The Sex Offender Registry is ineffective in combating child sexual abuse.

Your comment, ""Whether or not it is a viable tool for law enforcement is not what we are debating". On the contrary, we are debating the "sex offender registry" and its effectiveness in combating child sexual abuse. I contend that "child sexual abuse" is an issue that is fought on many fronts, therefore Law Enforcement is an integral part of that prevention. In the last week alone the headlines profiled 4 attempted abductions of children. Law Enforcement in conjunction with the witness's accessed the registry in an attempt to identify the perpetrators and publish with the accounts of those witnesses, composite sketches, in hopes the public may recognize the "predators" in each of these cases. Whether you concede to my points about the registry being a timely, viable tool for LE is moot to the debate. It is and has long been the go to "information database" for LE in the scenarios I have mentioned above. A "contained" sex offender/predator is in itself the very definition of preventable abuse to another potential victim. It is your assumption, not mine, that the "public registry" actually causes more crime. Various International Private studies have published that offenders do better under a public registration system. They are made more accountable for their actions and the offenders concede that the "victims" have a right to know of their presence in society. Offenders who have been mandated to go thru "private" treatment programs have been quoted to recognize the public registry as a helpful tool in controlling impulsive behaviors. I personally do not find your references to the "Department Of Justice" and or their statistics a very compelling weight to your debate. I notice you add them frequently as a link in an attempt to substantiate your position. Due to my long involvement, research and observation with this issue the DOJ in my opinion, is the last link of reference that I would use as a valid and non partial reference for this subject. It has been my experience that the DOJ and other government agencies publish data in an attempt to implement social policies that are based on budget concerns, first and foremost. My conclusions are drawn from the correlation of the funding practices to the researchers themselves. I have not to date found a published reference from the DOJ that was not also "funded or subsidized" by the DOJ in the form of taxpayer grants or subsidies. With that being said, your statistical data from that particular source carries no weight with persons as myself. You presume wrongly to take my position as one who leans on "stereotypical kidnappings" as a basis for my stance. But I do take offense to your minimization of ""only 57 children" were kidnapped and sexually assaulted. In real terms that is more than one a week which in itself warrants public notification despite your insistance that it does not. Your argument that the "general public" cannot properly gauge even basic aspects of the registry, is not without some merit. I have long advocated that the "public" should better educate themselves on the various definitions of the registry. It is my contention that a better informed public would go on to advocate for harsher repercussions, longer sentencing guidelines and more inclusive residency restrictions, if they fully comprehended the daily release of some very serious criminals who pose a substantial danger to the community. I included the "bird's eye" term as a reference that allows the public to analyze the over sight and enforcement of their particular communities Law Enforcement and Correctional agencies as it relates to their neighborhoods. I personally have been woefully disappointed in the Department of Probation's abilities to perform and adhere to the most basic of supervisory duties and responsibilities they have to the public. I can only "cite" my multiple personal experiences with the DOP as it has related to my particular zip code. Your question "increases or decreases the security of a neighborhood that you would cite an academic study that proves your point." That question is ludicrous at its most basic level . A neighborhood who has a disproportionate amount of sex offenders/predators in relation to the general public has a higher "risk factor" than a neighborhood that does not. The same "risk factors" are heightened whether we are debating drug dealers or toxic waste dumps. The same "risk factors" applies to property values when perspective property buyers are looking for areas to raise their families. It has been my observation that first time home buyers and or renters are also young families who look at schools, parks and other aspects of a "family setting" prior to investing or setting up residence. Often the neighborhoods are in multiple zoning areas that include numerous rental properties with single residential real estate combined. Sex offenders often gravitate to these same communities due to the affordable aspects of these rentals. In my opinion that's a recipe for disaster and an unacceptable risk. Your comment "This sex offender registry is designed to keep strangers away from children, thus it is not effective in the majority of sex crimes against children." That is simply not true. The Registry is not "designed" for anything other than a tool to inform the public of who has been convicted of sexually based crimes. The Registry is not "designed" to SAVE our children or envelope them in a protective coating to eliminate sexual abuse. It is a database that should be accessed by the public to educate them as to who may pose a higher risk factor to themselves and or their families. No more, no less. An informed public is a safer public and with that knowledge they can act accordingly.