This Rape Victim Wants To End the Sex Offender Registry
"A lot of people on the registry are on there for consensual behavior, things I think many people agree shouldn’t be crimes," says Meaghan Ybos, the president of Women Against Registry.

When Meaghan Ybos was raped in 2003, it was the sort of assault you see more often in cinematic crime fiction than in reality. A stranger, wearing a ski mask, broke into her home, held a knife to her throat, and forced himself on her.
Twenty years later, Ybos is president of Women Against Registry, an organization dedicated to ending sex offender registration across the country. Ybos' advocacy started down that unorthodox path when her rapist was finally caught, nine years after the attack. She then learned that the Memphis Police Department had neglected to test the majority of the rape kits it collected, including hers. Since then, she's been pushing back against the myth of the rape kit "backlog," pointing out that in much of the country it isn't actually a backlog. The police departments simply weren't testing thousands of kits.
In May, Reason's Billy Binion interviewed Ybos by phone.
Q: You are a victim of rape. So what is it that inspires you to get involved with something like Women Against Registry?
A: I think a lot of law enforcement programming is a scam, and my experience with my rape case and my rape kit definitely, I feel, had many elements of a scam. A lot of it is just political theater to get certain people elected, having no relation to safety. I consider the registry to be another facet of that. It's not living up to what politicians and law enforcement claim about it, using victims like me as a currency.
Q: Some might say your work with Women Against Registry is exhibiting compassion for the type of person that totally upended your life. Is that how you would describe it?
A: I don't really see it having anything to do with my rapist, because most people on the registry are not like my rapist. And that's part of why I regard it as such a scam, because I've seen firsthand how the police can fail to investigate or apprehend actual dangerous people who commit violent crimes.
Once my rapist was caught, he got 178 years in prison. He will die in prison, and he will never be on the registry. A lot of people on the registry are on there for consensual behavior, things I think many people agree shouldn't be crimes.
To answer your question in another way, I do think that once someone serves their sentence, then it should be done. So I wouldn't support my rapist, if he got out of prison, having to go on a registry.
Q: Your experience confers a specific credibility to your argument.
A: A lot of times the retort to people arguing against the registry is, "You should tell that to so-and-so who was raped when she was 16 by a stranger." OK: Well, I was. That was my case. I actually have a rare type of stranger rape that doesn't even happen to that many people, and I'm still against this.
Q: If you're talking to someone who disagrees with you about this, what do you say?
A: Is it good for a society to be able to punish people after they've served their punishment? Is it good for our society to accept the government keeping lists of people for whom constitutional rights can be suspended? I think especially people who think the FBI was politically retaliating against Donald Trump should be able to see the potential for abuse and cultural corrosion that comes with vesting law enforcement agencies with that kind of power.
Q: Can you outline some of the barriers that the registry creates that may even encourage someone to re-offend?
A: It destabilizes people completely. It can limit where people can live, if they can live with their families, where they can go. They can't live or be near a church or a school—and in some places, like Memphis, there are churches on every corner, essentially. It impacts where someone will be able to work. They will be excluded often from staying in shelters when their registry location restrictions make them homeless. So it cuts people off from their families, their support systems, being able to earn a living. The evidence suggests definitely that the registry is counterproductive as any supposed crime reduction goal.
This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The criminal behavior violating the NAP destabilizes people. When you chose the behavior, you chose the consequences.
Willie Horton got furloughed. Some Dukakis (D) type could always change the rules there where he could be released. It wouldn’t be a parole though.
You are so so correct that when the pols don't do their jobs, others will take up the fight. The problem is that SORs are over-inclusive. I don't think, by the way, that public urination ought to get people on the registry.
No one has ever been able to show a single case of a person being put on the registry for public urination. It’s a myth.
It is possible however that someone was charged with a sexual crime and pled down to “indecent exposure” and then claimed they “only were peeing outside”.
How about all the people put on it ex post facto?
A summary of American politics in one sentence.
A lot of it is just political theater to get certain people elected, having no relation to safety.
A summary of
Americanpolitics in one sentence.FIFY. Not just in America.
One of the problems with the Sex Offender Registry (SOR) is that in many areas there are not enough offenders to justify it. As a result the definition of the offenses that put someone on it keep expanding. Anybody who speaks out against it is accused of being soft on rapists.
20 years ago, in our area there was a rumor of gay men hooking up for sex in the restrooms of a State Park. The restrooms were promptly closed. Then the rumor changed to them hooking up on the hiking trails. There was enough of an outcry that a task force was set up to patrol the trails. After several weeks the task force had no arrests, so to keep it's funding they started issuing citations for other things including "indecent exposure". The indecent exposure was people who were using the Park, relieving themselves in the woods because the restrooms were CLOSED. A bit later the County SOR was in danger of losing funding because of a lack of "offenders". So a lawyer in the County DA's office came up with the idea of adding the men who were cited for "indecent exposure" in the Park to the registry, increasing the numbers. These people had no chance to challenge this, in many cases they were never even notified that they were being added. When the County put the registry online they didn't show the the charges that put people on the registry. It took over ten years to have these people removed from the SOR.
No one has ever been able to show a single case of a person being put on the registry for public urination. It’s a myth.
It is possible however that someone was charged with a sexual crime and pled down to “indecent exposure” and then claimed they “only were peeing outside”.
have the victim determine whether the rapist is listed.
That's not a terrible idea. Though I've always thought that if someone is so dangerous that they can't be trusted near a school, they should probably stay locked up. And if they aren't dangerous, they should be allowed to get on with their life.
Sorry, no, that is a terrible idea. Individual victims are not sufficiently impartial to administer justice. They may make statements that influence sentencing but they are never (and never should be) allowed to unilaterally set the sentence.
More to the point, Ybos is right that if someone is dangerous enough to be a threat, they belong in jail. Once you serve your time, you deserve your rights back - all of them.
They may make statements that influence sentencing but they are never (and never should be) allowed to unilaterally set the sentence.
Unilateral wasn’t stated. I got the impression it was more of a “The jury finds you guilty, you sentence is [insert time period] in prison and up to [insert another time period] on the sex offender registry, the latter at the victim’s (victims’) discretion.” – The Judge
Under the admittedly false conception that the registry is well maintained and conducted in good faith, it *could* be a decent middle ground for the he said/she said cases.
>>Individual victims are not sufficiently impartial to administer justice.
of course not but Ms. Ybos is deciding chocolate for everyone when some may prefer strawberry. inverted her idea to be inclusive not tyrannical.
She's not "deciding" for anyone but herself. She's advocating for her personal preference, not forcing it on anyone else. People with different views are equally free to argue in favor of theirs.
Once a sentence is handed out, that person will be released even if they are dangerous.
Unless you mean civil commitment, something WAR and Ybos are both very much against.
Ybos is angry at the police and has a vendetta. Now she is siding with the group of people that harmed her and others in the same way. WAR isn’t just about getting ride of the registry but attacks ANY sex offender laws and pushes for restorative justice instead.
Ybos rapist was sentenced to life but is on the registry. I don’t see her campaigning to have him removed from it. He could receive a pardon or appeal and get out early and the only way Meghan could track him is because of that list. He could move next door without her even knowing.
That’s the same for every sex offense victim. The registry is a consequence of that persons action and they put themselves there.
"if someone is so dangerous that they can’t be trusted near a school, they should probably stay locked up..."
When people write statements like this, it is obvious they don't understand the purpose of prisons. When a person commits a crime, they get a sentence, not always involving prison but many get some time. But there's a set time frame for the punishment, say, 5 years for example. Barring any kind of early release program, that person gets out in 5 years, regardless of perceived dangerousness, because prisons are not treatment centers, they are punishment centers. They cannot detain a person once the end of sentence date is reached simply because they think someone might reoffend.
Some states have used shadow prisons, aka "civil commitment centers," to pretend they are treating those they think might reoffend but that's a very costly farce. 2
Reminds me of an American Dad episode in which a hot woman explains to some teenage boys that she's a registered sex offender.
"Where are you registered and what have you not yet received," asks one of the boys.
"A lot of people on the registry are on there for consensual behavior, things I think many people agree shouldn’t be crimes," says Meaghan Ybos, the president of Women Against Registry.
Not that I think there should be a registry and this is nothing personal Ms. Ybos, but for this forum, I'm going to need you to clearly define exactly what you mean by "consensual" and... have you *seen* many people in this country lately?
Gay dudes banging and public urination witnessed only by under cover cops seem pretty clear cut. I guess the question of whether we're talking consent as legally defined or by the plain meaning of the word comes into play in some other cases.
Right. I’m pretty sure there are some people on the registry because of deeds with people well below the age of consent that “many people agree shouldn’t be a crime” though too.
Again, not saying that’s what Ms. Ybos is saying, but this magazine has a habit of hearing words like “Parental Rights” and stealing both the pedophile and gay bases… in an earnest defense of pedophiles and backhanded defense of gays.
I’m not a mind reader and I don’t think I hear dog whistles, but… more clarity please.
Edit: And this may be piling on, but there's an added meta-dimension as well. We execute fewer people, put more on death row, let out more violent felons, incarcerate more non-violent ones... does getting people off the registry mean more and longer prison sentences (in already overcrowded prisons)? Or does it mean we let more multiply-convicted child molesters out early because keeping tabs on them and/or making sure they don't work at a daycare center would be too onerous?
First note that the interview was "condensed and edited for style and clarity." She may have given examples.
I remember a case (can't find a current link) with a boyfriend-girlfriend situation where he was less than a year over the state age of consent, and she was less than a year under. He served time in prison after her mother reported it. After he got out, they married. He's on the list, which now restricts both of them. Those are far from rare.
Those are extremely rare and the case is usually lacking detail. Because the person is a juvenile they know you can never cross check their court records. So then you find out they were actually charged for multiple younger victims or violence when they end up back in prison years later when those records are released.
Only person with a vendetta here is you. You're way to obsessed with the anti-registry movement.
Perhaps for the benefit of the public, people like you should be placed on some kind of registry for idiots.
Ad hominem attacks?
If we want to go that route I would like to point out that oncefallen.com is a website owned by a “Derek Logue” who sexually abused a 12 year old girl.
Oh wait, supposedly you didn’t actually “sexually” abuse a girl, you only french kissed her. (lol)
It’s all in your book at oncefallen.com.
I've never viewed the sexual offender registry. I don't know anyone who has viewed the sex offender registry. I don't know anyone who knows anyone who has viewed the sex offender registry. I've never asked and no one has ever told me they are on the sex offender registry. What's the purpose of the sex offender registry again?
To make it look like something is being done.
I once looked at it and found someone with the same name as a coworker. Wasn’t the same person. Sent the coworker the link to it.
I know lots of people that don’t use seat belts or home alarms. I use both. That’s the purpose.
If people aren’t using the registry as a tool, then they should be educated on using it.
Sane people choose NOT to use the registry bvecause most know it is a worthless list, unless you're a vigilante scumbag or a low IQ mouth breather who watches Nancy Grace and SVU.
Or someone that was abused by someone on the registry.
But sex offenders are the “real” victims here. lol
Narcissistic much?
Should you even be online?