Sex Offender Restrictions and Public Notification Laws:
How These Laws Affect Public Safety
Aric J. Long
Missouri State University
Abstract
Sex offenders are a hot topic in the field of criminology and criminal justice, as sex offenses illicit strong emotional reactions from the public and many professional fields. Examples of emotional reactions to sex offenses in legislation include the Jacob Wetterling Act of 1994 and even Megan’s Law in 1996, which are emotionally charged reactions to some seriously heinous crimes. These two aforementioned laws focus on guidelines for sex offender registration and public notification (Legislative History), however, these laws are emotional reactions to heinous cases that are not exemplary of the majority of sex offenses. Even though these above-mentioned laws are not representative of the majority of sex offenses, they are unilaterally applied to all sex offenses, and the impact on public safety is generally ignored.
There has been some research done and subsequent empirical evidence found, showing that that current sex offender registration and public notification laws can be a deterrent to non-recidivists. However, there is little to no evidence showing sex offender registration and public notification laws do anything to lower recidivism rates among sex offenders. Furthermore, there is empirical evidence outlining that sex offender registration and public notification laws increase recidivism among this population (Prescott, 2008).
As noted above, sexually driven offenses commonly elicit strong emotions, which can bring about laws based on emotions rather than evidence. Also, as shown above, emotionally charged laws in regard to sex offenses will not lower recidivism rates among sex offenders. Research has shown that sex offender registration and public notification laws can increase recidivism, and in turn create a less safe environment for the public. Therefore, emotionally charged legislation does the exact opposite of what it intends to do with sex offenders, instead of the intended purpose of sex offender legislation, which is to keep the public safe.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze sex offender registration and public notification laws, the restrictions placed on sex offenders, the empirical evidence supporting or negating the effectiveness of these laws, the impact these laws have on public safety, and ways these laws could potentially be improved. This paper will primarily focus on the field of sex offender laws in the context of community supervision, as the overwhelming majority of sex offenders will attempt to reintegrate into the community at some point in their lives. This paper will also address some of these issues from the perspective of Probation and Parole Officers, as Probation and Parole Officers will be the individuals that are tasked in supervising sex offenders in a community setting.
Sex Offender Restrictions and Public Notification Laws:
And How These Laws Affect Public Safety.
Sex offenders are a hot topic in today’s world, due to the fact that sex offenses are viewed as particularly heinous, which in turn garnishes a substantial amount of emotion from most if not all parties involved. Some of the most notably heinous cases that have driven legislation regarding sex offenders include the highly publicized abductions of Jacob Wetterling in 1989, and the brutal rape and murder of Megan Kanka in 1994 when she was only 7 years old (Heger, 2000). Also included is the abduction and beheading of Adam Walsh in 1981, which was the case that led to the creation of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act in 2006 (Almanzar, 2008).
The Jacob Wetterling Act of 1994 mandates that all states must have programs to register and track offenders that are convicted of sex offenses or possibly other crimes against minor persons. More specifically, persons convicted of crimes against minors, violent sex offenses, or offenders determined to be violent sexual predators, are required by the Jacob Wetterling Act to register their current address with the state law enforcement agency in the state in which they reside. The Jacob Wetterling Act also requires the state to notify an offender convicted of an offense outlined in the act of the law to register their address, and all of the other requirements (Heger, 2000)..
Some of the provisions of the Jacob Wetterling Act include:
• Requiring law enforcement to obtain photographs and fingerprints of sexual offenders.
• Updating the appropriate databases with the sexual offender’s information.
• Notifying local law enforcement where a convicted sexual offender wishes to reside after release from incarceration.
• Providing the sexual offender’s conviction and fingerprint records to the FBI.
• Verifying the physical address where the sexual offender is living at the same time each subsequent year after the sexual offender’s registration (Heger, 2000)..
The Jacob Wetterling Act also mandated that all information be disclosed only to law enforcement and other government agencies, yet this was later changed by Megan’s Law. However, it should be noted that the Jacob Wetterling Act only set the minimum standards to follow, and gave individual states an immense amount of leeway on how strict the laws they produced could be (Heger, 2000).
Megan’s Law is essentially an amendment to the Jacob Wetterling Act of 1994, which changed the section of the Jacob Wetterling Act that allowed sexual offender’s information only to be released to law enforcement and other government agencies. Megan’s Law changed the language, to allow states to release the information of sexual offenders to whomever the state’s law allows. The language of Megan’s Law is important to note, as it essentially allowed for the individual states to release a wealth of personal information regarding sexual offenders to the general public (Heger, 2000).
The Pam Lyncher Act is another notable piece of legislation, which builds upon the earlier Jacob Wetterling Act and mandates states submit fingerprints and other data to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a nationwide database and for tracking purposes. The Pam Lyncher Act also created a national sex offender database designed to track a sex offender’s whereabouts. Additionally, the Pam Lyncher Act mandated that sexual offenders convicted in states that don’t have a sex offender registry meeting the minimum requirements to register with the FBI. The Pam Lyncher Act also slightly changed Jacob Wetterling Act to mandate the minimum state sex offender registration length from ten years, to ten years to life, depending on the sexual offender’s criminal history and crime committed (Heger, 2000).
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, more specifically, Title 1 of the act which is the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, better known as SORNA, has greatly impacted sex offender registration, restrictions, and public notification. SORNA specifically changed sex offender laws in seven different ways, which include:
• Extending the jurisdictions where sex offender registrations is required outside of the 50 states.
• Mandating a larger group of offenses for which sex offender registration is required.
• Mandating that sex offenders register in every jurisdiction in which they reside, work, or attend school.
• Mandating that sex offenders provide more information during registration; mandated
• Mandating sex offenders provide physical verification in-person to insure accurate registration.
• Expanded the information available to the general public.
• The amount of time that a sex offender must register for (SORNA).
In the State of Missouri, the offenses that require registration as a sex offender are as follows:
• Kidnapping a child.
• Unlawful felony restraint of a child.
• Promoting prostitution.
• Sexual exploitation of a minor.
• Promoting and or possession of child pornography.
• Incest.
• Promoting the sexual performance of a child.
• Endangering the welfare of a child.
• and more.
The people required to register as a sex offender in the State of Missouri are as follows:
• Been convicted of.
• Been found guilty of.
• Plead guilty to.
• Attempted to commit.
• Conspired to commit.
• Plead nolo contendere to.
• Been remanded to the Department of Mental health as a sexual psychopath.
• Been found not guilty due to mental disease or defect.
• Been required to register in a different state or country in the past.
• Been required to register under federal or military law.
• Have committed similar offense under tribal laws.
• Regarding the above outlined sexual offenses (Sex Offender Registration).
In Missouri, a sex offender is required to register within three days of conviction, release from custody, placed on probation, or moving to the state. When registering as a sex offender in the State of Missouri the offender must provide their:
• Name.
• Date of birth.
• Social security number.
• Alias’.
• Their physical description.
• Addresses they are associated with.
• A photograph once per year.
• Vehicle information.
• Offense information.
• State issued identification.
• Proof of residency.
• Fingerprints.
• DNA (Sex Offender Registration).
Other things to consider is if one has the status of a sex offender, is if a sex offender is in the State of Missouri for seven or more days, they must register as a sex offender. State law restricts sex offenders who committed an offense involving a child from living within 1,000 feet of any school, or any facility that cares for children; from being present within 500 feet of the aforementioned locations; from being in or loitering within 500 feet of the aforementioned locations; from being in or loitering within 500 feet of a public park with playground equipment present or a public swimming pool; from being an athletic coach to any sport team. No sex offender is allowed to have any contact with children regarding anything correlated with Halloween, are required to remain in their residence between 5:00 p.m. and 10:30 p.m., must post a sign that says “no candy or treats at this residence”, and cannot have any outside lights on during the evening (Sex Offender Registration).
Failing to register as a sex offender is a Class D or C Felony offense on the first or second time, depending on what offense the offender committed that required them to register. Failing to register as a sex offender a third time will still incur a Class D or C Felony, but it carries a minimum sentence of 10 years of imprisonment. Sex offenders in Missouri are required to register either semi-annually, or every 90 days. Sex offenders are required to register every 90 days if the offender is classified as a predatory or persistent offender, committed a crime where the victim was under 18 years old, or if the offender has ever been found guilty or failing to register as a sex offender or submitted false information (Sex Offender Registration).
Literature review
Regarding my credibility, my professional experience has been working within the criminal justice system, and I have been working as a Probation and Parole Officer for the State of Missouri for almost two years. While training for months at the Missouri Department of Corrections Central Training Academy in Jefferson City, Missouri to become a Probation and Parole Officer, there were specialized classes that are mandatory on sex offender supervision that must be taken and passed. Even though while working as a Probation and Parole Officer for almost two years I have not yet supervised sex offenders specifically, many of the same techniques used to help facilitate an offender’s successful reintegration into the community are the same for any offender. Creating an environment that provides the tools to the offender that are necessary to reintegrate into society, and not inhibiting their reintegration into society are essential to success. The Probation and Parole Officer’s mission is to help facilitate an offender’s reintegration into society, or help an offender learn to be successful in the community in lieu of incarceration, all while attempting to keep the community safe from further victimization.
Current Literature
The cases surrounding the development of sex offender legislation are most definitely atypical, as the overwhelming majority of sexual offenses occur inside of the victim’s home, and or are committed by someone that knows the victim (Walker, 2007). This furthers the position that current sex offender legislation is not occurring in response to the majority of sexual offenses, but it is instead occurring in response to the cases that are the most heinous and garnish the most attention from the public. The literal definition of scientific method is “a method of investigation in which a problem is first identified and observations, experiments, or other relevant data are then used to construct or test hypotheses that purport to solve it” (Scientific method). The literal definition of criminology is “the scientific study of crime as a social phenomenon, or criminals, and of penal treatment” (Definition of Criminology). These laws should be based solely on the scientific method explained above, rather than on emotions or feelings.
The purpose of sex offender legislation is to make communities safer through the reduction of sex offender recidivism, which is allegedly accomplished by placing restrictions on where sex offenders can go, work, or live. However, there is research showing that sex offender laws are not effective in accomplishing their goals (Ackerman, 2012). Regardless of the lack of effectiveness of sex offender laws, there is an immense amount of public support for them. The public supports sex offender registries and public notifications laws due to the belief that these laws reduce recidivism, and the belief the public has an inherent right to the information obtained through public notification (Wagner, 2011).
Contrary to a large portion of the public supporting sex offender restrictions and public notification laws, there are people who do not believe the laws increase public safety. There have not been many studies conducted regarding the opinions of the survivors of sex crimes. However, a recent online research study of 600 survivors of sex crimes aimed to determine their opinions of sex offender registries, and if the registries had any impact on their decision to report their victimization. The aforementioned study found that survivors of sexual assault believe that sex offender registries create a false sense of security, however, they also believed that sex offenders should have to register regardless of the false security. If the survivors of sexual assault believe that sex offender registries do not increase safety, yet they still want the registries and public notification in place, what is the purpose of these laws? It is abundantly clear with a lack of empirical support for sex offender laws that the laws are driven almost entirely by emotions and feelings (Craun, 2012).
Jeffery Walker, a professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, wrote an article outlining the ineffectiveness of sex offender laws. He explained the large majority of these laws are created in response to atypical sexual crimes cases, the majority of sexual offenses occur where the perpetrator and victim live together, and the overwhelming majority of sexual offenders knew their victim. Walker also talks about the negative consequences of sex offender residency restrictions, noting how a hotel in Iowa had 23 sexual offenders living there because it was one of very few places the offenders could live. Walker also notes that research shows sex offender residency restrictions are an ineffective means of reducing recidivism. Furthermore, Walker notes the research shows how most sexual offenses occur inside the home, and or by someone who knows their victim. This brings Walker to the conclusion that restricting where sex offenders live will not reduce sex offender recidivism, but reducing sex offender’s access to children will successfully reduce sex offender recidivism (Walker, 2007).
Another study surveyed members of parole boards, and found that the parole board members questioned the ability of sex offender public notification and registration laws to have their intended effects. These members of the parole board were found not to show strong support for the public notification and registration laws, but instead they shared a common belief in the possibilities of reintegrating sex offenders into the communities, and shared the belief that sex offenders could be rehabilitated and should not spend their lives incarcerated (Tewksbury, 2012).
Another recent study was completed that researched the psychological mood disturbances with sexual offenders, and it views the psychological stress that potentially is correlated with sex offenders reintegrating to society. This study was completed in New Jersey regarding sexual offenders, and these offenders were mailed surveys asking about public notification and registration laws. This survey found that sexual offenders commonly reported having mild to moderate problems with depression and hopelessness. The study also found correlated links between the psychological mood of sex offenders and their subsequent lack of ability to successfully reintegrate into society; which is also clearly correlated with sex offender recidivism (Jeglic, 2012). This study presents a picture of the aforementioned correlations, and the logical conclusion is that public notification laws are created a substantially harder environment for sex offenders to successfully reintegrate into society, which will subsequently increase recidivism among sex offenders, and ultimately has the opposite of the desired effect of these laws.
Also, present among the negative effects of sex offender registration and public notification laws are the collateral effects that the laws are having on communities. A study showed the effects of the laws are detrimental effects due to: stigmatization, destroyed relationships, lowered employment opportunities, and lowered available housing options due to residency restrictions places on sex offenders (Teksbury, 2005). This study is relevant because it shows that sex offenders are targeted for their crimes; which coincides with the aforementioned study that showed sex offender public notification laws can lead to psychological stress, which in turn leads to problems with reintegration, and will eventually lead to heightened recidivism rates among sex offenders (Tewksbury, 2005).
The relatives of sex offenders are also commonly impacted by negative consequences of sex offender legislation. This becomes problematic because the more issues sex offenders have reintegrating into society, the lower the chances of successful reintegration are, which in turn increase recidivism rates. However, the author supports the sex offender registration and public notification laws, regardless of there being no empirical evidence showing a reduction in recidivism (Berkowitz, 2010).
A substantial amount of research has been done, and a substantial amount of evidence supports the use of risk and needs assessment tools specific to sex offenders. The tool used to assess the risks and needs of sex offenders in Missouri is the Static-99R, which assesses the sex offender’s risks to determine their likeliness of reoffending. This in turn helps supervision personnel identify the sex offenders with the highest propensity to recidivate, and will also help to identify the appropriate measures that should be taken to help keep the offender from recidivating (Hanson, 2016). The Static-99R views multiple factors including: the offender’s age upon release, if they have ever lived with a lover, if they have ever been convicted of any non-sexual violent crime, their prior sex offenses, if they have had four or more prior sentencing dates, if they have ever been convicted of a non-contact sexual offense, if they have any victims that are not relatives, if they have any victims that are strangers, and if they have any male victims. The Static-99R then scores these factors as very low risk, below average risk, average risk, above average risk, and well above average risk, based on the offender’s total score with the assessment (Coding Form Preamble).
Another tool used to assess a sex offender’s propensity to recidivate is the Violence Risk Scale, and more appropriately the sex offender version of the scale, better known as the VRS-SO. A recent study examined a sample of 539 sex offenders in Canada and New Zealand, and then applied the VRS-So to determine the validity of the assessment tool. The study found the VRS-SO to be an accurate predictive assessment tool overall. However, the authors noted that sex offender risk is dynamic, and the VRS-SO is one way that authorities can attempt to contain and prevent sexually violent recidivism (Olver, 2014).
Theoretical Support
The support for sex offender public notification laws is the Routine Activities Theory. The Routine Activities Theory falls under the umbrella of environmental criminology, and there are specifically three elements outlined in the theory that must coincide for crime to happen. These three elements are the presence of an accessible target, the absence of any guardian to stop the crime, and the presence of any motivated offender to commit the crime. The presence of an accessible target would include any person, place, or thing, that is vulnerable as well as available. A capable guardian would include any parents, friends, co-workers, law enforcement, or security, that could intervene in the event of any attempted crime. A motivated offender would be anyone who actively wants to commit said crime, he or she believes the accessible target is acceptable, and believes that no capable guardian is present (Routine Activities Theory, 2011).
Sex offender public notification laws attempt to create an environment that alleviates the three factors of crime that are found in the Routine Activities Theory. These laws attempt to alleviate accessible targets by providing education to the public, and creating an environment where the public is alert and does not allow for targets to be any longer accessible. The belief in public notification laws relies on the premise of keeping the public from falling prey to sex offenders, through avoiding the three elements is seen in the Routine Activities Theory. Someone following the Routine Activities Theory believes that accessible targets will no longer be accessible because capable guardians will know who the sex offenders are, and the capable guardians will avoid them. Therefore, accessible targets will allegedly be removed. This would generally be considered inaccurate, due to the fact that the public will not generally avoid living in a certain area because a sex offender lives within a five or ten-mile radius of the area which they wish to live.
Sex offender public notification laws also attempt to eliminate the problem of an absent capable guardian, because education on sex offender’s locations will cause capable guardians to be provided with the necessary information to be capable guardians, and they will increase their ability to be guardians. This issue is also inaccurate, as most if not all guardians will not research the location of sex offenders and use that information to avoid them. Sex offender public notification laws also believe that sex offenders will not be as motivated to perpetrate crimes, as they will allegedly know that capable guardians are present.
Discussion
The overall goal in changing current sex offender restrictions and public notification laws is to reduce the recidivism of sex offenders, which would in turn create a safer environment for the public. As shown in the literature above, there is a large amount of public support for sex offender restrictions and public notification laws. Yet, the support for the majority of sex offender restrictions and public notification laws is not based on any empirical evidence found in research studies; it is based almost entirely on feelings and or emotions (Wagner, 2011). The problem with basing any laws on feelings and emotions, is feelings and emotions are by large inherently irrational, and laws not based on rationality and empirical evidence will not be effective in their purpose.
To make major changes to sex offender restrictions and public notification laws, the public’s perception about the sex offender restrictions and public notification laws will need to be changed first. The public’s perception must first be changed, because politicians will not generally reduce sex offender restrictions and public notification laws and be seen as “taking it easy” on sex offenders. It is common knowledge that the majority of politicians want to win their reelections, so they will keep sex offender restrictions and public notification laws because the public wants the laws. If the public’s perception of sex offender restrictions and public notification laws can be changed, then it would potentially be possible to sway legislators to be supporting of changing the laws. As previously shown above in the literature, there is little to no empirical evidence showing that sex offender restrictions and public notification laws do anything to reduce recidivism among the target population (Prescott, 2008). However, there is some empirical evidence showing that sex offender restrictions and public notification laws increase recidivism among the target population (Prescott, 2008).
There is some correlation showing that public notification laws can possibly slightly decrease the rates of first time sex offenders, however, this is only a correlation that may be impacted by other factors and may not be causal. However, there is little to no empirical evidence showing that public notification laws do anything to reduce recidivism among sex offenders. Sex offender restrictions and public notification among a plethora of other policies have created an environment which inhibits sex offenders from reintegrating into society. When the overwhelming majority of all sex offenders will be released into the public at some point, sex offender restrictions and public notification laws will have negative impacts upon public safety (Bonnar-Kidd, 2010).
The only way to change sex offender restrictions and public notification laws, and subsequently help sex offenders have a better chance of successful reintegration into society, is by creating an environment that does not inhibit sex offenders from successful reintegration into society by placing useless obstacles in their way. The only way to create an environment that does not inhibit sex offenders from successfully reintegrating back into society, is by limiting the ostracizing of sex offenders. The only way to limit the ostracizing of sex offenders and give them a fighting chance of successfully reintegrating into society, is by changing some of the restrictions placed on sex offenders and the public notification laws. For the sex offender restrictions and public notification laws to change, the public and politicians will need to be educated and swayed to support evidence based laws, and not laws that just make them feel safe.
Obstacles
The obstacles that are associated with changing sex offender restrictions and public notification laws include; resistance from the general public; resistance from criminal justice associated professionals; and resistance from politicians and other government officials. The first obstacle that will be discussed is resistance from the general public. As shown above in the paper, there is a large amount of support for sex offender restrictions and public notification laws among the general public (Wagner, 2011). This is due to the fact that the general public believes sex offenders have committed a crime so heinous, that they should be notified when there is a sex offender living in the area. However, as also shown above, research shows that sex offenders are targeted by the general public for their crimes. Research also shows that if reintegration back into society is made harder for sex offenders, then there is a much higher chance for failure, and in turn a higher chance of recidivism among this population. The whole idea of notifying the public when a sex offender is residing in the community is not an inherently terrible idea, however, research does not show public notification does anything to lower recidivism. Contrary to the alleged purpose of sex offender restrictions and public notification laws, they can increase recidivism among the targeted population.
The first obstacle that is discussed above can be overcome by education, and persuading the public through the use of empirical evidence. Educating the public and showing them the best way to help lower sex offender recidivism is through successful reintegration into society, will help the public see they will become safer with the changes. The public must be educated on sex offender laws after the changes; the fact that sexual offenders will still have to register as sex offenders; sex offenders will still be monitored by law enforcement among other key agencies; and sex offenders will still be restricted from being around children if their crime involved children.
The second obstacle needing discussion is resistance coming from criminal justice associated professionals to changing in sex offender restrictions and public notification laws. As shown above in this paper, professionals associated with criminal justice also show support for some useless sex offender restrictions and public notification laws. The resistance to change coming from criminal justice professionals will come from many of the same places and same reasons that are seen in the first obstacle. This is because many, if not the majority of criminal justice professionals have families, children, and professionals, and they also fear for their family’s safety. Even though this obstacle can be somewhat different to overcome, because criminal justice professionals are commonly exposed to even more of the heinous details of some of these sexual offenses than the public is; education will still be a key in gaining support of these criminal justice professionals in changes useless sex offender restrictions and public notification laws.
As criminal justice professionals, the profession should come before being associated as part of the public. Therefore, agencies can help overcome this obstacle by providing criminal justice professionals with the relevant facts and research. Criminal justice professionals also need to be educated on the facts that changing some sex offender restrictions and public notification laws, will give sex offenders the best chances of successfully reintegrating into society, and in turn will be the best way to keep their families and friends safe from sexual offenders. On one hand, it may be easier to convince criminal justice professionals, because many criminal justice professionals already know many of the above facts, and know a great deal about how sex offenders behave. However, on the other hand, it may be much harder to convince criminal justice professionals because they know criminals, and many criminal justice professionals, including myself, have become hyper-vigilant in protecting their families against criminals.
The third obstacle that will be discussed, is resistance coming from politicians and other government officials to changing some sex offender restrictions and public notification laws. This obstacle will likely be the hardest of the obstacles to overcome, because the politicians and other government officials do not only have their own families’ safety to worry about, but they also worry about their reelections and their support from the general public. In this obstacle, if the general public is putting up resistance against changing some sex offender restrictions and public notification laws, then politicians and other government officials will also likely be resisting changes because they want to be reelected.
The only way to overcome this obstacle is by educating the politicians and other government officials on the empirical evidence obtained through research. However, the politicians and other government officials must be educated and swayed to support these changes simultaneously, or even potentially before the general public and criminal justice professionals are educated more on the topic. If the politicians and other government officials are educated and convinced at the same time or even prior to the general public and criminal justice professionals, then the politicians and other government officials will potentially be supporting the changes before the public has a chance to resist the change. If the public and criminal justice professionals start resisting the changes, they will present their resistance to politicians and other government officials. If politicians are other government officials are already supporting of the changes, then they will potentially be able to help sway some of the public’s opinions and curb the resistance.
Facilitating the Changes
The way to change sex offender restrictions and public notification laws is a two-fold strategy. The first strategy is focused on state and federal politicians, and they must be convinced that changing some sex offender restrictions and public notification laws will benefit public safety. When it comes down to it, state and federal politicians are the only people that can change these laws, so state and federal politicians must be convinced that these changes will increase public safety overall. This can be done by presenting state and federal politicians with the relevant research and empirical evidence on sex offender restrictions and public notification laws, which will provide politicians a firm foundation on which to build new laws.
In regard to theories to help initiate this change in state and federal politicians, the path-goal theory may be a valuable one. The path-goal theory heavily relies on the consideration of internal and external rewards. In making decisions, criminal justice professionals and offenders will both evaluate their probability of being successful (Giblin, 2014). The path-goal theory is generally only applied to persons leading subordinates, however, it can also be applied to help sway state and federal politicians. Local, state, and federal politicians must be shown the benefits of changing some sex offender restrictions and public notification laws. Which will essentially be showing politicians that if these changes are made sex offenders will have better chances of being successful in the community. Politicians will be shown that if sex offenders are more successful in a community setting, sex offender recidivism will be reduced. Politicians will also be shown that if sex offender recidivism is reduced, the public will become more safe by experiencing less sex offender recidivism.
Probation and Parole Officers will be essential to the first strategy, as they are the people that are directly dealing with sex offenders on a daily basis. To help convince politicians on all levels that these changes to sex offender laws are necessary, and even potentially to help convince the public that these changes are necessary, the Probation and Parole Officers can be utilized as they will have the most relevant experience. This may translate into Probation and Parole Officer compiling information, providing other researchers with information, answering surveys, or even giving speeches about why these changes in sex offender laws are necessary.
The second strategy is focused on trying to undo some of the harm done by current sex offender public notification laws or some restrictions, or even just learning ways to efficiently help facilitate a sex offender’s reintegration into society once some of these laws are changed. As previously stated, Probation and Parole Officers are tasked with supervising sex offenders and helping to give them the tools necessary for them to successfully reintegrate into society. As also previously stated, a sex offender’s risks must be taken into consideration, however, both the offender’s risks and needs must be dealt with to successfully facilitate their reintegration into society. A Probation and Parole Officer will also benefit from these changes in sex offender’s laws because they will not have as many inhibitions in place keeping them from completing their mission. If the inhibitions to Probation and Parole Officers completing their mission are lowered, then they will be able to better obtain a balance between facilitating an offender’s reintegration into society, and keeping the community safe from further victimization.
Research and Policy Recommendations
Researchers essentially have an endless supply of directions they could take with future research on sex offender restrictions and public notification laws. For instance, I have not found any research looking specifically at the amount of cases showing that someone was attacked for being a sex offender, and was found through the sex offender registry. There are a few articles here and there that hint at that type of scenario occurring, yet there is no study on a large scale showing the amount of that happening in the country. A research study needs to be conducted covering at minimum multiple states, but preferably the entire country, looking for cases where sex offenders are targeted and attacked through public notification on the sex offender registry. This would not only potentially allow for a good picture of the harm that is caused by sex offender public notification laws, but it would also potentially would be a good foundation for repealing public notification laws.
I would also strongly suggest more large scale research be conducted on specific restrictions placed on sex offenders. This research study should be conducted nationwide, and specific restrictions should be the target of the research. For instance, every state that has a statute along the lines of “registered sex offenders cannot live within 1000 feet of any school or park” should be included in the specific part of the study on that type of restriction. The study could then survey the residency for sex offenders in those states, looking for if sex offenders are grouped together. The study could go on to look at every state including the states without such a statute, and see if any differences exist in sex offender recidivism rates. This type of study could be valuable in repealing certain restrictions, or even potentially developing different types of restrictions that should be placed on sex offenders.
Researchers also need to be asking the following questions in future studies they conduct. Is this specific law and or restriction reducing recidivism among sex offenders, or increasing it? Does this specific law and or restriction inhibit sex offenders’ successful reintegration into society? If so, does it reduce recidivism? These types of studies will be very difficult to conduct, as these types of variables will very difficult to use in a study; which is potentially why more studies have not been done on this issue.
Policy Recommendations.
I would specifically recommend the following policy recommendations:
1. Conduct bi-partisan research on existing laws regarding sex offenders, and determine their effects on recidivism and public safety.
The rationale behind this policy recommendation is that it appears many laws regarding sex offenders, whether it be laws placing restrictions on sex offenders or requiring public notification, have not been based on empirical evidence found in research. As shown above in this paper, many of these laws have been primarily if not entirely based on feelings and emotion coming from atypical cases. Therefore, research needs to be conducted to determine the impact individual laws regarding sex offenders are having on public safety and sex offender recidivism.
2. Take steps to repeal any laws placing restrictions on sex offenders or requiring public notification, if the law is proven to cause increased recidivism among sex offenders and subsequent decreased public safety.
The rationale behind this policy recommendation is very similar to the rationale for the first policy recommendation. If a specific law such as the ones requiring public notification are proven to increase sex offender recidivism, and decrease public safety, then that law should not be a law. As shown above in this paper, the purpose of sex offender laws is to increase public safety. Therefore, if a law does not increase public safety, and actually decreases public safety, then it should be repealed.
3. Require empirical evidence through research, or at minimum peer reviewed support from experts in criminal justice showing that a law would increase public safety or decrease recidivism, before passing any law regarding sex offender restrictions or public notification.
The rationale behind this is also very like that in the first two recommendations. If a proposed law regarding new restrictions placed on sex offender or increased public notification does not have any research showing that it would increase public safety and decrease recidivism, then it