Registering
Harm
How sex offense registries
fail youth and communities
History and Origins of Sex Offense Registries
During the 1990s, a spike in media
coverage of sex offenses led to an
outbreak of laws aimed at people
convicted of sex offenses at the state
and national levels.
However, at the same time, the rate of
reported violent offenses and forcible
rapes during these years fell
dramatically. The Federal Bureau of
Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports
show that violent offense rates fell 25
percent during this time and the rate of
forcible rapes dropped 19 percent.
Sex offense legislation and policy
1994 – The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Act
(Wetterling Act) required states to compile a list of individuals convicted of violent sex
offenses against children to register with the police for a period of 10 years.
1996 - Megan’s Law amended the Wetterling Act by mandating community notification
for 15 years after the release of adults convicted of violent sex offenses who were
released into the community.
2003 – The Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Registry (NSOPR) joins state webbased registries to a single federal registry available online. The law also makes it a
felony for persons on a registry to fail to update their contact information and
whereabouts.
2006 – The Adam Walsh Act (AWA) mandates that states comply with federal
guidelines or lose federal funding. In most instances, states that comply with Adam
Walsh will have to both expand their registries to include children and increase the
number of offenses for which registration is required.
The Adam Walsh Act (AWA) explained
Title I of the AWA mandates a national sex offender registry and provides a
comprehensive set of minimum standards for sex offender registration and notification
in the United States:
• Requires that youth register, if prosecuted and convicted as an adult OR (a) if
offender is 14 or older at time of offense AND (b) adjudicated delinquent for an
offense comparable or more serious than “aggravated sexual abuse” OR adjudicated
delinquent for a sex act with any victim under the age of 12.
• Incorporates more sex offenses for which registration is required.
• Requires people to provide more extensive registration information, including
photos.
• Makes the registry retroactive. People convicted of sex offenses prior to AWA’s
passage are subject to SORNA’s registration requirements IF (a) they are currently
registering, (b) under supervision or incarcerated, OR (c) if the offender re-enters the
system because of a new conviction whether or not the new crime is a sex offense.
• Requires states to have a failure to register offense on the books and provide a
criminal penalty for a “maximum term of imprisonment greater than one year.”
The Adam Walsh Act (AWA) exposed
Congress relied on faulty data to justify AWA’s passage
Assertion: All people who are convicted of a sex offense will do it again.
Research: The Bureau of Justice Statistics tracked 272,111 individuals, including 9,691
people convicted of sex offenses, for three years following their release in 1994.
Within the three-year time frame, 95 percent of the people convicted of sex offenses
in the study remained arrest free.
Assertion: Registries can protect children from sexual violence by strangers who are
the biggest threat to children.
Research: A study using FBI Uniform Crime Report data between 1991 and 1996
showed that 34 percent of youth victims (0-17 years old) were sexually assaulted by a
family member and 59 percent were assaulted by acquaintances. Seven percent of
youth victims in this study were assaulted by strangers.
The AWA imposes a burden on already
stretched state budgets.
Ohio determined that the cost of implementing new software to create a registry would
approach a half million dollars in the first year.
• Installing and implementing software alone would cost $475,000 in the first year.
The software would then cost $85,000 annually thereafter for maintenance.
• If Ohio chose not to implement AWA, the state would lose approximately
$622,000 annually from its Byrne funds. However, the total cost of software,
certification of treatment programs, salaries, and benefits for new personnel
would likely exceed the lost Byrne funds.
Virginia conducted a comprehensive cost analysis and determined a total cost of more
than $12 million for the first year of compliance with the registry aspect of the AWA.
• The first year of implementing AWA would cost the Commonwealth of Virginia
$12,497,000. This figure would include the cost of hiring 99 new staff people,
implementing new technology and increasing the number of people on the
registry by approximately 8,000 individuals.
The AWA places significant burdens on law
enforcement.
Spending so much time tracking down people for failing to register and making sure
that information in the registry is accurate overburdens law enforcement and can take
away precious time and resources from more effective crime-fighting strategies like
educating communities about effective ways to prevent sexual violence.
• In Texas, the number of registerable crimes has grown from four to 20 since the
enactment of the first registration laws in 1991, with approximately 100 new
people added to the registry each week.
• In 2003, San Jose, California, spent $600,000 to dedicate seven staff people to
monitoring 2,700 people who are required to register.
• In Michigan, as of August 2004, two full-time employees manage information and
records for people convicted of sex offenses, but according to a state audit, the
state’s sex offender registries still contain inaccurate and incomplete information
that may give the public a false sense of security.
The AWA needlessly targets children and families.
• Numerous stories publicized in the media document youth as young as age 6
being labeled a sex offender for behaviors such as hugging or kissing other youth.
• In most states, intercourse with a child under the age of 14, 15, or 16 is
considered sexual assault regardless of consent. However, according to the
National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, slightly more than three-quarters of youth
in the survey reported having had sexual intercourse. Of those youth, more than
80 percent reported having had sex by age 15.71 Thus, the youth reporting having
engaged in sex by the age of 15 would be guilty of committing a sex offense.
• Youth rarely eroticize aggression and are rarely aroused by child sex stimuli. Most
youth behavior that is categorized as a sex crime is activity that mental health
professionals do not deem as predatory.
The AWA needlessly targets children and families.
Recidivism rates of youth who commit sex offenses are low
A 2002 review of 25 studies concerning juvenile sex offense recidivism rates
reveals that youth who commit sex offenses have a 1.8 — 12.8 percent chance
of re-arrest and a 1.7 — 18.0 percent chance of reconviction for another sex
offense.
Comparatively, in a 2005 study of 27 states’ youth recidivism rates conducted
by the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice, a study in 2005 found that 55
percent of youth were re-arrested within one year and 24 percent were reimprisoned for any offense, not just sexual offenses.
The AWA needlessly targets children and families.
Registries prevent people who need treatment from seeking it.
• According to Bruce Winick of the University Of Miami School Of Law,
sexual predator and community notification laws may be providing a
strong disincentive for people who commit sex offenses to plead guilty to
their crimes and accept treatment.
• Researchers have found that as the penalty for sex offenses has increased,
it has become more difficult to initiate an intervention for sexual violence
both before the behavior is brought to the attention of authorities and
after criminal sanctions are imposed.
The AWA needlessly targets children and families.
Registering children means registering entire families
Having a family member on the registry puts an extra burden on the family of
a person convicted of a sex offense.
• A study of 183 people participating in sex offense treatment in Florida
found that about 19 percent reported that other members of their
household had been “threatened, harassed, assaulted, injured, or
suffered property damage” as a result of living with a person on the
registry.
• According to a 1996 study by Freeman-Longo, reports in New Jersey and
Colorado suggest a decrease in the reporting of both incest offenses and
juvenile sex offenses by victims and by family members who do not want
to deal with the impact of public notification on their family.
The AWA needlessly targets children and families.
The very purpose of the juvenile justice system is inherently undermined by the
AWA.
The AWA increases the likelihood that youth will be on registries because it includes
youth adjudicated in juvenile court of sex offenses, thus undermining a system which is
designed to protect youth from the lifelong penalties carried by the adult criminal
justice system.
• The juvenile justice system acknowledges that youth are amenable to treatment.
Youth involved in the juvenile justice system should receive more treatment and
rehabilitative services than they would receive in the adult criminal system. The
registry undermines rehabilitation by labeling a young person a “sex offender,”
thereby stigmatizing the youth and closing available doors for services and
treatment.
• Registries and notification ostracize youth and disconnect them from support
systems. The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s annual Kids Count data book keeps tally
of “disconnected” youth (youth who are not working or in school) as a factor in
child well-being. Youth who are connected to school or work are generally
expected to have better life outcomes than youth who are not.
The AWA compromises community safety.
Registries encourage a disproportionate and inappropriate focus on registries
and the people on them. Statistics from the Justice Department support the idea that
the people on the registry are not likely to be the people who pose the greatest
potential threat.
• The majority of people arrested for sex offenses have never been previously
convicted of a sex offense. In 2003, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reported
that 86.1 percent of the people arrested for a sex offense had never been
previously convicted of a sex offense and would therefore not already be
included in the registry. Furthermore, another study by BJS found that of all the
adults arrested for rape in 1997 (791,513), 3.6 percent were of people released
from prison in 1994. In other words, people who had been previously convicted
of sex offenses are not the majority of people arrested for sex offenses on a
yearly basis.
• People who are convicted of sex offenses are not likely to repeat the offense. The
BJS found that 95 percent of people released from prison after serving time for a
sex offense remained arrest free within three years.
The AWA compromises community safety.
Reliance on registries creates the illusion that parents can protect their children from
sexual violence simply by checking an online database.
• A survey of mental health professionals found that 70 percent of those surveyed
felt that “a listing of sex offenders on the web would create a false sense of
security for parents who might feel that they can protect their children simply by
checking a web site.”
• Despite registry requirements and stiff penalties for not registering, registries are
often inaccurate and out of date.
•
In 2006, Dallas Morning News found that 18 percent of Dallas County
registrants either had incorrect addresses listed or never lived at the address
listed.
•
In 2005, a Virginia man sued a private registry management company for
falsely listing his name on a registry of people convicted of sex offenses.
Another suit was filed against a neighbor for defamation. The company
managing the registry does not verify information before posting it online.
The AWA compromises community safety.
Registering people for consensual, nonviolent, and statutory offenses overloads the
registry and distracts the public. Furthermore, not every person on a sex offender
registry has committed rape or a sexual offense against a child.
Human Rights Watch reviewed statutes in all 50 states and found that a sex
offense is defined differently in different states. The Adam Walsh Act (AWA), the
newest piece of federal legislation related to registries, is designed to represent the
minimum offenses that are registerable, thus the law is likely to encourage states to
further expand the offenses for which people must register. At the time of the
publication of the Human Rights Watch report, the following offenses require
registration:
•
•
•
•
Adult prostitution-related offenses (five states)
Public urination (13 states, two limit registration to urination in front of a minor)
Consensual sex between teenagers (29 states)
Exposing genitals in public (32 states; of those, seven require the victim to be a
minor).
Recommendations: Federal and State Policy
1. Congress should repeal the section of the Adam Walsh Act that mandates the
registration of youth under age 18.
2. States should refuse to put children on public registries.
3. Assess the effectiveness of sex offense registries and community notification on a
national or state scale.
4. Reframe the problem of sexual violence from a criminal justice issue to a public
health issue.
5. Determine how money spent maintaining sex offense registries and notifying
communities might be better used elsewhere.
6. Evaluate the effectiveness of responses to sexual violence.
7. Assess the public safety impact of registries on communities.
Recommendations: Local and Community
Strategies
1. Educate the public about the realities of sex offenses
2. Educate the public on ways to increase personal safety
3.
Provide resources to families who may be worried about inappropriate behavior
4. Provide training to teachers to help identify and distinguish between appropriate
and concerning behavior
State
Legislation
or Statute
Alaska
Arizona
Submitted
to SMART
Office?
Status as of September 2008
Alaska has not submitted any SORNA legislation and has just
recently appointed an AG in the Department of Law to analyze
the situation and make recommendations regarding whether or
not (and how) Alaska will implement. Awaiting the SORNA final
guidelines before drafting legislation.
SB 1628
(passed
April, 2007)
Requires youth sex offenders to only be placed in treatment
programs of similar age and developmental maturity level;
requires a court hearing for any youth prosecuted as an adult to
determine if youth should be transferred to juvenile court.;
allows for an annual probation review hearing for youth sex
offenders under age 22 who are in the adult system; allows
transferred youth to be removed from the registry.
California
Considering costs, no legislation yet.
Colorado
A compliance committee made up of all the stakeholders is
currently studying what it would take to implement AWA in CO.
Doing a cost-benefit analysis of implementation and then will
make recommendations to the Governor's office and
legislature. There has been no legislation run or passed as of
yet and we don't anticipate any in 2008.
Delaware
SB 60
Passed compliance legislation. Wholly adopted SORNA
provisions.
State
Florida
Legislation
or Statute
SB 1604
HB 665
Submitted to
SMART Office?
Georgia
Hawai’i
Illinois
Kansas
Submitted some
policies such as
the website, and
some statutes,
but has not
passed
legislation or
submitted a full
compliance
package.
Status as of September 2008 from the
Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers
Mostly adopts provisions of the SORNA, but not retroactive
prior to July 1, 2007.
So busy with their state residence restriction and other bills that
they haven’t addressed the SORNA yet.
Will be addressing SORNA but most likely not the juvenile
piece. A work group, the Sex Offender Registration Team
(SORT), is in place to study the possibilities for SORNA
implementation.
7/17/08 update : legislature and the AG set up committee to
evaluate the impact of SORNA, it will report back to the
legislature prior to the opening of the 2009 session in midJanuary. SORNA implementation on hold for now.
SB 121 passed in 2007 which challenges juvenile provisions of
the SORNA: allows juveniles to petition to be removed from
registry after a full hearing, 2 years for misdemeanor offense; 5
years for a felony offense
Working on substantial legislative changes to come closer to
compliance with SORNA. The state attorney general, based on
information provided by the state’s Offender Registration
Working Group, will not pursue the adult retroactivity portion
or the juvenile requirements of the SORNA. Kansas will exceed
SORNA’s registration requirements by having all sex offenses
except for sexual battery register for life. Sexual battery will
require a 15-year registration. Also, ALL offenders will be
required to report in person quarterly.
State
Louisiana
Legislation
or Statute
HB 970
R.S. 15:540
et seq
Maine
Maryland
Proposed:
SB24
Passed:
SB59/HB18
Failed: SB
629/HB 76,
SB1538,
HB1450
Submitted to
SMART Office?
Yes; not in
compliance.
Status as of September 2008 from the
Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers
SMART Office responded: LA not in compliance and must change
state codes regarding sexual assault to be in compliance. Also,
tiering has to be fact-based rather than based on elements of the
state offense. Also said LA not in compliance vis a vis tribal
nations. Supreme Court ruled that retroactivity did not violate
expo facto. United States Supreme Court is set for argument on
Wednesday, April 16, 2008 regarding Patrick Kennedy v. a
Jefferson Parrish sex offender on death row.
Legislation pending to remove offenders from the registry for
some offenses committed between 1982-1992. Also pending in
the courts five challenges to the entire registry based on Doe v
District Attorney et al, 2007 ME 139, a decision of the Maine
Supreme Judicial Court issued last fall that called into question
the constitutionality of registry based on state constitutional
issues. The matter has been remanded for hearing. The state’s
Criminal Justice Committee has put off consideration of whether
or not to comply with Adam Walsh until next session (starting
January 2009). Currently, no juvenile is included on the ME
registry unless they have been bound over as an adult.
SB59/HB18: State's sexual offender registry include the
registrant's former names, electronic mail addresses, computer
log-in or screen names or identities, instant-messaging identities,
and electronic chat room identities used by the registrant. The
bills also add (1) a copy of the registrant's valid driver's license or
identification card; and (2) the license plate number and
description of any vehicle owned or regularly operated by the
registrant as items that must be included in a registration
statement.
State
Legislation
or Statute
Submitted to
SMART Office?
Status as of September 2008 from the
Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers
Massachusetts
MA has not decided on strategy yet, but are leaning towards
compliance. No forward movement yet at the legislative side
(that we know of). Several state constitutional issues have been
identified as counter to the provisions of the SORNA, including
the right of sex offenders to a due process hearing to determine
risk level.
Michigan
The MI Senate had legislation introduced for compliance early
on, but it didn’t go anywhere.With final guidelines will likely
move in a definitive direction. The House has created a
subcommittee to address existing registry issues and SORNA
compliance but no bill has yet been introduced.
Minnesota
There are no plans at this time to introduce AWA-related
legislation in the 2008 session.
Passed SORNA compliance bill but it does not address
retroactivity, nor is it in compliance as far as the requirements re:
juveniles.
Mississippi
HB 1015
Submitted
compliance
package but it
was not
approved.
Missouri
SB 714
Passed SORNA compliance bill March 2008.
Montana
SB 156
SB 156 passed in early 2007 addresses some aspects of the
SORNA compliance, but not all. Next legislative session is just
before the July 2009 substantial compliance date. No SORNAspecific legislation has been drafted yet. June 11, 2008 decision in
’s US District Court (Waybright v. ) that SORNA is
unconstitutional.
State
Nebraska
Legislation
or Statute
LB 957
Nevada
AB 579
New
Hampshire
HB 1640
New Mexico
New York
Submitted to
SMART Office?
Compliance
package
submitted to
the SMART
Office.
Submitted their
compliance
package to the
SMART Office.
No answer yet.
Not yet.
Status as of September 2008 from the
Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers
AB 579 was passed May 31, 2007, enrolled on June 1, 2007,
approved by governor on June 13, 2007, and codified in Chapter
485 of the NRS on June 14, 2007. Became effective July 1, 2008.
NV appears to be closest to substantial compliance of all the
states that have passed compliance legislation.
On June 24, 2008, NV ACLU filed a federal lawsuit asking for a
temporary stay in the law.
July 9, 2008: HB 1640 passed by NH legislature and signed by
governor. The law reworks state's registration system by
categorizing the levels of sex offender crimes into three tiers.
Law takes effect January 1, 2009.
NM will not attempt to pass AWA legislation until January, 2009.
Uncomfortable with the juvenile and retroactivity provisions of
the Proposed Guidelines and have provided letters to DOJ on
two occasions about this. Otherwise, NM appears to already be
approximately 80% compliant. Many NM state officials are
adamantly opposed to the juvenile provisions.Will be difficult for
legislature to enact legislation providing for substantial
compliance if DOJ maintains its strict reading of AWA.
Has not yet determined whether it will comply with the AWA
requirements. NY may not be able to achieve compliance because
juvenile records are expunged. Concerned with the cost of
implementation.
State
Legislation
or Statute
Submitted to
SMART Office?
SB 10
Not yet.
North
Carolina
Ohio
Status as of September 2008 from the
Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers
HB 933 (Jessica’s Law) introduced in short session. It increases 10
year registration to 30 years with a petition process at 10
years. If HB 933 is enacted, NC will have 2 tiers: 30 years and
life. HB 933 changes 10 day registration/verification of
registration to 3 business days. Attempt at compliance with
AWA. Senate and House conference committee members
appointed to work out differences between House and Senate
versions of that bill; no action since appointments on 7/8/08.
Implemented SORNA compliance legislation as of 1/1/08.
Ohio Supreme Court ruled in favor of retroactive application of
original SORN law, saying that SO classification is remedial, not
punitive. State AG and legislators relied exclusively on that case
to dispute constitutional claims. Ohio Criminal Sentencing
Commission voted unanimously to recommend against
retroactive application (but didn’t testify). SB 10 is retroactive, but
not “super retroactive”. SB 10 was amended to greatly limit the
juveniles who will appear on the Internet registry. Only juveniles
transferred to adult court or designated “serious youthful
offenders”. It includes only 2–3% of juvenile sex offenders in DYS.
In Oct. 2007, direct action filed in Ohio Supreme Court.
Challenge retroactive application of SB 10: violates separation of
powers, ex post facto, due process, double jeopardy. The case
ultimately dismissed.
State
Oklahoma
Legislation
or Statute
HB 1760
went into
effect
November
1, 2007.
Submitted to
SMART Office?
Yes; did not
achieve
substantial
compliance
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Texas
Utah
HB 492
Virginia
SB 590
Washington
Not yet.
Status as of September 2008 from the
Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers
Under HB 1760 5,500 SOs were reclassified and almost 80% of
them have been reclassified as Tier III offenders.
The legislature considered HB 3159 to achieve further
compliance.
Earliest legislative session to address SORNA will be Jan 2009;
right now looking at the financial impact of implementing the
SORNA; legislative concepts are not due from state agencies until
later in 2008.Will be filing for one-year extension in April 2009 as
session does not end until July 2009.
PA has introduced a SORNA compliance-related bill, SB 1130, but
it doesn’t address much of what needs to be addressed to come
into compliance.
Will not address the SORNA until the Jan 2009 session. Had a
bill in the 2007 session of the legislature that would have brought
TX into partial compliance.
HB 492 is a sex offender bill passed in 2008that addresses some
of the SORNA requirements, but contravenes others, e.g.
requires reporting of changes of residence, work, education
institution, vehicle, and other information within three business
days rather than five days; but requires registration every six
months, rather than every year as is currently required by the UT
registry
Passed by the VA Assembly in its 2008 session. Attempt to meet
substantial compliance but some question as to its success.
Formed Sex Offender Policy Board in July 2008
How to contact us
Justice Policy Institute
1003 K Street, NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20001
202-558-7974
info@justicepolicy.org
www.justicepolicy.org
The accompanying guide for advocates, policymakers, and the media can be found at:
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-11_BRF_WalshActRegistries_JJ-PS.pdf