Sex Offender Registration Research Articles

The Evolution of Unconstitutionality in Sex Offender Registration Laws

More is not always better. Consider sex offender registration laws. Initially anchored by rational basis, registration schemes have spiraled out of control because legislators, eager to please a fearful public, have been given unfettered freedom by a deferential judiciary. This particular article does not challenge the state’s legislative power to enact sex offender registration laws. Instead, this piece posits that, even if sex offender registration schemes were initially constitutional, serially amended sex offender registration schemes – what this piece dubs super-registration schemes – are not. Their emergence over the last several years demands reexamination of traditionally held assumptions that shaped the original legislation. Two intertwined causes are responsible for the schemes’ constitutional downfall. The first is a legislative body eager to draft increasingly harsh registration and notification schemes to please an electorate that subsists on a steady diet of fear. When combined with the second cause, a Supreme Court that has yet to signal much needed boundaries, the ensuing consequence is runaway legislation that is no longer rationally connected to its regulatory purpose. Ultimately, this article is a cautionary tale of legislation that has unmoored from its constitutional grounding because of its punitive effect and excessive reach.

Federal standards for community registration of juvenile sex offenders: An evaluation of risk prediction and future implications.

The enactment of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act in 2006 is an extension of current protective legislation aimed at establishing stricter sanctions for community-released sexual offenders. What largely separates the Adam Walsh Act from previous registration and notification laws is the crossing of traditional jurisdictional boundaries between adult and juvenile courts at the federal level. This article addresses several key concerns relating to the application of these federal standards to adolescent offenders. In addition to a review of the extant literature, we present findings from an exploratory evaluation that examines the ability of the Adam Walsh Act’s classification system to predict future offending among a sample of 112 adjudicated juvenile sex offenders over a 2-year outcome period. Results indicate that offenders who met criteria for registration did not reoffend (sexually or nonsexually) at a significantly higher rate than those who did not meet registration criteria. Implications regarding appropriate risk assessment and management of youth sexual offenders are discussed.

Older Inmates Challenge Prisons and LTC Facilities

Older Inmates Challenge Prisons and LTC Facilities

100,000 Sex Offenders Missing . . . or Are They? Deconstruction of an Urban Legend

It is frequently reported by the media and public officials that 100,000 registered sex offenders (RSOs) in the United States are “missing.” This policy note first describes the origin of this figure, which was initially derived from a 2003 informal survey of state registries conducted by a grassroots advocacy organization. Then, we explore the definitional ambiguities that complicate the process of calculating the national number of fugitive sex offenders. Finally, we present emerging research efforts to develop reliable estimates of the number and proportion of RSOs officially recorded by states as absconded, whereabouts unknown, or noncompliant with registration requirements. While such data remain limited, we find little evidence to support that 100,000 sex offenders are “missing,” using even the most inclusive definitions. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.

Parole Board Members’ Views of Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification

Little is known about how criminal justice officials perceive fairness, efficacy or scope of sex offender registration and community notification procedures, despite their importance in implementing such policies. There is also scant literature regarding parole board members and their attitudes or approaches to their work. This study addresses both issues by examining the attitudes and beliefs regarding sex offender registration and community notification among members of state parole boards. Using a survey methodology, including the Community Attitudes Toward Sex Offenders (CATSO) scale (Church, Wakeman, Miller, Clements, & Sun, 2008), parole board members are shown to hold moderate views of the importance of such practices and to frequently question the efficacy and scope of registration and community notification. Additionally, the CATSO is shown to not be of assistance for understanding the views of parole board members.

The Adam Walsh Act and Tribes: One Lawyer's Perspective

M. Brent Leonhard is the Deputy Attorney General for the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the first tribal jurisdiction (along with the State of Ohio) to be designated by the Department of Justice as having substantially implemented the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act requirements. He is also a principle author of the Model Tribal Sex Offender Registration Code. In this brief article he expresses his personal opinions about the Adam Walsh Act and implementation issues tribes face, concluding that the Act needs to be amended.

Prospects for the international migration of U.S. sex offender registration and community notification laws

Sex offender registration and community notification laws have proved enormously popular in the U.S. This is so even though the avowed sexual violence preventive benefits of the laws remain largely untested and unproven; indeed, it remains an open question whether the laws actually have anti-therapeutic and criminogenic effect. This article examines why this data deficit has characterized the social and political evolution of the laws and considers the prospects for their migration to other nations.

Who are the people in your neighborhood? A descriptive analysis of individuals on public sex offender registries

Despite growing focus on registration and notification systems as central elements of national sex offender management practice, there has been remarkably little systematic analysis of the content of these registries and the diversity of individuals contained within them. Specifically, little research attention has been paid to examining the heterogeneity of the population of registered sex offenders — a circumstance that may obscure important distinctions within the population and, in turn, may undermine the ostensible purpose of SORN to prevent sexual victimization. Addressing this significant gap in our current knowledge, this article sets forth a national profile of the registered sex offender (RSO) population, drawn from an analysis of data on 445,127 RSOs obtained from the public registries of 49 states, Washington, DC, Puerto Rico and Guam. In contrast with the homogenized perception about registered sex offenders that permeates much public discourse, the analysis illuminates the wide diversity of registrants across a range of demographic, offense-related, registry status, and risk-oriented variables. Policy and practice implications concerning risk, prevention, and the public safety utility of sex offender registries are discussed.

Place a moratorium on the passage of sex offender residence restriction laws

D uring the past few decades, lawmakers have devoted increasing attention to policies aimed at managing sex offenders released to the community. Indeed, since 1994, all 50 states have enacted at least two pieces of legislation specific to sex offenders; at the minimum, each of the 50 states has established a sex offender registry and a community notification system in compliance with the Jacob Wetterling Act of 1994 and Megan’s Law of 1996, respectively (CSOM, 2008). Since this time, states have passed several other laws targeted at sex offenders. For example, some states require sex offenders to carry special identification cards, whereas other states have the authority to impose chemical castration (Mancini, 2009). Among the newest wave of sex offender policies to sweep the United States are residence restrictions. A recent analysis revealed that since 1999 more than half of all states have enacted a residence restriction law (Mancini, 2009). Residence restrictions come in different shapes (i.e., different “hot-spot” locations) and sizes (i.e., different “buffer zones”). A hot spot is a specific location that is restricted for sex offenders, and it typically is defined as a park, playground, daycare center, or school. A buffer zone is the exclusion perimeter that is established around identified hot spots. For example, a buffer zone of 500 feet means that sex offenders cannot reside within 500 feet of hot spots. Buffer zones can range from 500 feet to more than 5,000 feet depending on the state of interest (Mancini, 2009; Meloy, Miller, and Curtis, 2008). Despite variation in the scope of hot spots that can be included and the size of buffer zones that can be used, all residence restriction laws operate on the following underlying rationale: keeping a sex offender away from areas where children are

Overview of “The policy implications of residence restrictions on sex offender housing in Upstate NY”

Research Summary Only a handful of studies have evaluated how residence restrictions would affect sex offender housing options, and even fewer have compared different residence restrictions to one another. This study analyzed how different types of statewide residence restrictions would affect the housing options of convicted sex offenders in the Upstate New York region. Combinations of five buffer zone sizes (500 – 2,500 feet) and three scopes of restricted locations resulted in comparisons between fifteen unique residence restriction policies. Neighborhoods (i.e., census block groups) were first separated into three groups based on the percentage of restricted housing parcels they contained under each residence restriction policy (i.e., less than 33 percent of restricted housing parcels for the least restricted group, between 33 and 66 percent for the moderately restricted group, and more than 66 percent for the most restricted group). Measures of housing density, housing availability and housing affordability, and social disorganization were compared between these groups using ANOVA. Findings indicate that the least restricted neighborhoods were consistently the least dense and the least socially disorganized. However, the size and scope of a restriction influenced conclusions about the availability and affordability of housing and the overall number of neighborhoods offering substantial unrestricted housing to sex offenders. Additionally, comparing the extremely unrestricted and extremely restricted neighborhoods (i.e., neighborhoods containing less than 10 percent and more than 90 percent of restricted housing parcels, respectively) yielded similar conclusions to the comparisons of the least and most restricted neighborhoods. Policy Implications This study is important because it provides recommendations for best practices for evaluating potential or existing sex offender residence restriction policies in the future, as well as providing policy makers with evidence-based research to base policy decisions from. Some of the best practices promoted by this study include examining neighborhoods at the census block group level, using factor analysis for measuring social disorganization, and controlling for differing housing markets across the study area. In terms of evidence-based research results, this study found that how a residence restriction policy affects sex offender housing options at the neighborhood level can depend largely on the size and scope of the policy in question, but the neighborhoods likely to be the most restricted are typically the most dense, the most disorganized, and offer the most available and affordable housing options. As a result, policy makers should consider both the potential benefits of these policies, such as limiting sex offenders from residing in the most disorganized neighborhoods, and the potential consequences, such as limiting available and affordable housing options, or forcing offenders into only a handful of rural neighborhoods that may lack adequate support structures. Policy makers are advised to carefully study proposed or existing residence restrictions to ensure the evidence-based implementation (or retraction) of such policies. The results of this study indicate that residence restrictions, particularly in Upstate New York, are unlikely to be effective at either promoting the rehabilitation of registered sex offenders or increasing the safety of community members, particularly in less urban areas. As such, when policy makers are unable to devote the resources required to carefully study the effects of a proposed restriction, the results of this study suggest that residence restrictions should be bypassed in favor of other, more evidence-supported policies. Residence restrictions should not be used by policy makers who are seeking a “quick fix” to the problems of increased sex crimes or concerns about increased sex offender reentry. In order to be effective, alternative policies should have research evidence supporting their ability to (a) increase the ability of communities to informally monitor and control other neighborhood residents (see Walker, et al., 2001), (b) increase the supervision and treatment of such offenders (Walker, 2007), and/or (c) increase other opportunities that provide for the successful reentry and rehabilitation of convicted sex offenders.

Utilizing Criminal History Information to Explore the Effect of Community Notification on Sex Offender Recidivism

While sex offender registration laws with notification provisions are now over a decade old, little is known about how these policies influence the prevention of sex offending. Very few studies have considered the impact of notification on sex offender recidivism or the effect of these laws on sex crimes, generally. This study considers the effectiveness of offender tracking and declaration at the state level through evaluation of current sex offender laws in Arkansas. Using a quasi‐experimental regression‐discontinuity design, this research evaluated the recidivism of the first three waves of sex offenders registered in the state (1997–1999) vs. a comparison group of sex offenders from a decade earlier (1987–1989). Findings indicate there is no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of recidivism. Policy implications are discussed.

Fear and Loathing: Public Feelings in Antiprison Work

For antiprison organizers, one potential source of hope in the current economic recession has been increased willingness of budget-conscious state officials to reconsider mass incarceration. Starting in 2009, many states have tried to decrease prison-related expenses through the expansion of parole and the implementation of early release programs. These efforts to cut costs have inspired a national backlash, its core concern summarized in a 2010 New York Times headline, Safety Is Issue as Budget Cuts Free Prisoners. In response to a proposed early release initiative in Oregon, an anticrime group aired radio advertisements portraying the outcomes in alarming tones. ? woman's asleep in her own apartment/ a narrator said. 'Suddenly, she's attacked by a registered sex offender and convicted burglar' (Davey 2010, 2). Politicians - unwilling to be perceived as soft on crime or emotionally out of tune with victims' rights - backpedaled in Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, and other states. After less than 2 percent of the approximately seventeen hundred people released on a meritorious good time push were rearrested, the Illinois governor distanced himself from his administration's actions, labeled the move to decrease prison populations as a mistake (Garcia 2009), and subsequently replaced the head of the Illinois Department of Corrections (Dai 2010).1 The debate regarding early release programs or other attempts to reduce or reform the US criminal justice system demonstrates that challenging mass incarceration requires grappling directly with questions and feelings of safety, and in particular, how a gendered fear (of sexual assault of women by men) is publicly deployed to augment the prison system. For antiprison organizers and thinkers, this work to challenge mass incarceration as a public strategy is made difficult by how common sense the ideas of both incarceration and exclusion appear, as well as how frightening the prospect of dismantling the current criminal justice system can seem. In this essay, we explore the connections between the private and public feelings of both fear and safety, and the construction of policing and incarceration as commonsense solutions to feelings of fear and disgust. From our varied locations as organizers, educators, researchers, queers, caregivers, and community members, this essay explores the centrality of feelings to the carcerai state, or the prison industrial complex (PIC), and the difficulty of making both structural and local shifts in public feelings.2 First, we frame how feelings are central to the maintenance and expansion of the PIC. Second, we focus on to describe how all too often is framed in public and private discourses as absence, rather than a positive value. Third, we offer some organizations that challenge popular constructions of as absence and suggest how these organizations engage in affect-oriented antiprison organizing. Our work starts from two premises. First - by any measure - the tough-on-crime public project in the United States is a failure. More than 2.3 million people are now housed in prisons and jails across the United States, 1 in every 99.1 adults (Pew Center 2008). Compared with all other nations, the United States has the highest incarceration rate and the largest number of people (poor, African Americans, and Latinos) locked behind bars. This expanding punitive system harms low-income communities of color and is the direct result of public policy failures, including the war on drugs, mandatory minimum sentences, three-strikesand-you're-out laws, and immigration policies (Davis 2003; Mauer 1999; Rodriquez 2008). The impact of the PIC continues beyond life in prison: according to a 2007 report from the Sentencing Project, 5.3 million Americans, or one in forty-one adults, have currently or permanently lost their voting rights as a result of a felony conviction (2007, l). In addition to this diminishment of civil rights, the very state systems set up for promoting safety in communities of color expose their residents to increased risk of premature death (Gilmo re 2007) through overcrowding in unhealthy facilities and substandard physical, dental, and mental health care (Human Rights Watch 2003; Von Zielbauer 2005). …

Sex Offender Registries: Fear without Function?

AbstractI use three separate data sets and designs to determine whether sex offender registries are effective. First, I use state-level panel data to determine whether sex offender registries and public access to them decrease the rate of rape and other sexual abuse. Second, I use a data set that contains information on the subsequent arrests of sex offenders released from prison in 1994 in 15 states to determine whether registries reduce the recidivism rate of offenders required to register compared with the recidivism of those who are not. Finally, I combine data on locations of crimes in Washington, D.C., with data on locations of registered sex offenders to determine whether knowing the locations of sex offenders in a region helps predict the locations of sexual abuse. The results from all three data sets do not support the hypothesis that sex offender registries are effective tools for increasing public safety.

Children Convicted of Sexual Offences: Do Lifelong Labels Really Help?

A significant minority of sexual offences are committed by children, a significant proportion of which involve other children as victims. In order to protect children, the perpetrators in these cases will frequently be designated as 'Schedule 1 offenders' and 'registered sex offenders'. The number of people subject to these legal labels for an indefinite period of time is rising steadily. This article reviews the prevalence of sexually‐harmful behaviour among young people and the number of people with an indefinite legal status following a conviction for a sexual offence committed as a child. It explores the consequences for these people and considers the legality of indefinite labelling. It questions whether the imposition of this status increases the risk of harm to the public.

Residential Relegation of Registered Sex Offenders

This study builds on existing research (Hughes and Kadleck 2008; Mustaine et al. 2006a; Tewksbury and Mustaine 2006) that shows registered sex offenders are more likely to live in undesirable and socially disorganized communities. We extend such analyses to a geographically and demographically different community and employ more sophisticated measures of social disorganization concepts to assess the validity of the claim that registered sex offenders are relegated to socially disorganized communities. Data from Orange County, Florida, including measures of violent crime and the social disorganization concepts of concentrated disadvantage, residential instability and immigrant concentration are used to examine the distribution of residential locations for registered sex offenders. Results show that higher concentrations of sex offenders are found in communities with more concentrated economic disadvantage, more residential instability and higher rates of robbery and child sexual abuse. Implications of these findings for public policy are discussed.

Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws at Home and Abroad: Is an International Megan’s Law Good Policy?

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 I. REVIEW OF DOMESTIC REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION LAWS 4 II. REVIEW OF FOREIGN REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION LAWS 13 III. PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL MEGAN’S LAW 17 A. Legislative History 19 B. Purpose and Provisions 20 C. Analysis 22 IV. SUGGESTIONS AND AN ALTERNATIVE OPTION 26 CONCLUSION 31

A geospatial analysis of the impact of sex offender residency restrictions in two New York counties.

The efficacy of sex offender residence restriction laws in enhancing public safety is controversial and further complicated by evidence that adverse collateral effects may negate or even outweigh whatever benefits they achieve. Based on the theory of "distance decay" that postulates that offenders are more likely to recidivate closer to home, the statutes seek to distance offenders from potential child victims. However, to the extent that such statutes preclude residence in large portions of covered jurisdictions, it has been argued that they contribute to social instability, relegation of offenders to rural or undesirable locations, and even homelessness. A small number of studies have demonstrated the impact of restrictions on residential availability and compliance with the laws, but methodologic issues make it difficult to compare findings. This study uses parcel geocoding, a computerized mapping method, to examine the impact of the sex offender residency restrictions enacted in Erie and Schenectady Counties, NY. Identification and mapping of restricted locations revealed that in nonurban areas, available residential locations were drastically reduced by the restrictions (89.46% and 73.16% restricted in the two counties) and in urban areas almost completely eliminated (95.45% and 97.21%). Unexpectedly, however, when the registered sex offenders in each county were matched to their addresses in the state database, analysis revealed that residence restrictions had no demonstrable effect on where offenders live. More than 85% of offenders in each of the counties were found living in the urban centers, the vast majority of whom (91.89% and 100%) were matched to addresses in restricted locations. These findings may have important policy and procedural implications in the creation and enforcement of sex offender statutes, as well as in the evaluation of those presently in place.

State Policies for the Residency of Offenders in Long-Term Care Facilities: Balancing Right to Care With Safety

The presence of residents in long-term care facilities who are registered sex offenders, other predatory offenders, parolees, or inmates transferred by correctional authorities is controversial and has raised concerns about how to care for this potentially dangerous population who may jeopardize the safety of others. Although the present offender population appears to be small, it is likely that demographic and economic pressures will increase its size. Since 2004, 14 states have passed legislation about placement of sex and other offenders in facilities and 5 have implemented non-law policies. Because legislation is relatively recent, it is not possible to evaluate best practices at this time. Research should be a priority to determine best policies and practices to balance the right to care with safety.

“Anything That Can Be a Danger to the Public”: Desire to Extend Registries Beyond Sex Offenses

Registries are no longer limited to sex offenders, as other types of registries, such as a dangerous dog registry and a gun offender registry, have appeared. This study investigated public perceptions about extending registries to other crimes and what types of registries are desired. Data were obtained from more than 700 Michigan residents using a random digit dialling telephone survey. More than half indicated wanting more public registries in addition to sex offender registries. Viewing the sex offender registry, supporting sex offender registries, and being convicted of a crime were factors affecting support for other registries. Respondents who desired additional registries reported most support for registries of those who committed crimes against people. Implications of extending registries to other types of crimes are considered.

“BACK‐END SENTENCING” AND REIMPRISONMENT: INDIVIDUAL, ORGANIZATIONAL, AND COMMUNITY PREDICTORS OF PAROLE SANCTIONING DECISIONS*

An understudied contributor to the massive growth of American incarceration is an increase in the practice of reimprisoning parolees through parole board revocations—now referred to as “back‐end sentencing.” To conduct the analyses outlined in this article, we use data from the California Parole Study to analyze the effects of three clusters of factors (parolees' characteristics, organizational pressures, and community conditions) on these sentences. Our analyses are informed by theories that have been used to explain “front‐end” (court) sentences, which center on the focal concerns of social‐control agents, labeling, and racial threat. Our results indicate that status characteristics—race/ethnicity and gender—affect the likelihood that criminal parole violators are reimprisoned. Moreover, certain “pivotal categories” of parolees—registered sex offenders and those who have committed “serious” or “violent” offenses—are much more likely to be returned to prison than others. Organizational pressure (prison crowding) also affects the likelihood of reimprisonment. Communities' political punitiveness affects the likelihood that technical violators are reimprisoned and that serious or violent offenders are reimprisoned for criminal violations. In this article, we use these findings to consider ways that mass incarceration is driven by both top‐down policies as well as bottom‐up organizational and community forces.