John Albert Gardner III, a registered sex offender in Escondido, a north San Diego suburb, from January 2008 to January 2010, is accused of the murder of 17-year old Chelsea King and has now been considered a suspect in the murder of 14-year old Amber Dubois as well.

Chelsea King, last seen in a park in running clothes, went missing last month from San Diego, California. Once Chelsea’s father found her 1994 BMW parked at Rancho Bernardo Community Park, signs of foul play quickly emerged. Shortly afterwards, authorities discovered King’s semen-stained clothing, leading to the arrest of Gardner outside a restaurant in Escondido. Gardner has pleaded not guilty to murdering Chelsea and raping or attempting to rape her and attempting to rape another woman in an unrelated December 27 incident. 

After Gardner was charged with King’s death, the search for Amber Dubois intensified. Dubois disappeared in February 2009, last seen walking on February 13, 2009 with a man about 200 yards from Escondido High School. Another neighbor reported seeing her about 300 yards from school. Unfortunately, since Dubois vanished without a trace, and no leads, her case attracted little interest from the media. Without signs of foul play that may put other children at risk, attention of law enforcement and reporters is minimum. However, the discovery of King’s body triggered renewed interest in the Dubois case. On Sunday, March 7, Amber’s remains were uncovered in a remote area on the Pala Indian Reservation. 

The murders of Dubois and King have prompted Americans and the media to take a closer look at local sex offender laws. There are approximately 700,000 sex offenders in the United States at this time, and sex offenders have a 24-percent rate of recidivism. At the same time, there are 115 non-family child abductions a year in the America, averaging 2 a week. In light of the recent accusations against Gardner, and the possible connection with Dubois’ death, many families are calling for stricter laws against sex offenders and child abductors.

Gardner was convicted for molesting a 13-year old neighbor in San Diego in 2000, and served five years of a six-year prison term. A court-appointed psychiatrist, Dr. Matthew Carroll, recommended the maximum sentence for Gardner in 2000, claiming that he was an “extremely poor candidate” for treatment and a “continued danger to underage girls in the community.” Under a plea agreement, he faced a maximum sentence of nearly 11 years, but prosecutors urged six years. If Gardner had served the maximum sentence, Chelsea King would still be alive today. 

Fox News recently covered a story involving convicted sex offender James Donnelly. Donnelly is currently living across the street from an elementary school in California, even though a version of Jessica’s law that bans sex offenders from living less than 2000 feet away from any school was passed in that state. Unfortunately, police say that they have no way of actually enforcing that law.  Civil Rights attorney Remi Spencer explains that if sex offenders do not receive parole or probation, it is much more difficult to monitor this component of the law.   Fox  News anchor Gretchen Carlson believes that once defense lawyers have figured out this “loophole”, they will press for extended sentences to minimize the chances of parole or probation. 

While many believe that the laws against sex offenders need to be stricter, others claim the opposite. The state of Georgia has acquired the reputation of having the strictest sex offender laws. Surprisingly, however, on March 6, 2010, the Georgians for Reform held a 12-hour conference in the Georgia State Capitol pushing for more leniency with the sex-offender registry, claiming it is a failing system and an extension of criminal punishment, a violation of due process that deprives the offenders of human dignity. 

While the idea that sex offenders deserve to be treated with dignity is laughable, the Georgians for Reform make one good point: The sex offender registries have done little to prevent incidents of sexual offense, as exemplified by Phillip Garrido and Anthony Sowell, registered sexual offenders who committed further abuses. 

Nancy Sabin of the Jacob Wetterling Foundation, which combats child exploitation, explains that the laws do not protect the more than 90 percent of abused children who suffer at the hands of people they know. Also, the majority of the restrictions lump all sex offenders together, even though many of them are 18-year-old men who had sex with underage girlfriends. 

John Walsh, host of the Fox television show America’s Most Wanted, adds, “You can’t paint sex offenders with a broad brush.” He adds that the residency laws are worthwhile only if they can be enforced, but tens of thousands of the nation’s sex offenders are giving police fake addresses. Walsh pushed for Congress to pass a 2006 law named for his abducted and murdered son Adam, which makes failure to register by offenders guilty of serious crimes like rape and child molestation a felony.

Oklahoma state Rep. Lucky Lamons wants to loosen his state’s law that bans registered sex offenders from living within 2000 feet from a school because it forces offenders to live in rural areas, where they are too difficult to monitor. Likewise, the law does not differentiate between real offenders and those guilty of public urination, a sex offense in Oklahoma. In the past decade, 27 states have instituted strict residency restrictions inhibiting sex offenders from living in large parts of cities, like Tulsa, Atlanta, or Des Moines. Now offenders are claiming that they cannot find a place to live legally.   

Jill Levenson, professor of human services at Lynn University in Florida, argues that the residency restriction laws have the opposite of their intended effect, pushing sex offenders back into a life of crime. By forcing offenders to live in rural areas, they have less access to jobs and mental health services. 

Other evidence indicates that the restricted residency laws may be unnecessary. According to a 2003 survey conducted by the Minnesota Department of Corrections, sex offenders are likely to seek victims in neighborhoods other than their own. A report in 2004 by Colorado’s Department of Public Safety indicated that molesters who convicted more offenses lived no closer to schools or child-care centers than those who had not re-offended. 

In contrast to these findings, however, Jeffrey Walker of the University of Arkansas found that child molesters are twice as likely to live near schools than those who have sexually assaulted adults. 

The consensus seems to be that registry and restricted residency laws should be reserved for the most dangerous of the sex offenders, including those considered likely to repeat their offense. This will make monitoring these individuals a simpler task for law enforcement.  

Perhaps increased penalties and sentences should be considered as well. In Korea, as of 2008, many sex offenders are required to wear an electronic ankle bracelet. According to JoongAng Daily, “there have rarely been cases in Korea in which former sexual offenders have become repeat offenders since the law was implemented.” Unfortunately, this law does not entail retroactive legal application. Lawmakers in Korea have presented a bill to the National Assembly that pushes for increasing the prison term of sex offenders and increasing the supervision of released offenders. In July 2008, a man convicted of molesting three teenaged girls in Texas was sentenced to 4,060 years in prison. Such a symbolic gesture asserts that child sexual molestation would not be tolerated.  Something to think about. 

Researchers have proposed alternate approaches to the sex offender residency laws, including more checks by probation officers, mandatory therapy, and polygraphing offenders while imposing driving logs. One thing is for certain — something needs to be done to prevent cases like those of Chelsea King and Amber Dubois. 

Photo: FBI evidence response team members search a creekside area for evidence in the case of Amber Dubois in Escondido, Calif.: AP Images

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (16)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Sex Offender Issues said:

You don't expect politicians to listen to facts do you? http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com Nobody wants a child or anyone to be harmed, but politicians will continue to exploit sex offenders and the bogus fear the public has due to hyped up news articles and people using old bogus sound bites. Politicians use these issues to "look tough" on crime, while actually doing nothing, except helping themselves. Dangerous predators account for less than 5% of all sex offenders, yet we continue to treat all sex offenders as if they are child killing, molesting pedophile predators, which is not the norm. Most sex offenders do NOT commit another related crime, and they have the lowest recidivism rate of any other criminal, yet the media and politicians won't tell you this, because they'd not get the support they need or ratings. As long as we monitor all offenders, and not just those who are truly dangerous, nothing will be solved or prevented. This "lock em' up and throw away the key" mentality does nothing to prevent any future crime, nor protect anybody, it only locks someone up, after the fact! This video sums it up pretty well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-nALk9rUx0

March 09, 2010 | url

xEODGuy said:

My question... Where does it stop? Right now, it's "sex offenders" which lumps things like pissing on a trashcan in with rape and the sexual exploitation of children. What about parents that abuse their kids physically? It's much more prevelant and turns out more abusers, and is where all you serial killers are born. How about people convicted of drunk driving? They pose a much higher danger to the public at large than the 2/week non-parent child abductions by far (I should know...I've been convicted for DUI). This is not any type of solution...it's band-aids on bullet holes, at best and it starts us down a very slippery slope that is next to impossible to reverse. What needs to be done is to go to the root of the problem, and stop it before it starts.

March 09, 2010

Hankram said:

We need for the abuse to stop begatting abuse We can make more laws, hire more petition gatherers, impale every sex offender on the Golden State Freeway, etc., but until we stop victims from being abusers, your child still won't be safe.

March 09, 2010 | url

Keith said:

Jill is right! Our system is not helping sexual offenders. We cut them off from society-- no cell phones, no internet (I understand), and very little locations they can live in. We then plaster there face all over the neighborhood (again I understand) so that people treat them like a disease. We also forbid them relationships with anyone who has children (I agree). We basically isolate them so that they can never escape their nuerois and develop health relationships. Then we expect them not go underground. Crazy. Keith A Survivor

March 10, 2010

RWVNRAL said:

Decent Article...perhaps ...But where is the 24% recidivism statistic coming from? This number is totally new. My complaint is this--->> Clabough writes: "While the idea that sex offenders deserve to be treated with dignity is laughable" ---herein lies the problem: ALL human beings deserve to be treated with dignity. PERIOD. Once any group of human beings are determined to be unworthy of basic dignity, you might as well throw out the whole race. Because, sooner or later, your "group" will be on a list.....those n*ggers, those jews, those lepers, those retards, those john birchers (if you'll pardon me), those witches, those puritans, those arians....the list goes on and on, of course. What is laughable is that you can write what is otherwise a serious article and include a phrase within it that, quite literally, destroys the strength of everything else you write. As a registered offender myself, I am appalled and offended that you do not believe I deserve to be treated with dignity. What right have you to deny me basic respect? Because I'm a sex offender? Have you any idea what it is that I have supposedly done? Have you any idea the facts or circumstances surrounding my distinction as being so labeled? Context? Or does context matter anymore in "serious" journalistic endeavors? Hell...just give 'em a label. Works for McDonalds, right?

March 10, 2010

Susan said:

To Article Author Raven Clabough Cite the documented evidence for your claim of a 24% recidivism rate for 'sex offenders.' Make sure you cite legitimate data sets, historical trends, and sources. You are exaggerating to the point of flat out lying.

March 10, 2010

Response to Susan and RWVNRAL, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Mark said:

Disappointed in Society I have to say that we give convicted murderers dignity and it is a Federal law that we do so in prisons etc.. yet, they have stripped another person of their ultimate dignity as well as their life. These folks are not required to register (well, in Oklahoma I believe they are) but even if they were, they would be treated with dignity. I can tell you this from first hand experience, if someone doesn't return the dignity and respect that I afford them out of basic humanity, I will embarrass the hell out of them and maybe even put them in the ER. So, you cowards who talk about not giving someone dignity, you only mean that as long as you are safely locked in your house behind your little computer. Otherwise I would be reading about you all getting the s**t kicked out of you on a daily basis. I fought and d**n near died for this country, I carry my bullet holes with pride and I may not agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it. People like you do not want people like me around until you need us to save your sorry overfed asses. nI don't think fat people deserve any dignity either. If they can't even control their eating habits, what good are they? The point is, where in hell do we stop? I know for a fact that the justice system here in Oklahoma is about as crooked as Lombard Street and there are men here on the registry that do not belong there. They are there because of the public pretenders (I mean defenders) and the DA's working together. They will flat-out tell you that they care not if you are innocent or guilty, they just want a conviction so if you take this plea, you will do 2 years, if you don't, I'm going to try to get you 50 and I can d**n well do it. It's all a friggin game to them. I am a firm believer in "Don't Tread on Me"... If you do, you'll regret it. So think about that before you start treating everyone like dogs anywhere but on the internet.

March 12, 2010

Shelomith Stow said:

Recidivism In regard to the recidivism rate, the article cited emphasizes that the rate differs with length of time and with type of offense. Varying studies have yielded varying results. I have done the research; the 24% figure is the highest any reputable source has put forth, and I feel in all fairness, other sources should be cited. "Recently the Bureau of Justice Statistics published a study which tracked 9,700 sex offenders for three years, 2001-2004. Their findings concluded: Only 5.3% of these people imprisoned for sex crimes were rearrested for a subsequent sex offense." "A more multifaceted meta-analysis was done in 2004 by the office of Canada's Solicitor General, Karl Hanson. This analysis involved 95 studies tracking 31,000 sex offenders. These studies had an average follow-up period of 5 years and found: The recidivism rate for once-caught pedophiles was 12.7%. The overall once caught recidivism rate (includes adult victims) was 13.7%." And finally, this quote from a Missouri Supreme Court Judge in a 12 January 2010 ruling: "...rather than assuming that the rates are high, one should look at the data. Of the five categories of felony offenders in Missouri's correctional population...sex offenders have the lowest rates of recidivism. Their rate of recidivism after two years is 5.3 percent, while recidivism rates for other categories of offenders are 9.6 percent for violent offenders, 14.9 percent for nonviolent offenders, 11.7 percent for drug offenders, and 11.4 percent for felony DWI offenders. The rate of recidivism includes the likelihood of a convicted sex offender to commit any future crime, not just a sex offense. (Missouri Sentencing Advisory Commission, Recommended Sentencing Biennial Report 2009 at 46, available at http://www.mosac.mo.gov/file/2009 Biennial Report.pdf)

March 15, 2010

Random Reader said:

Smart readers! I was going to object to the pandering, urban myth touting tone of this article but the reader comments are right on track.

March 15, 2010

cajajo said:

Courts The fact that men (almost exclusively), when arrested, cannot produce evidence of their innocence is one reason so many are on the registry. No amount of money or expertise will help when a 'victim' makes a phone call - hearsay is good enough for the courts. What about the children of the offenders, guilty or not? Why should they be made to suffer? A parent on the registry brings humiliation to these kids when other parents find out and blab it to everyone. They are the collateral damage no one thinks about. They are harmed sometimes physically, every time financially and psychologically. Many, many more children are being harmed than protected. Wise up and ponder this: “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”-Mein Kampf-page 140, Adolf Hitler (This is not found in any copy online.) WARrior of WAR - Women Against the Registry http://www.pacwar.org

March 17, 2010 | url

soccermother said:

... The laws have gone to far. If you are dating before you turn 18 is it ok. But once you turn 18 it is not. My son dated a girl she was 16 and he was 17. He turn 18 she is now 17. The girls parents get her on the pill. They have sex it is ok. He breaks up with her then it is RAPE. Because she says I did not want to have sex with him. After taking a plea he is now a sex offender for the next 25 years. He had no choice to take the plea because after researching it he would have been convicted because of their age. He has a 10 year jail time and ten years probation. The girl still proclaims her love for him on her my space account. Tells her friend she want him and still loves him. What makes matter worse she is a second degree black belt and weighs 180 lbs my son at the time was only 102 lbs. The lawmakers make these laws because this is how they get elelcted. Have you research Jessica Lundsford dad Mark. He when to Ohio and blasted the Ohio courts becasue his son was going to be charged as a sex offender. The Ohio court brought down the charges so he is not a sex offender. What is good for all should also be good for Mark Lunsfors family. I am sorry that his daughter was raped and murdered by this man but not all sex offenders are as bad as this man. This should not have happened. We need to stop these feel good laws and track the violent ones. The police will tell you they can not track all the violent ones becasue they have to track the non-vilent ones and the ones that are low risk like my son. SEE THIS WEB SITE AND YOU WILL SEE WHAT I MEAN www.operationawareness.com/about_6.html

March 27, 2010

Christian said:

... Does it surprise anyone that that the Amber Dubois disappearance case (Escondido, CA) has no one in custody for the crime and the Chelsea King case (Rancho Bernardo, CA) has a convicted sex offender awaiting trial. Could it be where they happened to die or that the one family is poor and the other affluent. Is anyone surprised that the Amber Dubois family, knowing the history of the Escondido Police went and hired a private investigator who passed along information as to where the body was ultimately found. We all remember the Stephanie Crowe Murder Case where the Escondido Police Department falsely accused her brother Michael Crowe and forced confessions (as a 01/15/2010, Michael Crowe, won a case against Escondido PD). Could it be that the criminal is a member of the Escondido Police Department and all of them are protecting their own (like the Catholic Church) and that’s why they originally said she was a runaway to deflect additional searches. Could it be that the police are just following “Escondido City Council“ (Gang of Three – Marie Waldron, Sam Abed and Ed Gallo)orders to chase around un-document workers and not do their job of protecting and serving the residents of Escondido. It kind of makes you wonder if the “Gang of three” has ask the police to formally or informally investigate potential or future political opponents, it makes you wonder doesn’t it. Of course it could be that Escondido Police Department is filled with incompetent dullards who love taking steroids in their attempts to look like their body builder heroes. The only thing I can say for sure is there is something wrong here.

March 28, 2010

LGW said:

Oklahoma Recidivism Oklahoma has had a sona since November 1, 1989. Twenty-one (21) years. I went on the Oklahoma sex offender registry and found the 'Roster.' It listed 6461 total RSO's. I then looked up "HABITUAL," and found there were 182. That gives us a 0.028% "Habitual" for the entire state. Or to put it another way. slightly over 1/4 of 1% Habitual or repeat offenders on the registry. There is NO 24% recidivism for Oklahoma. Politicians and the news media misquote for votes, and ratings. We have been blind-sided with false statements by them for years. It's time to let them know what the true facts are.

April 01, 2010 | url

LGW said:

10 year study of recidivism in California. The problem with California and most states is the lack of 'common sense.' Instead politicians need these type offenses for votes and the media for ratings. They have 'effectively' kept out and ignored all the real research that could guide them in preventing this type of crime. Jessica's law 'compounds the problem' in California. California Sex Offender Management Board (www.CASOMB.org June 2008 The following figures on a ten-year California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) follow-up study of the recidivism of 3,577 individuals convicted of a sex offense who were released from CDCR prisons in 1997 and followed until the end of 2007 The bottom line with this study is: CUMULATIVE TOTAL OF ALL WHO HAD BEEN RETURNED TO CUSTODY UNTIL 2007- A 10 YEAR PERIOD 3.38% were returned to custody with a new sex crime. By the end of the third year 3.21 re-offended and the remaining seven years produced the remaining 0.17% AFTER PERCENT INCREASE YEAR 1 79 2.21% 2.21% YEAR 2 26 0.73% 2.94% YEAR 3 10 0.27% 3.21% YEAR 5 3 0.09% 3.30% YEAR 10 3 0.08% 3.38% TOTAL 121 3.38% 3.38% http://tinyurl.com/yejeynv

April 01, 2010 | url

LGW said:

PREDATORS are hiding in the registry. With recidivism so low, why are we monitoring ALL sex offenders and painting them with the same brush? This creates a situation where the PREDATORS may hide in the registry. Politicians love this kind of situation because they can "appear" to be tough on crime. Prosecutors, (Remember Mike NiFong)?, they love to prosecute and get their notch in their belt. To the media, Nancy Grace, Bill O'reilly, Keith Oberman and the like love the ratings. It's money in their pocket. If politicians really cared about protecting society. They would not be writing laws that endanger our entire society. Evidence Based Research has been effectively ignored by law makers. Votes are more important.

April 01, 2010 | url