And does the preponderance of the evidence show that such registries achieve their purpose?
In 2007, Human Rights Watch published an extensive examination of the effects of sex offender registry laws: https://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/us0907/index.htm There have been many developments in the 9 years since (new laws, new studies), but nothing that calls into question HRW's overall findings and conclusions that the post-release sex offender laws in the US, which are draconian compared to the rest of the world, generally do more harm than good. Indeed, the more recent evidence seems to only make their case stronger.
Despite the commonplace belief that sex offenders are incorrigible, the fact is that most convicted sex offenders do not perpetrate sex offenses again after release from prison. Indeed, studies show that sex offenders have a lower rate of recidivism, including for non-sexual crimes, than the general population of released felons. For instance, a 2004 meta-analysis by Harris and Hanson involving 10 studies found that new convictions or charges at 5-, 10- and 15-year follow-up of released sex offenders were 14%, 20% and 24% respectively. (Other important findings: The small percentage of released offenders who had prior convictions for sex offenses had a rate of sex offense recidivism at 15-years nearly double the rate of those without such prior conviction: 37% vs. 19%. Of the 86% of post-release sex offenders who had not re-offended at 5 years, only 7% were charged with or convicted of a new sex offense during the next 5 years.) http://www.smart.gov/pdfs/RecidivismofAdultSexualOffenders.pdf In contrast, a study of 404,638 prisoners (all offenses) who were released from state prisons in 2005 found that 67.8% were rearrested within 3 years, and 76.6% were rearrested within 5 years. http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/Pages/welcome.aspx#noteReferrer1
The vast majority of cases of sex offense convictions are not perpetrated by those with prior convictions, and are perpetrated by relatives or acquaintances of the victim. Sex offender registries (including community notification and residency restrictions) provide no protection from offenders in these cases, and seem to encourage the belief that it is strangers who pose the greatest threat of committing a sex crime.
Sex offense registries are enormously expensive, consuming resources that could be better put to use on treatment programs, which have shown to be effective in reducing recidivism. States found the implementation of the provisions of the federal Adam Walsh Act, which expanded the numbers of offenders subjected to registration requirements by as much as 500% in some states (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/07/28/sex.offender.adam.walsh.act/ ), including children as young as 14 years old, oftentimes cost ten times the amount of the federal dollars withheld for not implementing: http://www.csom.org/pubs/Pursuit of Safety - SO Policy in US.PDF In contrast, a study of Washington state's cognitive-behavioral therapy program for incarcerated adult sex offenders found a net value of $15,361 per offender, due to reduced recidivism of those in the program: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/...lications-in-Washington-State_Full-Report.pdf
As the HRW report documents, in a variety of ways the components of sex offender registries--especially mandatory community notifications, online databases with addresses and photos, and employment and residency restrictions--make it much more difficult for released sex offenders to reintegrate into society as productive citizens. Residency restrictions, for example, often separate released offenders from their families, jobs and support systems, and otherwise make little sense:
In 2007, Human Rights Watch published an extensive examination of the effects of sex offender registry laws: https://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/us0907/index.htm There have been many developments in the 9 years since (new laws, new studies), but nothing that calls into question HRW's overall findings and conclusions that the post-release sex offender laws in the US, which are draconian compared to the rest of the world, generally do more harm than good. Indeed, the more recent evidence seems to only make their case stronger.
Despite the commonplace belief that sex offenders are incorrigible, the fact is that most convicted sex offenders do not perpetrate sex offenses again after release from prison. Indeed, studies show that sex offenders have a lower rate of recidivism, including for non-sexual crimes, than the general population of released felons. For instance, a 2004 meta-analysis by Harris and Hanson involving 10 studies found that new convictions or charges at 5-, 10- and 15-year follow-up of released sex offenders were 14%, 20% and 24% respectively. (Other important findings: The small percentage of released offenders who had prior convictions for sex offenses had a rate of sex offense recidivism at 15-years nearly double the rate of those without such prior conviction: 37% vs. 19%. Of the 86% of post-release sex offenders who had not re-offended at 5 years, only 7% were charged with or convicted of a new sex offense during the next 5 years.) http://www.smart.gov/pdfs/RecidivismofAdultSexualOffenders.pdf In contrast, a study of 404,638 prisoners (all offenses) who were released from state prisons in 2005 found that 67.8% were rearrested within 3 years, and 76.6% were rearrested within 5 years. http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/Pages/welcome.aspx#noteReferrer1
The vast majority of cases of sex offense convictions are not perpetrated by those with prior convictions, and are perpetrated by relatives or acquaintances of the victim. Sex offender registries (including community notification and residency restrictions) provide no protection from offenders in these cases, and seem to encourage the belief that it is strangers who pose the greatest threat of committing a sex crime.
Sex offense registries are enormously expensive, consuming resources that could be better put to use on treatment programs, which have shown to be effective in reducing recidivism. States found the implementation of the provisions of the federal Adam Walsh Act, which expanded the numbers of offenders subjected to registration requirements by as much as 500% in some states (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/07/28/sex.offender.adam.walsh.act/ ), including children as young as 14 years old, oftentimes cost ten times the amount of the federal dollars withheld for not implementing: http://www.csom.org/pubs/Pursuit of Safety - SO Policy in US.PDF In contrast, a study of Washington state's cognitive-behavioral therapy program for incarcerated adult sex offenders found a net value of $15,361 per offender, due to reduced recidivism of those in the program: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/...lications-in-Washington-State_Full-Report.pdf
As the HRW report documents, in a variety of ways the components of sex offender registries--especially mandatory community notifications, online databases with addresses and photos, and employment and residency restrictions--make it much more difficult for released sex offenders to reintegrate into society as productive citizens. Residency restrictions, for example, often separate released offenders from their families, jobs and support systems, and otherwise make little sense:
Although all the residency restrictions are keyed to distances from areas in which children congregate, only four states that Human Rights Watch knows of limit their residency restriction laws to persons convicted of sex offenses involving child victims.[347] In the other states and municipalities, residency restriction laws apply to all registered offenders, regardless of whether their crimes involved children.
The number of residency restrictions in the US continues to grow, in part because of the horrific abduction, rape, and murder of nine-year-old Jessica Lunsford in 2005. The man convicted of Jessica’s murder is John Couey, a convicted child molester who lived within sight of Jessica’s home.[348] Jessica’s father has advocated for “Jessica’s Law,” which, among other things, calls for residency restrictions for sex offenders. In 2006 alone, at least 10 states and a number of municipalities adopted or enhanced laws restricting where sex offenders could live.
The inability of convicted sex offenders to find housing when they are released from prison has become a significant barrier to their successful reintegration into society. This is particularly problematic for registrants who have limited resources, or for those who because of work, community, or family obligations want to live in particular locations. Residency restrictions prevent offenders from living in the areas closest to jobs and public transit, since schools, daycare centers, and parks are often built in the center of main residential areas of cities and towns.
Registrants and their family members have found that in some cities there is literally nowhere they are allowed to live.[349] For example, a study in Orange County, Florida, which has a 1,000-foot restricted buffer zone around attractions, bus stops, daycares, parks, and schools, found that only 5 percent of the city’s residential areas were outside the residential restriction zone.[350] Max C., who is on the Georgia sex offender registry, told Human Rights Watch that because of that state’s residency restrictions, “I can honestly say that I have nowhere to live in the community I have lived in for 30 years.”[351] An Iowa sex offender was found living with his family of three in a car on an abandoned farm property because residences in the small farm towns were either off-limits or too expensive.[352] In Florida, a 2004 survey of sex offenders found that half of the respondents reported that residency restrictions had forced them to move from a residence in which they were living, and 25 percent were unable to return to their residence after their conviction.[353] Nearly half reported that residency restrictions prevented them from living with supportive family members.[354] Recently, newspapers have reported that in Miami, five sex offenders are living under a bridge--with the state’s approval--because the residency restrictions in their county made it impossible for them to find housing.[355]
A mother of a Florida registrant told Human Rights Watch about her son’s search for housing after he was released from prison:
My husband and I wanted him to come live with us for awhile, while he got adjusted to life on the outside and got on his feet. He was not allowed to do so because we live within 1,000 ft. of a school bus stop. So he had to go to a different county, where he had no support system. He was placed in a dirty disgusting motel because it was the only place he could find to live. It was next door to a XXX nudie place. He had to be in his motel room from 6pm until 7am daily. He could not attend church services and church support groups due to this time constraint. He was very lonely and depressed. The motel was very expensive and between that and paying for probation and counseling, he was finding himself further and further in the hole financially. He eventually started drinking again and violated parole by staying out too late.[356]
Residency laws even preclude registered offenders from living in homeless shelters within the restricted area. A Texas registrant told Human Rights Watch,
I was homeless--I went to two homeless shelters--told them the truth--I was a registered sex offender--I could not stay. No one helps sex offenders I was told. The 3rd shelter I went to--I did not tell them. I was allowed to stay, November 2002 I was to register again--my birthday. If I told them I lived at a shelter--I would be thrown out--if I stayed on the streets I would not have a [sic] address to give--violation. So I registered under my old address--the empty house, which was too close to a school. Someone called the police--told them I did not live at that address anymore--! I was locked up, March 2003. I was given a 10-year sentence for failure to register as a sex offender.[357]
Some public officials want to limit sex offenders’ access to emergency shelters. A Tampa sheriff is sending “letters to registered sex offenders and predators, urging them to plan now for a safe place to stay in the event of a hurricane.” When a colleague asked whether the county should plan to offer alternative emergency accommodations, the sheriff told the local paper, “I think my answer was no, they can take care of themselves … As far as spending resources to have some school or jail special for them, I think there are other people more needy of our resources.” If a sex offender is found in a hurricane shelter, the sheriff vows that the offender “could be arrested as a violation of the conditions of his release.”[358] The state now directs registrants to report directly to prison in case of a hurricane. Six registrants stayed in prisons during July 2005 hurricanes.[359]
Residency restrictions are justified as a means of “taking away a portion of the opportunity for sex offenders to reoffend.”[360] While residency restriction laws are popular, there is little evidence that they make sense or that they make children safer from sexual violence. Indeed, the experience of several states suggests the laws are counterproductive as well as unnecessary and profoundly unjust.
[. . . ]
The number of residency restrictions in the US continues to grow, in part because of the horrific abduction, rape, and murder of nine-year-old Jessica Lunsford in 2005. The man convicted of Jessica’s murder is John Couey, a convicted child molester who lived within sight of Jessica’s home.[348] Jessica’s father has advocated for “Jessica’s Law,” which, among other things, calls for residency restrictions for sex offenders. In 2006 alone, at least 10 states and a number of municipalities adopted or enhanced laws restricting where sex offenders could live.
The inability of convicted sex offenders to find housing when they are released from prison has become a significant barrier to their successful reintegration into society. This is particularly problematic for registrants who have limited resources, or for those who because of work, community, or family obligations want to live in particular locations. Residency restrictions prevent offenders from living in the areas closest to jobs and public transit, since schools, daycare centers, and parks are often built in the center of main residential areas of cities and towns.
Registrants and their family members have found that in some cities there is literally nowhere they are allowed to live.[349] For example, a study in Orange County, Florida, which has a 1,000-foot restricted buffer zone around attractions, bus stops, daycares, parks, and schools, found that only 5 percent of the city’s residential areas were outside the residential restriction zone.[350] Max C., who is on the Georgia sex offender registry, told Human Rights Watch that because of that state’s residency restrictions, “I can honestly say that I have nowhere to live in the community I have lived in for 30 years.”[351] An Iowa sex offender was found living with his family of three in a car on an abandoned farm property because residences in the small farm towns were either off-limits or too expensive.[352] In Florida, a 2004 survey of sex offenders found that half of the respondents reported that residency restrictions had forced them to move from a residence in which they were living, and 25 percent were unable to return to their residence after their conviction.[353] Nearly half reported that residency restrictions prevented them from living with supportive family members.[354] Recently, newspapers have reported that in Miami, five sex offenders are living under a bridge--with the state’s approval--because the residency restrictions in their county made it impossible for them to find housing.[355]
A mother of a Florida registrant told Human Rights Watch about her son’s search for housing after he was released from prison:
My husband and I wanted him to come live with us for awhile, while he got adjusted to life on the outside and got on his feet. He was not allowed to do so because we live within 1,000 ft. of a school bus stop. So he had to go to a different county, where he had no support system. He was placed in a dirty disgusting motel because it was the only place he could find to live. It was next door to a XXX nudie place. He had to be in his motel room from 6pm until 7am daily. He could not attend church services and church support groups due to this time constraint. He was very lonely and depressed. The motel was very expensive and between that and paying for probation and counseling, he was finding himself further and further in the hole financially. He eventually started drinking again and violated parole by staying out too late.[356]
Residency laws even preclude registered offenders from living in homeless shelters within the restricted area. A Texas registrant told Human Rights Watch,
I was homeless--I went to two homeless shelters--told them the truth--I was a registered sex offender--I could not stay. No one helps sex offenders I was told. The 3rd shelter I went to--I did not tell them. I was allowed to stay, November 2002 I was to register again--my birthday. If I told them I lived at a shelter--I would be thrown out--if I stayed on the streets I would not have a [sic] address to give--violation. So I registered under my old address--the empty house, which was too close to a school. Someone called the police--told them I did not live at that address anymore--! I was locked up, March 2003. I was given a 10-year sentence for failure to register as a sex offender.[357]
Some public officials want to limit sex offenders’ access to emergency shelters. A Tampa sheriff is sending “letters to registered sex offenders and predators, urging them to plan now for a safe place to stay in the event of a hurricane.” When a colleague asked whether the county should plan to offer alternative emergency accommodations, the sheriff told the local paper, “I think my answer was no, they can take care of themselves … As far as spending resources to have some school or jail special for them, I think there are other people more needy of our resources.” If a sex offender is found in a hurricane shelter, the sheriff vows that the offender “could be arrested as a violation of the conditions of his release.”[358] The state now directs registrants to report directly to prison in case of a hurricane. Six registrants stayed in prisons during July 2005 hurricanes.[359]
Residency restrictions are justified as a means of “taking away a portion of the opportunity for sex offenders to reoffend.”[360] While residency restriction laws are popular, there is little evidence that they make sense or that they make children safer from sexual violence. Indeed, the experience of several states suggests the laws are counterproductive as well as unnecessary and profoundly unjust.
[. . . ]
