I am leaving a few links for you to read and see for yourself. All of these are authored by state agencies that oversee sex offenders. http://issuu.com/soissues/docs/oh_-_ten_year_recidivism_follow-up_of_1989_sex_off/1 http://issuu.com/soissues/docs/doj---recidivism-of-prisoners-released-in-1994/1 http://issuu.com/soissues/docs/ca_-_2010_adult_institutions_outcome_evaluation_re/1 Take special note I included the california study also. The bigger problem is the hysteria news media frenzy. We tend to believ the non researched facts and fear instead of looking for ourselves and getting answers. The registry is a complete and utter failure. But if you feel so strongly that it is so good can you please explain how children are placed on it? http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-01-03-kid-sex-offenders_N.htm?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Of course they are going to cut of their ankle moniter. Didn't you know, being on a sex offender parole has been set up for the vast majority to fail? Why wouldn't someone go out cut off their ankle moniter and rape? They are going back to prison anyway. Oh, I thumb my nose at the registry. Why? Because when the news media puts out information that a person on the registry is likely to re-offend, those people on the registry will be put at risk of their safety and/or security. That registtry doesn't tell who is dangerous, and who is not. It is not a legal requirement to be dangerous to be on a registry. What happens if people on the registry are not as this article says they are? I know you don't care and that is why I will not go on a registry. UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WORKS?

Sex offenders almost ALWAYS re-offend! They are sick and need to be kept locked up. Making excuses for "minor" violations?? You need help!

This article is biased and promotional...a nasty little trend in unprofessional journalism these days. Doesn't this publication have an editor? One myth is that all sex offenders are the same. The distinction is important. There are people on the registry who urinated in public, that they sent a sex message to a loved one, that they might have had consensual teen sex versus someone who might have had brutally raped a dozen women or children. There is no distinction there. They think everybody on the registry is a monster. There is much misinformation circulated by many media and elected officials. The fact is the recidivism rate for sex offenders is the second lowest for any offense. It is 5.3% over a lifetime for all offenders and for those who are child molesters," it is even lower; it is 3.1%. HOWEVER, the state needs grant money and if we can demonize a defenseless class of citizen . . .