Advertisement

Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)

  • Kristen ZgobaEmail author
  • Deborah Ragbir
Chapter

Abstract

Sex offender laws gained recognition in the United States with the creation of the 1994 Jacob Wetterling Act. The act called for each state to create a registry of convicted sex offenders. This act was later amended under Megan’s Law to include community notification of sex offenders that move into a neighborhood. In 2006, this was replaced by the Adam Walsh Act. Title I of the Adam Walsh Act, also known as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, created a tier system for all 50 states in an effort to standardize the registration and notification requirements among the states. A number of years later, sex offender laws spread to the United Kingdom with the implementation of Sarah’s Law. To further efforts in the global fight against sexual violence, the US most recently established what is being called an International Megan’s Law. Several studies have shown that registration and notification laws are ineffective in reducing rates of recidivism among sex offenders. Instead, it is purported that these laws may actually result in released offenders returning to crime due to the numerous obstacles they face as they try to reintegrate into society.

Keywords

Sex offenders Sexual recidivism SORNA Megan’s law Adam Walsh Act Jacob Wetterling Act International Megan’s Law Risk assessment 

References

  1. Ackerman, A. R., Levenson, J. S., & Harris, A. J. (2012). How many sex offenders really live among us? Adjusted counts and population rates in five U.S. states. Journal of Crime & Justice. doi: 10.1080/0735648X.2012.666407.
  2. Adam Walsh Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. (2006).Google Scholar
  3. Adkins, G., Huff, D., & Stageber, P. (2000). The Iowa sex offender registry and recidivism. Des Moines: Lowa Department of Human Rights.Google Scholar
  4. Agan, A. Y. (2011). Sex Offender Registries: Fear without Function? Journal of Law and Economics, 54(1).Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, J., Mangels, N., & Langsam, A. (2004). Child sexual abuse: A public health issue. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law and Society, 17(1), 107–126.Google Scholar
  6. Atwill, N. (2010). European Court of Human Rights. France: Registration in French National Sex Offender Database Does Not Violate Rights.Google Scholar
  7. Barbaree, H. E., Seto, M. C., Langton, C. M., & Peacock, E. J. (2001). Evaluating the predictive accuracy of six risk assessment instruments for adult sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(4), 490–521. doi: 10.1177/009385480102800406 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bartosh, D., Garby, T., & Gray, S. (2002). Assessing the predictive validity of sex offender risk assessments according to offender type. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Research and Treatment Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.Google Scholar
  9. Bartosh, D., Garby, T., Lewis, D., & Gray, S. (2003). Differences in the predictive validity of actuarial risk assessments in relation to sex offender type. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47(4), 422–438. doi: 10.1177/0306624x03253850 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beck, V. S., Clingermayer, J., Ramsey R. J., & Travis L. F. (2004). Community response to sex offenders. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 32, 141–168.Google Scholar
  11. Bermuda Criminal Code Act. (1907).Google Scholar
  12. Borenstein, M., Rothstein, H., Cohen, J., Schoenfeld, D., Berlin, J., & Lakatos, E. (2001). Power and precision. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.Google Scholar
  13. Brooks, A. (1996). Megan’s law: Constitutionality and policy. Criminal Justice Ethics, 15(1), 56–66.Google Scholar
  14. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003). Recidivism of sex offenders released from prison in 1994 (No. NCJ 198281). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  15. DeLong, E. R., DeLong, D. M., & Clarke-Pearson, D. L. (1988). Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics, 44, 837–845. doi: 10.2307/2531595 PubMedzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Department of Justice, Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. (2014). Global overview of sex offender registration and notification systems. Retrieved from http://www.smart.gov/pdfs/GlobalOverview.pdf
  17. Department of Justice, Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. (2016). Legislative history. Retrieved from http://ojp.gov/smart/legislation.htm
  18. Doren, D. M. (1998). Recidivism base rates, predictions of sex offender recidivism, and the “sexual predator” commitment laws. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16, 97–114. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-0798(199824)16:1<97:aid-bsl295>3.0.co;2-k CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Edwards, W., & Hensley, C. (2001). Contextualizing sex offender management legislation and policy: Evaluating the problem of latent consequences in community notification laws. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45(1), 83–101. doi: 10.1177/0306624x01451006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Epperson, D. L., Kaul, J. D., Huot, S. J., Hesselton, D., Alexander, W., & Goldman, R. (1999a). Final report on the development of the Minnesota sex offender screening tool—revised (MnSOST-R). Paper presented at the 17th annual conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  21. Epperson, D. L., Kaul, J. D., Huot, S. J., Hesselton, D., Alexander, W., & Goldman, R. (1999b). Minnesota sex offender screening tool—Revised (MnSost-R): Development performance, and recommended risk level cut scores. Retrieved March 1, 2004, from www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/epperson
  22. Fichier judiciaire automatisé des auteurs d’infractions sexuelles ou violentes (FIJAISV), Articles 706-53-1 et suivants et R. 53-8-1Google Scholar
  23. Fitch, K. (2006). Megan’s Law: Does it protect children?. London: NSPCC. Available at: http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/research/findings/meganslaw_wda48233.html
  24. Freeman-Longo, R. E., & L.P.C. MRC (2000). Revisiting Megan’s law and sex offender registration: Prevention or problem. American Parole and Probation Association.Google Scholar
  25. Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1983). A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology, 148, 839–843. doi: 10.1148/radiology.148.3.6878708 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hanson, R. K. (1997). The development of a brief actuarial scale for sexual offense recidivism. Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.Google Scholar
  27. Hanson, R. K. (2002). Recidivism and age: Follow-up data from 4,673 sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(10), 1046–1062. doi: 10.1177/088626002236659 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hanson, R. K. (2006). Does Static-99 predict recidivism among older sexual offenders? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18(4), 343–355. doi: 10.1177/107906320601800403 Google Scholar
  29. Hanson, R. K., & Bussiere, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 348–362. doi: 10.1037/0022-006x.66.2.348 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hanson, R. K., Gordon, A., Harris, A. J. R., Marques, J. K., Murphy, W., Quinsey, V. L., et al. (2002). First report of the Collaborative Outcome Data Project on the effectiveness of psychological treatment for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 169–194. doi: 10.1177/107906320201400207 Google Scholar
  31. Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2004). Predictors of sexual recidivism: An updated meta-analysis. Ottawa, CA: Public Works and Government Services.Google Scholar
  32. Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(6), 1154–1163. doi: 10.1037/0022-00x.73.6.1154 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (1999). Static 99: Improving actuarial risk assessments for sex offenders (No. User report 1999-02). Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.Google Scholar
  34. Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2000). Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 119–136. doi: 10.1023/a:1005482921333 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hare, R. D. (2003). The psychopathy checklist-revised technical manual (2nd ed.). Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  36. Harris, A. J. R., & Hanson, R. K. (2004). Sex offender recidivism: A simple question (No. 2004-03). Ottawa: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.Google Scholar
  37. Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Quinsey, V. L., Lalumiere, M. L., Boer, D. P., & Lang, C. (2003). A multi-site comparison of actuarial risk instruments for sex offenders. Psychological Assessment, 15(3), 413–426. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.15.3.413 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hynes, K. (2013). The Cost of fear: An analysis of Sex Offender Registration, Community Notification, and Civil Commitment Laws in the United States and the United Kingdom, Penn St. JL & Int’l Aff., 2, 351.Google Scholar
  39. H.R. 515—International Megan’s Law to prevent child exploitation through advanced notification of traveling sex offenders, 2016.Google Scholar
  40. Justice Policy Institute. (n.d.). What will it cost states to comply with the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act? Retrieved from http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_fac_sornacosts_jj.pdf
  41. Kemshall, H., Wood, J., Westwood, S., Stout, B., Wilkinson, B., Kelly, G., & Mackenzie, G. (2010). Child sex offender review (CSOR) public disclosure pilots: A process evaluation. Research Report 32, Home Office, ISBN 9781849871938.Google Scholar
  42. Kemshall, H., McCartan, K., & Hudson, K. (2013). International approaches to understanding and responding to sexual abuse. ATSA Forum, XXV(2).Google Scholar
  43. Knight, R. A., Carter, D. L., & Prentky, R. A. (1989). A system for the classification of child molesters: Reliability and application. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 3–23. doi: 10.1177/088626089004001001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Knight, R. A., & Prentky, R. A. (1990). Classifying sexual offenders: The development and corroboration of taxonomic models. In W. L. Marshall, D. R. Laws, & H. E. Barbaree (Eds.), The handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of the offender (pp. 23–52). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Knight, R. A., & Thornton, D. (2007). Evaluating and improving risk assessment schemes for sexual recidivism: A long-term follow-up of convicted sexual offenders (No. Final Report, NCJ 217618). http://nij.ncjrs.gov/publications
  46. Kruttschnitt, C., Uggen, C., & Shelton, K. (2000). Predictors of desistance among sex offenders: The interaction of formal and informal social controls. Justice Quarterly, 17(1), 61–87. doi: 10.1080/07418820000094481 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Langton, C. M. (2003). Contrasting approaches to risk assessment with adult male sexual offenders: An evaluation of recidivism prediction schemes and the utility of supplementary clinical information for enhancing predictive accuracy. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  48. Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Lees, M., & Tewksbury, R. (2006). Understanding policy and programmatic issues regarding sex offender registries. Corrections Today, 68(1), 54.Google Scholar
  50. Levenson, J., Letourneau, E., Armstrong, K., & Zgoba, K. (2010). Failure to register as a sex offender: Is it associated with recidivism? Justice Quarterly, 27(3), 305–331.Google Scholar
  51. Lewis, C. L. (1996). The Jacob Wetterling crimes against children and sexually violent offender registration act: An unconstitutional deprivation of the right to privacy and substantive due process. Harv. CR-CLL Rev., 31, 89.Google Scholar
  52. Letourneau, E., Levenson, J. S., Bandyopadhyay, D., Sinha, D., & Armstrong, K. (2010). Effects of South Carolina’s sex offender registration and notification policy on adult recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21(4), 435–458. doi: 10.1177/0093854810363569 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Levenson, J. S. (2003). Community notification and civil commitment of sex offenders: A review of policies designed to combat sexual violence. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 12(3/4), 17–52. doi: 10.1300/j070v12n03_02 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Levenson, J. S. (2004). Reliability of sexually violent predator civil commitment criteria. Law and Human Behavior, 28(4), 357–369. doi: 10.1023/b:lahu.0000039330.22347.ad PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Levenson, J. S., & Cotter, L. P. (2005). The effect of Megan’s Law on sex offender reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 49–66. doi: 10.1177/1043986204271676 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Levenson, J. S., D’Amora, D. A., & Hern, A. (2007). Megan’s Law and its impact on community re-entry for sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(4), 587–602. doi: 10.1002/bsl.770 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lisle, L. (2001). Predator vows to reunite with lover. The Ottawa Sun, 19(2).Google Scholar
  58. Malta Protection of Minors (Registration) Act. (2011). (Act No. XXIII of 2011).Google Scholar
  59. Matson, S., & Lieb, R. (1996). Sex offender community notification: A review of laws in 32 States. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
  60. Matson, S., & Lieb, R. (1997). Megan’s Law: A review of state and federal legislation. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy (Document No. 97-10-1101).Google Scholar
  61. McLarin, K. J. (1994, August 30). Trenton races to pass bills on sex abuse. The New York Times.Google Scholar
  62. McPherson, L. (2007). Practitioner’s Guide to the Adam Walsh Act. Retrieved from http://www.smart.gov/pdfs/practitioner_guide_awa.pdf
  63. Minnesota Department of Corrections. (2007). Sex offender recidivism in Minnesota. St. Paul, MN: Author. http://www.doc.state.mn.us
  64. Mustaine, E. E., Tewksbury, R., & Stengel, K. M. (2006). Residential location and mobility of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(2), 177–192. doi: 10.1007/bf02885890 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Newburn, K. (2010). The prospect of an international sex offender registry: Why an international system modeled after United States Sex Offender Laws is not an effective solution to stop child sexual abuse. Wis. Int’l LJ, 28, 547.Google Scholar
  66. Payne, B. K., Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2016). Identifying the sources of community corrections professionals’ attitudes about sex offender residence restrictions: The impact of demographics and perceptions. Crime & Delinquency, 62(2), 143–168. doi: 10.1177/0011128712470993 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pawson, R. (2002). Does Megan’s law work? A theory-driven systematic review, ESRC UK: Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice.Google Scholar
  68. Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Petrunik, M. (2003). The hare and the tortoise: Dangerousness and sex offender policy in the United States and Canada. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 45(1), 43–72. doi: 10.3138/cjccj.45.1.43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Prentky, R. A. (1996). Community notification and constructive risk reduction. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11(6), 295–298. doi: 10.1177/088626096011002012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Prentky, R. A., Lee, A. F., Knight, R. A., & Cerce, D. (1997). Recidivism rates among child molesters and rapists: A methodological analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 21(6), 635–659. doi: 10.1023/a:1024860714738 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Prescott, J. J., & Rockoff. J. E. (2011). Do sex offender registration and notification laws affect criminal behavior? Journal of Law and Economics, 54(1).Google Scholar
  73. Presser, L., & Gunnison, E. (1999). Strange bedfellows: Is sex offender notification a form of community justice? Crime & Delinquency, 45(3), 299–315.Google Scholar
  74. Rudin, J. (1996). Megan’s Law: Can it stop sexual predators, and at what cost to constitutionality? Criminal Justice, 11(3), 2–63.Google Scholar
  75. Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Quinsey, V. L., Lalumiere, M. L., Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1995). Predicting sexual offenses. In J. C. Campbell (Ed.), Assessing dangerousness: Violence by sexual offenders, batterers, and child abusers (pp. 114–137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  77. Sample, L., & Bray, T. (2003). Are sex offenders dangerous? Journal of Criminology and Public Policy, 3, 59–82.Google Scholar
  78. Sample, L. L., & Streveler, A. J. (2003). Latent consequences of community notification laws. In S. H. Decker, L. F. Alaird, & C. M. Katz (Eds.), Controversies in criminal justice (pp. 353–362). Los Angeles: Roxbury.Google Scholar
  79. Sands, A. (2001) Predators were bound for Montreal. The Ottawa Citizen, 19(2).Google Scholar
  80. Schram, D. D., & Milloy, C. D. (1995). Community notification: A study of offender characteristics and recidivism. Seattle: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
  81. Shin, J., & Lee, Y. B. (2005). Korean version of the notification policy on sexual offenders: did it enhance public awareness of sexual crimes against minors? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49(4), 376–391. doi: 10.1177/0306624x04271255.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Territo, L., & Kirkham, G. (2010). International sex trafficking of women & children: Understanding the global epidemic. Looseleaf Law Publications. Google Scholar
  83. Tewksbury, R. (2004). Experiences and attitudes of registered female sex offenders. Federal Probation, 68(3).Google Scholar
  84. Tewksbury, R. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 67–82. doi: 10.1177/1043986204271704 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. (2006). Perceptions of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26(3), 309–334. doi: 10.1080/02732170500524246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2006). Where to find sex offenders: An examination of residential locations and neighborhood conditions. Criminal Justice Studies, 19(1), 61–75. doi: 10.1080/14786010600615991 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Thornton, D. (2006). Age and sexual recidivism: A variable connection. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18(2), 123–135. doi: 10.1007/s11194-006-9007-2 Google Scholar
  88. UNODC (2009). Global Report on Trafficking in Persons (United Nations publication). Available from: http://www.unodc.org/documents/Global_Report_on_TIP.pdf
  89. UNODC (2014). Global Report on Trafficking in Persons (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.14.V.10). Available from: https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/glotip/GLOTIP_2014_full_report.pdf
  90. Vasquez, B. E., Maddan, S., & Walker J. T. (2008). The influence of sex offender registration and notification laws in the United States: A time-series analysis. Crime Delinquency, 54(2), 175–192.Google Scholar
  91. Walker, J. T., Maddan, S., Vasquez, B. E., VanHouten, A. C., & Ervin-McLarty, G. (2005). The influence of sex offender registration and notification laws in the United States. Little Rock, AK: Arkansas Crime Information Center. Retrieved December 15, 2005, from www.acic.org
  92. Wang, J. E. (2014/2015). Paying the piper: The cost of compliance with the Federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. New York School Law Review, 59, 681–705.Google Scholar
  93. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (2005). Sex offender sentencing in Washington State: Did community notification influence recidivism? Olympia: Author.Google Scholar
  94. Welchans, S. (2005). Megan’s Law: Evaluations of sexual offender registries. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16(2), 123–140. doi: 10.1177/0887403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Willis, G. M., Levenson, J. S., & Ward, T. (2010). Desistance and attitudes towards sex offenders: Facilitation or hindrance? Journal of Family Violence, 25(6), 545–556. doi: 10.1007/s10896-010-9314-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Wright, R. G. (2014). Sex offender laws: Failed policies, new directions (2nd ed., pp. 50–65). Springer Publishing Co Inc.Google Scholar
  97. Zevitz, R. G. (2004). Sex offender placement and neighborhood social integration: The making of a scarlet letter community. Criminal Justice Studies, 17(2), 203–222. doi: 10.1080/0888431042000235039
  98. Zevitz, R. G. (2006a). Sex offender community notification and its impact on neighborhood life. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal, 5(4), 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Zevitz, R. G. (2006b). Sex offender community notification: Its role in recidivism and offender reintegration. Criminal Justice Studies, 19(2), 193–208. doi: 10.1080/14786010600764567 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Zevitz, R. G., Crim, D., & Farkas, M. A. (2000). Sex offender community notification: Managing high risk criminals or exacting further vengeance? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 375–391. doi: 10.1002/1099-0798(200003/06)18:2/3<375:aid-bsl380>3.0.co;2-n PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Zevitz, R. G., & Farkas, M. A. (2000). Sex offender community notification: Assessing the impact in Wisconsin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of justice.Google Scholar
  102. Zgoba, K. M., Witt, P., Dalessandro, M., & Veysey, B. (2008). Megan’s Law: Assessing the practical and monetary efficacy. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  103. Zgoba, K., Veysey, B., & Dalessandro, M. (2010). An analysis of the effectiveness of community notification and registration: Do the best intentions predict the best practices? Justice Quarterly, 27(5), 667–691.Google Scholar
  104. Zgoba, K. M., Miner, M., Levenson, J., Knight, R., Letourneau, E., & Thornton, D. (2015). The Adam Walsh Act: An examination of sex offender risk classification systems. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. doi: 10.1177/1079063215569543

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New Jersey Department of CorrectionsTrentonUSA
  2. 2.Rutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations