The Effectiveness of Sex Offender Registration and Notification - Essay Example

? The Effectiveness of Sex Offender Registration and Notification: A Matter of Success vs. Consequences Due Date Introduction Sex crimes are probably the most shocking, disturbing, and enraging, all too commonly, occurring criminal act. We fear rapists and we are ever consciously fearful of potential pedophiles stalking children. It can be a rather frightening world full of very dangerous people. Being able to protect ourselves, our children, and all those that we love is paramount. The need to warn, protect, and, ultimately, discourage that criminally sexual behavior has inspired a number of laws geared exactly toward that goal. The Sex Offender Registration and Notification, or SORN, laws were drafted and implemented in hopes of lowering the number of sex crimes, to deter a perpetrator repeating the offense and allow the public, in some cases, foreknowledge when serious sex offenders are residing nearby (Prescott, 2012). SORN supporters and researchers are confident that the registration and notification requirements make a definitive contribution to the statistical lowering of sex crimes within communities where they are in effect. Currently, 40 states have active sex offender registries that are accessible to the public online, with a varying degree of information, dependent on the state and local laws (Tewksbury & Lees, 2006). The more familiar one becomes with the existing SORN laws and their consequences it becomes obvious that the at present these laws are not being efficiently implemented and are in need of reform. However, there are many that claim that despite the positive intentions and degree of success of the SORN legislation, the laws are not creating a great enough of a decrease and have too great an expense to justify the practice. They feel the complexity of properly organizing, properly maintaining, and the overall cost of implementation do not work out favorably for SORN law continuation. They are also issues with unforeseen consequences, or collateral consequences, which complicate the topic significantly. SORN laws do not just affect the offender but their families and friends. Notification can also have a negative effect on the public. It is not unheard of for citizens to adopt a vigilante mentality and become violent with sex offender in the community. All of these elements are important when considering the efficiency of existing SORN laws: How effective are they in relation to the consequences they inspire? Background Sex crimes have a very complex system of definitions and categories dependent upon the nature of the crime, the level of violence, the victim, and the psychology of the offender. Thanks to procedural law enforcement shows the average person is unusually familiar with “sadistic serial rapists” and “age-specific” Internet pedophiles. The majority of sexual assaults, both on adults and children, are committed by someone the victim knew or was, at least, acquainted with (Farley, 2010). The type of predator hiding in the dark attacking random victims is much rarer. However, these are not the only types of sex offenders; in fact, some “sex offenses” requiring registration do not involve sex at all. For example, in some states urinating in public is considered an act of exposure and if caught, results in the necessity of registering as a sex offender. Is his act inappropriate? Probably, it is. However, urinating in public is not a sex crime. All the same, this man would be perceived as any other sex offender by the public. Police Commander, Sue Schultz explained, “They look at them in a bucket. Any kind of sex offender is a sex offender and will always be a sex offender…”(as cited in Farley, 2010). So it is necessary for the public to be aware that the label of sex offender is not always what it is assumed to be. The demand upon law enforcement to determine what offenders were one time offenders and those which certainly were a danger, or more likely, to become a continual threat. This was no easy task by any means. Sex Offenses were becoming an epidemic in the late 90s, the combination of societal pressures, public fear, and media attention that ultimately demanded an immediate and active solution (Ackerman & Terry, 2012). The solutions came in the form of a number of acts that would change how the government organizes and manages the sex offender population. In 1997, the Jacob Wetterling Improvement Act was passed to build upon existing legislation and increase the registration requirements for sexually violent offenders, insisting upon registration of offenders in their state of residence, as well as, in any state they may concurrently work or attend school. The next act, Megan’s Law, was added as an amendment to the Wetterling Act, which requires sex offender’s personal information to be available to the public ("Megan's Law Home," 2009). Lastly, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, called for newer, stricter, policies concerning registration and notification. It also called for an increase in penalties in cases of internet crimes against children, upgrades in sex offender tracking measures, and mandatory minimum sentencing for all sex crimes (Sex Offender Legislation, 2010). The three acts together presently form the established sex offender legislation that we follow today. However, not everyone agrees that the SORN approach is, ultimately, the most efficient or feasible. They believe alternatives or, at the very least, reforms to the current system need to be made. SORN requirements have appeared to, in several studies, help in the decrease number of repeat offenses by first time offenders; which was confirmed in study conducted in South Carolina involving sex crimes against women. The study supported that SORN may have contributed to the lowering of new sex crime cases by, approximately, 3 per month (Letourneau, Levenson, Bandyopadhyay, Sinha, & Armstrong, 2010). Another study showed that the availability of sex offender information to law enforcement may have contributed to, at least, a 1% decrease on a monthly scale. However, all the studies confirm that the SORN laws have little effect on recidivism rates and the registries do not seem to deter Internet sex crimes at all. J. Prescott in an article for “Regulation Crime and Law Enforcement” explained that the need for sex crime legislation, in the mid-to-late 1990s, was so desperately called for that the SORN laws were passed with no immediate consideration for unforeseen side-effects and collateral consequences (Prescott, 2012). They were placed into practice when the need was high, but now more than a decade since their inception, have not had the impact that was originally hoped and now, may, need definite reevaluation. Discussion SORN laws are not only questionable in their success but come with a number of other concerns worthy of addressing. The first is the funding necessary to fully implement a successful registration and notification system. Not only does law enforcement require the staffing needs to monitor those registering, as well as, staff to investigate and attend to those offenders who fail to register (Farley, 2010). There is also funding that is necessary to maintain the online databases so that the information being made available to law enforcement and the public is accurate and current ("Pros and Cons," 2000). Tracking sex offenders found to require the action is also costly and tricky to perform productively with the given budgets and limitations. However, of all the issues involving tangible side-effects of registration and notification requirements are the unforeseen consequences. Although there is little sympathy for true, legitimate convicted sex offenders and no one is questioning the need to identify, apprehend, punish, and imprison dangerous sex offenders. Still ethically, the court sets a determined amount of time for the offender to serve, after which the punishment is, technically, over. However, for many offenders the punishment continues well after release. But, like many criminal offenders, sex offenders find life after incarceration difficult. Finding employment and stable housing becomes nearly impossible for offenders registered for a sex crime. They, also, face being ostracized from the community, bare the irremovable stigma associated with the label of “sex offender,” and, on some occasions, they fear the threat of serious violence from others. This makes it very difficult for the offenders to reenter society, contribute, and support themselves. That said, it can lead many offenders to down the road of committing other criminal acts in order to survive. Discovering a sexual offender, of any type, category, or level within a neighborhood can bring a positive sense of awareness; in other cases it can be like dropping a bomb on the community. In the past residents have adopted vigilante mentalities, they threaten, harass, and attempt to drive the offender away, some even turn quite violent. In 2006 several sex offenders were killed by angry citizens. More so, there have been instances when people have been hunted down, attacked, and murdered because they were mistaken as sex offenders; either due to misidentification or outdated information retrieved from an online sex offender registry (Wagner, 2011). However, it is the consequences that fall upon the families of sex offenders they seem quite inappropriate. The spouses, children, and parents of sex offenders share the same stigma that a branded sex offender carries. These families are the only source of support financially, emotionally, and socially as the offenders transition and reintegrate back into society. However, the families are often threatened as if they themselves had committed a crime (Tewksbury & Levenson, 2009). Solutions There have, over the years, been many suggestions as to how to deal with sex offenders, aside from registration and notification. There is of course no cure per se for deviant or violent sexual behaviors. That said, chemical castration had been considered along with drug therapies and counseling to modify and control offender behavior, isolating them in locations where they would not have access to potential victims. However, the above options have listings of positives and negatives all their own and none address the need to monitor the actions of sex offenders outside of highly controlled settings. With the costs, complexity, and less than spectacular impression on the sex crime statistics, there is clearly a need for reform. There are a few ways to do this and create a system that does the job it was intended to with far less consequences. First, reevaluate who sex offender registration was actually meant for. It is intended to protect the innocent from dangerous, often violent, sexual predators, with a psychological proclivity that will likely lead to more sex crimes in the future. Reexamine the laws and update them to meet the reality of what a sex crime actually is and what is not. An 18-year-old boy whose girlfriend’s vindictive parents had him charged with statutory rape because they disapproved of him dating their 17-year-old daughter is a telling example. Now he must register as a sex offender for having sexual relations with his girlfriend. He is not a predator stalking society. As mentioned previously, a man who urinates in public may be showing poor judgment but he is not a sex offender and does not belong on a registry to warn the public of his presence within a community. Making these changes and eliminating the huge percentage of registered sex offenders that do not need to be there, will open up resources to focus are those offenders that are a threat. Fewer offenders to oversee would lead to a much more cost effective program that has the time and staff to perform their job with better success. Also, limiting registry website information to primarily law enforcement; the public should only be heavily involved when there is a true danger that they should be warned about. Finally the laws as they pertain to sex offender registration need to be revised. The rules and restrictions can be complex and confusing. The penalties for making mistakes or not registering correctly are so severe that they can discourage offenders from registering at all (Wagner, 2011). Making the rules easier to follow and less stricter policies on accidental non-compliance will render offenders to be more inclined to maintain their registration. Also, for public websites, the different types of sex crimes need to be more clearly understood. It should be clarified what separates one offender in the registry from another, instead of lumping them together so that the public will be more educated, as well. Making these changes suggested could contribute to the reformation or replacement of the existing SORN laws that are functional, more efficient, cost effective, and implementable. Conclusion There is absolutely no doubt that violent, sexual predators need to be dealt with appropriately. The existing SORN laws were introduced as a well-intended, active, solution to a very serious issue requiring immediate attention, and they have had some effect. That said, it is blatantly apparent that the monitoring of sex offenders requires a targeted approach that the broad blanket of the SORN laws cannot currently provide. The overall effectiveness does not seem to outweigh all of the issues that are affected or caused by them. We define “efficiency” as being the most logical solution with the greatest potential of achieving success in an expeditious and accurate fashion. Given that definition, existing SORN laws, therefore, do not appear to meet that standard. Ultimately, the laws as they are may be somewhat beneficial but hardly efficient. It would be wise to consider other options as we move into the future. References Farley, J. (2010, December 26). Should all convicted sex offenders be required to register? Letourneau, E. J., Levenson, J. L., Bandyopadhyay, D., Sinha, D., & Armstrong, K. S. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of sex offender registration and notification policies for reducing sexual violence against women. Informally published manuscript, Medical University of South Carolina-, Medical University of south Carolina, Charleston, SC. Megan's law home. (2009). Prescott, J. J. (2012). Do sex offender registries make us less safe? Regulation-Crime and Law Enforcement, Summer, 48-55. “Pros and cons of online sex offender registries.” (2000, April 1). Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. (2006). Perceptions of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26, 309-334. Tewksbury, R., & Levenson, J. (2009). Stress experiences of family members of registered sex offenders, 27(4), 611-626. Sex offender legislation: Background. (2010). Wagner, C. (2011). The good left undone: How to stop sex offender laws from causing unnecessary harm at the expense of effectiveness. American Journal of Criminal Law, 38(2), 263-288. Your Name Instructor’s Name Course Name Due Date Assignment Outline The Effectivesness of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification: A Matter of Success and Consequences I. Introduction A. Topic: The effectiveness of the existing sex offender registration and notification laws in relation to their consequences. 1. Discuss seriousness of the issue if sex crimes and sex offenders really is and what it is not, which contributes too many of the inefficiencies of current SORN laws. a. How are the consequences, mostly unforeseen, are raising serious ethical questions? 2. The purpose of the existing SORN laws and how many states, presently 40, that have active public registries (Tewksbury & Lees, 2006). 3. Thesis: The existing SORN laws and their consequences are not being inefficiently implemented and are in need of reform. B. There are staunch supporters of SORN laws claiming that they are, in fact, successful. C. There are a number of consequences that contribute to the present ethical argument being fought over the topic of SORN laws. 1. Unforeseen consequences a- The offenders often find adapting to life with the label of sex offender. They may find it difficult to find, both, stable employment and work. b- The public can sometimes take the information that they find on a sex offender registry and become violent. This sort of vigilantism is not uncommon. 1. There have been several instances where people have been hurt or killed because they were mistaken for registered sex offenders. The availability of registries made these unfortunate events possible. c- ;On the families of offenders the consequences can be the hardest and most unfair. The families of offenders are usually the main support for an offender, be it financially, socially and emotionally. The families often receive the same sort of harassment and rejection from society as the offender themselves. II. Background A. Considering the efficiency of SORN laws require an understanding of what a sex offender is? a. Television has popularized the idea of the “sex offender.” b. Most victims are acquainted with their attacker (Farley, 2010). B. The different laws implemented to aid in the control and monitor sex offenders were well intended, but were more are to public fears and pressures. The consequences were not thoroughly investigated. 1. Jacob Wetterling was implemented in 1997 to increase sex offender registration requirements. They would be required to register in their state of residence, as well as, any states where they work or attend school ("Megan's Law Home," 2009). 2. Megan’s Law was implemented as an amendment to the Wetterling Act. It called for offenders to register their information publically ("Megan's Law Home," 2009). 3. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act called for stricter registration and notification laws, as well as, requiring stricter punishments for internet related child sex crimes (Sex Offender Legislation, 2010). C. SORN laws have shown some successes. They seem to show a contributive decrease to first time, one-time offenders considering reoffense. However, they show low percentages in most other areas as far as overall efficiency. III. Discussion A. There are many difficulties in establishing a SORN process that can be used universally for a number of reasons. 1. Difficulties in implementation make it much harder to have the staffing necessary to monitor both registered sex offenders and all those offenders who fail to register (Farley, 2010). 2. There are many expenses involved in the maintenance of a system like this and keeping up-to-date information regularly within the system is essential. 3. Difficulties with tracking sex offenders can make trying to maintain organization all the harder. B. There are a number of collateral consequences that are tangible evidence of some of the unforeseen side effects of SORN laws. 1. Offenders, upon release find gaining employment and housing to be difficult. They also fear public reaction to their registration status. They are often left out by the communities they live. a- Some offenders may turn to other forms of crime in order to support themselves. 2. The public, as mentioned before, can become victim to vigilantism. Where they take the laws into their own hands and attempt to punish the offenders. a- Validity of information is essential. Many people have attacked people they thought were offenders because of outdated address information. 3. To the families of offenders, as stated before, suffer with the stigma of the label of sex offender, sometimes, as much as the offenders themselves. C. Are the laws targeting the correct offenders? 1. By splitting focus watching so many different offenders less attention is spent watching those of the greatest risk of reoffending. 2. Are the existing laws making us “less safe?” IV. Solutions D. As there is no cure for deviant sexual behavior, the question as to how to deal with sex offenders has been debated for a long time. There are some suggestions beyond registration and notification. 1. Chemical castration, drug therapies, and counseling are considered as potential solution to the crimes of certain offenders. 2. Reevaluation of the entire system in relation to how we handle sex crimes. a. Are the laws targeting the correct offenders? As with the gentleman the urinated in public, should he be labeled a sex offender? b. By splitting focus watching so many different offenders less attention is spent watching those of the greatest risk of reoffending. c. Make the registration laws easier to understand and follow for those who are expected to register. Many offenders do not register because they fear the penalties for not completing the confusing process successfully (Wagner, 2011). V. Conclusion A. The definition of efficiency states that it is a course of action that leads to an expeditious achievement in an accurate fashion. SORN laws to not seem to meet that standard. B. Concluding opinion- the existing laws are effective to an extent and are a sufficient temporary solution, but ultimately different solutions may be more beneficial and feasible. Your Name Instructor’s Name Course Name Due Date Annotated Bibliography The Effectiveness of Sex Offender Registration and Notification: A Matter of Success and Consequences Ackerman, A. R., & Terry, K. J. (2012). Chapter 8 faulty sex offender policies In G. Bonham, jr & F. Reddington (Eds.), Flawed Criminal Justice Policies: At the intersection of the media, public fear and legislative response (pp. 149-168). Durham: Carolina Academic Press This chapter proceeds to introduce and explain some of the origins of the sex offender laws and the nature of the cause and effects of many of the sex offender laws actively being used today. Also, discusses the influence that the media, society, and the overall fear of sex offenses that spawned so much current and continuing debate. Farley, J. (2010, December 26). Should all convicted sex offenders be required to register? This article in dedicated to the telling of a story of a man who, although, was convicted more than 15 years ago for a sex crime with a minor girlfriend, now has a wife and child and because of registry laws has been treated like a disease within their community. the point of the article is to show that he is a not a reoffender, he did the time incarcerated that the law required, he paid large amount in fines, and attended meetings to support the certainty that he would never be tempted to offend again. I think this source will be very helpful in balancing the paper and fairly representing all sides of the sex offender experience. Letourneau, E. J., Levenson, J. L., Bandyopadhyay, D., Sinha, D., & Armstrong, K. S. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of sex offender registration and notification policies for reducing sexual violence against women. Informally published manuscript, Medical University of South Carolina-, Medical University of south Carolina, Charleston, SC, Retrieved from This article focuses on a study that was done to determine if the registration and notification laws in South Carolina have been successful in deterring and lessening the occurrence of sex crimes and the lowering of previous offenders from offending again. They spend time discussing the different laws, for example, Megan’s Law and Jacob Wetterling, in determining if they are functioning in the capacity which they were intended. This site offers valuable statistics and the information provided will give me strong comparative information. Megan's law home. (2009). This Megan’s Law homepage is provides by the State of California Department of Justice and provides answers to questions concerning Megan’s Law. They offer information about sex offenses, how to protect your families from potential predators, and discuss the legislation concerning sex offenders. They, also, offer the database for registered sex offenders allowing citizens to gain information on the local sex offenders. Megan’s Law is a very prominent feature in the fight against abuse against children. Having this resource will make certain that I have access to reliable information. Prescott, J. J. (2012). Do sex offender registries make us less safe? Regulation-Crime and Law Enforcement, Summer, 48-55. This article asks the question, are the existing SORN laws actually making us less safe? The author believe that people were so eager to implement laws that would help protect children, and all victims of sex crimes, that they failed to take the time to acknowledge the potential negative aspects of the laws. He suggests that there are a multitude of unforeseen consequences that are not being considered and are very serious. This article will be unbelievable helpful; it offers a balance in the discussion. An opportunity to explore the consequences of existing SORN laws. Pros and cons of online sex offender registries. (2000, April 1). This site provides information that speaks to, both, the positives and the negatives of the laws regarding sex offender registration and notification. Describing in summary the issues that must be weighed. Supporters feel that these laws provide citizens with the ability to know when a predator is in their neighborhood and can allow people to monitor these individuals behavior, while opponents say that these laws are invasions of privacy, have out-of-date information, and can lead to vigilantism. Again having the unbiased information that can see that even the best intentions can result in some unforeseen and negative consequences that deserve addressing. Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. (2006). Perceptions of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26, 309-334. This article for “Sociological Spectrum” seeks to determine if the efficiency and success of sex offender registration and notification outweighs the consequences and community repercussions that might exist; as well as determine how the laws are perceived by people. It spends a lot of time comparing and contrasting the laws and the different studies, in the past and currently, to gain better insight. Again, this source offers strong comparative data that will lend itself well to this assignment. Tewksbury, R., & Levenson, J. (2009). Stress experiences of family members of registered sex offenders, 27(4), 611-626. This article strives to better understand the nature of experiences of family members of registered sex offenders. The author believes that the fall-out experienced by the families of sex offenders is extreme and can have a vilifying effect on the family members. Essentially, his means that the family members, be they spouses, children, or parents, are all, also, often, treated differently, if not as guilty as the sex offender in question. Having the perspective of the families of sex offenders and the experiences that they have had is an unfortunate side effect that often goes unnoticed. Sex offender legislation: Background. (2010). This site details the elements of the Jacob Wetterling Act, as well as, many of the others, passed with the intention of protecting the public from sexual predators. It provides a timeline of the laws and what years that they were implemented into law. It, also, gives explanations and definitions of related topics. Having the chronological data there at my disposal will allow me to discuss the different important laws, as well as, a few that many people may not be readily familiar with. Wagner, C. (2011). The good left undone: How to stop sex offender laws from causing unnecessary harm at the expense of effectiveness. American Journal of Criminal Law, 38(2), 263-288. Wagner’s article seeks to continue the view that there is collateral damage that the sex offender registration and notification laws are creating. The point of the article is to discuss if those consequences re serious enough to warrant reviewing the existing laws and considering other options. I think that resource is very helpful because it is the balance of perspectives that will truly and thoroughly bring understanding of this topic fairly and ethically. Read More