Among the diverse policies used worldwide to manage offenders convicted of sexual crimes in the community, sexual offender registries (SORs) are a common approach. SORs are databases of information pertaining to persons previously convicted of sexual offenses. The intention of SORs is to protect the public primarily by helping law enforcement monitor the whereabouts of identified sex offenders. In certain countries, information contained in these registries is also available to the public. Although SORs are generally developed in response to highly publicized and brutal sex crimes, there is little research evidence to support their efficacy, and there are also some documented challenges associated with SORs. This article provides an overview of the purpose of and information contained in SORs, reviews the research on their efficacy and issues of concern, identifies their impact on offenders as well as associated collateral consequences, and discusses public support of SORs.
Overview of Sex Offender Registries
Researchers in the United States have investigated the development of sex offender policies, such as the sexual psychopath laws in the 1950s and sex offender registration and notification policies ratified in the 1990s and 2000s. These researchers have noted that many of these policies have been instituted as a result of public panic and outcry, in response to highly publicized heinous crimes. In several countries, registries and other related policies have regularly been named after victims of tragic sexually violent crimes committed against children (e.g., Jacob and Megan’s laws in the United States and Christopher’s law in Canada). Many registries have primarily been enacted to keep track of persons convicted of crimes against children; however, registries are not necessarily restricted to child sexual offenders.
Purpose
The ultimate purpose of or justification for SORs is to protect the public and reduce sexual recidivism of habitual offenders. This goal is achieved in several ways: (1) helping law enforcement surveil known offenders, (2) providing law enforcement with up-to-date information in order to assist in resolving cases of a similar nature, and (3) in the case of public registries, heightening public awareness of sex offenders and providing information to communities that people can use to protect themselves and their families. Furthermore, registration also acts as a larger penalty for offenders convicted of sexual crimes and thus can also be considered a deterrent for those who have not committed a sexual offense.
Basics
Although the particulars of how offenders in different countries are placed on registries may differ, generally speaking, one must first be convicted of a registerable offense. The types of eligible offenses vary and can include both contact and noncontact sexual offenses. At a minimum, convictions for sexual offenses involving child victims and/or those involving violence would usually qualify an offender for registration.
Sex offenders have to remain on registries for a prespecified minimum period of time, which can range from several years (usually at least 5 or 10) to a lifetime; the time frame usually depends on the specific offense committed. SORs contain information on sex offenders who have completed their sentence or who are serving the rest of their sentence in the community. Upon release/commencement of the community portion of their sentence, offenders are usually required to register themselves with local law enforcement as part of their sentencing conditions. Failure to register or to provide accurate and current information for the registry is also often considered a criminal offense and may result in additional penalties for these offenders (e.g., a fine or even additional jail time, depending on the jurisdiction). In some countries, after a certain minimum amount of time, offenders may be allowed to petition to be removed from the registry.
Information and Management
Information contained in registries varies depending on the jurisdiction but generally consists of the name, current address, and some description of the offenders’ most recent offense and/or offending history. Registries also usually contain a photograph and descriptive information of the offender such as height, weight, hair color, and significant identifying characteristics (e.g., tattoos and/or birthmarks). Some registries may also contain DNA samples. For the most part, registries contain information on adult offenders, although depending on the jurisdiction there are also juvenile registries. In the United States, for example, persons as young as 14 years of age can be required to register.
SORs are typically managed by local and/or national law enforcement agencies. Public notification, access to SORs, and the amount of information provided to the public vary depending on the particular policy of each country. Public registries are usually available to local residents via the Internet, and public notification is usually accomplished via news media.
Global Overview
SORs have proliferated globally since the mid1990s. Although registries have been in existence at the state level since the 1940s, the world’s first national-level sex offender registration law, known as the Jacob Wetterling Act, passed in the United States in 1994. In the United States, additional policies have further combined registration and notification: In 2006, the Adam Walsh Act, also known as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, was enacted. Since 1994, approximately 30 other countries have enacted or are in the process of enacting similar sex offender registration and/or notification legislation at either the provincial/state or national level, including some of the following: Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Jamaica, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, India, Argentina, Kenya, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, South Korea, and Taiwan. Other countries, including some of the following—Belgium, Switzerland, Finland, Malaysia, Israel, and Hong Kong—have considered such policy but these laws have not passed, as of 2017. Depending on the country, registration and notification systems are one and the same, or they are separate policies.
Evidence for Efficacy and Issues of Concern
Researchers, predominately from the United States, have investigated the efficacy of sex offender registration and notification policies with disappointing results. U.S. researchers, in 2008, compared the incidence of sexual assaults across 10 U.S. states through a time series analysis in order to test if registration and notification laws reduce the overall incidence of rapes. This research found mixed results overall noting that the majority of states experienced no significant change in rates. Authors noted that the findings indicate these policies have little general deterrent effects.
U.S. researchers have also investigated the impact of the Adam Walsh Act, which provided a tiered method to reclassify registered offenders based on the particular offense committed (i.e., each tier corresponds to a specific registration duration as well as to the extent of registration updates required annually). In 2010, it was found that this new system resulted in a larger number of sex offenders classified as Tier 3 and thus requiring lifetime registration; this broader inclusion placed an unnecessary fiscal burden on the justice system, given the high cost of upkeep associated with the registry. Furthermore, placing more offenders within the registry at the highest tier may even have made it more challenging for law enforcement officials to discriminate among registered offenders efficiently. Finally, this broader reclassification of sex offenders is in contrast to the available research evidence that suggests only the minority of sex offenders reoffend, and there is a limited group of offenders who are high risk. Most research to date does not provide supportive evidence for the use of sex offender registration and notification legislation to prevent sexual recidivism. There is currently no information regarding the actual performance of the Canadian SORs in terms of identifying and apprehending offenders sooner and/or decreasing recidivism.
Beyond the lack of evidence, researchers have also indicated that registries are ineffective because they are not comprehensive, and information is often incomplete or inaccurate. This is a result of the fact that most sexual crimes are unreported, offenders may not comply with requirements, plea bargains allow certain offenders to negotiate out of registering, and finally, this legislation focuses on offenses with stranger victims, which are relatively rare. Additionally, upkeep and maintenance of these registries are expensive.
Impact of Registration on Offenders
U.S. researchers in the mid- to late 2000s have investigated the impact of registration and public notification on sex offenders and found that offenders report a variety of issues as a result of having to register. Offenders reported experiencing serious social and economic consequences, including loss of friends, significant stress, stigma, discrimination and depression, relationship problems, job loss, and denial of housing. Some of these reported difficulties are risk factors associated with criminal recidivism. Notably, one 2007 study even found that registered sex offenders in the United States see potential for registration legislation to reduce reoffending; however, they have serious concerns about the efficacy and widespread application of such laws.
Less research on this topic has been conducted elsewhere in the world. Results from a small qualitative study completed in Canada in 2013 suggest that registered Canadian offenders did not find being on the registry too onerous, and over half of the sample reported that being on the registry had little to no impact on their ability to successfully reintegrate into the community. The major problem reported about the registry was in regard to the extended length of reporting time (at minimum 10 years), which was seen as a barrier to successfully moving forward and desisting.
Research indicates that families and friends of registered offenders are also impacted negatively by registration policies in the United States, and in particular, as a result of the notification aspect. Financial and housing problems are notable negative consequences, in addition to the experience of harassment, threats, violence, and psychological stress.
Public Support for SORs
Although there are issues associated with SORs and there is a lack of evidence that registries impact recidivism, researchers have found that public support for such policy has been consistently high and that members of the public reported feeling safer having registries in place. Both in Canada and in the United States, the majority of the public surveyed in several studies was supportive of SOR legislation as well as public access to registries. Interestingly, U.S. researchers have found across several studies that the public still supports and desires SORs, and particularly public registries, even though they had never accessed nor had any intention of accessing such registries (2007, 2008, and 2011 study findings) and even after having been told there is a lack of scientific evidence to support their efficacy (2015 finding). This suggests that although sex offender registries have not been found to impact recidivism or public behavior, they hold high symbolic value in the eyes of the public.
Final Thoughts
SORs contain information on persons previously convicted of sex offenses and are intended to protect the public and reduce recidivism. Many countries worldwide have some sort of sex offender registration and/or notification policy in place, and the research to date suggests that the public does support SOR policy. Beyond the symbolic value of SORs, there is a lack of evidence supporting the impact of SORs on offender or public behavior. In addition, registries are costly, and public notification has resulted in sex offenders facing additional barriers as they attempt to reintegrate into the community. Since there is limited research available regarding the impact of registries in terms of assisting law enforcement to solve similar crimes, continued evaluation of existing SORs and investment in SOR policy worldwide is warranted.
References:
- Agan, A. Y. (2011). Sex offender registries: Fear without function? The Journal of Law & Economics, 54(1), 207–239. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1086/658483
- Corabian, G. (2016). Working towards desistance: Canadian attitudes towards sex offenders, sex offender treatment, and policy (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from the University of Saskatchewan eCommons.
- Harris, A. J., Lobanov-Rostovsky, C., & Levenson, J. S. (2010). Widening the net: The effects of transitioning to the Adam Walsh Act’s federally mandated sex offender classification system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(5), 503–519. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810363889
- Levenson, J. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2009). Collateral damage: Family members of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(1–2), 54–68. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-008-9055-x
- Murphy, L., & Fedoroff, J. P. (2013). Sexual offenders’ views of Canadian sex offender registries: A survey of a clinical sample. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 45(3), 238–249.
- SMART Office. (2016). Global survey of sex offender registration and notification systems. Retrieved from https://www.smart.gov/pdfs/global-survey-2016-final.pdf
- Tewksbury, R., Jennings, W. G., & Zgoba, K. M. (2012). A longitudinal examination of sex offender recidivism prior to and following the implementation of SORN. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30(3), 308–328. doi:10.1002/bsl.1009
- Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. (2009). Stress and collateral consequences for registered sex offenders. Journal of Public Management and Social Policy, 15(2), 215–239.