Collateral Consequences and Effectiveness of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Law Enforcement Perspectives

9-20-2016 National:

Abstract

A growing body of research has examined the collateral effects of sex offender registration and notification (SORN), particularly those related to offenders’ social and economic reintegration into society. Although studies have examined public, offender, treatment provider, and other criminal justice perspectives on SORN’s collateral impacts, few have elicited the views of law enforcement (LE) professionals who have contact with registered offenders. This study presents results from a mixed method study examining LE perspectives on collateral consequences and effectiveness of SORN.

Results indicate that, although overall LE concern regarding collateral impacts is limited, those who are most engaged in SORN-related duties are significantly more likely to indicate such concern, and also more likely to believe that SORN was an effective public safety tool. Importantly, respondents in states with larger registries expressed greater concern over collateral consequences, and less belief in SORN’s public safety efficacy. Implications for policy and practice are discussed. ..Source.. by Michelle A. Cubellis1, Scott M. Walfield, Andrew J. Harris

Registration, Residency Restrictions, and Community Notification: A Social Capital Perspective on the Isolation of Registered Sex Offenders in Our Communities

March 2015 National:

Abstract:
This article highlights the importance of social capital for registered sex offenders who are reintegrating back into their communities. Although not always identified among community corrections, the sex offender registry creates a punitive atmosphere that diminishes the amount of available social capital for all involved—community members, sex offenders, and the government. Lost social capital contributes to recidivism, reentry problems, and mental health issues among registered sex offenders.

We argue that deterrent and protective features of the sex offender registry are overemphasized and the goal of reintegration has been undermined. The loss of social capital exacerbates

• (1) the minimization of trust,
• (2) low expectations of rehabilitation and reentry,
• (3) limited contact and information from role models,
• (4) increased access to criminal capital,
• (5) formal sanctioning power of the registry, and
• (6) loss of sanctioning power from family and communities.

Through this in-depth analysis, we argue that the current state of the registry system harms the social capital of all involved when a sex offense occurs—not just the offender—and we assess directions for future practices, as well as policy implications. ..Source.. by Danielle Tolsona* & Jennifer Kleinb

Gangsters to Greyhounds: The Past, Present and Future of Offender Registration

This is by far the most extensive article ever written about registries. Worth reading..

December 2013 National:

Contrary to popular belief, offender registries are not a recent phenomenon. Offender registries are government-controlled systems that track the movements and other activities of certain persons with criminal convictions. While today they are most commonly used for sex offenders, registries have been adopted
since the 1930s to regulate persons convicted of a wide variety of offenses including embezzlement, arson, and drug crimes.

Early registries were widely criticized as ineffective and overly punitive, and many were eliminated through litigation or legislative repeals. Others simply fell into disuse over the course of the 20th century. Now, there is a growing body of research that demonstrates that modern sex offender registries are similarly ineffective at reducing crime. Sex offender registries are costly, vastly overbroad, and error-ridden.

Even worse, the overwhelming stigma of public notification provisions may actually increase recidivism among offenders.2 Despite their repeated history of failure, enthusiasm for publicly available, internet-based registries for every offense imaginable has only grown in recent years. There have been proposals across the country to register those found guilty of animal abuse, arson, drug offenses, domestic violence, and even failure to pay child support.

Existing registries are expanding and becoming increasingly punitive. Without a concerted effort to stop the tide of offender registration, we are at risk of repeating past mistakes on a much larger and more treacherous scale.

Offender registries are backwards, punitive measures that do not make communities safer. Unfortunately, those in favor of more nuanced, data-driven methods of reducing violence and sexual abuse face substantial barriers in overcoming precedent from years when registries were far narrower in scope than they are today.

Advocates must work to distinguish current registries from their predecessors, educate legislators and the public on the ineffectiveness and perverse consequences of offender registries, and continue to conduct research to determine what actually works to prevent harm. While it is an uphill battle, we may take comfort that the facts are on our side. ..Continued.. by Elizabeth Reiner Platt

The Expansion of Criminal Registries and the Illusion of Control

2013:

Abstract:
The American public consistently ranks crime prevention as the single most important objective for the criminal justice system, putting this goal ahead of punishment, enforcement, and rehabilitation. One popular but controversial method recently employed to prevent recidivism is the use of offender registries. The most common type of registry currently in use is the sex offender registry.

Responding to the public’s perception that sex offenders pose a particular risk to society, federal legislators—as well as legislators in all 50 states and the District of Columbia— have enacted legislation creating mandatory sex-offender registries. The primary rationale for tracking and notification requirements was that giving the public access to information would allow citizens to protect themselves and other vulnerable members of society.

A wealth of evidence suggests that sex offender registries have not accomplished the goal of making citizens safer. Nevertheless, lawmakers in a number of states have proposed new crime registries for offenses ranging from crimes against children, to the manufacture of methamphetamine, to murder. Moreover, poll data has revealed that the American public supports expanding registries to include crimes other than sex offenses.

The rising popularity of public crime registries in spite of evidence of their inefficacy is perplexing, until one considers the social science research revealing individuals’ need to perceive control over anxiety-provoking threats. The illusion of control and attribution literature provides a rich body of work suggesting that the implementation of such registries, rather than providing any real instrumental advantage, serves to bolster feelings of selfefficacy and minimize public anxiety. ..Source.. by Molly J. Walker Wilson* Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Law, Associate Professor of Psychology, Saint Louis University School of Law.

Do Sex Offender Registries Make Us Less Safe?

June 2012:

Abstract:
State legislatures enacted sex offender registration and notification (SORN) laws with the explicit and exclusive aim of reducing sex offender recidivism. The general idea that we ought to “regulate” released offenders — of any type — to reduce the likelihood of their returning to crime is an attractive one, at least in theory.

Criminal recidivism generates significant social harm. Nevertheless, despite their now-widespread use, SORN laws became the norm without any systematic study of their consequences. Admittedly, the logic underlying these laws seems at first difficult to gainsay: if a known sex offender poses even a small risk to a potential new victim, how can it hurt if the police are keeping better tabs on that offender or if the offender’s neighbors are made aware that he is a threat so they can take measures to reduce their own risk of victimization? But this question and its implied answer presume that SORN laws have no influence whatever on whether released sex offenders opt to pursue new victims in the first place.

If the enforcement of notification laws imposes significant financial, social, and psychological costs on released sex offenders, as an avalanche of evidence suggests it does, then notification may in fact be criminogenic. The result may well be many more attempted attacks by convicted sex offenders and therefore higher recidivism rates on the whole, even if every individual attack attempted becomes somewhat less likely to succeed. ..Source.. by J.J. Prescott, University of Michigan Law School

Sex Offender Registries: Fear without Function?

December 2008:

Abstract:
I use three separate datasets and designs to determine whether sex offender registries are effective. First, state-level panel data is used to determine whether sex offender registries or public access to them decreases the rate of rape and other sexual abuse. Second, a dataset which contains information on the subsequent arrests of sex offenders released from prison in 1994 in 15 states is used to determine if registries reduce the recidivism rate of offenders required to register compared with those who do 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 location of sex offenders in a region help predict the locations of sexual abuse. The results from all three datasets do not support the hypothesis that sex offender registries are effective tools for increasing public safety.

For the remainder of this paper: by Amanda Y. Agan