Effectiveness of sex offender registration policies in the United States

Last updated

Governor of Indiana Evan Bayh marks the passage of "Zachary's Law", which requires a statewide Sex Offender Registry, with Sandy Snider, mother of Zachary Snider Governor Bayh marks the passage of "Zachary's Law", which requires a statewide Sex Offender Registry, with Sandy Snyder, mother of Zachary Snyder.jpg
Governor of Indiana Evan Bayh marks the passage of "Zachary's Law", which requires a statewide Sex Offender Registry, with Sandy Snider, mother of Zachary Snider

Sex offender registration and notification (SORN) laws in the United States are widely accepted, with supporters believing that disclosing the location of sex offenders residence improves the public's ability to guard themselves and their children from sexual victimization. [1] [2] Despite this wide public acceptance, empirical observations do not uniformly support this belief.

Contents

Critics argue that the statistics do not reveal a statistically significant shift in sexual offense trends following the implementation of sex offender registration and notification (SORN) regimes. [3] [4] [5] [6] A few studies indicate that sexual recidivism may have been lowered by SORN policies, [7] [8] while a few have found statistically significant increase in sex crimes following SORN implementation. [9] [10]

Effectiveness of registration and notification

According to the Office of Justice Programs' SMART Office, sex offender registration and notification requirements arguably have been implemented in the absence of empirical evidence regarding their effectiveness. [9]

According to Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, the states (e.g. Minnesota, Washington) where community notification has indicated some effectiveness employ empirically derived sex offender risk assessment procedures and apply public notification only on high risk offenders. [11] Some policies — especially residency restrictions and community notification — may adversely impact on public safety due to the obstacles they create to successful reintegration of an offender. [12] [13]

It has been suggested that sex offender registration and notification (SORN) policies may be a specific deterrent for sex offenders; that it would facilitate sex offender awareness, monitoring, and apprehension; and that it would in the end help prevent sex offenses—particularly repeat sex offenses—from occurring. While these hypotheses were not empirically tested prior to the implementation of SORN requirements, a significant body of research using various methods has since examined the impact of SORN, particularly in relation to recidivism. [9]

Prescott and Rockoff (2011) found that Sex Offender Registration policies in the United States were effective at reducing crime by providing general deterrence. The study found that non public registration policies were effective in reducing sex crime arrests due to enhanced police monitoring of existing offenders. However public registration was found to cause an increased rate of recidivism among Sex Offenders on the public register. [14] There is considerable debate among academics as to how "Effectiveness" should be defined. Many see the increased rate of recidivism among registered offenders as a failure; others point to the deterrent effect of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws (SORN) as being evidence of success.[ citation needed ]

Interrupted time series analysis studies

One research method employed to assess the effectiveness of SORN for adult sexual offenders is interrupted time series analysis, which essentially examines an outcome of interest using many observations before and after the implementation of a specific intervention. Several interrupted time series analyses assessing SORN have been completed in recent years. [9]

A study done in University of Chicago Law School compared data on over 9,000 sex offenders released from prison in 1994. About half of those offenders were released into states where they needed to register, while the other half did not need to register. The study found little difference in the two groups' propensity to re-offend. In fact, those released into states without registration laws were slightly less likely to re-offend. [15] The study also showed that blocks in Washington DC where sex offenders lived did not have higher rate of sex crimes nor overall crimes. The study concluded that registered sex offenders do not appear to have lower rates of recidivism than those sex offenders who are not required to register, and that knowing where a sex offender lives does not reveal where sex crimes, or other crimes, will take place. [15] [9]

A study conducted in University of Michigan Law School in 2008, distinguishing between the effects of registration (police- only) and community notification (public registries), analyzed Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) data from 15 states over more than 10 years. The study found evidence that police-only registration laws reduce the frequency of reported sex offenses, particularly when the number of registrants is large but making the registry information available to the broader public may "backfire", leading to higher overall rates of sex crime. An average-size registry was estimated to decrease crime by approximately 1.21 sex offenses per 10,000 people, which correspond to 13 percent reduction on average. [6] This drop in crime was found to benefit local victims (acquaintances, neighbors, and victims of known offenders, as well as possibly family members, friends, and significant others). The study found no evidence that registration had any effect to the level of crime against strangers. The same study found that notification laws may affect sex offense frequency, although not in a way as lawmakers intended. Notification laws were found to reduce the number of sex offenses when the size of the registry is small but these benefits disappear when more offenders are made subject to notification requirements. Making the registration information public was found to increase the number of sex offenses by more than 1.57 percent. The authors concluded that providing information on convicted sex offenders to local authorities may be beneficial as this increases monitoring and likelihood of punishment for recidivism, which translates to lower rate of recidivism as predicted in simple model of criminal behavior. By making the same information public offenders become more likely to commit crimes because the associated psychological, social, or financial costs make crime-free life relatively less attractive. [6]

A similar analysis focused on the impact of SORN on rape in 10 states. Using Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data on rapes reported to the police as the outcome measure, the study found that statistically significant reductions in reported rape occurred following the implementation of SORN in 3 of the 10 states (Hawaii, Idaho, and Ohio). In six states (Arkansas, Connecticut, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, and West Virginia), no significant change was observed following SORN implementation, and one state (California) actually had a statistically significant increase in sex crimes following SORN implementation. Based on the varied findings, the authors concluded there was no systematic influence of SORN on the rate of reported rape. [16] [9]

Several studies have examined the impact of SORN in individual states. For example, in South Carolina, adult sex crimes were compared to nonsexual assault and robbery crimes pre- and post-SORN implementation (N=194,575, of which 19,060 were sex crime arrests). Data were examined for 1990 through 2005. SORN implementation occurred in 1995. The study found that the sex crime rate declined by 11 percent from pre- to post-SORN while the rates of assault and robbery did not, suggesting the possibility that SORN was a deterrent to sex crimes. [17] [9]

A number of state studies did not find evidence that SORN implementation positively impacted the rate of sexual offending or recidivism. One of these studies was also focused on South Carolina. In the South Carolina study that did not find evidence of a positive SORN effect, recidivism was examined in the context of registration status for 6,064 male offenders convicted of at least one sex crime in that state between 1990 and 2004. The study found that registration status did not predict recidivism. [18] [9]

Another state study taking place in New York analyzed sex crime, assault, robbery, burglary, and larceny arrests from 1986 through 2006. Study results indicated that the implementation of the state's sex offender registry did not decrease the rearrest rate for convicted sex offenders, deter non-registered offenders from offending, or decrease the overall rate of sex crimes. It was also noted that 94.1 percent of child molestation arrests were for first-time sex offenders. [19] [9]

An analysis that focused on South Carolina juveniles who committed sexual offenses between 1990 and 2004 (N = 1275) found that 7.5 percent were charged with a new sex offense and 2.5 percent were adjudicated for a new sex offense during a 9-year follow-up period. More importantly, the researchers found that registration was not associated with sexual recidivism; however, nonsexual, nonassault recidivism (defined as a new charge) significantly decreased for those on the registry. [20] [9]

A meta-study by professor Kristen M. Zgoba from Florida International University and Meghan A. Mitchell from the University of Central Florida found 18 studies that had been done on the effectiveness of sex offender registration and notification laws by September 2021. Of these 18 studies, 7 studies concluded that registration and notification laws decreased recidivism, 5 studies concluded that registration and notification laws increased recidivism, and 6 studies concluded that registration and notification laws did not either increase or decrease recidivism. [21]

Studies employing a comparison group

Several state-level studies have not found evidence of a positive SORN effect. For example, in an Iowa study, a group of sex offenders subject to registry requirement (n = 233) who were also under legal supervision were compared to a matched group of preregistry sex offenders not under supervision (n = 201). In a 4.3-year followup, the registry group sexually recidivated (defined as a new sex crime conviction) at a rate of 3 percent, compared to the nonregistry group's 3.5-percent recidivism rate. This difference was not statistically significant. However, when the recidivism rates of parolees and probationers were compared, the researchers found that registration requirements may have had more of an impact on parolees. [22] [9]

In New Jersey, researchers compared the recidivism rates of offenders subject to SORN with those of offenders who were not subject to this strategy (n = 550). Based on a 6.5-year follow-up period, offenders subject to SORN recidivated at a rate of 7 percent, compared to 11 percent for offenders who were not subject to SORN; however, these differences were not found to be statistically significant. [23] [9]

In Wisconsin, the recidivism rates of sex offenders subject to registration and extensive notification between 1997 and 1999 (n = 47) were compared with those of sex offenders who had limited notification requirements (n = 166). No statistically significant differences in sex crime rearrest rates over a 4-year follow-up period were found, as 19 percent of the extensive notification group sexually recidivated, compared to 12 percent for the limited notification group. [24] [9]

Similar findings were reported in a Washington state study. Again, the recidivism rates of sex offenders subject to SORN (n = 139) were compared with those of sex offenders not subject to SORN. Based on a 54-month followup, sex offenders subject to SORN were found to have a sex crime rearrest rate of 19 percent while the rate for the non-SORN group was 22 percent, a difference that is not statistically significant. [25] [9]

In a study of New York sex offenders pre- and post-community notification (N = 10,592), researchers found no significant differences in sexual (7 percent) or general (46.6 percent) rearrest rates based on an 8.2-year follow-up period. [26] [9]

One study finding a positive effect examined the recidivism of 8,359 sexual offenders in Washington state. Some of those offenders were subject to SORN, while others were not because SORN requirements were not yet in place. The study found that the sex offenders subject to SORN sexually recidivated (defined as a new Washington state conviction for a felony sex crime) at a 2-percent rate, while the pre-SORN group recidivated at a 7-percent rate. [27] [9]

In Minnesota, a law requiring community notification on high-risk offenders was implemented in 1997. To examine the relationship between community notification and recidivism, the Minnesota Department of Corrections conducted a study comparing differences between three groups. A notification group consisted of 155 Level 3 ("high public risk") sex offenders. This group was subject to broad community notification after release from Minnesota prisons between 1997 and 2002. Two control groups were compared with this notification group. The first control group -prenotification- was built using a statistical matching technique and consisted of 125 offenders released between 1990-1997 who likely would have been assigned to Level 3, and would have been subject to community notification had the law been at place at the time of their release. A second control group -non-notification- consisted of offenders assigned to Level 1 and Level 2 who were released between 1997-2002 and not subject to broad community notification. The sexual re-conviction rates within a 3-year period for the notification, pre-notification and non-notification groups was found to be 3.2%, 32.8% and 9.6%, respectively. [7] The authors concluded that these results suggest a community notification system based on tiered risk-management has an effect of reducing recidivism, although they noted that part of the effect might arise from heightened penalties and post-release supervision, improved treatment, or unmeasured historical factors unique to the 1990-1996 period. They further concluded that applying community notification to low-risk offenders would hinder their ability for successful community re-entry, and probably would not produce appreciable reduction in sexual recidivism given the low base rate (5-7% within 3 years) of recidivism in that sample. [7] [9]

Effectiveness of registration requirements for juvenile offenders

A majority of states have some kind of registration for juveniles adjudicated delinquent of sex offenses.[ citation needed ] The vast majority of those states require registration and public notification for juveniles transferred for trial and convicted as an adult.[ citation needed ] In a review of UCR sex crime arrest data from 47 states for 1994 through 2009, a statistically significant decrease in the rate of sex crime arrest in either juvenile registration states or juvenile notification states after implementation of SORN policies was not found. [28] [9]

Effectiveness of residency restrictions

Some SORN laws regulate where sex offenders are permitted to live. According to Office of Justice Programs' SMART Office, there is no empirical support for the effectiveness of residence restrictions. In fact, a number of negative unintended consequences have been empirically identified, including loss of housing, loss of support systems, and financial hardship that may aggravate rather than mitigate offender risk. In addition, residence restrictions lead to the displacement and clustering of sex offenders into other areas, particularly rural areas. [9]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Megan's Law</span> United States federal law

Megan's Law is the name for a federal law in the United States requiring law enforcement authorities to make information available to the public regarding registered sex offenders. Laws were created in response to the murder of Megan Kanka. Federal Megan's Law was enacted as a subsection of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act of 1994, which merely required sex offenders to register with local law enforcement. Since only a few states required registration prior to Megan's death, the state-level legislation to bring states in compliance—with both the registration requirement of Jacob Wetterling Act and community notification required by federal Megan's Law—were crafted simultaneously and are often referred to as "Megan's Laws" of individual states. Thus, the federal Megan's Law refers to community notification, whereas state-level "Megan's Law" may refer to both sex offender registration and community notification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Juvenile delinquency</span> Illegal behavior by minors

Juvenile delinquency, also known as juvenile offending, is the act of participating in unlawful behavior as a minor or individual younger than the statutory age of majority. These acts would otherwise be considered crimes if the individuals committing them were older. The term delinquent usually refers to juvenile delinquency, and is also generalised to refer to a young person who behaves an unacceptable way.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Recidivism</span> Person repeating an undesirable behavior following punishment

Recidivism is the act of a person repeating an undesirable behavior after they have experienced negative consequences of that behavior, or have been trained to extinguish it. Recidivism is also used to refer to the percentage of former prisoners who are rearrested for a similar offense.

Some jurisdictions may commit certain types of dangerous sex offenders to state-run detention facilities following the completion of their sentence if that person has a "mental abnormality" or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in sexual offenses if not confined in a secure facility. In the United States, twenty states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia have a version of these commitment laws, which are referred to as "Sexually Violent Predator" (SVP) or "Sexually Dangerous Persons" laws.

A sex offender is a person who has committed a sex crime. What constitutes a sex crime differs by culture and legal jurisdiction. The majority of convicted sex offenders have convictions for crimes of a sexual nature; however, some sex offenders have simply violated a law contained in a sexual category. Some of the serious crimes which result in a mandatory sex-offender classification are sexual assault, statutory rape, bestiality, child sexual abuse, incest, and rape.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States National Sex Offenders Public Registry</span> Sex offender registry search tool coordinated by the United States Department of Justice

The Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Registry is a cooperative effort between U.S. state agencies that host public sex offender registries and the U.S. federal government. The registry is coordinated by the United States Department of Justice and operates a web site search tool allowing a user to submit a single query to obtain information about sex offenders throughout the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act</span> US law regarding sexual abuse

The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, colloquially known as the Wetterling Act, is a United States law that requires states to implement a registry of sex offenders and crimes against children. It is named for Jacob Wetterling, a Minnesota eleven-year-old who was abducted by a stranger in 1989, and was missing for almost 27 years until his death was confirmed when his remains were found on September 1, 2016.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act</span> U.S. federal statute

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act is a federal statute that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on July 27, 2006. The Walsh Act organizes sex offenders into three tiers according to the crime committed, and mandates that Tier 3 offenders update their whereabouts every three months with lifetime registration requirements. Tier 2 offenders must update their whereabouts every six months with 25 years of registration, and Tier 1 offenders must update their whereabouts every year with 15 years of registration. Failure to register and update information is a felony under the law. States are required to publicly disclose information of Tier 2 and Tier 3 offenders, at minimum. It also contains civil commitment provisions for sexually dangerous people.

Florida Public Safety Information Act was passed in 1997 in Florida to list sexual predators and sexual offenders on the internet and to make the same information available through a 24-hour/day hotline.

John school is a form of educational intervention that caters to the clients of prostitutes, who are colloquially known as "johns" in North America. Societal norms deemed the behavior of clients and their engagement in sex work as atypical, so john schools worked to address this. John schools originated in San Francisco due to community frustrations about the great occurrence of street prostitution in their areas and the lack of effective policies to combat the sex industry. Schools similar to the San Francisco one were established throughout the country and in multiple nations. John schools are usually a diversion program for people - almost exclusively men - arrested for soliciting the services of a prostitute, or another related offense. This often acts as an alternative to criminal prosecutions. However, in some jurisdictions, courts may sentence men to attend a john school program as a condition of probation. John schools often last a few months and usually have weekly sessions. Their focus is often on the experiences and harms of prostitution, such as the violence associated with prostitution, the sexually transmitted disease risks of prostitution, and the effects of prostitution on families and communities. Whether the john school is a diversion program or a sentencing condition, the client will often pay a fee to enroll. The fee frequently covers the cost of the program and sometimes contributes to programs to aid prostitutes, or community projects within red light districts. Generally speaking, there is no definitive answer as to if john schools have been able to reduce the number of people who hire prostitutes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Incapacitation (penology)</span> One of the functions of punishment

Incapacitation in the context of criminal sentencing philosophy is one of the functions of punishment. It involves capital punishment, sending an offender to prison, or possibly restricting their freedom in the community, to protect society and prevent that person from committing further crimes. Incarceration, as the primary mechanism for incapacitation, is also used as to try to deter future offending.

A sex offender registry is a system in various countries designed to allow government authorities to keep track of the activities of sex offenders, including those who have completed their criminal sentences.

Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA) are groups of volunteers with professional supervision to support sex offenders as they reintegrate into society after their release from incarceration. Evaluations of CoSA indicate that participation in a CoSA can result in statistically significant reductions in repeat sexual offenses in 70% of cases, relative to what would be predicted by risk assessment or matched comparison subjects. CoSA projects exist throughout Canada, the United Kingdom, and some regions of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robin Wilson (psychologist)</span>

Robin J. Wilson is a Canadian psychologist, specializing in work on sex offenders.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gender responsive approach for girls in the juvenile justice system</span>

Gender responsive approach for girls in the juvenile justice system represents an emerging trend in communities and courts throughout the United States, Australia and Latin America, as an increasing number of girls are entering the juvenile justice system. A gender responsive approach within the juvenile justice system emphasizes considering the unique circumstances and needs of females when designing juvenile justice system structures, policies, and procedures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sex offender registries in the United States</span> US government public databases where sex offenders must register themselves

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

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States</span> Constitutional issue United States ;aw

The constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States has been challenged on a number of state and federal constitutional grounds. While the Supreme Court of the United States has twice upheld sex offender registration laws, in 2015 it vacated a requirement that an offender submit to lifetime ankle-bracelet monitoring, finding it was a Fourth Amendment search that was later ruled constitutionally unreasonable by the state court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States</span>

The movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States describes the efforts of individuals and organizations to change state laws requiring Sex offender registries in the United States.

Women in American prisons encounter numerous difficulties that often involve mental health problems, drug and alcohol issues, and trauma. These challenges not only make navigating the criminal justice system more difficult for women but also highlights broader societal issues such as, gender-based violence, economic inequalities, and lack of mental health support. People in prison are more likely than the general United States population to have received a mental disorder diagnosis, and women in prison have higher rates of mental illness and mental health treatment than do men in prison. Furthermore, women in prisons are three times more likely than the general population to report poor physical and mental health. Women are the fastest growing demographic of the United States prison population. As of 2019, there are about 222,500 women incarcerated in state and federal prisons in the United States. Women comprise roughly 8% of all inmates in the United States. This surge is largely attributed to the rising use of imprisonment for drug-related offenses rather than violent crimes. A considerable portion of incarcerated women are serving time for drug-related offenses, with the proportion increasing significantly between 1986 and 1991. Even among those in maximum security facilities, a majority are not imprisoned for violent felonies. The data also reveal that in states like New York, a substantial proportion of incarcerated women are serving time for drug-related offenses, with a smaller percentage incarcerated for violent crimes or property offenses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Juvenile sex offenders in the United States</span>

A juvenile sex crime is defined as a legally proscribed sexual crime committed without consent by a minor under the age of 18. The act involves coercion, manipulation, a power imbalance between the perpetrator and victim, and threats of violence. The sexual offenses that fall under juvenile sex crimes range from non-contact to penetration. The severity of the sexual assault in the crime committed is often the amount of trauma and/or injuries the victim has suffered. Typically within these crimes, female children are the majority demographic of those targeted and the majority of offenders are male. Juvenile sex offenders are different than adult sex offenders in a few ways, as captured by National Incident Based Reporting System: they are more likely to be committed in school, offend in groups and against acquaintances, target young children as victims, and to have a male victim, whereas they are less likely than their adult counterpart to commit rape.

References

  1. ↑ Anderson, A. L.; Sample, L. L. (4 April 2008). "Public Awareness and Action Resulting From Sex Offender Community Notification Laws". Criminal Justice Policy Review. 19 (4): 371–396. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.544.7814 . doi:10.1177/0887403408316705.
  2. ↑ Levenson, Jill S.; Brannon, Yolanda N.; Fortney, Timothy; Baker, Juanita (12 April 2007). "Public Perceptions About Sex Offenders and Community Protection Policies". Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. 7 (1): 070619081026002––. doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2007.00119.x.[ permanent dead link ]
  3. ↑ Levenson, Jill; Tewksbury, Richard (15 January 2009). "Collateral Damage: Family Members of Registered Sex Offenders" (PDF). American Journal of Criminal Justice. 34 (1–2): 54–68. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.615.3651 . doi:10.1007/s12103-008-9055-x.
  4. ↑ 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.
  5. ↑ 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.
  6. 1 2 3 Prescott, J.J.; Rockoff, Jonah E. (February 2011). "Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?". Journal of Law and Economics. 54 (1): 161–206. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.363.1170 . doi:10.1086/658485.
  7. 1 2 3 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.
  8. ↑ "Sex offender sentencing in Washington State: Has community notification reduced recidivism?". Washington State Institute for Public Policy. December 2005.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Office of Justice Programs (2012). "Chapter 8: Sex Offender Management Strategies". Office of Justice Programs - Sex Offender Management and Planning Initiative (SOMAPI).
  10. ↑ "Studies question effectiveness of sex offender laws". Science Daily. 30 August 2011.
  11. ↑ "The Registration and Community Notification of Adult Sexual Offenders". The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. Archived from the original on 2016-06-17. Retrieved 2016-01-09.
  12. ↑ 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.
  13. ↑ Velázquez, Trace. "The Pursuit of Safety: Sex Offender Policies in the United States" (PDF). VERA Institute of Justice.
  14. ↑ Prescott, J.J.; Rockoff, Jonah E. (2011). "Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?". The Journal of Law & Economics. 54 (1): 161–206. doi:10.1086/658485. ISSN   0022-2186. JSTOR   10.1086/658485.
  15. 1 2 Agan, Amanda Y. (February 2011). "Sex Offender Registries: Fear without Function?" (PDF). Journal of Law and Economics. 54 (1): 207–239. doi:10.1086/658483. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-01-25. Retrieved 2016-01-09.
  16. ↑ Walker, J.T; Maddan, S.; Vasquez, B.E.; VanHouten, A.C; Ervin-McLarty, G. (2006). The Influence of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws in the United States. Little Rock, AR: Arkansas Crime Information Center.
  17. ↑ Letourneau, E. J.; Levenson, J. S.; Bandyopadhyay, D.; Armstrong, K. S.; Sinha, D. (2 April 2010). "Effects of South Carolina's Sex Offender Registration and Notification Policy on Deterrence of Adult Sex Crimes". Criminal Justice and Behavior. 37 (5): 537–552. doi:10.1177/0093854810363569. S2CID   144913847.
  18. ↑ Letourneau, E. J.; Levenson, J. S.; Bandyopadhyay, D.; Sinha, D.; Armstrong, K. S. (16 December 2009). "Effects of South Carolina's Sex Offender Registration and Notification Policy on Adult Recidivism". Criminal Justice Policy Review. 21 (4): 435–458. doi:10.1177/0887403409353148.
  19. ↑ Sandler, Jeffrey C.; Freeman, Naomi J.; Socia, Kelly M. (2008). "Does a watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New York State's sex offender registration and notification law" (PDF). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 14 (4): 284–302. doi:10.1037/a0013881. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-04-02. Retrieved 2016-01-09.
  20. ↑ Letourneau, E. J.; Bandyopadhyay, D.; Sinha, D.; Armstrong, K. S. (5 December 2008). "The Influence of Sex Offender Registration on Juvenile Sexual Recidivism". Criminal Justice Policy Review. 20 (2): 136–153. doi:10.1177/0887403408327917.
  21. ↑ "The effectiveness of Sex Offender Registration and Notification a meta analysis of 25 years of - Studocu".
  22. ↑ Adkins, G.; Huff, D.; Stageberg, P. (2000). The Iowa Sex Offender Registry and Recidivism (PDF). Des Moines, Iowa: Iowa Department of Human Rights.
  23. ↑ Zgoba, K.; Bachar, K. (2009). Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Limited Effects in New Jersey (PDF). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
  24. ↑ 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.
  25. ↑ Schram, D.; Milloy, C.D. (1995). Community Notification: A Study of Offender Characteristics and Recidivism. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
  26. ↑ Freeman, N. J. (18 May 2009). "The Public Safety Impact of Community Notification Laws: Rearrest of Convicted Sex Offenders". Crime & Delinquency. 58 (4): 539–564. doi:10.1177/0011128708330852.
  27. ↑ Sex Offender Sentencing in Washington State: Has Community Notification Reduced Recidivism?. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. 2005.
  28. ↑ Holmes, Stephanie (1 May 2009). "An Empirical Analysis of Registration and Notification Laws for Juvenile Sex Offenders". Northwestern University - Department of Management & Strategy. SSRN   1710745.{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.