Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:545:4200:e16c:3c10:c17d:2152:a177 (talk) at 14:19, 28 October 2015 (→See also). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (October 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This article is part of a series on the
Sex offender registries in the United States
Legislation Federal Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act Megan's Law Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act International Megan's Law to Prevent Demand for Child Sex Trafficking State Jessica's Law California Proposition 83 (2006) Other PROTECT Act of 2003 Sexually violent predator laws
Constitutionality Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States Supreme Court decisions Smith v. Doe Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe
Effectiveness Effectiveness of sex offender registration policies in the United States
Social issues Homelessness Julia Tuttle Causeway sex offender colony Miracle Village Pervert Park Controversial designations as offender Genarlow Wilson Janet Allison Kevin Gillson
Reform activism Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws Women Against Registry - W.A.R. Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States
v t e

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 NCMEC, as of 2015 there were 843,260 registered sex offenders in United States.

Overview

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 judicial discretion, and is barred from considering mitigating factors with respect to registration. The definition of a registerable sex offense can vary significantly from one jurisdiction to another.

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. 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 rare cases, restrictions force registrants into homelessness.

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. According to Human Rights Watch, children as young as 9 have been placed on the registry; juvenile offenders account for 25 percent of registrants.

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. 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.

Stakeholders like civil rights groups, law reform activists, scholars, treatment professionals, some victim advocates, some legislators and law enforcement officials have expressed their worries that laws may some times 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 reintegrate, as well as impacting their families.

The Supreme Court of the United States 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

In 1947, California became the first state in the United States to have a sex offender registration program. 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. Heinous 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 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.

The registries were implemented not only due to instances of extremely violent sex crimes, but based on studies regarding recidivism of such crimes which, based on a 1994 report, was four times greater than recidivism for those convicted and sentenced for non-sexual related offenses. ("...sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison—5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.") Lack of prison cells have been cited as one of the reasons sex offender registries were implemented, since the average sentencing for such crimes was 8 years and convicted offenders served less than half that period in prison. In the same 1994 report, of 9,700 prisoners released from prison, 4,300 had had been convicted of child molestation and most were convicted for molesting a child under the age of 13. Within the three year followup on the 1994 report, nearly 40 percent of those released had been returned to prison for either another sex crime, an unrelated offense or parole violation. Recidivism has been shown to be more severe with the youngest offenders and less so with those over the age of 35.

In one study of "561 pedophiles who targeted young boys outside the home committed the greatest number of crimes with an average of 281.7 acts with an average of 150.2 partners". Only about a third of violent rapes are reported and sex crimes are widely believed to be the most under reported of all criminal offenses, with a reporting rate of barely a third of such offenses. Under polygraph, many apprehended sex offenders indicated that most of their offenses were not reported. In an effort to protect the citizenry, local, state and federal law makers responded to these issues through a variety of legislative enactments.

Jacob Wetterling Act of 1994

In 1989, a 11-year-old boy, Jacob Wetterling, was abducted from a street in St. Joseph, Minnesota. 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, 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 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 Attorney General. 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. Another high-profile case, abuse and murder of Megan Kanka led to modification of Jacob Wetterling Act.

Megan's Law of 1996

In 1994, 7-year-old Megan Kanka from Hamilton Township, Mercer County, New Jersey was raped and killed by a recidivist pedophile. 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, New Jersey enacted Megan's Law. In 1996, President Bill Clinton 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 Massachusetts was the last state to enact its version of Megan's Law.

Adam Walsh Act of 2006

The most comprehensive legislation related to the supervision and management of sex offenders is the Adam Walsh Act, 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 in 25th anniversary of his abduction as a result of the advocacy of his father, John Walsh.

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 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.

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 and/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 and/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 their registration period in previous residence. Illinois reclassifies all registrants moving in as a "Sexual Predator".

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. 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. 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 name, nicknames, aliases, photograph, social security number, current physical and mailing address, former living address, address of places where offender habitually lives, name and address of school or institution of higher education, if any, telephone numbers, email addresses and other Internet identifiers, place of employment, professional licenses, DNA sample, race, place of birth, fingerprints, palm prints, height, weight, hair color, eye color, birth marks, scars, tattoos, copies of passport and immigration documents, vehicle make, model, color, and license numbers, sometimes including the vehicles of all other (non-sex offender) persons residing at the same address; driver’s license number; 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.

Public notification

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.

In SORNA 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, while in some states all tier I offenders are excluded from public disclosure.

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 state to another in order to avoid public notification.

Exclusion zones

Laws restricting where registered sex offenders may live or work became increasingly common since 2005. At least 30 states have enacted statewide residency restrictions prohibiting registrants from living within certain distances from schools, parks, day-cares, school bus stops, or other places where children may congregate. 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. In addition, some local communities have created exclusion zones around churches, pet stores, movie theaters, libraries, playgrounds, tourist attractions or other "recreational facilities" such as stadiums, auditoriums, swimming pools, skating rinks and gymnasiums, regardless whether publicly or privately owned. Although restrictions are tied to distances from areas where children may congregate, most states apply exclusion zones to all registrants. In 2007 report, the Human Rights Watch identified only 4 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 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. In 2007 Tampa, Florida 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. As 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. 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. 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.

Some communities have loitering 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. 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. In 2006 Tennessee 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".

Additional restrictions

The State of Missouri restricts the activities of registrants on Halloween, requiring them to avoid Halloween-related contact with children and remain at their regristered home address from 5 p.m. to 10:30 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".

Some states have Civil confinement laws, which allow very-high-risk sex offenders to be placed in psychiatric hospitals 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.

Effectiveness

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. 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. A few studies indicate that sexual recidivism may have been lowered by SORN policies. 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.

According to the New York Times Editorial Board, "there is not a single piece of evidence" that sex offender residency restrictions make children safer. The California Supreme Court found that the restrictions reduce safety, by driving sex offenders into homelessness, which makes them harder to monitor and less likely to receive rehabilitative services.

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.

Perceptions

Public perceives sex offenders having very high risk of recidivism, views offenders as homogeneous group regard to that risk and are skeptical about effectiveness of treatment, 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. 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%) 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. 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.

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.

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. Nearly all agreed "that current sex offender legislation...successfully addressed the public’s demand for action” arising 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...". 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.

Maine state senator William Diamond opined in an interview that sex offender policies have "inherent flaws" but reforming them is problematic, as proposing amendments would be considered as being soft on sex crime by the general public.

Constitutionality

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 ex post facto, due process, cruel and unusual punishment, equal protection and search and seizure. 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.

Important cases

Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions have been heavily relied upon by legislators, and other courts in their own constitutional decision, mainly upholding the registration and notification laws. In McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 33 (2002) the Supreme Court upheld, in a 5-4 plurality opinion, a Kansas law that imposed harsher sentences on offenders who refused participating in a prison treatment program. In justifying conclusion, Justice Kennedy wrote that sex offenders pose “frightening and high risk of recidivism”, which, “of untreated offenders has been estimated to be as high as 80%.”

In following year, in Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003), 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. Now Justice Kennedy relied on this earlier language of McKune v. Lile and wrote:

"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)..."

— Justice Anthony Kennedy, Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003)

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 Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe (2002) the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed this public disclosure of sex offender information.

Ex post facto challenge

In Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003), the Supreme Court upheld Alaska's sex-offender registration statute. Reasoning that sex offender registration deals with civil laws, not punishment, the Court ruled 6–3 that it is not an unconstitutional ex post facto law. Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer dissented.

Charles v. Alaska, Supreme Court No. S-12944, Court of Appeals No. A-09623, Superior Court No. 1KE-05-00765 C opinion can be found in its entirety here: 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.

Due process challenge

In Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (2003), the Court ruled that Connecticut's sex-offender registration statute did not violate the procedural due process of those to whom it applied, although the Court "expresses no opinion as to whether the State's law violates substantive due process 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.

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. 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 Heggs v. State, 718 So.2d 263(1998), 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 "Single Subject Rule," 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 Florida Chapter Law 97-299: Senate Bill 958. The Bill was related to the release of Public Records Information.

Florida legislature outlined Sex Offender Registration in the creation of §943.0435, further in the Bill the single subject rule was violated when 1998 §921.0017 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 §921.243 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 Florida House of Representatives Website, 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 Hawaii State Supreme Court held that Hawaii's sex offender registration statute violated the due process clause of the Constitution of Hawaii, ruling that it deprived potential registrants "of a protected liberty 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".

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.

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.

Missouri

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

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

In response to these rulings, in 2007, several Missouri state Senators proposed an amendment to the Missouri Constitution that would exempt sex offender registration laws from the ban on retrospective civil laws. The proposed amendment passed the State Senate unanimously but was not passed by the Missouri House of Representatives before the end of the 2007 legislative session. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

§ 14-202.5 Bans use of commercial social networking Web sites by sex offenders. 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. 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.

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.” 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, 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.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 30, 2015 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.

Ohio

In July 2011 the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled the Ohio version of Adam Walsh Act to be punitive, rather than a civil regulatory measure. This decision barred retroactive application of Ohio's Adam Walsh Act to those whose crimes predated the law's enactment. The Ohio Supreme Court has also found automatic lifetime registration for juveniles to be unconstitutional.

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 due process.

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 is expected to contribute to known risk factors, and to offenders failing to register, and to the related potential for re-offending.

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.

Impact on registrants

Research has identified the negative effects of registration and notification laws for sex offenders, which may have unintended counterproductive consequences. Social stigma 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.

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. A majority report psycho-social consequences such as depression, hopelessness, and fear for their own safety. Some have experienced vigilante activities such as property damage, harassment, and physical assaults. In at least two instances, sex offenders have been murdered in vigilante attacks tied to public registries.

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 stigma. 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.

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. 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 physically assaulted 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.

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 stigmatized 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.

80% of registrant’s children were reported exhibiting anger, 77% depression, 73% anxiety, 65% feeling left out by peers, and 63% fear. 13% of the children of registrants were reported to exhibit suicidal tendencies.

See also

• Circles of Support and Accountability
• Sarah's Law
• Child sexual abuse

References

1. "Map of Registered Sex Offenders in the United States" (PDF). National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Retrieved 2015-08-21.
2. ^ 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.
3. "State Supreme Court overturns sex offender housing rules in San Diego; law could affect Orange County, beyond". The Orange County Register. 2 March 2015.
4. ^ "Miami Sex Offenders Live on Train Tracks Thanks to Draconian Restrictions". Broward Palm Beach New Times. 13 March 2014.
5. "Miami sex offenders limited to life under a bridge". Tampa Bay Times. 14 August 2009.
6. "Court keeps man on sex offender list but says 'troubling'". Toledo News. 28 March 2015. Archived from the original on 2 April 2015.
7. ^ 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
8. "When Kids Are Sex Offenders". Boston Review. 20 September 2013.
9. Lehrer, Eli (7 September 2015). "A Senseless Policy - Take kids off the sex-offender registries". The Weekly Standard. Retrieved 1 September 2015.
10. ^ "Megan's Law by State". Klaas Kids Foundation. Retrieved 2015-08-21.
11. Jacobs, Deborah. "Why Sex Offender Laws Do More Harm Than Good". American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved 14 November 2014.
12. Lovett, Ian (October 1, 2013). "Restricted Group Speaks Up, Saying Sex Crime Measures Go Too Far". The New York Times.
13. Ulmer, Nick (21 February 2014). "Taking a Stand: Women Against Registry responds to our 14 News investigation". 14News. NBC.
14. Levenson, Jill (6 August 2015). "Does youthful mistake merit sex-offender status?". cnn.com.
15. "RE: Pending Sex Offender Registry Legislation (HR 4472)" (PDF). 8 August 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 September 2015.
16. "Patty Wetterling questions sex offender laws". Retrieved 13 November 2014.
17. Gunderson, Dan (18 June 2007). "Sex offender laws have unintended consequences". MPR news. Retrieved 16 November 2014.
18. ^ Meloy, Michelle; Curtis, Kristin; Boatwright, Jessica (23 Nov 2012). "Policy-makers' perceptions on their sex offender laws: the good, the bad, and the ugly". Criminal Justice Studies: A CriticalJournal of Crime, Law and Society. 26 (1). doi:10.1080/1478601.2012.744307. 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.
19. "Board wants to remove low-risk sex offenders from registry". SFGate. 25 May 2014.
20. Levenson, J. S. (1 February 2005). "The Effect of Megan's Law on Sex Offender Reintegration". Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. 21 (1): 49–66. doi:10.1177/1043986204271676.
21. ^ Tewksbury, R. (1 February 2005). "Collateral Consequences of Sex Offender Registration". Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. 21 (1): 67–81. doi:10.1177/1043986204271704.
22. Mercado, C. C.; Alvarez, S.; Levenson, J. (1 June 2008). "The Impact of Specialized Sex Offender Legislation on Community Reentry". Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. 20 (2): 188–205. doi:10.1177/1079063208317540.
23. Levenson, Jill S.; D'Amora, David A.; Hern, Andrea L. (July 2007). "Megan's law and its impact on community re-entry for sex offenders". Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 25 (4): 587–602. doi:10.1002/bsl.770.
24. Balko, Radley (28 August 2015). "The collateral damage of sex offender laws". The Washington Post.
25. Yoder, Steven (27 August 2015). "Collateral damage: Harsh sex offender laws may put whole families at risk". Al Jazeera America.
26. California Megan's Law – California Department of Justice – Office of the Attorney General
27. ^ Wright, Ph.D Richard G. (2014). Sex offender laws : failed policies, new directions (Second edition. ed.). Springer Publishing Co Inc. pp. 50–65. ISBN 9780826196712.
28. Lancaster, Roger (20 February 2013). "Panic Leads to Bad Policy on Sex Offenders". The New York Times. Retrieved 26 November 2014.
29. ^ "5 Percent of Sex Offenders Rearrested for another Sex Crime within 3 Years of Prison Release". Bureau of Justice Statistics. November 16, 2003. Retrieved October 25, 2015.
30. "Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis" (pdf). National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. p. 15. Retrieved October 25, 2015.
31. "Sex Offenders Myths and Facts". New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. April 2014. Retrieved October 25, 2015.
32. "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994" (PDF). One Hundred Third Congress of the United States of America. 1995. pp. 246–247.
33. "Latest appeal by Jesse Timmendequas to overturn conviction in Megan Kanka killing is rejected". New Jersey Online. 6 February 2015.
34. 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.
35. O'Hear, Michael M. (2008). "Perpetual Panic". Federal Sentencing Reporter. 21 (1).
36. Grinberg, Emanuella (28 July 2011). "5 years later, states struggle to comply with federal sex offender law". CNN.
37. "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act Compliance News". National Conference of State Legislatures.
38. "Teen can't live with his family anymore because a girl he slept with 'lied about her age'". MetroUK. 7 August 2015.
39. "How a dating app hookup landed a teen on the sex offender registry". CNN. 4 August 2015.
40. ^ "Frequently".
41. ^ "COLORADO SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION FORM" (PDF). Colorado Bureau of Investigation.
42. "HOUSE BILL 570". 51st legislature - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - first session, 2013.
43. "Michigan's sex offender registry would put more crimes involving minors online under advancing legislation". Mlive. Retrieved 13 November 2014.
44. 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.
45. "Portland: Sex offender magnet?". Portland Tribune. 14 February 2013.
46. 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.
47. Levenson, Jill; Zgoba, Kristen; Tewksbury, Richard. "Sex Offender Residence Restrictions: Sensible Policy or Flawed Logic?". Federal Probation. 71 (3).
48. ^ 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. doi:10.1177/0306624X04271304.
49. ^ "No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the US". Human Right Watch. 11 September 2007.
50. ^ Yung, Corey R. (January 2007). "Banishment By a Thousand Laws: Residency Restrictions on Sex Offenders". Washington University Law Review. 85: 101.
51. "SECTION 7.24 RESTRICTIONS ON REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS". City of Malden. Retrieved 6 October 2015.
52. "Tampa wants to keep sex offenders outside city limits". Tampa Bay Times. 19 January 2007.
53. 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.
54. Suter, Leanne (15 March 2013). "'Pocket parks' leave sex offenders questioning where to live". ABC7.
55. Lovett, Ian (9 March 2013). "Neighborhoods Seek to Banish Sex Offenders by Building Parks". The New York Times.
56. Jennings, Angel (28 February 2013). "L.A. sees parks as a weapon against sex offenders". Los Angeles Times.
57. "Florida housing sex offenders under bridge". CNN. 6 April 2007.
58. "Laws to Track Sex Offenders Encouraging Homelessness". The Washington Post. 27 December 2008.
59. Samuels, Robert (27 July 2010). "Sex offenders seek housing after closing of camp under the Julia Tuttle Causeway". The Sun-Sentinel.
60. ^ "From Julia Tuttle bridge to Shorecrest street corner: Miami sex offenders again living on street". Palm Beach Post. 12 March 2012.
61. Häntzschel, Jörg (17 May 2010). "USA: Umgang mit Sexualstraftätern - Verdammt in alle Ewigkeit". Süddeutsche Zeitung.
62. Michael Schwirtz (4 February 2013). "In 2 Trailers, the Neighbors Nobody Wants". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 February 2013.
63. 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.
64. "Sex offender fights restraint law - Challenges Hartford City child safety zones". The Journal Gazette. 15 March 2015.
65. "Orange County's war on sex offenders". Los Angeles Times. 13 May 2011.
66. "2006 Public Acts Chapter 890 - State of Tennessee" (PDF). GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE.
67. , Missouri Senate bill modifies various provisions relating to sexual offenses
68. "Statement of Rights and Responsibilities". Facebook. 11 December 2012. Retrieved 26 April 2013.
69. Anderson, A. L.; Sample, L. L. (4 April 2008). "Public Awareness and Action Resulting From Sex Offender Community Notification Laws" (PDF). Criminal Justice Policy Review. 19 (4): 371–396. doi:10.1177/0887403408316705.
70. 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): 1–25. doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2007.00119.x.
71. ^ 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. doi:10.1007/s12103-008-9055-x.
72. ^ 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.
73. 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.
74. 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. doi:10.1086/658485.
75. 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.
76. "Sex offender sentencing in Washington State: Has community notification reduced recidivism?". Washington State Institute for Public Policy. December 2005.
77. "The Registration and Community Notification of Adult Sexual Offenders". The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers.
78. "The Pointless Banishment of Sex Offenders," New York Times, September 8, 2015.
79. Ida Lieszkovszky, "Sex offender registries draw criticism from some unlikely sources", cleveland.com (Cleveland Plain Dealer), http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/index.ssf/2015/10/advocates_on_both_sides_say_se.html
80. ^ Cite error: The named reference public_perceptions was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
81. Doren, Dennis M. (1998). "Recidivism base rates, predictions of sex offender recidivism, and the "Sexual Predator" commitment laws". Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 16 (1): 97–114.
82. Harris, Andrew J. R; Hanson, Karl R. Sex Offender Recidivism: A Simple Question. Ottawa: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.
83. Morton-Bourgon, Kelly; Hanson, Karl R. (February 2004). Predictors of Sexual Recidivism: An Updated Meta-Analysis 2004-02. Ottawa: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
84. 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.
85. ^ Sample, L. L.; Kadleck, C. (1 March 2008). "Sex Offender Laws: Legislators' Accounts of the Need for Policy" (PDF). Criminal Justice Policy Review. 19 (1): 40–62. doi:10.1177/0887403407308292.
86. "Sex offender? No thanks, I'll take prison". Bangor Daily News. 15 April 2011.
87. ^ 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.
88. ^ "How a dubious statistic convinced U.S. courts to approve of indefinite detention". The Washington Post. 20 August 2015.
89. ^ "Matthew T. Mangino: Supreme Court perpetuates sex offender myths". Milford Daily News. 4 September 2015.
90. "Supreme Court Cases of Interest 2002–2003: Sex Offender Registries (ABA Division for Public Education)". www.abanet.org. Retrieved 2008-03-16.
91. "Connecticut Department of Public Safety, et al., Petitioners v. John Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated". caselaw.lp.findlaw.com. Retrieved 2008-03-15.
93. "Alaska Supreme Court overturns 2006 conviction".
94. Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe (01-1231) 538 U.S. 1(2003).
95. "Department of Public Safety Home".
96. "Housing Restrictions For Sex Offenders Unconstitutional, California Court Rules". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 25 October 2015.
97. State v. Bani, 36 P.3d 1255 (Haw. 2001)
98. "Maryland Appeals Court restricts who can be listed on state's sex-offender registry". The Washington Post. 1 July 2014.
99. http://media.mlive.com/lansing-news/other/CourtSORA.pdf
100. Missouri Constitution
101. ^ Doe v. Phillips, 194 S.W.3d 837 (Mo. banc 2006)
102. ^ Doe v. Keathley, Case No. WD68066 (Mo. App. slip op. 1 Apr. 2008)
103. St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "Legislators focus on sex offenders", 11 April 2007.
104. "Bill backup clogs waning session", The Kansas City Star, 9 April 2007
105. "Actions".
106. Doe et. al. v. Keathley et. al., No. SC89727
107. "Judge says some Missouri sex offenders don't have to register their locations", 10 January 2010
108. R.L. v. Missouri Department of Corrections, Case No. SC88644 (Mo. banc slip op. 19 February 2008)
109. F.R. v. St. Charles County Sheriff's Department, No. SC89834
110. State of Missouri v. Charles A. Raynor, No. SC90164
111. "N.Y. court tosses local limits on sex offenders' homes". USA TODAY. 17 February 2015. Retrieved 25 October 2015.
112. "Chapter 14 - Article 14". state.nc.us. Retrieved 25 October 2015.
113. "GS_14-202.5". state.nc.us. Retrieved 25 October 2015.
114. "Court strikes down law banning sex offenders from social media". WRAL.com. Retrieved 25 October 2015.
115. "Social networking ban for sex offenders remains in effect". ncdoj.gov. Retrieved 25 October 2015.
116. http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/html/AR/CourtAppeals/2012/31_December_2012/12-417.pdf
117. "The 300-Foot Rule". NC Criminal Law Blog - UNC Chapel Hill School of Government. Retrieved 25 October 2015.
118. http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2009/12/17/6641103/Order_in_sex_offenders_constitutionality_of_location_restrictions.swf
119. "Graham sheriff bans sex offenders from church". USA TODAY. 6 March 2015. Retrieved 25 October 2015.
120. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-593_o7jq.pdf
121. "Supreme Court rules in favor of NC sex offender". WNCN. Retrieved 25 October 2015.
122. "Retroactive Application of Adam Walsh Act to Offenders Whose Crimes Predate Law's Enactment Unconstitutional". The Supreme Court of Ohio & Ohio Judicial Sysytem.
123. "Ohio Supreme Court pares sex-offender law". The Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved 4 April 2012.
124. "[J-44A-G-2014] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT" (PDF). Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Retrieved 31 August 2015.
125. "Pennsylvania's Juvenile Sex Offender Registry Is Unconstitutional, State Supreme Court Rules". Bloomberg. 31 December 2014.
126. "Advocates Fight for Sex Offender Rights With Lawsuit". Broward Palm Beach New Times. 17 April 2015.
127. Tewksbury, Richard; Jennings, Weley G; Zgoba, Kristen. "Sex offenders: Recidivism Collateral Consequences" (PDF). National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
128. 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.
129. Levenson, J. S.; Cotter, L. P. (1 February 2005). "The Effect of Megan's Law on Sex Offender Reintegration" (PDF). Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. 21 (1): 49–66. doi:10.1177/1043986204271676.
130. Mustaine, Elizabeth E.; Tewksbury, Richard; Stengel, Kenneth M. (March 2006). "Residential location and mobility of registered sex offenders". American Journal of Criminal Justice. 30 (2): 177–192. doi:10.1007/BF02885890.
131. Tewksbury, Richard; Lees, Matthew (May 2006). "PERCEPTIONS OF SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION: COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES AND COMMUNITY EXPERIENCES" (PDF). Sociological Spectrum. 26 (3): 309–334. doi:10.1080/02732170500524246.
132. Grubesic, T. H.; Mack, E.; Murray, A. T. (13 June 2007). "Geographic Exclusion: Spatial Analysis for Evaluating the Implications of Megan's Law" (PDF). Social Science Computer Review. 25 (2): 143–162. doi:10.1177/0894439307298930.
133. Ahuja, Gitika (18 April 2006). "Sex Offender Registries: Putting Lives At Risk?". ABC News. Retrieved 2009-10-05.
134. Farkas, Mary Ann; Miller, Gale (December 2007). "Reentry and Reintegration: Challenges Faced by the Families of Convicted Sex Offenders". Federal Sentencing Reporter. 20 (1): 88–92. doi:10.1525/fsr.2007.20.2.88.
135. Tewksbury, Richard; Levenson, Jill (July 2009). "Stress experiences of family members of registered sex offenders". Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 27 (4): 611–626. doi:10.1002/bsl.878.

External links

• US Dept. of Justice sex offender registry
• Sex offender registry by state on PublicRecordsWire.com (subscription required)
• Reform Sex Offender, Laws Inc. RSOL
• Reports & Papers on Sex Offenses
• Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers
• Registry inaccuracies
  • Sex Offender Accused of Falsely Registering Family's Address
  • Sometimes 'sorry' doesn't cut it Police raid apartment long after sex offender has moved out
  • Sex Offender Community Notification in Scotland (Briefing Paper)

• Sex offender registration
• Sex laws
• Sex offender registries in the United States
• Sex crimes in the United States