Misplaced Pages

Sex offender registries in the United States: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:50, 23 October 2015 editViperFace (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,334 edits Additional restrictions: does not belong here← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:37, 28 October 2024 edit undoAbsolutiva (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,509 edits WP:BOLDITISTag: 2017 wikitext editor 
(340 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|none}}
{{POV-check|date=October 2015}}
{{Sex offender registries in the United States}} {{Sex offender registries in the United States}}
'''Sex offender registries in the United States''' exist at both the federal and state levels. They assemble information about persons convicted of sexual offenses for law enforcement and public notification purposes. All 50 states and the District of Columbia maintain sex offender registries that are open to the public via Web sites, although information on some offenders is visible to law enforcement only. According to ], as of 2015 there were 843,260 registered sex offenders in United States.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/Sex_Offenders_Map.pdf|title=Map of Registered Sex Offenders in the United States|publisher=National Center for Missing and Exploited Children|accessdate=2015-08-21}}</ref> In the United States, ] existed at both the federal and state levels. The federal registry is known as the National Sex Offender Public Website (NSOPW) and integrates data in all state, territorial, and tribal registries provided by offenders required to register.<ref name=nsopw>{{cite web|url=https://www.nsopw.gov/about-nsopw|title=Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website|publisher=]|access-date=2024-03-03|date=2023-08-16}}</ref> Registries contain information about persons convicted of sexual offenses for law enforcement and public notification purposes. All 50 ] and the ] maintain sex offender registries that are open to the public via websites; most information on offenders is visible to the public. Public disclosure of offender information varies between the states depending on offenders' designated tier, which may also vary from state to state, or risk assessment result. According to ], as of 2016 there were 859,500 registered ]s in United States.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/Sex_Offenders_Map.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170717203105/http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/Sex_Offenders_Map.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=2017-07-17|title=Map of Registered Sex Offenders in the United States|publisher=National Center for Missing and Exploited Children|access-date=2016-01-07}}</ref>


The majority of states and the federal government apply systems based on conviction offenses only, where registration requirement is triggered as a consequence of finding of guilt, or pleading guilty, to a sex offense regardless of the actual gravity of the crime. The trial judge typically can not exercise ] concerning registration.<ref name=Widening>{{cite journal|last1=Harris|first1=A. J.|last2=Lobanov-Rostovsky|first2=C.|last3=Levenson|first3=J. S.|title=Widening the Net: The Effects of Transitioning to the Adam Walsh Act's Federally Mandated Sex Offender Classification System|journal=Criminal Justice and Behavior|date=2 April 2010|volume=37|issue=5|pages=503–519|doi=10.1177/0093854810363889|s2cid=55988358|url=http://ww.ilvoices.com/media/ea99d28960ec776bffff84baffffe415.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150930182129/http://ww.ilvoices.com/media/ea99d28960ec776bffff84baffffe415.pdf|archive-date=30 September 2015}}</ref>{{POV statement||date=November 2015}} Depending on jurisdiction, offenses requiring registration range in their severity from public urination or adolescent sexual experimentation with peers, to violent sex offenses. In some states offenses such as unlawful imprisonment may require sex offender registration.<ref>{{cite news|title=Court keeps man on sex offender list but says 'troubling'|url=http://www.toledonewsnow.com/story/28639772/court-keeps-man-on-sex-offender-list-but-says-troubling|work=Toledo News|date=28 March 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402110328/http://www.toledonewsnow.com/story/28639772/court-keeps-man-on-sex-offender-list-but-says-troubling|archive-date=2 April 2015}}</ref> According to ], children as young as 9 have been placed on the registry;<ref name=HRW2> (2012) ] {{ISBN|978-1-62313-0084}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/when-kids-are-sex-offenders/|title=When Kids Are Sex Offenders|publisher=Boston Review|date=20 September 2013|access-date=1 September 2023}}</ref> ]s account for 25 percent of registrants.<ref name="senseless">{{cite news |last1=Lehrer |first1=Eli |date=7 September 2015 |title=A Senseless Policy - Take kids off the sex-offender registries. |url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/senseless-policy_1020694.html?page=2 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150902000211/http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/senseless-policy_1020694.html?page=2 |archive-date=2 September 2015 |access-date=1 September 2015 |work=The Weekly Standard}}</ref> In some states, the length of the registration period is determined by the offense or ]; in others all registration is for life.<ref name=Klaas>{{cite web|url=http://klaaskids.org/megans-law/|title=Megan's Law by State|publisher=Klaas Kids Foundation|access-date=2015-08-21|date=2014-04-14}}</ref> Some states allow removal from the registry under certain specific, limited circumstances.<ref name=Klaas/> Information of juvenile offenders is withheld for law enforcement but may be made public after their 18th birthday.<ref name="Center for Sex Offender Management">{{cite web|title=How do Registration Laws Apply to Juvenile Offenders in Different States?|url=http://www.csom.org/train/juvenile/7/7_4.htm|publisher=Center for Sex Offender Management}}</ref>
==Overview==
]; sex offender-free districts appeared as a result of ].]]
The majority of states, and the federal government, apply systems based on conviction offenses only, where the requirement to register as a sex offender is a consequence of conviction of or guilty plea to a "sex offense" that triggers a mandatory registration requirement. The trial judge typically can not exercise ], and is barred from considering mitigating factors with respect to registration.<ref name=Widening>{{cite journal|last1=Harris|first1=A. J.|last2=Lobanov-Rostovsky|first2=C.|last3=Levenson|first3=J. S.|title=Widening the Net: The Effects of Transitioning to the Adam Walsh Act's Federally Mandated Sex Offender Classification System|journal=Criminal Justice and Behavior|date=2 April 2010|volume=37|issue=5|pages=503–519|doi=10.1177/0093854810363889|url=http://ww.ilvoices.com/media/ea99d28960ec776bffff84baffffe415.pdf}}</ref> The definition of a registerable sex offense can vary significantly from one jurisdiction to another.


Sex Offender Registration and Notification (SORN) has been studied for its impact on the rates of sexual offense recidivism, with the majority of studies demonstrating no impact.<ref>{{cite web|title=Adult Sex Offender Management|url=http://www.smart.gov/pdfs/AdultSexOffenderManagement.pdf|publisher=U.S. Department of Justice|ref=ASAM|page=3}}</ref> The ] has upheld sex offender registration laws both times such laws have been examined by them. Several challenges on parts of state level legislation have been honored by the courts. Legal scholars have challenged the rationale behind the Supreme Court rulings. Perceived problems in legislation has prompted organizations such as ], ], and ], among others, to promote reform.
Sex offenders must periodically report in person to their local law enforcement agency and furnish their address, and list of other information such as place of employment and email addresses. The offenders are photographed and fingerprinted by law enforcement, and in some cases ] information is also collected. Registrants are often subject to restrictions that bar them from working or living within a defined distance of schools, parks, and the like; these restrictions can vary from county to county and from one municipality to another. In some cases, restrictions force registrants into homelessness.<ref>{{cite news|title=State Supreme Court overturns sex offender housing rules in San Diego; law could affect Orange County, beyond|url=http://www.ocregister.com/articles/offenders-652781-law-restrictions.html|work=The Orange County Register|date=2 March 2015}}</ref><ref name=tracks>{{cite news|title=Miami Sex Offenders Live on Train Tracks Thanks to Draconian Restrictions|url=http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/miami-sex-offenders-live-on-train-tracks-thanks-to-draconian-restrictions-6353588|work=Broward Palm Beach New Times|date=13 March 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Miami sex offenders limited to life under a bridge|url=http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/miami-sex-offenders-limited-to-life-under-a-bridge/1027668|work=Tampa Bay Times|date=14 August 2009}}</ref>

Depending on jurisdiction, offenses requiring registration range in their severity from public urination or adolescent sexual experimentation with peers, to violent rape and murder of children. In a few states non-sexual offenses such as unlawful imprisonment requires sex offender registration.<ref>{{cite news|title=Court keeps man on sex offender list but says 'troubling'|url=http://www.toledonewsnow.com/story/28639772/court-keeps-man-on-sex-offender-list-but-says-troubling|work=Toledo News|date=28 March 2015|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20150402110328/http://www.toledonewsnow.com/story/28639772/court-keeps-man-on-sex-offender-list-but-says-troubling|archivedate=2 April 2015}}</ref> According to ], children as young as 9 have been placed on the registry;<ref name=HRW2> (2012) ] ISBN 978-1-62313-0084</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://bostonreview.net/blog/youth-sex-offender-registry-hrw|title=When Kids Are Sex Offenders|publisher=Boston Review|date=20 September 2013}}</ref> juveniles account for as many as 25 percent of registrants.<ref name=senseless>{{cite news|last1=Lehrer|first1=Eli|title=A Senseless Policy - Take kids off the sex-offender registries.|url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/senseless-policy_1020694.html?page=2|accessdate=1 September 2015|work=The Weekly Standard|date=7 September 2015}}</ref>

States apply differing sets of criteria to determine which registration information is available to the public. In a few states, a judge determines the risk level of the offender, or scientific risk assessment tools are used; information on low-risk offenders may be available to law enforcement only. In other states, all sex offenders are treated as equally dangerous, and all registration information is available to the public on a state Internet site. In some states, the length of the registration period is determined by the conviction offense or ]; in others all registration is for life.<ref name=Klaas>{{cite web|url=http://klaaskids.org/megans-law/|title=Megan’s Law by State|publisher=Klaas Kids Foundation|access-date=2015-08-21}}</ref> Some states allow removal from the registry under certain specific, limited circumstances.<ref name=Klaas/>

Stakeholders like civil rights groups,<ref name=HRW2/><ref>{{cite web|last1=Jacobs|first1=Deborah|title=Why Sex Offender Laws Do More Harm Than Good|url=https://www.aclu-nj.org/theissues/criminaljustice/whysexoffenderlawsdomoreha/|accessdate=14 November 2014|agency=American Civil Liberties Union|ref=aclu}}</ref> law reform activists,<ref>{{cite news|last1=Lovett|first1=Ian|title=Restricted Group Speaks Up, Saying Sex Crime Measures Go Too Far|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/us/restricted-group-speaks-up-saying-sex-crime-measures-go-too-far.html|publisher=The New York Times|date=October 1, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Ulmer|first1=Nick|title=Taking a Stand: Women Against Registry responds to our 14 News investigation|url=http://www.14news.com/story/24789519/taking-a-stand-women-against-registry-respond-to-our-14-news-investigation|work=14News|agency=NBC|date=21 February 2014}}</ref> scholars,<ref name=Levenson1>{{cite news|last1=Levenson|first1=Jill|title=Does youthful mistake merit sex-offender status?|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/06/opinions/levenson-sex-offender-registry-reform/|work=cnn.com|date=6 August 2015}}</ref> treatment professionals,<ref name=atsa1>{{cite web|title=RE: Pending Sex Offender Registry Legislation (HR 4472)|url=http://www.atsa.com/pdfs/Policy/responseHR4472.pdf|ref=Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150902205155/http://www.atsa.com/pdfs/Policy/responseHR4472.pdf|archivedate=2 September 2015|date=8 August 2005}}</ref> some victim advocates,<ref name=wetterling>{{cite news|title=Patty Wetterling questions sex offender laws|url=http://www.citypages.com/2013-03-20/news/patty-wetterling-questions-sex-offender-laws/full/|accessdate=13 November 2014}}</ref><ref name=wetterling2>{{cite news|last1=Gunderson|first1=Dan|title=Sex offender laws have unintended consequences|url=http://www.mprnews.org/story/2007/06/11/sexoffender1|accessdate=16 November 2014|work=MPR news|date=18 June 2007}}</ref> some legislators<ref name=policy_perceptions>{{cite journal|last1=Meloy|first1=Michelle|last2=Curtis|first2=Kristin|last3=Boatwright|first3=Jessica|title=Policy-makers’ perceptions on their sex offender laws: the good, the bad, and the ugly|journal=Criminal Justice Studies: A CriticalJournal of Crime, Law and Society|date=23 Nov 2012|volume=26|issue=1|doi=10.1080/1478601.2012.744307|quote="Therefore, state-level policy-makers from across the country, who sponsored and passed at least one sex offender law in their state, (n = 61) were interviewed about sex offenders and sex crimes. Policy-makers believe sex offender laws are too broad. The laws extend to nonviolent offenses, low-risk offenders, and thus dilute the law enforcement potency of sex offender registries."}}</ref> and law enforcement officials<ref name=SFGate>{{cite news|title=Board wants to remove low-risk sex offenders from registry|url=http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Board-wants-to-remove-low-risk-sex-offenders-from-5503219.php|work=SFGate|date=25 May 2014}}</ref> have expressed their worries that current laws may have become too broad and may often target the wrong people, steering law enforcement resources and public attention from truly dangerous to low-risk offenders, while negatively impacting the attempts of offenders to live as law-abiding citizens,<ref name=reintegration>{{cite journal|last1=Levenson|first1=J. S.|title=The Effect of Megan's Law on Sex Offender Reintegration|journal=Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice|date=1 February 2005|volume=21|issue=1|pages=49–66|doi=10.1177/1043986204271676}}</ref><ref name=impact3>{{cite journal|last1=Tewksbury|first1=R.|title=Collateral Consequences of Sex Offender Registration|journal=Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice|date=1 February 2005|volume=21|issue=1|pages=67–81|doi=10.1177/1043986204271704}}</ref><ref name=impact2>{{cite journal|last1=Mercado|first1=C. C.|last2=Alvarez|first2=S.|last3=Levenson|first3=J.|title=The Impact of Specialized Sex Offender Legislation on Community Reentry|journal=Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment|date=1 June 2008|volume=20|issue=2|pages=188–205|doi=10.1177/1079063208317540}}</ref><ref name=impact1>{{cite journal|last1=Levenson|first1=Jill S.|last2=D'Amora|first2=David A.|last3=Hern|first3=Andrea L.|title=Megan's law and its impact on community re-entry for sex offenders|journal=Behavioral Sciences & the Law|date=July 2007|volume=25|issue=4|pages=587–602|doi=10.1002/bsl.770}}</ref> as well as impacting their families.<ref name=collateral>{{cite news|last1=Balko|first1=Radley|title=The collateral damage of sex offender laws|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/08/28/the-collateral-damage-of-sex-offender-laws/|work=The Washington Post|date=28 August 2015}}</ref><ref name=collateral2>{{cite news|last1=Yoder|first1=Steven|title=Collateral damage: Harsh sex offender laws may put whole families at risk|url=http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/8/27/harsh-sex-offender-laws-may-put-whole-families-at-risk.html|work=Al Jazeera America|date=27 August 2015}}</ref>

The ] has upheld sex offender registration laws twice, in two respects. Several challenges to some parts of state level sex offender laws have succeeded, however.


==History== ==History==
In 1947, California became the first state in the United States to have a sex offender registration program.<ref></ref> In 1990, ] began community notification of its most dangerous sex offenders, making it the first state to ever make any sex offender information publicly available. Prior to 1994, only a few states required convicted sex offenders to register their addresses with local law enforcement. The 1990s saw the emergence of several cases of brutal violent sexual offenses against children. Heinous crimes like those of ], ] and ] were highly publicized. As a result, public policies began to focus on protecting public from ].<ref name=wright>{{cite book|last1=Wright|first1=Ph.D Richard G.|title=Sex offender laws : failed policies, new directions|date=2014|publisher=Springer Publishing Co Inc|isbn=9780826196712|pages=50-65|edition=Second edition.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Ms75AwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl#v=onepage&q&f=false}}</ref> Since early 1990s, several state and federal laws, often named after victims, have been enacted as a response to public outrage generated by highly publicized, but statistically very rare,<ref name=NYtimes>{{cite news|last1=Lancaster|first1=Roger|title=Panic Leads to Bad Policy on Sex Offenders|url=http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/20/too-many-restrictions-on-sex-offenders-or-too-few/panic-leads-to-bad-policy-on-sex-offenders|accessdate=26 November 2014|work=The New York Times|date=20 February 2013}}</ref> violent predatory sex crimes against children by strangers.<ref name=wright/> In 1947, ] became the first state in the United States to have a sex offender registration program.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/sexreg.aspx?lang=ENGLISH|title=California Megan's Law – California Department of Justice – Office of the Attorney General<!-- Bot generated title -->|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151104223242/http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/sexreg.aspx?lang=ENGLISH|archive-date=2015-11-04}}</ref> ] was prompted by the ] murder case to introduce a bill calling for the formation of a sex offender registry; California became the first U.S. state to
make this mandatory.<ref>{{cite book|last=Katz|first=Hélèna| year= 2010 | title=Cold Cases: Famous Unsolved Mysteries, Crimes, and Disappearances in America|publisher=ABC-CLIO|isbn= 978-0-313-37692-4 |page=190}}</ref> In 1990, ] state began community notification of its most dangerous sex offenders, making it the first state to ever make any sex offender information publicly available. Prior to 1994, only a few states required convicted sex offenders to register their addresses with local law enforcement. The 1990s saw the emergence of several cases of brutal violent sexual offenses against children. Crimes like those of ], ] and ] were highly publicized. As a result, public policies began to focus on protecting public from ].<ref name=wright>{{cite book|last1=Wright|first1=Ph.D Richard G.|title=Sex offender laws : failed policies, new directions|date=2014|publisher=Springer Publishing Co Inc|isbn=9780826196712|pages=50–65|edition=Second|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Ms75AwAAQBAJ}}</ref> Since the early 1990s, several state and federal laws, often named after victims, have been enacted as a response to public outrage generated by highly publicized, but statistically very rare,<ref name=NYtimes>{{cite news|last1=Lancaster|first1=Roger|title=Panic Leads to Bad Policy on Sex Offenders|url=https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/20/too-many-restrictions-on-sex-offenders-or-too-few/panic-leads-to-bad-policy-on-sex-offenders|access-date=26 November 2014|work=The New York Times|date=20 February 2013}}</ref> violent predatory sex crimes against children by strangers.<ref name=wright/>


===Jacob Wetterling Act of 1994=== ===Jacob Wetterling Act of 1994===
{{main|Jacob Wetterling Act}} {{main|Jacob Wetterling Act}}

In 1989, a 11-year-old boy, ], was abducted from a street in ]. Even though it is not known who abducted Jacob, many assumed the perpetrator to be one of the sex offenders living in a halfway house in St. Joseph. Jacob's mother, ], current chair of ], led a community effort to implement a sex offender registration requirement in Minnesota and, subsequently, nationally. In 1994, Congress passed the ]. If states failed to comply, the states would forfeit 10% of federal funds from the ]. The act required each state to create registry of offenders convicted of qualifying sexual offenses and certain other offenses against children, to track known offenders by confirming their place of residence annually for ten years after their release into the community or quarterly for the rest of their lives if the sex offender was convicted of a violent sex crime. States had certain time period to enact the legislation, along with guidelines established by the ].<ref name=wright/> The registration information collected was treated as private data for law enforcement purposes only, although law enforcement agencies were allowed to release relevant information that is necessary to protect the public concerning a specific person required to register.<ref>{{cite web|title=Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994|url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3355enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr3355enr.pdf|publisher=One Hundred Third Congress of the United States of America|pages=246-247|date=1995}}</ref> Another high-profile case, abuse and murder of ] led to modification of Jacob Wetterling Act.<ref name=wright/>
In 1989, an 11-year-old boy, ], was abducted from a street in ]. His whereabouts remained unknown for nearly 27 years until remains were discovered just outside ], in 2016. Jacob's mother, ], current chair of ], led a community effort to implement a sex offender registration requirement in Minnesota and, subsequently, nationally. In 1994, Congress passed the ]. If states failed to comply, the states would forfeit 10% of federal funds from the ].{{POV statement||date=November 2015}} The act required each state to create a registry of offenders convicted of qualifying sex offenses and certain other offenses against children and to track offenders by confirming their place of residence annually for ten years after their release into the community or quarterly for the rest of their lives if the sex offender was convicted of a violent sex crime. States had a certain time period to enact the legislation, along with guidelines established by the ].<ref name=wright/>{{explain|date=November 2015}} The registration information collected was treated as private data viewable by law enforcement personnel only, although law enforcement agencies were allowed to release relevant information that was deemed necessary to protect the public concerning a specific person required to register.<ref>{{cite web|title=Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994|url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3355enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr3355enr.pdf|publisher=One Hundred Third Congress of the United States of America|pages=246–247|date=1995}}</ref> Another high-profile case, abuse and ] led to modification of Jacob Wetterling Act.<ref name=wright/> The subsequent laws forcing changes to the sex offenders registries in all 50 states have since troubled Patty Wetterling and she has been vocal about her opposition to including children on the registry as well as allowing full access to the public. In an interview with reporter Madeleine Baran, Wetterling stated, "No more victims, that's the goal. But we let our emotions run away from achieving that goal." In lamenting how we treat sex offenders she stated, "You're screwed. You will not get a job, you will not find housing. This is on your record forever, good luck." She believes that by not allowing sex offenders who have served their time to reintegrate to society we do more harm than good, "I've turned 180 from where I was." <ref>{{cite podcast |url=https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/id1148175292 |title=In the dark|publisher= American Public Media |host= Madeleine Baran |date= October 3, 2016}}</ref>


===Megan's Law of 1996=== ===Megan's Law of 1996===
{{main|Megan's Law}} {{see also|International Megan's Law}}
] due to change in New Jersey law. He is currently serving ] in custody of New Jersey Department of Corrections for ]<ref>{{cite news|title=Latest appeal by Jesse Timmendequas to overturn conviction in Megan Kanka killing is rejected|url=http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/02/nj_appeals_court_rejects_latest_attempt_by_jesse_t.html|work=New Jersey Online|date=6 February 2015}}</ref>]]
]; sex offender-free districts appeared as a result of ].]]
{{main|Megan's Law}}
In 1994, 7-year-old ] from ] was raped and killed by a recidivist ]. Jesse Timmenquas, who had been convicted of two previous sex crimes against children, lured Megan in his house and raped and killed her. Megan's mother, Maureen Kanka, started to lobby to change the laws, arguing that registration established by the Wetterling Act, was not a sufficient form of community protection. Her goal was to mandate community notification, which under the Wetterling Act had been at the discretion of law enforcement. She said that if she had known that a sex offender lived across the street, Megan would still be alive. In 1994, ] enacted ]. In 1996, President ] enacted a federal version of Megan's Law. The federal Megan's Law was a subsection of the Jacob Wetterling Act. The two acts required all states to implement Registration and Community Notification Laws by the end of 1997. Prior to Megan's death, only 5 states had laws requiring sex offenders to register their personal information with law enforcement. On August 5, 1996 ] was the last state to enact its version of Megan's Law.<ref name=wright/>


In 1994, 7-year-old ] from ] was raped and killed by a recidivist ]. Jesse Timmendequas, who had been convicted of two previous sex crimes against children, lured Megan in his house and raped and killed her. Megan's mother, Maureen Kanka, started to lobby to change the laws, arguing that registration established by the Wetterling Act was insufficient for community protection. Maureen Kanka's goal was to mandate community notification, which under the Wetterling Act had been at the discretion of law enforcement. She said that if she had known that a sex offender lived across the street, Megan would still be alive. In 1994, ] enacted ]. In 1996, President ] enacted a federal version of Megan's Law, as an amendment to the Jacob Wetterling Act. The amendment required all states to implement Registration and Community Notification Laws by the end of 1997. Prior to Megan's death, only 5 states had laws requiring sex offenders to register their personal information with law enforcement. On August 5, 1996 ] was the last state to enact its version of Megan's Law.<ref name=wright/>
===Adam Walsh Act of 2006===


===Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act Law of 1996===
President ] signed the Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act Law into law in October 1996, creating the ] system and the national sex offender registry.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.salem-news.com/articles/january052010/amber_bus.php|title=14 Years After Her Daughter's Death, Donna Norris is Still Protecting Children|publisher=Salem-News|date=January 5, 2010|accessdate=March 17, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/amber-hangerman-child-protection-act/|title=Amber Hangerman Child Protection Act Law and Legal Definition|publisher=uslegal.com|access-date=17 March 2023|date=17 March 2023}}</ref>

===Adam Walsh Act of 2006===
{{main|Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act}} {{main|Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act}}
]; evidence indicated he killed Adam Walsh, and he confessed but then recanted.]] ]; evidence indicated he killed Adam Walsh, and he confessed but then recanted.]]
The most comprehensive legislation related to the supervision and management of sex offenders is the ], named after ], who was kidnapped from a ] shopping mall and killed in 1981, when he was 6-years-old. The AWA was signed in 25th anniversary of his abduction as a result of the advocacy of his father, ].


The most comprehensive legislation related to the supervision and management of sex offenders is the ] (AWA), named after ], who was kidnapped from a ] shopping mall and killed in 1981, when he was 6 years old. The AWA was signed on the 25th anniversary of his abduction; efforts to establish a national registry was led by ], Adam's father.
One of the significant component of the AWA is the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). SORNA provides uniform minimum guidelines for registration of sex offenders, regardless of the state they live in. SORNA requires states to widen the number of covered offenses and to include certain classes of juvenile offenders. Prior to SORNA, states were granted latitude in the methods to differentiate offender management levels. Whereas many states had adopted to use structured ] classification to distinguish “high risk” from “low risk” individuals, SORNA mandates such distinctions to be made solely on the basis of the governing offense.<ref name=AWA_state_survey>{{cite journal|last1=Harris|first1=A. J.|last2=Lobanov-Rostovsky|first2=C.|title=Implementing the Adam Walsh Act's Sex Offender Registration and Notification Provisions: A Survey of the States|journal=Criminal Justice Policy Review|date=22 September 2009|volume=21|issue=2|pages=202–222|doi=10.1177/0887403409346118}}</ref> States are allowed, and often do, exceed the minimum requirements. Scholars have warned that classification system required under Adam Walsh Act is less sophisticated than risk-based approach previously adopted in certain states.<ref name=Widening/><ref name=wright/><ref name=perpetual_panic>{{cite journal|last1=O'Hear|first1=Michael M.|title=Perpetual Panic|journal=Federal Sentencing Reporter|date=2008|volume=21|issue=1|url=http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1114&context=facpub}}</ref>


One of the significant component of the AWA is the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). SORNA provides uniform minimum guidelines for registration of sex offenders, regardless of the state they live in. SORNA requires states to widen the number of covered offenses and to include certain classes of juvenile offenders. Prior to SORNA, states were granted latitude in the methods to differentiate offender management levels. Whereas many states had adopted to use structured ] classification to distinguish "high risk" from "low risk" individuals, SORNA mandates such distinctions to be made solely on the basis of the governing offense.<ref name=AWA_state_survey>{{cite journal|last1=Harris|first1=A. J.|last2=Lobanov-Rostovsky|first2=C.|title=Implementing the Adam Walsh Act's Sex Offender Registration and Notification Provisions: A Survey of the States|journal=Criminal Justice Policy Review|date=22 September 2009|volume=21|issue=2|pages=202–222|doi=10.1177/0887403409346118|s2cid=144231914}}</ref> States are allowed, and often do, exceed the minimum requirements. Scholars have warned that classification system required under Adam Walsh Act is less sophisticated than risk-based approach previously adopted in certain states.<ref name=Widening/><ref name=wright/><ref name=perpetual_panic>{{cite journal|last1=O'Hear|first1=Michael M.|title=Perpetual Panic|journal=Federal Sentencing Reporter|date=2008|volume=21|issue=1|pages=69–77|doi=10.1525/fsr.2008.21.2.69|url=http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1114&context=facpub}}</ref>
Extension in number of covered offenses and making the amendments apply retroactively under SORNA requirements expanded the registries by as much as 500% in some states.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Grinberg|first1=Emanuella|title=5 years later, states struggle to comply with federal sex offender law|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/07/28/sex.offender.adam.walsh.act/|work=CNN|date=28 July 2011}}</ref>
All states were required comply with SORNA minimum guidelines by July 2009 or risk losing 10% of their funding through the Byrne program.<ref name=wright/> As of April 2014, the ] reports that only 17 states, three territories and 63 tribes had substantially implemented requirements of the Adam Walsh Act.<ref>{{cite web|title=Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act Compliance News|url=http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/adam-walsh-child-protection-and-safety-act.aspx|publisher=National Conference of State Legislatures}}</ref>


Extension in number of covered offenses and making the amendments apply ] under SORNA requirements expanded the registries by as much as 500% in some states.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Grinberg|first1=Emanuella|title=5 years later, states struggle to comply with federal sex offender law|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/07/28/sex.offender.adam.walsh.act/|work=CNN|date=28 July 2011}}</ref>
==Classification of offenders==
All states were required to comply with SORNA minimum guidelines by July 2009 or risk losing 10% of their funding through the ].<ref name=wright/>{{POV statement||date=November 2015}} {{As of|2014|April}}, the ] reports that only 17 states, three territories and 63 tribes had substantially implemented requirements of the Adam Walsh Act.<ref>{{cite web|title=Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act Compliance News|url=http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/adam-walsh-child-protection-and-safety-act.aspx|publisher=National Conference of State Legislatures}}</ref>
] to arrange a one-time intimate encounter with a girl who claimed to be 17. The girl, who was actually 14, admitted in court to lying about her age. As laws do not differentiate between offenders, Anderson was ordered to register for 25 years. During his five years of probation, he is forbidden from living at home because of his minor brother who lives there, accessing the Internet, walking in the park, and shopping.<ref name=anderson2>{{cite news|title=Teen can't live with his family anymore because a girl he slept with ‘lied about her age’|url=http://metro.co.uk/2015/08/07/teen-cant-live-with-his-family-anymore-because-a-girl-he-slept-with-lied-about-her-age-5331850/|work=MetroUK|date=7 August 2015}}</ref><ref name=anderson3>{{cite news|title=How a dating app hookup landed a teen on the sex offender registry|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/03/us/dating-app-sex-offender-registry/index.html|work=CNN|date=4 August 2015}}</ref>]]
States apply varied methods of classifying registrants. Identical offenses committed in different states may produce different outcomes in terms of public disclosure and registration period. An offender classified as level/tier I offender in one state, with no public notification requirement, might be classified as tier II or tier III offender in another. Sources of variation are diverse, but may be viewed over three dimensions — how classes of registrants are distinguished from one another, the criteria used in the classification process, and the processes applied in classification decisions.<ref name=Widening/>


==Registration==
The first point of divergence is how states distinguish their registrants. At one end are the states operating single-tier systems that treat registrants equally with respect to reporting, registration duration, notification, and related factors. Alternatively, some states use multi-tier systems, usually with two or three categories that are supposed to reflect presumed public safety risk and, in turn, required levels of attention from law enforcement and the public. Depending on state, registration and notification systems may have special provisions for juveniles, habitual offenders or those deemed “]” by virtue of certain standards.<ref name=Widening/>


Sex offenders must periodically report in person to their local law enforcement agency and furnish their address, and list of other information such as place of employment and email addresses. The offenders are photographed and fingerprinted by law enforcement, and in some cases ] information is also collected. Registration period depends on the classification level and the law of the governing jurisdiction.
The second dimension is the criteria employed in the classification decision. States running offense-based systems use the conviction offense and/or the number of prior offenses as the criteria for tier assignment. Other jurisdictions utilize various ] that consider factors that scientific research has linked to sexual ] risk, such as age, number of prior sex offenses, victim gender, relationship to the victim, and indicators of ] and ]. Finally, some states use a hybrid of offense-based and risk-assessment-based systems for classification. For example, ] law requires minimum terms of registration based on the conviction offense for which the registrant was convicted or adjudicated but also uses a risk assessment for identifying ]s — a limited population deemed to be dangerous and subject to more extensive requirements.<ref name=Widening/>


==Classification of offenders==
Third, states distinguishing among registrants use differing systems and processes in establishing tier designations. In general, offense-based classification systems are used for their simplicity and uniformity. They allow classification decisions to be made via administrative or judicial processes. Risk-assessment-based systems, which employ actuarial risk assessment instruments and in some cases clinical assessments, require more of personnel involvement in the process. Some states, like Massachusetts and Colorado, utilize multidisciplinary review boards or ] to establish registrant tiers and/or sexual predator status.<ref name=Widening/>


States apply varied methods of classifying registrants. Identical offenses committed in different states may produce different outcomes in terms of public disclosure and registration period. An offender classified as level/tier I offender in one state, with no public notification requirement, might be classified as tier II or tier III offender in another. Sources of variation are diverse, but may be viewed over three dimensions — how classes of registrants are distinguished from one another, the criteria used in the classification process, and the processes applied in classification decisions.<ref name=Widening/>
In some states, such as Kentucky, Florida, and Illinois, all sex offenders who move into the state and are required to register in their previous home states are required to register for life, regardless their registration period in previous residence.<ref name=illinois>{{cite web|url=http://www.kentuckystatepolice.org/sor.htm#faq |title=Frequently}}</ref> Illinois reclassifies all registrants moving in as a "Sexual Predator".<ref name=illinois/>


The first point of divergence is how states distinguish their registrants. At one end are the states operating single-tier systems that treat registrants equally with respect to reporting, registration duration, notification, and related factors. Alternatively, some states use multi-tier systems, usually with two or three categories that are supposed to reflect presumed public safety risk and, in turn, required levels of attention from law enforcement and the public. Depending on state, registration and notification systems may have special provisions for juveniles, habitual offenders or those deemed "]" by virtue of certain standards.<ref name=Widening/>
==Registration process==
Sex offenders are required to register in person with the appropriate law enforcement agency upon conviction of or guilty plea to a sex offense, and must reappear at a regular interval usually determined by the conviction offense and in some cases, by the assigned risk level and whether the resident is homeless.<ref name=Widening/><ref name=Klaas/> A registrant whose residence or other information changes must promptly reappear in person to update the information, for example, under Adam Walsh Act within 3 days of changes.<ref name=wright/> If a registrant moves to another state the registrant may be required to register simultaneously in more than one state; the states' requirements are seldom identical. Information states collect may include ], ]s, ], ], ], ], former living address, address of places where offender habitually lives, name and address of school or institution of higher education, if any, ]s, ]es and other Internet identifiers, ], ]s, ], ], ], ]s, ]s, ], ], ], ], ]s, ]s, ]s, copies of ] and immigration documents, ], ], ], and ]s, sometimes including the vehicles of all other (non-sex offender) persons residing at the same address; ]; every offense for which registrant has been arrested or convicted and date and place of any arrest or conviction. In some states, drivers' licenses and official state identification cards identify the holder as a sex offender.<ref name=Frenze_et_al>{{cite web|title=COLORADO SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION FORM|url=https://www.colorado.gov/apps/cdps/sor/resources/forms/REGISTRATION_FORM.pdf|publisher=Colorado Bureau of Investigation}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=HOUSE BILL 570|url=http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/13%20Regular/bills/house/HB0570.html|publisher=51st legislature - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - first session, 2013}}</ref>


The second dimension is the criteria employed in the classification decision. States running offense-based systems use the conviction offense or the number of prior offenses as the criteria for tier assignment. Other jurisdictions utilize various ] that consider factors that scientific research has linked to sexual ] risk, such as age, number of prior sex offenses, victim gender, relationship to the victim, and indicators of ] and ]. Finally, some states use a hybrid of offense-based and risk-assessment-based systems for classification. For example, ] law requires minimum terms of registration based on the conviction offense for which the registrant was convicted or adjudicated but also uses a risk assessment for identifying ]s — a limited population deemed to be dangerous and subject to more extensive requirements.<ref name=Widening/>
==Public notification==


Third, states distinguishing among registrants use differing systems and processes in establishing tier designations. In general, offense-based classification systems are used for their simplicity and uniformity. They allow classification decisions to be made via administrative or judicial processes. Risk-assessment-based systems, which employ actuarial risk assessment instruments and in some cases clinical assessments, require more of personnel involvement in the process. Some states, like Massachusetts and Colorado, utilize multidisciplinary review boards or ] to establish registrant tiers or sexual predator status.<ref name=Widening/>
States also differ with respect to public disclosure of offender information. In some jurisdictions all sex offenders are subject to public notification through newspapers, posters, email, or Internet-accessible database. However in others, only information on high-risk offenders is publicly available, and the complete lists are withheld for law enforcement only.<ref name=Klaas/>


In some states, such as Kentucky, Florida, and Illinois, all sex offenders who move into the state and are required to register in their previous home states are required to register for life, regardless of their registration period in previous residence.<ref name=Kentucky>{{cite web|url=http://www.kentuckystatepolice.org/sor.htm#faq |title=Frequently}}</ref> Illinois reclassifies all registrants moving in as a "Sexual Predator".
In ] compliant states, only ''tier I'' registrants may be excluded from public disclosure, but since SORNA merely sets the minimum set of rules that states must follow, many SORNA compliant states have opted to disclose information of all tiers. Some states have disclosed some of ''tier I'' offenders,<ref>{{cite news|title=Michigan's sex offender registry would put more crimes involving minors online under advancing legislation|url=http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/02/sex_offender_registry_michigan.html|accessdate=13 November 2014|publisher=Mlive}}</ref> while in some states all ''tier I'' offenders are excluded from public disclosure.<ref name=Klaas/>
Disparities in state legislation have caused some registrants moving across state lines becoming subject to public disclosure and longer registration periods under the destination state's laws.<ref name=picayune>{{cite news|last1=Daley|first1=Ken|title=Alabama sex offender files suit challenging Louisiana registry laws in federal court|url=http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/04/alabama_sex_offender_files_sui.html|work=The Times-Picayune|date=21 April 2015|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20150706112041/http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/04/alabama_sex_offender_files_sui.html|archivedate=6 July 2015}}</ref> These disparities have also prompted some registrants to move from state to another in order to avoid public notification.<ref>{{cite news|title=Portland: Sex offender magnet?|url=http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/128257-portland-sex-offender-magnet|work=Portland Tribune|date=14 February 2013}}</ref>


==Public notification==
==Exclusion zones==
] as of February 2, 2014. Red and orange highlights denote areas where registered sex offenders cannot reside within the city.]]
Laws restricting where registered sex offenders may live or work became increasingly common since 2005.<ref name=proximity>{{cite journal|last1=Zandbergen|first1=P. A.|last2=Levenson|first2=J. S.|last3=Hart|first3=T. C.|title=Residential Proximity to Schools and Daycares: An Empirical Analysis of Sex Offense Recidivism|journal=Criminal Justice and Behavior|date=2 April 2010|volume=37|issue=5|pages=482–502|doi=10.1177/0093854810363549}}</ref><ref name=fedprobation>{{cite journal|last1=Levenson|first1=Jill|last2=Zgoba|first2=Kristen|last3=Tewksbury|first3=Richard|title=Sex Offender Residence Restrictions: Sensible Policy or Flawed Logic?|journal=Federal Probation|volume=71|issue=3|url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/fedpro71&div=4&id=&page=}}</ref> At least 30 states have enacted statewide residency restrictions prohibiting registrants from living within certain distances from ]s, ]s, ]s, school ], or other places where children may congregate.<ref name=impact_residence_restrictions>{{cite journal|last1=Levenson|first1=J. S.|title=The Impact of Sex Offender Residence Restrictions: 1,000 Feet From Danger or One Step From Absurd?|journal=International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology|date=1 April 2005|volume=49|issue=2|pages=168–178|doi=10.1177/0306624X04271304|url=http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/105331.pdf}}</ref> Distance requirements range from 500-2500 feet, but most common are 1000-2500-foot boundaries. In addition hundreds of counties and municipalities have passed local ordinances exceeding the state requirements.<ref name=impact_residence_restrictions/><ref name=HRW>{{cite web|title=No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the US|url=https://www.hrw.org/report/2007/09/11/no-easy-answers/sex-offender-laws-us|publisher=Human Right Watch|date=11 September 2007}}</ref> In addition, some local communities have created exclusion zones around ], ]s, ]s, ], ]s, ]s or other "recreational facilities" such as ]s, ]s, ]s, ]s and gymnasiums, regardless whether publicly or privately owned.<ref name=banishment>{{cite journal|last1=Yung|first1=Corey R.|title=Banishment By a Thousand Laws: Residency Restrictions on Sex Offenders|journal=Washington University Law Review|date=January 2007|volume=85|page=101|url=http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1144&context=law_lawreview}}</ref><ref name=HRW/> Although restrictions are tied to distances from areas where children may congregate, most states apply exclusion zones to all registrants.<ref name=banishment/><ref name=malden>{{cite web|title=SECTION 7.24 RESTRICTIONS ON REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS|url=http://www.cityofmalden.org/ordinances/section-724-restrictions-registered-sex-offenders/section-724-restrictions-registered-sex|publisher=City of Malden|accessdate=6 October 2015}}</ref> In 2007 report, the ] identified only 4 states limiting restrictions to those convicted of sex crimes involving minors. The report also found that laws preclude registrants from ]s within restriction areas.<ref name=HRW/> In 2005, some localities in Florida banned sex offenders from public hurricane shelters during ].<ref name=banishment/> In 2007 ] city council considered banning registrants from moving in the city.<ref>{{cite news|title=Tampa wants to keep sex offenders outside city limits|url=http://www.sptimes.com/2007/01/19/Hillsborough/Tampa_wants_to_keep_s.shtml|work=Tampa Bay Times|date=19 January 2007}}</ref>


States apply differing sets of criteria to determine which registration information is available to the public. In a few states, a judge determines the risk level of the offender, or scientific risk assessment tools are used; information on low-risk offenders may be available to law enforcement only. In other states, all sex offenders are treated equally, and all registration information is available to the public on a state Internet site. Information of juvenile offenders are withheld for law enforcement but may be made public after their 18th birthday.<ref name="Center for Sex Offender Management"/>
Restrictions may effectively cover entire cities, leaving small "pockets" of allowed places of residency. Residency restrictions in ] in 2006 covered more than 97% of rental housing area in ].<ref>{{cite news|last1=Keegan|first1=Kyle|last2=Saavedra|first2=Tony|title=State Supreme Court overturns sex offender housing rules in San Diego; law could affect Orange County, beyond|url=http://www.ocregister.com/articles/offenders-652781-law-restrictions.html|work=The Orange County Register|date=2 March 2015}}</ref> As an attempt to ] registrants from living in communities, localities have built small "pocket parks" to drive registrants out of the area.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Suter|first1=Leanne|title='Pocket parks' leave sex offenders questioning where to live|url=http://abc7.com/archive/9029894/|work=ABC7|date=15 March 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Lovett|first1=Ian|title=Neighborhoods Seek to Banish Sex Offenders by Building Parks|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/building-tiny-parks-to-drive-sex-offenders-away.html?_r=0|work=The New York Times|date=9 March 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Jennings|first1=Angel|title=L.A. sees parks as a weapon against sex offenders|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/28/local/la-me-parks-sex-offenders-20130301|work=Los Angeles Times|date=28 February 2013}}</ref> In 2007 journalists reported that registered sex offenders were living under the ] in ] because the state laws and ] ordinances banned them from living elsewhere.<ref>{{cite news|title=Florida housing sex offenders under bridge|url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/05/bridge.sex.offenders/index.html|work=CNN|date=6 April 2007}}</ref><ref name=wp_colony>{{cite news|title=Laws to Track Sex Offenders Encouraging Homelessness|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/26/AR2008122601722.html|work=The Washington Post|date=27 December 2008}}</ref> Encampment of 140 registrants is known as ].<ref>{{cite news|last1=Samuels|first1=Robert|title=Sex offenders seek housing after closing of camp under the Julia Tuttle Causeway|url=http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-07-27/news/fl-tuttle-sex-offenders-20100727_1_residency-restrictions-offenders-housing|work=The Sun-Sentinel|date=27 July 2010}}</ref><ref name=colony>{{cite news|title=From Julia Tuttle bridge to Shorecrest street corner: Miami sex offenders again living on street|url=http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/crime-law/from-julia-tuttle-bridge-to-shorecrest-street-corn/nLhZz/|work=Palm Beach Post|date=12 March 2012}}</ref> The colony generated international coverage and criticism around the country.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Häntzschel|first1=Jörg|title=USA: Umgang mit Sexualstraftätern - Verdammt in alle Ewigkeit|url=http://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/usa-umgang-mit-sexualstraftaetern-verdammt-in-alle-ewigkeit-1.32920|work=Süddeutsche Zeitung|date=17 May 2010}}</ref><ref name=colony/> Colony was disbanded in 2010 when city found acceptable housing in the area for the registrants, but reports five years later indicated that some registrants were still living on streets or alongside railroad tracks.<ref name=colony/><ref name=tracks/> As of 2013 ], was faced with a situation where 40 sex offenders were living in two cramped trailers, which were regularly moved between isolated locations around the county by the officials, due to local living restrictions.<ref name=NYT02413>{{cite news|title=In 2 Trailers, the Neighbors Nobody Wants|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/nyregion/suffolk-county-still-struggling-to-house-sex-offenders.html|accessdate=5 February 2013|newspaper=The New York Times|date=4 February 2013|author=Michael Schwirtz}}</ref><ref name=NYT021707>{{cite news|title=Suffolk County to Keep Sex Offenders on the Move|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/17/nyregion/17sex.html|accessdate=5 February 2013|newspaper=The New York Times|date=17 February 2007|author=Corey Kilgannon|quote=Now officials of this county on Long Island say they have a solution: putting sex offenders in trailers to be moved regularly around the county, parked for several weeks at a time on public land away from residential areas and enforcing stiff curfews.}}</ref>


Under federal ], only ''tier I'' registrants may be excluded from public disclosure, with exemption of those convicted of "specified offense against a minor."<ref>{{cite web|title=Registry Requirement FAQs|url=http://www.smart.gov/faqs/faq_requirement.htm|publisher=Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending|access-date=4 December 2015}}</ref> Since SORNA merely sets the minimum set of rules the states must follow, many SORNA compliant states have opted to disclose information of all tiers.<ref name=Klaas/>
Some communities have ] and/or travel restrictions which prohibit registrants from being within certain distance of certain facilities if they don't have legitimate reason to be there.<ref name=banishment/> In some localities sex offenders are banned from entering any city park, playground or other recreational facilities, even with their own children. Restrictions may bar registrants from picking their children from school or attending parent-child activities with their own children.<ref>{{cite news|title=Sex offender fights restraint law - Challenges Hartford City child safety zones|url=http://www.journalgazette.net/news/local/courts/Sex-offender-fights-restraint-law-5534918|work=The Journal Gazette|date=15 March 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Orange County's war on sex offenders|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/13/opinion/la-ed-sexoffenders-20110513|work=Los Angeles Times|date=13 May 2011}}</ref> In 2006 ] adopted a law which prohibits sex offenders from attending treatment facility “within one thousand feet...of the property line of any public school, private or parochial school, licensed day care center, other child care facility, public park, playground, recreation center or public athletic field available for use by the general public".<ref>{{cite web|title=2006 Public Acts Chapter 890 - State of Tennessee|url=http://tennessee.gov/sos/acts/104/pub/pc0890.pdf|publisher=GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE}}</ref><ref name=banishment/>


Disparities in state legislation have caused some registrants moving across state lines becoming subject to public disclosure and longer registration periods under the destination state's laws.<ref name=picayune>{{cite news|last1=Daley|first1=Ken|title=Alabama sex offender files suit challenging Louisiana registry laws in federal court|url=http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/04/alabama_sex_offender_files_sui.html|work=The Times-Picayune|date=21 April 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150706112041/http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/04/alabama_sex_offender_files_sui.html|archive-date=6 July 2015}}</ref> These disparities have also prompted some registrants to move from one state to another in order to avoid stricter rules of their original state.<ref>{{cite news|title=Portland: Sex offender magnet?|url=http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/128257-portland-sex-offender-magnet|work=Portland Tribune|date=14 February 2013}}</ref>
===Additional restrictions===


==Exclusion zones==
The State of Missouri restricts the activities of registrants on ], requiring them to avoid Halloween-related contact with children and remain at their regristered home address from 5 p.m. to 10:30&nbsp;p.m., unless they are required to work that evening. Regardless of whether they are at work, offenders must extinguish all outside residential lighting and post a sign stating, "No candy or treats at this residence".<ref name="Missouri Senate bill">, Missouri Senate bill modifies various provisions relating to sexual offenses</ref>
{{external media
| float = right
| width = 258px
| image1 = in ] prior to September 23, 2017. Red and orange highlights denoted the areas where certain registered sex offenders could not reside within the city<ref>{{cite web|title=Sex Offender Ordinance|url=http://city.milwaukee.gov/cityclerk/News-Slider/Sex-Offender-Ordinance.htm#.WgJFp2i0NPY|website=city.milwaukee.gov|language=en|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171108095949/http://city.milwaukee.gov/cityclerk/News-Slider/Sex-Offender-Ordinance.htm#.WgJFp2i0NPY|archive-date=2017-11-08}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Milwaukee Common Council votes to lift sex offender residency restrictions|url=http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/milwaukee/2017/09/06/milwaukee-common-council-votes-lift-sex-offender-residency-restrictions/638400001/|work=Milwaukee Journal Sentinel|date=6 September 2017|language=en}}</ref>]
}}
Laws restricting where registered sex offenders may live or work have become increasingly common since 2005.<ref name=proximity>{{cite journal|last1=Zandbergen|first1=P. A.|last2=Levenson|first2=J. S.|last3=Hart|first3=T. C.|title=Residential Proximity to Schools and Daycares: An Empirical Analysis of Sex Offense Recidivism|journal=Criminal Justice and Behavior|date=2 April 2010|volume=37|issue=5|pages=482–502|doi=10.1177/0093854810363549|s2cid=56267056}}</ref><ref name=fedprobation>{{cite journal|last1=Levenson|first1=Jill|last2=Zgoba|first2=Kristen|last3=Tewksbury|first3=Richard|title=Sex Offender Residence Restrictions: Sensible Policy or Flawed Logic?|journal=Federal Probation|volume=71|issue=3|pages=2|url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/fedpro71&div=4&id=&page=|year=2007}}</ref> At least 30 states have enacted statewide residency restrictions prohibiting registrants from living within certain distances of ]s, ]s, ]s, school ], or other places where children may congregate.<ref name=impact_residence_restrictions>{{cite journal|last1=Levenson|first1=J. S.|title=The Impact of Sex Offender Residence Restrictions: 1,000 Feet From Danger or One Step From Absurd?|journal=International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology|date=1 April 2005|volume=49|issue=2|pages=168–178|doi=10.1177/0306624X04271304|pmid=15746268|url=http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/105331.pdf|citeseerx=10.1.1.489.5943|s2cid=42407834}}</ref> Distance requirements range from {{convert|500|to|2500|ft}}, but most start at least {{convert|1000|ft|abbr=on}} from designated boundaries. In addition, hundreds of counties and municipalities have passed local ordinances exceeding the state requirements,<ref name=impact_residence_restrictions/><ref name=HRW>{{cite web|title=No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the US|url=https://www.hrw.org/report/2007/09/11/no-easy-answers/sex-offender-laws-us|publisher=Human Right Watch|date=11 September 2007}}</ref> and some local communities have created exclusion zones around ], ]s, ]s, ], ]s, ]s or other "recreational facilities" such as ]s, ]s, ]s, ]s, ]s and gymnasiums, regardless of whether publicly or privately owned.<ref name=HRW/><ref name=banishment>{{cite journal|last1=Yung|first1=Corey R.|title=Banishment By a Thousand Laws: Residency Restrictions on Sex Offenders|journal=Washington University Law Review|date=January 2007|volume=85|page=101|url=http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1144&context=law_lawreview}}</ref> Although restrictions are tied to distances from areas where children may congregate, most states apply exclusion zones to offenders even though their crimes did not involve
children.<ref name=banishment/><ref name=malden>{{cite web|title=SECTION 7.24 RESTRICTIONS ON REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS|url=http://www.cityofmalden.org/ordinances/section-724-restrictions-registered-sex-offenders/section-724-restrictions-registered-sex|publisher=City of Malden|access-date=6 October 2015}}</ref> In a 2007 report, ] identified only four states limiting restrictions to those convicted of sex crimes involving minors. The report also found that laws preclude registrants from ]s within restriction areas.<ref name=HRW/> In 2005, some localities in Florida banned sex offenders from public hurricane shelters during the ].<ref name=banishment/> In 2007, ]'s city council considered banning registrants from moving in the city.<ref>{{cite news|title=Tampa wants to keep sex offenders outside city limits|url=http://www.sptimes.com/2007/01/19/Hillsborough/Tampa_wants_to_keep_s.shtml|work=Tampa Bay Times|date=19 January 2007}}</ref>


Restrictions may effectively cover entire cities, leaving small "pockets" of allowed places of residency. Residency restrictions in ] in 2006 covered more than 97% of rental housing area in ].<ref>{{cite news|last1=Keegan|first1=Kyle|last2=Saavedra|first2=Tony|title=State Supreme Court overturns sex offender housing rules in San Diego; law could affect Orange County, beyond|url=http://www.ocregister.com/articles/offenders-652781-law-restrictions.html|work=The Orange County Register|date=2 March 2015}}</ref> In an attempt to ] registrants from living in communities, localities have built small "pocket parks" to drive registrants out of the area.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Suter|first1=Leanne|title='Pocket parks' leave sex offenders questioning where to live|url=http://abc7.com/archive/9029894/|work=ABC7|date=15 March 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Lovett|first1=Ian|title=Neighborhoods Seek to Banish Sex Offenders by Building Parks|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/building-tiny-parks-to-drive-sex-offenders-away.html?_r=0|work=The New York Times|date=9 March 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Jennings|first1=Angel|title=L.A. sees parks as a weapon against sex offenders|url=https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2013-feb-28-la-me-parks-sex-offenders-20130301-story.html|work=Los Angeles Times|date=28 February 2013}}</ref> In 2007, journalists reported that registered sex offenders were living under the ] in ] because the state laws and ] ordinances banned them from living elsewhere.<ref>{{cite news|title=Florida housing sex offenders under bridge|url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/05/bridge.sex.offenders/index.html|work=CNN|date=6 April 2007}}</ref><ref name=wp_colony>{{cite news|title=Laws to Track Sex Offenders Encouraging Homelessness|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/26/AR2008122601722.html|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=27 December 2008}}</ref> Encampment of 140 registrants is known as ].<ref>{{cite news|last1=Samuels|first1=Robert|title=Sex offenders seek housing after closing of camp under the Julia Tuttle Causeway|url=http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-07-27/news/fl-tuttle-sex-offenders-20100727_1_residency-restrictions-offenders-housing|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100730114446/http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-07-27/news/fl-tuttle-sex-offenders-20100727_1_residency-restrictions-offenders-housing|url-status=dead|archive-date=July 30, 2010|work=The Sun-Sentinel|date=27 July 2010}}</ref><ref name=colony>{{cite news|title=From Julia Tuttle bridge to Shorecrest street corner: Miami sex offenders again living on street|url=http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/crime-law/from-julia-tuttle-bridge-to-shorecrest-street-corn/nLhZz/|work=Palm Beach Post|date=12 March 2012}}</ref> The colony generated international coverage and criticism around the country.<ref name=colony/><ref>{{cite news|last1=Häntzschel|first1=Jörg|title=USA: Umgang mit Sexualstraftätern - Verdammt in alle Ewigkeit|url=http://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/usa-umgang-mit-sexualstraftaetern-verdammt-in-alle-ewigkeit-1.32920|work=Süddeutsche Zeitung|date=17 May 2010}}</ref> The colony was disbanded in 2010 when the city found acceptable housing in the area for the registrants, but reports five years later indicated that some registrants were still living on streets or alongside railroad tracks.<ref name=colony/><ref name=tracks>{{cite news|title=Miami Sex Offenders Live on Train Tracks Thanks to Draconian Restrictions|url=http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/miami-sex-offenders-live-on-train-tracks-thanks-to-draconian-restrictions-6353588|work=Broward Palm Beach New Times|date=13 March 2014}}</ref> As of 2013 ], was faced with a situation where 40 sex offenders were living in two cramped trailers, which were regularly moved between isolated locations around the county by the officials, due to local living restrictions.<ref name=NYT02413>{{cite news|title=In 2 Trailers, the Neighbors Nobody Wants|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/nyregion/suffolk-county-still-struggling-to-house-sex-offenders.html|access-date=5 February 2013|newspaper=The New York Times|date=4 February 2013|author=Michael Schwirtz}}</ref><ref name=NYT021707>{{cite news|title=Suffolk County to Keep Sex Offenders on the Move|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/17/nyregion/17sex.html|access-date=5 February 2013|newspaper=The New York Times|date=17 February 2007|author=Corey Kilgannon|quote=Now officials of this county on Long Island say they have a solution: putting sex offenders in trailers to be moved regularly around the county, parked for several weeks at a time on public land away from residential areas and enforcing stiff curfews.}}</ref>
Some states have ] laws, which allow very-high-risk sex offenders to be placed in ] or forced to live under very heavy supervision after the end of their normal sentences.

Facebook and Twitter prohibit any convicted sex offender from accessing and/or contributing to their websites.<ref>{{cite web|title=Statement of Rights and Responsibilities|url=https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms|publisher=Facebook|accessdate=26 April 2013|date=11 December 2012}}</ref>

==Impact on registrants and their families==
] in April 22, 2015<ref name=advocates_fight>{{cite news|title=Advocates Fight for Sex Offender Rights With Lawsuit|url=http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/advocates-fight-for-sex-offender-rights-with-lawsuit-6935537|work=Broward Palm Beach New Times|date=17 April 2015}}</ref>]]
Sex offender registration and community notification (SORN) laws carry costs in the form of collateral consequences for both, sex offenders and their families, including difficulties in relationships and maintaining employment, public recognition, harassment, attacks, difficulties finding, and maintaining suitable housing, as well as an inability to take part in expected parental duties, such as going to school functions.<ref name=sex_offenders>{{cite web|last1=Tewksbury|first1=Richard|last2=Jennings|first2=Weley G|last3=Zgoba|first3=Kristen|title=Sex offenders: Recidivism Collateral Consequences|url=https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238060.pdf|website=National Criminal Justice Reference Service}}</ref><ref name=Frenze_et_al/> Negative effects of collateral consequences on offenders is expected to contribute to known risk factors, and to offenders failing to register, and to the related potential for re-offending.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Levenson|first1=Jill|last2=Letourneau|first2=Elizabeth|last3=Armstrong|first3=Kevin|last4=Zgoba|first4=Kristen Marie|title=Failure to Register as a Sex Offender: Is it Associated with Recidivism?|journal=Justice Quarterly|date=June 2010|volume=27|issue=3|pages=305–331|doi=10.1080/07418820902972399}}</ref>

Registration and notification laws affect not only sex offenders, but also their loved ones. Laws may force families to live apart from each other, because of family safety issues caused by neighbors, or because of residency restrictions. Family members often experience isolation, hopelessness and depression.<ref name=collateral_family>{{cite journal|last1=Levenson|first1=Jill|last2=Tewksbury|first2=Richard|title=Collateral Damage: Family Members of Registered Sex Offenders|journal=American Journal of Criminal Justice|date=15 January 2009|volume=34|issue=1-2|pages=54–68|doi=10.1007/s12103-008-9055-x|url=http://www.csor-home.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Collateral-Damage-Family-Members-of-Registered-Sex-Offenders.pdf}}</ref>

===Impact on registrants===
Research has identified the negative effects of registration and notification laws for sex offenders, which may have unintended counterproductive consequences. ] and lack of job opportunities or housing, cause emotional stress and undermine offenders ability to re-integrate into society, which may increase the risk of re-offending and hamper the public safety value of SORN policies.<ref name=Levenson-Cotter1>{{cite journal|last1=Levenson|first1=J. S.|last2=Cotter|first2=L. P.|title=The Effect of Megan's Law on Sex Offender Reintegration|journal=Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice|date=1 February 2005|volume=21|issue=1|pages=49–66|doi=10.1177/1043986204271676|url=http://www.survivorscotland.org.uk/downloads/1292244066-Levenson-Megans%20Law%20Impact.pdf}}</ref><ref name=collateral_family/><ref name=location>{{cite journal|last1=Mustaine|first1=Elizabeth E.|last2=Tewksbury|first2=Richard|last3=Stengel|first3=Kenneth M.|title=Residential location and mobility of registered sex offenders|journal=American Journal of Criminal Justice|date=March 2006|volume=30|issue=2|pages=177–192|doi=10.1007/BF02885890}}</ref><ref name=impact3/><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Tewksbury|first1=Richard|last2=Lees|first2=Matthew|title=PERCEPTIONS OF SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION: COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES AND COMMUNITY EXPERIENCES|journal=Sociological Spectrum|date=May 2006|volume=26|issue=3|pages=309–334|doi=10.1080/02732170500524246|url=https://library.louisville.edu/cms/justiceadministration/faculty-staff/vita/R-Tewksbury/SocSpectrumTewksLees.pdf}}</ref>

Studies indicate that community notification limits employment opportunities for up to half of registrants. Housing disruption is common, with 20–40% reporting that they have had to move because a landlord or neighbor became aware of their RSO status. Registrants tend to disproportionately reside in socially undesirable neighborhoods, and in some situations are banned from certain jurisdictions altogether due to the residency restrictions.<ref name=exclusion>{{cite journal|last1=Grubesic|first1=T. H.|last2=Mack|first2=E.|last3=Murray|first3=A. T.|title=Geographic Exclusion: Spatial Analysis for Evaluating the Implications of Megan's Law|journal=Social Science Computer Review|date=13 June 2007|volume=25|issue=2|pages=143–162|doi=10.1177/0894439307298930|url=http://ibis.geog.ubc.ca/courses/geob479/classof10/aykwok/files/Grubesic%20Mack%20Murray.pdf}}</ref> A majority report psycho-social consequences such as depression, hopelessness, and fear for their own safety. Some have experienced ] activities such as property damage, harassment, and physical ]s.<ref name=collateral_family/> In at least two instances, sex offenders have been ]ed in vigilante attacks tied to public registries.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1855771&page=1 |title=Sex Offender Registries: Putting Lives At Risk? |first=Gitika |last=Ahuja |publisher=] |date=18 April 2006 |accessdate=2009-10-05}}</ref>

===Impact on family members===
Study conducted in 2007 on family members of registrants identified common themes among family members. Persistent feelings of hopelessness, depression, and frustration were often reported. A family members decision to maintain contact with the offender often led to hostility from other relatives, leaving the family member feeling isolated. Many reported that housing and employment disruptions, caused by offender’s probation or registration status, often resulted in economic hardships for the entire family. Close scrutiny and intrusion from law enforcement agents were seen as an invasion of privacy, and public notification often generated a sense of shame and ]. Many family members discussed feeling ''“overwhelmed and demoralized”'', struggling to cope on a daily basis. Some remarked that re-entry assistance policies, such as the Second Chance Act, seemed to unfairly exclude sex offenders. The study concluded that stress for family members may hinder the important role they play in aiding the sex offender to successfully reintegrate.<ref name=collateral_family/><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Farkas|first1=Mary Ann|last2=Miller|first2=Gale|title=Reentry and Reintegration: Challenges Faced by the Families of Convicted Sex Offenders|journal=Federal Sentencing Reporter|date=December 2007|volume=20|issue=1|pages=88–92|doi=10.1525/fsr.2007.20.2.88|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/fsr.2007.20.2.88?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents}}</ref>

A direct survey of 584 family members of registered sex offenders, published in 2009, found that most family members (86%) reported that SORN has caused stress in their lives, 77% felt a sense of isolation, and 49% felt afraid for their own safety due to public disclosure of the sex offender’s status. Half had lost friends or a close relationship as a result of community notification, and 66% said that shame and embarrassment often kept them from engaging in community activities.<ref name=collateral_family/><ref name=collatera_stress>{{cite journal|last1=Tewksbury|first1=Richard|last2=Levenson|first2=Jill|title=Stress experiences of family members of registered sex offenders|journal=Behavioral Sciences & the Law|date=July 2009|volume=27|issue=4|pages=611–626|doi=10.1002/bsl.878|url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bsl.878/abstract}}</ref>
Many of the respondents reported having to move out of rental house because landlord (22%) or neighbors (17%) found out that registrant was living in the same apartment. 12% percent had to move out of home they owned because of neighbors. 44% of respondents reported being harassed by neighbors, 27% their property being damaged, 7% being ] because of someone finding out that registrant lived in same address. 30% reported that a non-registered third person living in the same home had faced one or more of adverse consequences mentioned above. 33% reported that they were not able to live with their registrant because of residency restrictions. 44% reported difficulties in finding housing outside safety-zones, and wanting to live with the registrant.<ref name=collateral_family/>

===Impact on children of registrants===
58% of the respondents who were parent or a care taker of a child whose other parent is registered sex offender, reported child being treated differently by other children at school, and 78% indicated that the child’s friendships had been impacted. 56% reported other children’s parents being reluctant to allow the registrant's child to play at the friend's home, and 70% that other parents didn't allow their child to visit the registrant’s child’s home. 63% of respondents said that the child had been treated differently by other adults (teachers, neighbors, friends’ parents), and 71% that the child has been ] due to the parent’s status as a registered sex offender. Most children were reported to have unrestricted contact with their registrant parent (63%), though 23% were allowed only supervised contact and 14% had no contact at all. 74% indicated that the registrant parent has been unable to participate in some of the child’s activities, such as attending school plays or other events, attending or participating in the child’s organized sports, or attending the child’s birthday party.<ref name=collateral_family/>

80% of registrant’s children were reported exhibiting ], 77% ], 73% ], 65% feeling left out by peers, and 63% ]. 13% of the children of registrants were reported to exhibit ] tendencies.<ref name=collateral_family/>


==Effectiveness== ==Effectiveness==
{{main|Effectiveness of sex offender registration policies in the United States}}
Sex offender registration and notification laws are highly accepted by the public, who believe that knowing the location of sex offenders residence may improve their ability to
guard themselves and their children from sexual victimization.<ref name=Public_Awareness_&_Action>{{cite journal|last1=Anderson|first1=A. L.|last2=Sample|first2=L. L.|title=Public Awareness and Action Resulting From Sex Offender Community Notification Laws|journal=Criminal Justice Policy Review|date=4 April 2008|volume=19|issue=4|pages=371–396|doi=10.1177/0887403408316705|url=http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Amy_Anderson10/publication/241289502_Public_Awareness_and_Action_Resulting_From_Sex_Offender_Community_Notification_Laws/links/02e7e52865b173c4eb000000.pdf}}</ref><ref name=publicperceptions>{{cite journal|last1=Levenson|first1=Jill S.|last2=Brannon|first2=Yolanda N.|last3=Fortney|first3=Timothy|last4=Baker|first4=Juanita|title=Public Perceptions About Sex Offenders and Community Protection Policies|journal=Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy|date=12 April 2007|volume=7|issue=1|pages=1-25|doi=10.1111/j.1530-2415.2007.00119.x|url=http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30522263/publicperceptions_asap_7.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1442255786&Signature=4DpiA3X7zyVAIV%2BIxexwg2fDfbk%3D&response-content-disposition=inline}}</ref> Empirical observations do not typically support this assumption, however. Majority of research results do not find significant shift in sexual offense trends following the implementation of sex offender registration and notification (SORN) regimes.<ref name=collateral_family/><ref name=influence>{{cite journal|last1=Vasquez|first1=B. E.|last2=Maddan|first2=S.|last3=Walker|first3=J. T.|title=The Influence of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws in the United States: A Time-Series Analysis|journal=Crime & Delinquency|date=26 October 2007|volume=54|issue=2|pages=175–192|doi=10.1177/0011128707311641|url=http://cad.sagepub.com/content/early/2008/02/07/0011128707311641.short}}</ref><ref name=recidivism&reintegration>{{cite journal|last1=Zevitz|first1=Richard G.|title=Sex Offender Community Notification: Its Role in Recidivism and Offender Reintegration|journal=Criminal Justice Studies|date=June 2006|volume=19|issue=2|pages=193–208|doi=10.1080/14786010600764567|url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786010600764567}}</ref><ref name=Prescott&Rockoff>{{cite journal|last1=Prescott|first1=J.J.|last2=Rockoff|first2=Jonah E.|title=Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?|journal=Journal of Law and Economics|date=February 2011|volume=54|issue=1|pages=161–206|doi=10.1086/658485|url=http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=articles}}</ref> A few studies indicate that sexual recidivism may have been lowered by SORN policies.<ref name=minnesota>{{cite journal|last1=DUWE|first1=GRANT|last2=DONNAY|first2=WILLIAM|title=THE IMPACT OF MEGAN'S LAW ON SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM: THE MINNESOTA EXPERIENCE|journal=Criminology|date=May 2008|volume=46|issue=2|pages=411–446|doi=10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00114.x|url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00114.x/abstract}}</ref><ref name=washington>{{cite web|title=Sex offender sentencing in Washington State: Has community notification reduced recidivism?|url=http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/919|publisher=Washington State Institute for Public Policy|date=December 2005}}</ref> Particularly, the states where community notification has indicated of having any effectiveness employ empirically derived risk assessment procedures and apply public notification only on high risk offenders.<ref name=atsa>{{cite web|title=The Registration and Community Notification of Adult Sexual Offenders|url=http://www.atsa.com/registration-and-community-notification-adult-sexual-offenders|publisher=The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers}}</ref> Evidence to support the effectiveness of public sex offender registries is limited and mixed.<ref name=somapi_sec1_ch8>{{cite web|author1=Office of Justice Programs|author-link1=Office of Justice Programs|title=Chapter 8: Sex Offender Management Strategies|url=http://www.smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec1/ch8_strategies.html|publisher=Office of Justice Programs - Sex Offender Management and Planning Initiative (SOMAPI)|date=2012}}</ref> Majority of research results do not find ] shift in sexual offense ] following the implementation of sex offender registration and notification (SORN) regimes.<ref name=collateral_family>{{cite journal|last1=Levenson|first1=Jill|last2=Tewksbury|first2=Richard|title=Collateral Damage: Family Members of Registered Sex Offenders|journal=American Journal of Criminal Justice|date=15 January 2009|volume=34|issue=1–2|pages=54–68|doi=10.1007/s12103-008-9055-x|url=http://www.csor-home.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Collateral-Damage-Family-Members-of-Registered-Sex-Offenders.pdf|citeseerx=10.1.1.615.3651|s2cid=146412299}}</ref><ref name=influence>{{cite journal|last1=Vasquez|first1=B. E.|last2=Maddan|first2=S.|last3=Walker|first3=J. T.|title=The Influence of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws in the United States: A Time-Series Analysis|journal=Crime & Delinquency|date=26 October 2007|volume=54|issue=2|pages=175–192|doi=10.1177/0011128707311641|s2cid=53318656}}</ref><ref name=recidivism&reintegration>{{cite journal|last1=Zevitz|first1=Richard G.|title=Sex Offender Community Notification: Its Role in Recidivism and Offender Reintegration|journal=Criminal Justice Studies|date=June 2006|volume=19|issue=2|pages=193–208|doi=10.1080/14786010600764567|s2cid=144828566}}</ref><ref name=Prescott&Rockoff>{{cite journal|last1=Prescott|first1=J.J.|last2=Rockoff|first2=Jonah E.|title=Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?|journal=Journal of Law and Economics|date=February 2011|volume=54|issue=1|pages=161–206|doi=10.1086/658485|url=http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=articles|citeseerx=10.1.1.363.1170|s2cid=1672265}}</ref> A few studies indicate that ] may have been lowered by SORN policies,<ref name=minnesota>{{cite journal|last1=DUWE|first1=GRANT|last2=DONNAY|first2=WILLIAM|title=The Impact of Megan's Law on Sex Offender Recidivism: The Minnesota Experience|journal=Criminology|date=May 2008|volume=46|issue=2|pages=411–446|doi=10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00114.x}}</ref><ref name=washington>{{cite web|title=Sex offender sentencing in Washington State: Has community notification reduced recidivism?|url=http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/919|publisher=Washington State Institute for Public Policy|date=December 2005}}</ref> while a few have found statistically significant increase in sex crimes following SORN implementation.<ref name=somapi_sec1_ch8/><ref name=SD>{{cite news|title=Studies question effectiveness of sex offender laws|url=https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110830165016.htm|work=Science Daily|date=30 August 2011}}</ref>
According to the ]' SMART Office, sex offender registration and notification requirements arguably have been implemented in the absence of empirical evidence regarding their effectiveness.<ref name=somapi_sec1_ch8/>


According to SMART Office, there is no empirical support for the effectiveness of residence restrictions. In fact, a number of negative unintended consequences have been empirically identified that may aggravate rather than mitigate offender risk.<ref name=somapi_sec1_ch8/>
According to the ] Editorial Board, "there is not a single piece of evidence" that sex offender residency restrictions make children safer. The ] found that the restrictions reduce safety, by driving sex offenders into ], which makes them harder to monitor and less likely to receive rehabilitative services.<ref>"The Pointless Banishment of Sex Offenders," New York Times, September 8, 2015.</ref>


==Debate==
According to Sondra Miller, president of the Cleveland Rape Crisis Center, "the registry gives the appearance that our community is safer, but we really question whether it lives up to that expectation." It is well-established that the vast majority of incidents of child abuse are committed by people the child already knows: a family member or relative, a family friend, someone in a position of authority like a teacher or religious leader. Only a small minority is committed by strangers. First-time offenders are by definition not on the registry.<ref>Ida Lieszkovszky, "Sex offender registries draw criticism from some unlikely sources", cleveland.com (]), http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/index.ssf/2015/10/advocates_on_both_sides_say_se.html</ref>
According to a 2007 study, the majority of the general public perceives ] to be ''very high'' and views offenders as a ] group regarding that risk. Consequently, the study found that a majority of the public endorses broad community notification and related policies.<ref name=public_perceptions>{{cite journal|last1=Levenson|first1=Jill S.|last2=Brannon|first2=Yolanda N.|last3=Fortney|first3=Timothy|last4=Baker|first4=Juanita|title=Public Perceptions About Sex Offenders and Community Protection Policies|journal=Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy|date=12 April 2007|volume=7|issue=1|page=6|doi=10.1111/j.1530-2415.2007.00119.x|url=https://www.innovations.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/105361.pdf}}</ref> Proponents of the public registries and residency restrictions believe them to be useful tools to protect themselves and their children from sexual victimization.<ref name=public_perceptions/><ref name=Public_Awareness_&_Action>{{cite journal|last1=Anderson|first1=A. L.|last2=Sample|first2=L. L.|title=Public Awareness and Action Resulting From Sex Offender Community Notification Laws|journal=Criminal Justice Policy Review|date=4 April 2008|volume=19|issue=4|pages=371–396|doi=10.1177/0887403408316705|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241289502|citeseerx=10.1.1.544.7814|s2cid=145080393}}</ref>


Critics of the laws point to the lack of evidence to support the effectiveness of sex offender registration policies. They call the laws too harsh and unfair for adversely affecting the lives of registrants decades after completing their initial ], and for affecting their families as well. Critics say that registries are overly broad as they reach to non-violent offenses, such as sexting or consensual teen sex, and fail to distinguish those who are not a danger to society from predatory offenders.<ref name=nyt>{{cite news|title=Teenager's Jailing Brings a Call to Fix Sex Offender Registries|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/05/us/teenagers-jailing-brings-a-call-to-fix-sex-offender-registries.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1|work=The New York Times|date=4 July 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=The Today Show Weighs In on Our "Accidental Sex Offender" Story|url=http://www.marieclaire.com/culture/a6372/teen-sex-offender-press/|access-date=5 January 2016|work=Marie Claire}}</ref><ref name=koat>{{cite news|title=National conference aims to soften, reform sex offender laws|url=http://www.koat.com/news/new-mexico/albuquerque/National-conference-aims-to-soften-reform-sex-offender-laws/16402040|work=KOAT Albuquerque|date=29 August 2012}}</ref>
===Effectiveness of registration and notification===
In ], a law requiring community notification on high-risk offenders was implemented in 1997. To examine the relationship between community notification and recidivism, the ] conducted a study comparing differences between three groups. A ''notification group'' consisted of 155 ]s ("high public ]"). This group was subject to broad community notification after release from Minnesota prisons between 1997 and 2002. Two control groups were compared with this notification group. The first control group -''prenotification-'' was built using a ] technique and consisted of 125 offenders released between 1990-1997 who likely would have been assigned to Level 3, and would have been subject to community notification had the law been at place at the time of their release. A second control group -''non-notification-'' consisted of offenders assigned to Level 1 and Level 2 who were released between 1997-2002 and not subject to broad community notification. The sexual re-conviction rates within a 3 year period for the ''notification, pre-notification and non-notification'' groups was found to be 3.2%, 32.8% and 9.6%, respectively.<ref name=minnesota/> The authors concluded that these results suggest a community notification system based on tiered risk-management has an effect of reducing recidivism, although they noted that part of the effect might arise from heightened penalties and post-release supervision, improved treatment, or unmeasured historical factors unique to the 1990-1996 period. They further concluded that applying community notification to low-risk offenders would hinder their ability for successful community re-entry, and probably would not produce appreciable reduction in sexual recidivism given the low base rate (5-7% within 3 years) of recidivism in that sample.<ref name=minnesota/>


Former ] of the ] Kenneth V. Lanning argues that registration should be offender-based instead of offense-based: "A sex-offender registry that does not distinguish between the total pattern of behavior of a 50-year-old man who violently raped a 6-year-old girl and an 18-year-old boy who had 'compliant' sexual intercourse with his girlfriend a few weeks prior to her 16th birthday is misguided. The offense an offender is technically found or pleads guilty to may not truly reflect his dangerousness and risk level".<ref name="ncmec">{{cite web |title=Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis |url=https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/149252NCJRS.pdf#page22 |access-date=October 25, 2015 |publisher=National Center for Missing and Exploited Children |page=15}}</ref>
Study conducted in ] in 2008, distinguishing between the effects of ''registration (police- only)'' and ''community notification (public registries)'', analyzed Uniform Crime Report data from 15 states over more than 10 years. The study found evidence that police-only ''registration'' laws reduce the frequency of reported sex offenses, particularly when the number of registrants is large but making the registry information available to the broader public may "backfire", leading to higher overall rates of sex crime. An average-size registry was estimated to decrease crime by approximately 1.21 sex offenses per 10,000 people, which correspond to 13 percent reduction on average.<ref name=Prescott&Rockoff/> This drop in crime was found to benefit local victims (acquaintances, neighbors, and victims of known offenders, as well as possibly family members, friends, and significant others). Study found no evidence that registration had any effect to the level of crime against strangers. The same study found that ''notification'' laws may affect sex offense frequency, although not in a way as lawmakers intended. Notification laws were found to reduce the number of sex offenses when the size of the registry is small but these benefits disappear when more offenders are made subject to notification requirements. Making the registration information public was found to increase the number of sex offenses by more than 1.57 percent. Authors concluded that providing information on convicted sex offenders to local authorities may be beneficial as this increases monitoring and likelihood of punishment for recidivism, which translates to lower rate of recidivism as predicted in ]. By making the same information public offenders become more likely to commit crimes because the associated psychological, social, or financial costs make crime-free life relatively less attractive.<ref name=Prescott&Rockoff/>


Some lawmakers recognize problems in the laws. However, they are reluctant to aim for reforms because of political opposition and being viewed as lessening the child safety laws.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/five-years-after-jessica-lunsfords-killing-legislators-rethink-sex/1075251 |title=Five years after Jessica Lunsford's killing, legislators rethink sex offender laws - St. Petersburg Times |website=www.tampabay.com |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100301083345/http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/five-years-after-jessica-lunsfords-killing-legislators-rethink-sex/1075251 |archive-date=2010-03-01}} </ref>
Another study done in ] compared data on over 9,000 sex offenders released from prison in 1994. About half of those offenders were released into states where they needed to register, while the other half did not need to register. The study found little difference in the two groups' propensity to re-offend. In fact, those released into states without registration laws were slightly less likely to re-offend.<ref name=fear>{{cite journal|last1=Agan|first1=Amanda Y.|title=Sex Offender Registries: Fear without Function?|journal=Journal of Law and Economics|date=February 2011|volume=54|issue=1|pages=207–239|doi=10.1086/658483|url=http://www.ilvoices.com/media/ea99d28960ec776bffff84acffffe415.pdf}}</ref> The study also showed that blocks in Washington DC where sex offenders lived did not have higher rate of sex crimes nor over-all crimes. Study concluded that registered sex offenders do not appear to have lower rates of recidivism than those sex offender who are not required to register, and that knowing where a sex offender lives does not reveal where sex crimes, or other crimes, will take place.<ref name=fear/>


These perceived problems in legislation have prompted a growing grass-roots ].
==Perceptions==
Research on public perceptions about sex offenders has found that general population holds inaccurate beliefs. High rates of ] are commonly cited in support of related legislation.<ref name=are_sex_offenders>{{cite journal|last1=SAMPLE|first1=LISA L.|last2=BRAY|first2=TIMOTHY M.|title=ARE SEX OFFENDERS DANGEROUS?*|journal=Criminology G Public Policy|date=November 2003|volume=3|issue=1|pages=59–82|doi=10.1111/j.1745-9133.2003.tb00024.x|url=http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lisa_Sample/publication/250940771_ARE_SEX_OFFENDERS_DANGEROUS/links/02e7e537501f00dd13000000.pdf}}</ref><ref name=different>{{cite journal|last1=Sample|first1=L. L.|title=Are Sex Offenders Different? An Examination of Rearrest Patterns|journal=Criminal Justice Policy Review|date=1 March 2006|volume=17|issue=1|pages=83–102|doi=10.1177/0887403405282916|url=http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lisa_Sample/publication/249720161_Are_Sex_Offenders_Different_An_Examination_of_Rearrest_Patterns/links/02e7e537501f0bc243000000.pdf}}</ref> Public believes in very high, 75%, rate of recidivism among all sex offenders, and strongly supports restrictions and public registration on all offenders.<ref name=public_perceptions>{{cite journal|last1=Levenson|first1=Jill S.|last2=Brannon|first2=Yolanda N.|last3=Fortney|first3=Timothy|last4=Baker|first4=Juanita|title=Public Perceptions About Sex Offenders and Community Protection Policies|journal=Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy|date=12 April 2007|volume=7|issue=1|page=6|doi=10.1111/j.1530-2415.2007.00119.x|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151022185224/http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30522263/publicperceptions_asap_7.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1445543490&Signature=laZyKnSv0L7Gqt4V0BbUxrTevy0%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DPublic_Perceptions_About_Sex_Offenders_a.pdf}}</ref> However, studies consistently find considerably lower sex offense recidivism rates.<ref name=public_perceptions/><ref>{{cite web|last1=Harris|first1=Andrew J. R|last2=Hanson|first2=Karl|title=Sex Offender Recidivism|url=http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/sxffndr-rcvdsm/sxffndr-rcvdsm-eng.pdf|publisher=Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada|date=2004}}</ref> According to two ] of the ] studies recidivism rate for sex offenders is lower than any other group of criminals except those convicted of ].<ref name=OJP>{{cite web|title=Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994|url=http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf|publisher=U.S. Department of Justice - Office of Justice Programs|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150811040148/http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf|archivedate=4 September 2015}}</ref><ref name=OJP2005>{{cite web|last1=Durose|first1=Mathew R.|last2=Cooper|first2=Alexia D.|last3=Snyder|first3=Howard|title=Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010|url=http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf|website=Bureau of Justice Statistics|publisher=Office of Justice Programs|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150826125037/http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf|archivedate=August 2015|date=April 2014}}</ref>

Legislators opine that sex offender registration is a necessary tool. Although, majority of legislators responsible for introducing sex offender related laws appear to be skeptical about whether they reduce sex crime. They characterize their decision to introduce sex offender legislation as a proof that something is being done to the problem of sexual offending.

===Public perceptions===
Public perceives sex offenders having ''very high risk of recidivism'', views offenders as ] group regard to that risk and are skeptical about effectiveness of treatment,<ref name=public_perceptions/> when in fact offenders represent diverse offense patterns - ranging from non-violent statutory offenses to violent sexual assault, and a wide range of re-offense risk.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Doren|first1=Dennis M.|title=Recidivism base rates, predictions of sex offender recidivism, and the "Sexual Predator" commitment laws.|journal=Behavioral Sciences & the Law|date=1998|volume=16|issue=1|pages=97-114|url=http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1998-01652-006}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Harris|first1=Andrew J. R|last2=Hanson|first2=Karl R.|title=Sex Offender Recidivism: A Simple Question|publisher=Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada|location=Ottawa|url=https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/sx-ffndr-rcdvsm/index-eng.aspx}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Morton-Bourgon|first1=Kelly|last2=Hanson|first2=Karl R.|title=Predictors of Sexual Recidivism: An Updated Meta-Analysis 2004-02||publisher=Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada|location=Ottawa|url=http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2004-02-prdctrs-sxl-rcdvsm-pdtd/index-eng.aspx|date=February 2004}}</ref> Furthermore, public believes that many sex offenses are committed by strangers, and that nearly
half of sex offenses are reported to authorities, when in fact, contrary to the media depictions vast majority (93%)<ref>U.S. Department of Justice, "Common Questions," http://www.nsopw.gov/en/Education/CommonQuestions, citing https://web.archive.org/web/20130124140323/http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2814 (reference updated), retrieved September 10, 2015.</ref> of sexual offense victims are known to the offender, either related, or intimate to the victim. Reports also suggest clearly higher rates of perpetration than of detection.<ref name=public_perceptions/> Majority of public endorses broad community protection policies and opine that such policies successfully reduce sexual crime. Small proportion acknowledges that registrants pose different risk levels and think that low level offenders should be excluded from community notification.<ref name=public_perceptions/>

===Policy-makers' perceptions===
Study on policy-makers perception found that politicians see sex offender laws as necessary for enhancing public safety and as proof that they are reacting to the concerns of the public. Additionally, majority of politicians who sponsored and passed at least one sex offender law in their state believed that laws are too broad as they extend to nonviolent offenses, low-risk offenders, and thus dilutes sex offender registries as a law enforcement tool. Media coverage of sex crimes were involved in policy-makers’ decisions to sponsor sex offender laws.<ref name=policy_perceptions/>

Another study from Illinois interviewing public officials found that only 4 of 35 interviewed legislators were confident that sex offender registration and notification policies were effective in reducing sexual crime. Some believed that laws go too far, while others opined they do not go far enough. However, nearly all agreed ''"that current sex offender legislation...successfully addressed the public’s demand for action”'' resulting from highly publicized sex crimes. One respondent working in Attorney General’s Office stated, ''“We have more laws than ever before . Whether any of them help or not, at least it looks like we’re trying..."''.<ref name=sample>{{cite journal|last1=Sample|first1=L. L.|last2=Kadleck|first2=C.|title=Sex Offender Laws: Legislators' Accounts of the Need for Policy|journal=Criminal Justice Policy Review|date=1 March 2008|volume=19|issue=1|pages=40–62|doi=10.1177/0887403407308292|url=http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lisa_Sample/publication/274959019_Sex_Offender_Laws_Legislators'_Accounts_of_the_Need_for_Policy/links/552d44700cf2e089a3ad5377.pdf}}</ref><ref name=influence/> The study concluded that media indirectly affected sex offender policies by affecting the public’s perceptions, and directly affected policy-making as respondents admitted that the media serves as their major source of information.<ref name=sample/>

Maine state senator ] opined in an interview that current policies have "inherent flaws" but reforming them is problematic to policymakers:
''“Year in and year out, the public wants us to be tough on sex offenders, and as lawmakers, we don’t want to be seen as weak. But the more you learn, the more you realize that a knee-jerk reaction doesn’t help.”''<ref>{{cite news|title=Sex offender? No thanks, I’ll take prison|url=http://bangordailynews.com/2011/04/15/politics/are-we-safer-lawmakers-struggle-to-balance-public-safety-with-sex-offender-liberty/|work=Bangor Daily News|date=15 April 2011}}</ref>

===Other===
] professor ] has called the child safety zones ''“tantamount to practices of banishment”'' that he deems disproportionately harsh, noting that registries include not just the “worst of the worst” such as child rapists and violent repeat offenders but also ''“adults who supplied pornography to teenage minors; young schoolteachers who foolishly fell in love with one of their students; men who urinated in public, or were caught having sex in remote areas of public parks after dark.”''<ref name=tp>{{cite news|last1=Flatov|first1=Nicole|title=Inside Miami’s Hidden Tent City For ‘Sex Offenders’|url=http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/10/23/3583307/in-miami-dade-sex-offenders-are-relegated-to-outdoor-encampments/|work=Think Progress|date=23 October 2014}}</ref> In many instances, individuals have pleaded guilty to an offense like urinating in public decades ago, not realizing the result would be their placement on a future sex offender registry, and all of the restrictions that come with it.<ref name=tp/>

] whose “Lost Memory of Skin” was inspired by Julia Tuttle Causeway sex offender colony said: ''“The trouble with the law is that it lumps everyone together: serial rapists, pedophiles, guys convicted of indecent exposure because they got caught urinating outside, some 18-year-old boy who has oral sex with a 15-year-old,”'' He noted that fear of sex crimes has become a "national preoccupation", and compared it to the ].<ref>{{cite news|title=A Novelist Bypasses the Middle to Seek Out the Margins|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/books/russell-banks-talks-about-lost-memory-of-skin.html?_r=1|work=The New York Times|date=14 October 2011}}</ref>


==Constitutionality== ==Constitutionality==
{{main|Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States}}
Registration and Community Notification Laws have been challenged on a number of constitutional and other bases, generating substantial amount of case law. Those challenging the statutes have claimed violations of ], ], ], ] and ].<ref name=wright/> A study published in fall, 2015 researched underlying U.S. Supreme Court decisions and found that statistics used in two Supreme Court cases that are commonly cited in decisions upholding constitutionality of sex offender policies were unfounded.<ref name=frightening>{{cite journal|last1=Ellman|first1=Ira M.|last2=Ellman|first2=Tara|title='Frightening and High': The Supreme Court’s Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics|journal=Forthcoming, Constitutional Commentary, during Fall, 2015|date=16 September 2015|url=https://floridaactioncommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Frightening-and-High.pdf}}</ref><ref name=dubious>{{cite news|title=How a dubious statistic convinced U.S. courts to approve of indefinite detention|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/08/20/how-a-dubious-statistic-convinced-u-s-courts-to-approve-of-indefinite-detention/|work=The Washington Post|date=20 August 2015}}</ref><ref name=mfdaily>{{cite news|title=Matthew T. Mangino: Supreme Court perpetuates sex offender myths|url=http://www.milforddailynews.com/article/20150904/NEWS/150908028|work=Milford Daily News|date=4 September 2015}}</ref>
Sex offender registration and community notification laws have been challenged on a number of constitutional and other bases, generating a substantial amount of case law. Those challenging the statutes have claimed violations of ], ], ], ] and ].<ref name=wright/> The ] has upheld the laws. In 2002, in '']'' the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed public disclosure of sex offender information and in 2003, in '']'', the Supreme Court upheld Alaska's registration statute, reasoning that sex offender registration is ] reasonably designed to protect public safety, not a ], which can be applied '']''. However, law scholars argue that even if the registration schemes were initially constitutional they have, in their current form, become unconstitutionally burdensome and unmoored from their constitutional grounds. A study published in the fall of 2015 found that statistics cited by ] in two U.S. Supreme Court cases commonly cited in decisions upholding the constitutionality of sex offender policies were unfounded.<ref name=frightening>{{cite journal|last1=Ellman|first1=Ira M.|last2=Ellman|first2=Tara|title='Frightening and High': The Supreme Court's Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics|journal=Forthcoming, Constitutional Commentary, During Fall, 2015|date=16 September 2015|url=https://floridaactioncommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Frightening-and-High.pdf}}</ref><ref name=dubious>{{cite news|title=How a dubious statistic convinced U.S. courts to approve of indefinite detention|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/08/20/how-a-dubious-statistic-convinced-u-s-courts-to-approve-of-indefinite-detention/|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=20 August 2015}}</ref><ref name=mfdaily>{{cite news|title=Matthew T. Mangino: Supreme Court perpetuates sex offender myths|url=http://www.milforddailynews.com/article/20150904/NEWS/150908028|work=Milford Daily News|date=4 September 2015}}</ref> Several ] have been honored after hearing at the state level. However, in 2017 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that SORNA violates ''ex post facto'' when retroactively applied.<ref>{{cite web|title= IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA|url=http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-121B-2016oajc%20-%2010317692521317667.pdf|publisher=Supreme Court of Pennsylvania|access-date=19 July 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Registered Sex Offenders May Shorten Registration Period According to PA Supreme Court.|url=https://www.theharrisburglawyers.com/2017/07/registered-sex-offenders-may-shorten-registration-period-according-to-pa-supreme-court|date=20 July 2017}}</ref>


In September 2017 a federal judge found that the Colorado registry is unconstitutional under the ] clause of the United States Constitution as applied to three plaintiffs.<ref>{{cite news|title=Federal judge rules Colorado sex offender register unconstitutional|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-colorado-ruling/federal-judge-rules-colorado-sex-offender-register-unconstitutional-idUSKCN1BC65J|work=Reuters|date=2017|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170912021143/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-colorado-ruling/federal-judge-rules-colorado-sex-offender-register-unconstitutional-idUSKCN1BC65J|archive-date=September 12, 2017}}</ref>
===Important cases and dubious statistics===
], Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States]]
Two ] decisions have been heavily relied upon by legislators, and other courts in their own constitutional decision, mainly upholding the registration and notification laws. In ], 536 U.S. 24, 33 (2002) the Supreme Court upheld, in a 5-4 ], a Kansas law that imposed harsher sentences on offenders who refused participating in a prison treatment program. In justifying conclusion, ] wrote that sex offenders pose ''“frightening and high risk of recidivism”'', which, ''“of untreated offenders has been estimated to be as high as 80%.”''<ref name<ref name=frightening/><ref name=dubious/><ref name=mfdaily/>


==Impact on registrants and their families==
In following year, in ], 538 U.S. 84 (2003), the Supreme Court upheld Alaska's registration statute, reasoning that sex offender registration is ] reasonably designed to protect public safety, not a ], which can be applied ]. Now Justice Kennedy relied on this earlier language of McKune v. Lile and wrote:<ref name=frightening/><ref name=dubious/><ref name=mfdaily/>


Sex offender registration and community notification (SORN) laws carry costs in the form of collateral consequences for both sex offenders and their families, including difficulties in relationships and maintaining employment, public recognition, harassment, attacks, difficulties finding and maintaining suitable housing, as well as an inability to take part in expected parental duties, such as going to school functions.<ref name=sex_offenders>{{cite web|last1=Tewksbury|first1=Richard|last2=Jennings|first2=Weley G|last3=Zgoba|first3=Kristen|title=Sex offenders: Recidivism Collateral Consequences|url=https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238060.pdf|website=National Criminal Justice Reference Service}}</ref><ref name=Frenze_et_al>{{cite web|title=COLORADO SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION FORM|url=https://www.colorado.gov/apps/cdps/sor/resources/forms/REGISTRATION_FORM.pdf|publisher=]}}</ref> Negative effects of collateral consequences on offenders are expected to contribute to known risk factors, and to offenders failing to register, and to the related potential for re-offending.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Levenson|first1=Jill|last2=Letourneau|first2=Elizabeth|last3=Armstrong|first3=Kevin|last4=Zgoba|first4=Kristen Marie|title=Failure to Register as a Sex Offender: Is it Associated with Recidivism?|journal=Justice Quarterly|date=June 2010|volume=27|issue=3|pages=305–331|doi=10.1080/07418820902972399|s2cid=145666215}}</ref>
{{quote |text= ''"Alaska could conclude that a conviction for a sex offense provides evidence of substantial risk of recidivism. The legislature’s findings are consistent with rave concerns over the high rate of recidivism among convicted sex offenders and their dangerousness as a class. The risk of recidivism posed by sex offenders is 'frightening and high.' McKune v. Lile, 536 U. S. 24, 34 (2002)..."''|author=]|source=''], 538 U.S. 84 (2003)''}}


Family members of sex offenders often experience isolation, hopelessness and depression.<ref name=collateral_family/> U.S. federal law prohibits anyone who is required to register as a sex offender in any state from participating in the Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8) or any similar federal housing programs, such as public housing.
According to a study by law Professor Ira Mark Ellman and Consultant Tara Ellman, statistics cited by Justice Kennedy are "false 'facts'". The study found that in McKune v. Lile, the solicitor general provided only one citation to support its claim “that the recidivism rate of untreated offenders has been estimated to be as high as 80%.” The source for the claim was the ''"U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, A Practitioner’s Guide to Treating the Incarcerated Male Sex Offender released in 1988."'' The Practitioners Guide itself cites one source which originates from "a mass market magazine aimed at a lay audience", and was bare assertion with no supporting citations by a treatment program counselor, who is not a ] and has no expertise in sex offender recidivism. Furthermore the article was about counseling program the counselor run in Oregon prison, not about sex crime recidivism. Study concluded that the claim of high re-offense rates among all sex offenders, and the effectiveness of counseling programs in reducing it, was merely ''"unsupported assertion of someone without research expertise who made his living selling such counseling programs to prisons"'', and that use of the unsourced statistics in McKune v. Lile was "at best irresponsible".<ref name=frightening/><ref name=dubious/><ref name=mfdaily/>

===U.S. Supreme Court rulings===
In two cases docketed for argument on 13 November 2003, the sex offender registries of two states, Alaska and Connecticut, would face legal challenge. This was the first instance that the Supreme Court had to examine the implementation of sex offender registries in throughout the U.S. The ruling would let the states know how far they could go in informing citizens of perpetrators of sex crimes. In '']'' (2002) the ] affirmed this public disclosure of sex offender information.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/school/sexoffenders0203.html|title=Supreme Court Cases of Interest 2002–2003: Sex Offender Registries (ABA Division for Public Education)
|publisher=www.abanet.org|accessdate=2008-03-16}}</ref><ref name=findlaw>
{{cite web|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=538&page=1
|title=Connecticut Department of Public Safety, et al., Petitioners v. John Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated|publisher=caselaw.lp.findlaw.com|accessdate=2008-03-15}}</ref>

====''Ex post facto'' challenge====
In '']'', 538 U.S. 84 (2003), the Supreme Court upheld ]'s sex-offender registration ]. Reasoning that sex offender registration deals with ], not punishment, the Court ruled 6–3 that it is not an ] ]. Justices ], ], and ] dissented.

in '']'', Supreme Court No. S-12944, Court of Appeals No. A-09623, Superior Court No. 1KE-05-00765 C
O P I N I O N
can be found in its entirety here:<ref>http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/webdocs/opinions/ops/sp-6897.pdf</ref>
No. 6897 - April 25, 2014

29 April 2014, The Alaska Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a 62-year-old Ketchikan man who had been found guilty in 2006 of failure to register as a sex offender.

In its 25 April opinion, the court writes that the original offense for which Byron Charles was convicted occurred in the 1980s, before the State of Alaska passed the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act. That 1994 law required convicted sex offenders to register with the state, even if the offense took place before 1994.

In 2008, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in Doe v. State that the sex offender registration act cannot be applied retroactively. Charles had previously appealed his conviction on the failure to register charge, but had not argued against the retroactive clause in state law. After the court’s 2008 decision, though, Charles added that argument to his appeal.

Lower courts ruled that Charles had essentially waived his right to use that argument by not bringing it up earlier. But in its 25 April decision, the Supreme Court decided otherwise.

The court writes that "permitting Charles to be convicted of violating a criminal statute that cannot constitutionally be applied to him would result in manifest injustice."

With that in mind, the Alaska Supreme Court reversed Charles’ 2006 conviction of failure to register as a sex offender.
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.krbd.org/2014/04/29/high-court-overturns-2006-conviction/|title=Alaska Supreme Court overturns 2006 conviction|publisher=}}</ref>

====Due process challenge====
In '']'', 538 U.S. 1 (2003),<ref>.</ref> the Court ruled that ]'s sex-offender registration statute did not violate the ] of those to whom it applied, although the Court "expresses no opinion as to whether the State's law violates ] principles."

Update: Reynolds V. United States Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit No. 10–6549. '''Argued 3 October 2011 – Decided 23 January 2012''' "The Act does not require pre-Act offenders to register before the Attorney General validly specifies that the Act’s registration provisions apply to them."

===State Court rulings===

====Alaska====
After losing the constitutional challenge in the US Supreme Court in 2002 one of the two Doe's in the case committed suicide. The other Doe began a new challenge in the state courts. Per the ''ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY'' website: On 25 July 2008, Doe number two prevailed and the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act’s registration violated the ex post facto clause of the state's constitution and ruled that the requirement does not apply to persons who committed their crimes before the act became effective on 10 August 1994.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dps.state.ak.us/sorweb/sorweb.aspx|title=Department of Public Safety Home|publisher=}}</ref>

====California====
The California Supreme Court ruled on 2 March 2015 that a state law barring sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park is unconstitutional.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/02/sex-offenders-unconstitutional-california_n_6788268.html</ref> The ruling immediately affects only San Diego County, where the case originated. The court found that in San Diego County, the 2,000-feet rule meant that less than 3 percent of multi-unit housing was available to offenders. Additionally, federal law banned anyone in a state database of sex offenders from receiving federal housing subsidies after June 2001.

====Florida====
In the ruling of , and in 2000, The Supreme Court denied Florida's request for rehearing on the constitutionality of the 1995 sentencing guidelines due to the unconstitutionality being a violation of the "]," leaving the decision by the 2nd DCA to set precedence. It has opened a Pandora's box for Florida Legislature as many laws that were enacted violating Article III, section 6, Single subject rule are open to constitutional arguments. In the decision of Heggs, many laws which were enacted now face a constitutional argument as it is clear there is an unconstitutional, illegal and unlawful enactment of §943.0435, which was enacted in : Senate Bill 958. The Bill was related to the release of Public Records Information.

Florida legislature outlined Sex Offender Registration in the creation of , further in the Bill the single subject rule was violated when 1998 Credit Upon Resentence of an Offender Serving a Split Sentence, which has nothing in regards to the release of public records information as Legislature attempted to mask a cross reference correction. In the correction there was statutory language added in effort to bring it in compliance with the Florida Constitution and 3 subsections appeared in §921.0017, that were in regards to appropriation of funds.

In the 1998 supplement where the new amendments and created laws would have been published. §921.0017 as well as were no where to be found. In great research the cross reference error in §921.0017 was the focus, and the added statutory language appears in an illegally and unlawfully enacted statute §921.243 that cites 97 – 299; Senate Bill 958; Florida chapter law 97-299 never creates §921.243, nor ever cites it for amendment and the 3 subsections dealing with appropriation of funds are being searched for within the 1998 supplement, as they are of great interest due to Albrights summary which he made it clear that Senate Bill 958 would not need any new funding or cause for any new taxes. The confusing things is there was no scheduled House meeting according to the , yet the Analysis summary is dated 17 March 1997 with 7 yeas and 0 nays from Committee on Crime and Punishment & Representatives Albright, Ball & others. Florida could stand to be the only State unable to justify any constitutional reasoning as this has yet to be decided nor the reasoning for the appropriations found.

====Hawaii====
In ''State v. Bani'', 36 P.3d 1255 (Haw. 2001), the ] held that Hawaii's sex offender registration statute violated the due process clause of the ], ruling that it deprived potential registrants "of a protected ] interest without due process of law". The Court reasoned that the sex offender law authorized "public notification of (the potential registrant's) status as a convicted sex offender without notice, an opportunity to be heard, or any preliminary determination of whether and to what extent (he) actually represents a danger to society".<ref>''State v. Bani'', 36 P.3d 1255 (Haw. 2001)</ref>
<!--Accordingly, in order to enforce the sex offender registration law, all potential registrants would have to have hearings to determine their individual "dangerousness". Thus, because of the expense involved in doing so, although Hawaii's sex offender registration law remained in the statute books, it was rendered unenforceable, and the online registry was removed. On 9 May 2005, however, two years after the Supreme Court's decision that sex offender registration did not violate due process, the Hawaii Sex Offender website was put back on-line. Hearings are no longer required to determine whether an offender's registration information may be placed online. This has not been challenged again under the Constitution of Hawaii.-->

====Maryland====
In 2013 The Maryland Court of Appeals, the highest court of Maryland, declared that the state could not require the registration of people who committed their crimes before October 1995, when the database was established. State officials removed the one name in question in the case but maintained that federal law required them to keep older cases in the database. In July 2014 Maryland Appeals Court ruled that federal law doesn’t override the state’s Constitution and that requiring people to go back and register amounted to punishing them twice, a violation of the state’s Constitution.<ref>{{cite news|title=Maryland Appeals Court restricts who can be listed on state’s sex-offender registry|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/maryland-appeals-court-restricts-who-can-be-listed-on-states-sex-offender-registry/2014/07/01/cd42a770-013c-11e4-8572-4b1b969b6322_story.html|work=The Washington Post|date=1 July 2014}}</ref>

====Michigan====
U.S. District Court Judge Robert Cleland issued a ruling March 31, 2015 striking down four portions of Michigan's Sex Offender Registry Act, calling them unconstitutional. A ruling stated the "geographic exclusion zones" in the Sex Offender Registry Act, such as student safety areas that stretch for 1,000 feet around schools, are unconstitutional. Judge Cleland also stated law enforcement doesn't have strong enough guidelines to know how to measure the 1,000-foot exclusion zone around schools. Neither sex offenders or law enforcement have the tools or data to determine the zones.<ref>http://media.mlive.com/lansing-news/other/CourtSORA.pdf</ref>

====Missouri====
Many successful challenges to sex offender registration laws in the United States have been in Missouri because of a unique provision in the ] (Article I, Section 13) prohibiting laws "retrospective in operation".<ref></ref>

In ''Doe v. Phillips,'' 194 S.W.3d 837 (Mo. banc 2006), the ] held that the Missouri Constitution did not allow the state to place anyone on the registry who had been ] or ] to a registrable offense before the sex offender registration law went into effect on 1 January 1995.<ref name=doevphillips></ref> and remanded the case for further consideration in light of that holding.<ref name=doevphillips/> On remand, the ] entered an ] ordering that the applicable individuals be removed from the published sex offender list.<ref name=doevkeathley></ref> Defendant Colonel James Keathley appealed that order to the ] in ], which affirmed the injunction on 1 April 2008.<ref name=doevkeathley/> Keathley filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Missouri.

In response to these rulings, in 2007, several ] proposed an amendment to the Missouri Constitution that would exempt sex offender registration laws from the ban on retrospective civil laws.<ref></ref> The proposed amendment passed the State Senate unanimously but was not passed by the ] before the end of the 2007 ].<ref>"Bill backup clogs waning session", '']'', 9 April 2007</ref> The same constitutional amendment was proposed in and passed by the Missouri Senate again in 2008, but also was not passed by the House of Representatives by the end of that year's legislative session.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.senate.mo.gov/08info/BTS_Web/Actions.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=88|title=Actions|publisher=}}</ref> As a result, the decisions of the Missouri courts prohibiting the retrospective application of sex offender laws remained intact.

The Missouri Supreme Court ruled on Keathley's appeal (''Doe v. Phillips'' now styled ''Doe v. Keathley'') on 16 June 2009. The Court held that the Missouri Constitution's provision prohibiting laws retrospective in operation no longer exempts individuals from registration if they are subject to the independent Federal obligation created under the Sexual Offenders Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. § 16913.<ref></ref> As a result, many offenders who were previously exempt under the Court's 2006 holding in ''Doe v. Phillips'' were once again required to register.

On 12 January 2010, Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan ruled that individuals who plead guilty to a sex offense are not required to register under Federal Law and thus are not required to register in Missouri if the date of their plea was prior to the passage of the Missouri registration law.<ref></ref>

Missouri also has a number of laws that restrict the activities of persons required to register as sex offenders, several of which have also been challenged as being retrospective in their operation. On 19 February 2008, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that a law prohibiting registered sex offenders from residing within one thousand feet of a school was retrospective in operation as applied to registered sex offenders who had resided at a location within such a distance prior to the enactment of the law.<ref></ref> Another exception to the school-residence proximity requirement was handed down by the Court on 12 January 2010 in ''F.R. v. St. Charles County Sheriff's Department''. In this case, F.R. was convicted prior to the enactment of the law and the Court held that, as such, he was not required to abide by the restriction.<ref></ref> Consolidated with ''F.R.'' was ''State of Missouri v. Raynor'', in which the Court found that Charles A. Raynor was not required to comply with R.S.Mo. § 589.426, a law restricting the activities of registered sex offenders on Halloween.<ref></ref> It should be noted that, in both ''F.R.'' and ''Raynor'', the ruling applies only to the named party.

====New York====
Local governments in New York cannot restrict where registered sex offenders can live, according to a ruling by the state's highest court published 31 May 2015. Under New York law, only level 3 offenders and those on probation or parole are prohibited from being within 1,000 feet of school grounds or a day care center.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/17/ny-ruling-local-laws-restrict-sex-offenders-homes/23585499/</ref>

====North Carolina====
In North Carolina, § 14-27.5A or sexual battery is a misdemeanor and a requirement for registry for a period of 30 years. North Carolina has labeled the law as sexually violent offense despite it being a misdemeanor.<ref>http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_27A.html</ref>

§ 14-202.5 Bans use of commercial social networking Web sites by sex offenders.<ref>http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-202.5.html</ref> Potentially this means that a registered offender could be charged by authorities for use of Google or other public internet sites. On August 20, 2013 the North Carolina Court of Appeals struck down the law saying law "is not narrowly tailored, is vague, and fails to target the 'evil' it is intended to rectify," the three-judge appellate panel said in its 21-page opinion.<ref>http://www.wral.com/court-strikes-down-law-banning-sex-offenders-from-social-media/12795668/</ref> On August 30, 2013 the NC Supreme Court grants NC Attorney General Roy Cooper’s request for a stay of Court of Appeals ruling. That stay was granted but no other outcome from that stay has moved forward.<ref>http://www.ncdoj.gov/News-and-Alerts/News-Releases-and-Advisories/Press-Releases/Social-networking-ban-for-sex-offenders-remains-in.aspx</ref>

G.S. 14-208.18(a)(2), which makes it a Class H felony for certain registered sex offenders to “knowingly be . . . ithin 300 feet of any location intended primarily for the use, care, or supervision of minors when the place is located on premises that not intended primarily for the use, care, or supervision of minors, including, but not limited to, that are located in malls, shopping centers, or other property open to the general public.” <ref>http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/html/AR/CourtAppeals/2012/31_December_2012/12-417.pdf</ref><ref>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/the-300-foot-rule/</ref> This law as written could be interpreted that sex offenders could be arrested at a McDonald’s, shopping malls, stores that sell video games and churches. The law was challenged and overturned in 2009 by a Chatham County Superior Court judge,<ref>http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2009/12/17/6641103/Order_in_sex_offenders_constitutionality_of_location_restrictions.swf</ref> but never removed or rewritten and still enforced on levels of interpretation by local sheriffs. On February 17, 2015, Graham County Sheriff Danny Millsaps told registered sex offenders they can't go to church, citing a state law meant to keep them from day-care centers and schools. He invited them to attend church service at the county jail. In Buncombe County, sex offenders are permitted in church as long as pastors know and are in agreement, Sheriff Van Duncan says.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/local/2015/03/06/graham-sheriff-bans-sex-offenders-church/24520001/</ref>

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 30, 2015<ref>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-593_o7jq.pdf</ref> that a North Carolina sex offender should have a chance to challenge an order that he/she wear a GPS monitoring bracelet around the clock and for the rest of his life. The defendant Torrey Dale Grady argued that the state's lifetime GPS monitoring system is unreasonable because it allows state officials to enter his home - with or without his permission - to maintain a GPS monitoring base station. Grady also complains that he must charge the bracelet every day by plugging it into a wall outlet for four to six hours at a time. In 2012, the court ruled that placing the tracking units on cars to follow their movement is a search. That case did not decide whether attaching the devices without a search warrant violated the Constitution.<ref>http://www.wncn.com/story/28649372/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-nc-sex-offender</ref>

====Ohio====
In July 2011 the Supreme Court of ] ruled the Ohio version of ] to be punitive, rather than a civil regulatory measure. This decision barred ] application of Ohio's Adam Walsh Act to those whose crimes predated the law's enactment.<ref>{{cite web|title=Retroactive Application of Adam Walsh Act to Offenders Whose Crimes Predate Law's Enactment Unconstitutional|url=https://www.sconet.state.oh.us/PIO/summaries/2011/0713/090088.asp|publisher=The Supreme Court of Ohio & Ohio Judicial Sysytem}}</ref> The Ohio Supreme Court has also found automatic lifetime registration for juveniles to be unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite news|title=Ohio Supreme Court pares sex-offender law|url=http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/04/04/court-pares-sex-offender-law.html|accessdate=4 April 2012|work=The Columbus Dispatch}}</ref>

====Pennsylvania====
In December 2014 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that Pennsylvania’s sex offender registry for juvenile offenders was unconstitutional. In a 5-1 decision, the court concluded that the state, by making an “irrefutable presumption” about adults’ behavior based on crimes they committed as teens, violated their constitutional right to ].<ref>{{cite web|title= IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT|url=http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-44A-2014mo%20-%201020571522958825.pdf|publisher=Supreme Court of Pennsylvania|accessdate=31 August 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Pennsylvania's Juvenile Sex Offender Registry Is Unconstitutional, State Supreme Court Rules|url=http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-12-31/pennsylvania-juvenile-sex-offender-registry-is-ruled-unconstitutional|work=Bloomberg|date=31 December 2014}}</ref>

==Application to misdemeanors and non-sexual offenses==
{{Refimprove section|date=October 2015}}
In some states, those with convictions for certain misdemeanors have to register. For example ] or misdemeanor ] (fondling) may require registration.<ref>, ''Justia U.S. Laws: Connecticut Code, Chapter 969, Section 54-250, Definitions.''</ref>

Sex offender registration has been applied to certain non-sexual offenses.<ref name=troubling>{{cite news|title=Court keeps man on sex offender list but says ‘troubling’|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/28/court-keeps-man-on-sex-offender-list-but-says-trou/|work=The Washington Times|date=28 March 2015}}</ref> In various states, crimes that society does not necessarily view as sexual in nature are also considered to be registerable sex offenses, such as kidnapping, "]", unlawful imprisonment, and in some cases "sexually motivated offenses" (such as assault, burglary, etc.) that are not categorized as sexual offenses unless the court determines that the offense was committed pursuant to the offender's own sexual gratification. Often, kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment are registerable offenses if the victim is under age of majority or age of consent, and the offender is not a parent of the victim.<ref>, ''New York State, Division of Criminal Justice Services''</ref>

A few states have created separate online registries for non-sexual crimes. Montana, for example, has a publicly accessible violent offender registry that includes crimes such as aggravated assault, robbery, assaulting a peace officer, both deliberate and non-deliberate homicide and a third conviction for domestic violence. Kansas has publicly accessible registries of people convicted of serious drug offenses, and crimes involving a weapon. Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Montana have publicly accessible registries for those convicted of murder. Florida requires all felons, to register with law enforcement for 5 years after release, although the registry is not available to the public. If a felon in Florida is convicted of enough non-sexual felonies in a certain period of time, however, they are required to register for the rest of their life on a "Habitual Offender" registry that is available to the general public. Ohio has a publicly accessible registry for people convicted 5 or more times of drunken driving.

In 2014, a murder registry was proposed in Rhode Island and an animal abuser registry was proposed in Pennsylvania. A bill to create a publicly accessible registry for domestic violence offenders passed the Texas House of Representatives in 2013, but was not voted on in the Texas Senate.

==Reform advocacy==
Sex offender legislation has generated grass-root opposition from organizations who argue that laws extend to too many offenses and have exceeded their original intent. They say that laws unfairly punish registrant and put them and their families on a public "hit-list" even decades after the offender has served their criminal sentence, and note that studies do not generally find registries effective.<ref name=war>{{cite news|title=Missouri Sex Offenders: "Women Against Registry" Says Labels Unfairly Destroy Lives|url=http://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2013/09/05/missouri-sex-offenders-women-against-registry-says-labels-unfairly-destroy-lives|work=Riverfront Times|date=5 September 2013|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150919165228/http://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2013/09/05/missouri-sex-offenders-women-against-registry-says-labels-unfairly-destroy-lives|archivedate=19 September 2015}}</ref><ref name=conference>{{cite news|title=National conference aims to soften, reform sex offender laws|url=http://www.koat.com/news/new-mexico/albuquerque/National-conference-aims-to-soften-reform-sex-offender-laws/16402040|work=KOAT7 Albuquerque|date=29 August 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Restricted Group Speaks Up, Saying Sex Crime Measures Go Too Far|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/us/restricted-group-speaks-up-saying-sex-crime-measures-go-too-far.html|work=The New York Times|date=1 October 2013|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20131007091459/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/us/restricted-group-speaks-up-saying-sex-crime-measures-go-too-far.html|archivedate=7 October 2013}}</ref><ref name=do_better>{{cite news|title=We can do better on sex offender laws|url=http://www.dallasnews.com/news/columnists/steve-blow/20140716-we-can-do-better-on-sex-offender-laws.ece|work=The Dallas Morning News|date=17 July 2014}}</ref> More than 50 organizations - at least one in each state - have been formed.<ref name=gone_wild>{{cite news|title=Laws Gone Wild: As Teen Sweethearts Go to Prison for Sex, Mothers Rebel|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/25/should-teens-be-jailed-for-sex-offenses-a-growing-parental-rebellion-says-no.html|work=The Daily Beast|date=25 January 2012}}</ref><ref name=sweethearts>{{cite news|last1=Pesta|first1=Abigail|title=High School Sweethearts -- Or Sex Offenders?|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abigail-pesta/high-school-sweetheartsor_b_908118.html|work=The Huffington Post|date=24 September 2011}}</ref> National groups, ] and ], along with their state affiliates seek to educate and lobby the public and law makers for legislative reform.<ref name=advocates_fight/><ref name=conference/> The organizations and their state affiliates have challenged the constitutionality of the laws in courts. In April 2015 Women Against Registry informed that they are preparing federal class action lawsuits, one on behalf of registrants and second on behalf of their families.<ref name=advocates_fight/> RSOL challenged sex offender restrictions in California,<ref name=pair_seeks>{{cite news|title=SPECIAL REPORT: Pair seeks repeal of sex-offender laws in California|url=http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20141011/special-report-pair-seeks-repeal-of-sex-offender-laws-in-california|work=Daily Breeze|date=11 October 2014}}</ref><ref name=county_sued>{{cite news|title=County sued over sex offender ordinance|url=http://www.vvdailypress.com/article/20141021/News/141029976|work=Victorville Daily Press|date=21 October 2014}}</ref> where blanket residency restrictions were ruled unconstitutional by the state supreme court in early 2015.<ref name=restrictions_unconstitutional>{{cite news|title=Housing Restrictions For Sex Offenders Unconstitutional, California Court Rules|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/02/sex-offenders-unconstitutional-california_n_6788268.html|work=The Huffington Post|date=2 March 2015}}</ref>


==See also== ==See also==
{{Portal|Law}} {{Portal|Law}}
* ]
*]
*] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


==References== ==References==
* {{Include-USGov

|agency=United States Department of Justice
|policy=https://www.justice.gov/legalpolicies#copyright}}
{{reflist|2}} {{reflist|2}}


==External links== ==External links==
*
*
*
* {{subreq}}
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*Registry inaccuracies
** {{dead link|date=September 2015}}
** Police raid apartment long after sex offender has moved out {{dead link|date=September 2015}}
**


] ]
] ]
]
] ]

Latest revision as of 12:37, 28 October 2024

This article is part of a series on the
Sex offender registries
in the United States
Legislation
  • Federal

  • State

  • Other
Constitutionality

Constitutionality of sex offender registries
in the United States

  • Supreme Court decisions
Effectiveness
Social issues
  • Homelessness
  • Controversial designations as offender
Reform activism

In the United States, sex offender registries existed at both the federal and state levels. The federal registry is known as the National Sex Offender Public Website (NSOPW) and integrates data in all state, territorial, and tribal registries provided by offenders required to register. Registries contain information about persons convicted of sexual offenses for law enforcement and public notification purposes. All 50 states and the District of Columbia maintain sex offender registries that are open to the public via websites; most information on offenders is visible to the public. Public disclosure of offender information varies between the states depending on offenders' designated tier, which may also vary from state to state, or risk assessment result. According to NCMEC, as of 2016 there were 859,500 registered sex offenders in United States.

The majority of states and the federal government apply systems based on conviction offenses only, where registration requirement is triggered as a consequence of finding of guilt, or pleading guilty, to a sex offense regardless of the actual gravity of the crime. The trial judge typically can not exercise judicial discretion concerning registration. Depending on jurisdiction, offenses requiring registration range in their severity from public urination or adolescent sexual experimentation with peers, to violent sex offenses. In some states offenses such as unlawful imprisonment may require sex offender registration. According to Human Rights Watch, children as young as 9 have been placed on the registry; juvenile offenders account for 25 percent of registrants. In some states, the length of the registration period is determined by the offense or assessed risk level; in others all registration is for life. Some states allow removal from the registry under certain specific, limited circumstances. Information of juvenile offenders is withheld for law enforcement but may be made public after their 18th birthday.

Sex Offender Registration and Notification (SORN) has been studied for its impact on the rates of sexual offense recidivism, with the majority of studies demonstrating no impact. The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld sex offender registration laws both times such laws have been examined by them. Several challenges on parts of state level legislation have been honored by the courts. Legal scholars have challenged the rationale behind the Supreme Court rulings. Perceived problems in legislation has prompted organizations such as NARSOL, ACSOL, and ACLU, among others, to promote reform.

History

In 1947, California became the first state in the United States to have a sex offender registration program. C. Don Field was prompted by the Black Dahlia murder case to introduce a bill calling for the formation of a sex offender registry; California became the first U.S. state to make this mandatory. In 1990, Washington state began community notification of its most dangerous sex offenders, making it the first state to ever make any sex offender information publicly available. Prior to 1994, only a few states required convicted sex offenders to register their addresses with local law enforcement. The 1990s saw the emergence of several cases of brutal violent sexual offenses against children. Crimes like those of Westley Allan Dodd, Earl Kenneth Shriner and Jesse Timmendequas were highly publicized. As a result, public policies began to focus on protecting public from stranger danger. Since the early 1990s, several state and federal laws, often named after victims, have been enacted as a response to public outrage generated by highly publicized, but statistically very rare, violent predatory sex crimes against children by strangers.

Jacob Wetterling Act of 1994

Main article: Jacob Wetterling Act

In 1989, an 11-year-old boy, Jacob Wetterling, was abducted from a street in St. Joseph, Minnesota. His whereabouts remained unknown for nearly 27 years until remains were discovered just outside Paynesville, Minnesota, in 2016. Jacob's mother, Patty Wetterling, current chair of National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, led a community effort to implement a sex offender registration requirement in Minnesota and, subsequently, nationally. In 1994, Congress passed the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act. If states failed to comply, the states would forfeit 10% of federal funds from the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. The act required each state to create a registry of offenders convicted of qualifying sex offenses and certain other offenses against children and to track offenders by confirming their place of residence annually for ten years after their release into the community or quarterly for the rest of their lives if the sex offender was convicted of a violent sex crime. States had a certain time period to enact the legislation, along with guidelines established by the Attorney General. The registration information collected was treated as private data viewable by law enforcement personnel only, although law enforcement agencies were allowed to release relevant information that was deemed necessary to protect the public concerning a specific person required to register. Another high-profile case, abuse and murder of Megan Kanka led to modification of Jacob Wetterling Act. The subsequent laws forcing changes to the sex offenders registries in all 50 states have since troubled Patty Wetterling and she has been vocal about her opposition to including children on the registry as well as allowing full access to the public. In an interview with reporter Madeleine Baran, Wetterling stated, "No more victims, that's the goal. But we let our emotions run away from achieving that goal." In lamenting how we treat sex offenders she stated, "You're screwed. You will not get a job, you will not find housing. This is on your record forever, good luck." She believes that by not allowing sex offenders who have served their time to reintegrate to society we do more harm than good, "I've turned 180 from where I was."

Megan's Law of 1996

Main article: Megan's Law See also: International Megan's Law
Sign at the limits of Wapello, Iowa; sex offender-free districts appeared as a result of Megan's Law.

In 1994, 7-year-old Megan Kanka from Hamilton Township, Mercer County, New Jersey was raped and killed by a recidivist sex offender. Jesse Timmendequas, who had been convicted of two previous sex crimes against children, lured Megan in his house and raped and killed her. Megan's mother, Maureen Kanka, started to lobby to change the laws, arguing that registration established by the Wetterling Act was insufficient for community protection. Maureen Kanka's goal was to mandate community notification, which under the Wetterling Act had been at the discretion of law enforcement. She said that if she had known that a sex offender lived across the street, Megan would still be alive. In 1994, New Jersey enacted Megan's Law. In 1996, President Bill Clinton enacted a federal version of Megan's Law, as an amendment to the Jacob Wetterling Act. The amendment required all states to implement Registration and Community Notification Laws by the end of 1997. Prior to Megan's death, only 5 states had laws requiring sex offenders to register their personal information with law enforcement. On August 5, 1996 Massachusetts was the last state to enact its version of Megan's Law.

Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act Law of 1996

President Bill Clinton signed the Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act Law into law in October 1996, creating the AMBER Alert system and the national sex offender registry.

Adam Walsh Act of 2006

Main article: Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
Ottis Toole; evidence indicated he killed Adam Walsh, and he confessed but then recanted.

The most comprehensive legislation related to the supervision and management of sex offenders is the Adam Walsh Act (AWA), named after Adam Walsh, who was kidnapped from a Florida shopping mall and killed in 1981, when he was 6 years old. The AWA was signed on the 25th anniversary of his abduction; efforts to establish a national registry was led by John Walsh, Adam's father.

One of the significant component of the AWA is the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). SORNA provides uniform minimum guidelines for registration of sex offenders, regardless of the state they live in. SORNA requires states to widen the number of covered offenses and to include certain classes of juvenile offenders. Prior to SORNA, states were granted latitude in the methods to differentiate offender management levels. Whereas many states had adopted to use structured risk assessment tools classification to distinguish "high risk" from "low risk" individuals, SORNA mandates such distinctions to be made solely on the basis of the governing offense. States are allowed, and often do, exceed the minimum requirements. Scholars have warned that classification system required under Adam Walsh Act is less sophisticated than risk-based approach previously adopted in certain states.

Extension in number of covered offenses and making the amendments apply retroactively under SORNA requirements expanded the registries by as much as 500% in some states. All states were required to comply with SORNA minimum guidelines by July 2009 or risk losing 10% of their funding through the Byrne program. As of April 2014, the Justice Department reports that only 17 states, three territories and 63 tribes had substantially implemented requirements of the Adam Walsh Act.

Registration

Sex offenders must periodically report in person to their local law enforcement agency and furnish their address, and list of other information such as place of employment and email addresses. The offenders are photographed and fingerprinted by law enforcement, and in some cases DNA information is also collected. Registration period depends on the classification level and the law of the governing jurisdiction.

Classification of offenders

States apply varied methods of classifying registrants. Identical offenses committed in different states may produce different outcomes in terms of public disclosure and registration period. An offender classified as level/tier I offender in one state, with no public notification requirement, might be classified as tier II or tier III offender in another. Sources of variation are diverse, but may be viewed over three dimensions — how classes of registrants are distinguished from one another, the criteria used in the classification process, and the processes applied in classification decisions.

The first point of divergence is how states distinguish their registrants. At one end are the states operating single-tier systems that treat registrants equally with respect to reporting, registration duration, notification, and related factors. Alternatively, some states use multi-tier systems, usually with two or three categories that are supposed to reflect presumed public safety risk and, in turn, required levels of attention from law enforcement and the public. Depending on state, registration and notification systems may have special provisions for juveniles, habitual offenders or those deemed "sexual predators" by virtue of certain standards.

The second dimension is the criteria employed in the classification decision. States running offense-based systems use the conviction offense or the number of prior offenses as the criteria for tier assignment. Other jurisdictions utilize various risk assessments that consider factors that scientific research has linked to sexual recidivism risk, such as age, number of prior sex offenses, victim gender, relationship to the victim, and indicators of psychopathy and deviant sexual arousal. Finally, some states use a hybrid of offense-based and risk-assessment-based systems for classification. For example, Colorado law requires minimum terms of registration based on the conviction offense for which the registrant was convicted or adjudicated but also uses a risk assessment for identifying sexually violent predators — a limited population deemed to be dangerous and subject to more extensive requirements.

Third, states distinguishing among registrants use differing systems and processes in establishing tier designations. In general, offense-based classification systems are used for their simplicity and uniformity. They allow classification decisions to be made via administrative or judicial processes. Risk-assessment-based systems, which employ actuarial risk assessment instruments and in some cases clinical assessments, require more of personnel involvement in the process. Some states, like Massachusetts and Colorado, utilize multidisciplinary review boards or judicial discretion to establish registrant tiers or sexual predator status.

In some states, such as Kentucky, Florida, and Illinois, all sex offenders who move into the state and are required to register in their previous home states are required to register for life, regardless of their registration period in previous residence. Illinois reclassifies all registrants moving in as a "Sexual Predator".

Public notification

States apply differing sets of criteria to determine which registration information is available to the public. In a few states, a judge determines the risk level of the offender, or scientific risk assessment tools are used; information on low-risk offenders may be available to law enforcement only. In other states, all sex offenders are treated equally, and all registration information is available to the public on a state Internet site. Information of juvenile offenders are withheld for law enforcement but may be made public after their 18th birthday.

Under federal SORNA, only tier I registrants may be excluded from public disclosure, with exemption of those convicted of "specified offense against a minor." Since SORNA merely sets the minimum set of rules the states must follow, many SORNA compliant states have opted to disclose information of all tiers.

Disparities in state legislation have caused some registrants moving across state lines becoming subject to public disclosure and longer registration periods under the destination state's laws. These disparities have also prompted some registrants to move from one state to another in order to avoid stricter rules of their original state.

Exclusion zones

External image
image icon City wide map of exclusion zones in Milwaukee prior to September 23, 2017. Red and orange highlights denoted the areas where certain registered sex offenders could not reside within the city]

Laws restricting where registered sex offenders may live or work have become increasingly common since 2005. At least 30 states have enacted statewide residency restrictions prohibiting registrants from living within certain distances of schools, parks, day-cares, school bus stops, or other places where children may congregate. Distance requirements range from 500 to 2,500 feet (150 to 760 m), but most start at least 1,000 ft (300 m) from designated boundaries. In addition, hundreds of counties and municipalities have passed local ordinances exceeding the state requirements, and some local communities have created exclusion zones around churches, pet stores, movie theaters, libraries, playgrounds, tourist attractions or other "recreational facilities" such as stadiums, airports, auditoriums, swimming pools, skating rinks and gymnasiums, regardless of whether publicly or privately owned. Although restrictions are tied to distances from areas where children may congregate, most states apply exclusion zones to offenders even though their crimes did not involve children. In a 2007 report, Human Rights Watch identified only four states limiting restrictions to those convicted of sex crimes involving minors. The report also found that laws preclude registrants from homeless shelters within restriction areas. In 2005, some localities in Florida banned sex offenders from public hurricane shelters during the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. In 2007, Tampa, Florida's city council considered banning registrants from moving in the city.

Restrictions may effectively cover entire cities, leaving small "pockets" of allowed places of residency. Residency restrictions in California in 2006 covered more than 97% of rental housing area in San Diego County. In an attempt to banish registrants from living in communities, localities have built small "pocket parks" to drive registrants out of the area. In 2007, journalists reported that registered sex offenders were living under the Julia Tuttle Causeway in Miami, Florida because the state laws and Miami-Dade County ordinances banned them from living elsewhere. Encampment of 140 registrants is known as Julia Tuttle Causeway sex offender colony. The colony generated international coverage and criticism around the country. The colony was disbanded in 2010 when the city found acceptable housing in the area for the registrants, but reports five years later indicated that some registrants were still living on streets or alongside railroad tracks. As of 2013 Suffolk County, New York, was faced with a situation where 40 sex offenders were living in two cramped trailers, which were regularly moved between isolated locations around the county by the officials, due to local living restrictions.

Effectiveness

Main article: Effectiveness of sex offender registration policies in the United States

Evidence to support the effectiveness of public sex offender registries is limited and mixed. Majority of research results do not find statistically significant shift in sexual offense trends following the implementation of sex offender registration and notification (SORN) regimes. A few studies indicate that sexual recidivism may have been lowered by SORN policies, while a few have found statistically significant increase in sex crimes following SORN implementation. According to the Office of Justice Programs' SMART Office, sex offender registration and notification requirements arguably have been implemented in the absence of empirical evidence regarding their effectiveness.

According to SMART Office, there is no empirical support for the effectiveness of residence restrictions. In fact, a number of negative unintended consequences have been empirically identified that may aggravate rather than mitigate offender risk.

Debate

According to a 2007 study, the majority of the general public perceives sex offender recidivism to be very high and views offenders as a homogeneous group regarding that risk. Consequently, the study found that a majority of the public endorses broad community notification and related policies. Proponents of the public registries and residency restrictions believe them to be useful tools to protect themselves and their children from sexual victimization.

Critics of the laws point to the lack of evidence to support the effectiveness of sex offender registration policies. They call the laws too harsh and unfair for adversely affecting the lives of registrants decades after completing their initial sentence, and for affecting their families as well. Critics say that registries are overly broad as they reach to non-violent offenses, such as sexting or consensual teen sex, and fail to distinguish those who are not a danger to society from predatory offenders.

Former Supervisory Special Agent of the FBI Kenneth V. Lanning argues that registration should be offender-based instead of offense-based: "A sex-offender registry that does not distinguish between the total pattern of behavior of a 50-year-old man who violently raped a 6-year-old girl and an 18-year-old boy who had 'compliant' sexual intercourse with his girlfriend a few weeks prior to her 16th birthday is misguided. The offense an offender is technically found or pleads guilty to may not truly reflect his dangerousness and risk level".

Some lawmakers recognize problems in the laws. However, they are reluctant to aim for reforms because of political opposition and being viewed as lessening the child safety laws.

These perceived problems in legislation have prompted a growing grass-roots movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States.

Constitutionality

Main article: Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States

Sex offender registration and community notification laws have been challenged on a number of constitutional and other bases, generating a substantial amount of case law. Those challenging the statutes have claimed violations of ex post facto, due process, cruel and unusual punishment, equal protection and search and seizure. The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the laws. In 2002, in Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed public disclosure of sex offender information and in 2003, in Smith v. Doe, the Supreme Court upheld Alaska's registration statute, reasoning that sex offender registration is civil measure reasonably designed to protect public safety, not a punishment, which can be applied ex post facto. However, law scholars argue that even if the registration schemes were initially constitutional they have, in their current form, become unconstitutionally burdensome and unmoored from their constitutional grounds. A study published in the fall of 2015 found that statistics cited by Justice Anthony Kennedy in two U.S. Supreme Court cases commonly cited in decisions upholding the constitutionality of sex offender policies were unfounded. Several challenges to state level sex offender laws have been honored after hearing at the state level. However, in 2017 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that SORNA violates ex post facto when retroactively applied.

In September 2017 a federal judge found that the Colorado registry is unconstitutional under the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the United States Constitution as applied to three plaintiffs.

Impact on registrants and their families

Sex offender registration and community notification (SORN) laws carry costs in the form of collateral consequences for both sex offenders and their families, including difficulties in relationships and maintaining employment, public recognition, harassment, attacks, difficulties finding and maintaining suitable housing, as well as an inability to take part in expected parental duties, such as going to school functions. Negative effects of collateral consequences on offenders are expected to contribute to known risk factors, and to offenders failing to register, and to the related potential for re-offending.

Family members of sex offenders often experience isolation, hopelessness and depression. U.S. federal law prohibits anyone who is required to register as a sex offender in any state from participating in the Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8) or any similar federal housing programs, such as public housing.

See also

References

  1. "Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website". United States Department of Justice. 2023-08-16. Retrieved 2024-03-03.
  2. "Map of Registered Sex Offenders in the United States" (PDF). National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-07-17. Retrieved 2016-01-07.
  3. ^ Harris, A. J.; Lobanov-Rostovsky, C.; Levenson, J. S. (2 April 2010). "Widening the Net: The Effects of Transitioning to the Adam Walsh Act's Federally Mandated Sex Offender Classification System" (PDF). Criminal Justice and Behavior. 37 (5): 503–519. doi:10.1177/0093854810363889. S2CID 55988358. Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 September 2015.
  4. "Court keeps man on sex offender list but says 'troubling'". Toledo News. 28 March 2015. Archived from the original on 2 April 2015.
  5. Raised on the Registry: The Irreparable Harm of Placing Children on Sex Offender Registries in the US (2012) Human Rights Watch ISBN 978-1-62313-0084
  6. "When Kids Are Sex Offenders". Boston Review. 20 September 2013. Retrieved 1 September 2023.
  7. Lehrer, Eli (7 September 2015). "A Senseless Policy - Take kids off the sex-offender registries". The Weekly Standard. Archived from the original on 2 September 2015. Retrieved 1 September 2015.
  8. ^ "Megan's Law by State". Klaas Kids Foundation. 2014-04-14. Retrieved 2015-08-21.
  9. ^ "How do Registration Laws Apply to Juvenile Offenders in Different States?". Center for Sex Offender Management.
  10. "Adult Sex Offender Management" (PDF). U.S. Department of Justice. p. 3.
  11. "California Megan's Law – California Department of Justice – Office of the Attorney General". Archived from the original on 2015-11-04.
  12. Katz, Hélèna (2010). Cold Cases: Famous Unsolved Mysteries, Crimes, and Disappearances in America. ABC-CLIO. p. 190. ISBN 978-0-313-37692-4.
  13. ^ Wright, Ph.D Richard G. (2014). Sex offender laws : failed policies, new directions (Second ed.). Springer Publishing Co Inc. pp. 50–65. ISBN 9780826196712.
  14. Lancaster, Roger (20 February 2013). "Panic Leads to Bad Policy on Sex Offenders". The New York Times. Retrieved 26 November 2014.
  15. "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994" (PDF). One Hundred Third Congress of the United States of America. 1995. pp. 246–247.
  16. Madeleine Baran (October 3, 2016). "In the dark" (Podcast). American Public Media.
  17. "14 Years After Her Daughter's Death, Donna Norris is Still Protecting Children". Salem-News. January 5, 2010. Retrieved March 17, 2023.
  18. "Amber Hangerman Child Protection Act Law and Legal Definition". uslegal.com. 17 March 2023. Retrieved 17 March 2023.
  19. Harris, A. J.; Lobanov-Rostovsky, C. (22 September 2009). "Implementing the Adam Walsh Act's Sex Offender Registration and Notification Provisions: A Survey of the States". Criminal Justice Policy Review. 21 (2): 202–222. doi:10.1177/0887403409346118. S2CID 144231914.
  20. O'Hear, Michael M. (2008). "Perpetual Panic". Federal Sentencing Reporter. 21 (1): 69–77. doi:10.1525/fsr.2008.21.2.69.
  21. Grinberg, Emanuella (28 July 2011). "5 years later, states struggle to comply with federal sex offender law". CNN.
  22. "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act Compliance News". National Conference of State Legislatures.
  23. "Frequently".
  24. "Registry Requirement FAQs". Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending. Retrieved 4 December 2015.
  25. Daley, Ken (21 April 2015). "Alabama sex offender files suit challenging Louisiana registry laws in federal court". The Times-Picayune. Archived from the original on 6 July 2015.
  26. "Portland: Sex offender magnet?". Portland Tribune. 14 February 2013.
  27. "Sex Offender Ordinance". city.milwaukee.gov. Archived from the original on 2017-11-08.
  28. "Milwaukee Common Council votes to lift sex offender residency restrictions". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 6 September 2017.
  29. Zandbergen, P. A.; Levenson, J. S.; Hart, T. C. (2 April 2010). "Residential Proximity to Schools and Daycares: An Empirical Analysis of Sex Offense Recidivism". Criminal Justice and Behavior. 37 (5): 482–502. doi:10.1177/0093854810363549. S2CID 56267056.
  30. Levenson, Jill; Zgoba, Kristen; Tewksbury, Richard (2007). "Sex Offender Residence Restrictions: Sensible Policy or Flawed Logic?". Federal Probation. 71 (3): 2.
  31. ^ Levenson, J. S. (1 April 2005). "The Impact of Sex Offender Residence Restrictions: 1,000 Feet From Danger or One Step From Absurd?" (PDF). International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 49 (2): 168–178. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.489.5943. doi:10.1177/0306624X04271304. PMID 15746268. S2CID 42407834.
  32. ^ "No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the US". Human Right Watch. 11 September 2007.
  33. ^ Yung, Corey R. (January 2007). "Banishment By a Thousand Laws: Residency Restrictions on Sex Offenders". Washington University Law Review. 85: 101.
  34. "SECTION 7.24 RESTRICTIONS ON REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS". City of Malden. Retrieved 6 October 2015.
  35. "Tampa wants to keep sex offenders outside city limits". Tampa Bay Times. 19 January 2007.
  36. Keegan, Kyle; Saavedra, Tony (2 March 2015). "State Supreme Court overturns sex offender housing rules in San Diego; law could affect Orange County, beyond". The Orange County Register.
  37. Suter, Leanne (15 March 2013). "'Pocket parks' leave sex offenders questioning where to live". ABC7.
  38. Lovett, Ian (9 March 2013). "Neighborhoods Seek to Banish Sex Offenders by Building Parks". The New York Times.
  39. Jennings, Angel (28 February 2013). "L.A. sees parks as a weapon against sex offenders". Los Angeles Times.
  40. "Florida housing sex offenders under bridge". CNN. 6 April 2007.
  41. "Laws to Track Sex Offenders Encouraging Homelessness". The Washington Post. 27 December 2008.
  42. Samuels, Robert (27 July 2010). "Sex offenders seek housing after closing of camp under the Julia Tuttle Causeway". The Sun-Sentinel. Archived from the original on July 30, 2010.
  43. ^ "From Julia Tuttle bridge to Shorecrest street corner: Miami sex offenders again living on street". Palm Beach Post. 12 March 2012.
  44. Häntzschel, Jörg (17 May 2010). "USA: Umgang mit Sexualstraftätern - Verdammt in alle Ewigkeit". Süddeutsche Zeitung.
  45. "Miami Sex Offenders Live on Train Tracks Thanks to Draconian Restrictions". Broward Palm Beach New Times. 13 March 2014.
  46. Michael Schwirtz (4 February 2013). "In 2 Trailers, the Neighbors Nobody Wants". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 February 2013.
  47. Corey Kilgannon (17 February 2007). "Suffolk County to Keep Sex Offenders on the Move". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 February 2013. Now officials of this county on Long Island say they have a solution: putting sex offenders in trailers to be moved regularly around the county, parked for several weeks at a time on public land away from residential areas and enforcing stiff curfews.
  48. ^ Office of Justice Programs (2012). "Chapter 8: Sex Offender Management Strategies". Office of Justice Programs - Sex Offender Management and Planning Initiative (SOMAPI).
  49. ^ Levenson, Jill; Tewksbury, Richard (15 January 2009). "Collateral Damage: Family Members of Registered Sex Offenders" (PDF). American Journal of Criminal Justice. 34 (1–2): 54–68. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.615.3651. doi:10.1007/s12103-008-9055-x. S2CID 146412299.
  50. Vasquez, B. E.; Maddan, S.; Walker, J. T. (26 October 2007). "The Influence of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws in the United States: A Time-Series Analysis". Crime & Delinquency. 54 (2): 175–192. doi:10.1177/0011128707311641. S2CID 53318656.
  51. Zevitz, Richard G. (June 2006). "Sex Offender Community Notification: Its Role in Recidivism and Offender Reintegration". Criminal Justice Studies. 19 (2): 193–208. doi:10.1080/14786010600764567. S2CID 144828566.
  52. Prescott, J.J.; Rockoff, Jonah E. (February 2011). "Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?". Journal of Law and Economics. 54 (1): 161–206. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.363.1170. doi:10.1086/658485. S2CID 1672265.
  53. DUWE, GRANT; DONNAY, WILLIAM (May 2008). "The Impact of Megan's Law on Sex Offender Recidivism: The Minnesota Experience". Criminology. 46 (2): 411–446. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00114.x.
  54. "Sex offender sentencing in Washington State: Has community notification reduced recidivism?". Washington State Institute for Public Policy. December 2005.
  55. "Studies question effectiveness of sex offender laws". Science Daily. 30 August 2011.
  56. ^ Levenson, Jill S.; Brannon, Yolanda N.; Fortney, Timothy; Baker, Juanita (12 April 2007). "Public Perceptions About Sex Offenders and Community Protection Policies" (PDF). Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. 7 (1): 6. doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2007.00119.x.
  57. Anderson, A. L.; Sample, L. L. (4 April 2008). "Public Awareness and Action Resulting From Sex Offender Community Notification Laws". Criminal Justice Policy Review. 19 (4): 371–396. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.544.7814. doi:10.1177/0887403408316705. S2CID 145080393.
  58. "Teenager's Jailing Brings a Call to Fix Sex Offender Registries". The New York Times. 4 July 2015.
  59. "The Today Show Weighs In on Our "Accidental Sex Offender" Story". Marie Claire. Retrieved 5 January 2016.
  60. "National conference aims to soften, reform sex offender laws". KOAT Albuquerque. 29 August 2012.
  61. "Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis" (PDF). National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. p. 15. Retrieved October 25, 2015.
  62. "Five years after Jessica Lunsford's killing, legislators rethink sex offender laws - St. Petersburg Times". www.tampabay.com. Archived from the original on 2010-03-01.
  63. Ellman, Ira M.; Ellman, Tara (16 September 2015). "'Frightening and High': The Supreme Court's Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics" (PDF). Forthcoming, Constitutional Commentary, During Fall, 2015.
  64. "How a dubious statistic convinced U.S. courts to approve of indefinite detention". The Washington Post. 20 August 2015.
  65. "Matthew T. Mangino: Supreme Court perpetuates sex offender myths". Milford Daily News. 4 September 2015.
  66. "[J-121B-2016oajc] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA" (PDF). Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Retrieved 19 July 2017.
  67. "Registered Sex Offenders May Shorten Registration Period According to PA Supreme Court". 20 July 2017.
  68. "Federal judge rules Colorado sex offender register unconstitutional". Reuters. 2017. Archived from the original on September 12, 2017.
  69. Tewksbury, Richard; Jennings, Weley G; Zgoba, Kristen. "Sex offenders: Recidivism Collateral Consequences" (PDF). National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
  70. "COLORADO SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION FORM" (PDF). Colorado Bureau of Investigation.
  71. Levenson, Jill; Letourneau, Elizabeth; Armstrong, Kevin; Zgoba, Kristen Marie (June 2010). "Failure to Register as a Sex Offender: Is it Associated with Recidivism?". Justice Quarterly. 27 (3): 305–331. doi:10.1080/07418820902972399. S2CID 145666215.

External links

Categories: