Book contents
- Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Laws: An Empirical Evaluation
- Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Laws
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Origins and Evolution
- 2 Variations in the Structure and Operation of SORN Systems
- 3 Registries and Registrants:
- 4 Law Enforcement and SORN
- 5 The Public and SORN Laws
- 6 The Ancillary Consequences of SORN
- 7 Offenders and SORN Laws
- 8 Integrating the Etiology of Sexual Offending into Evidence-Based Policy and Practices
- 9 Juvenile Registration and Notification Are Failed Policies That Must End
- Conclusion
- Index
- References
4 - Law Enforcement and SORN
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 June 2021
Book contents
- Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Laws: An Empirical Evaluation
- Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Laws
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Origins and Evolution
- 2 Variations in the Structure and Operation of SORN Systems
- 3 Registries and Registrants:
- 4 Law Enforcement and SORN
- 5 The Public and SORN Laws
- 6 The Ancillary Consequences of SORN
- 7 Offenders and SORN Laws
- 8 Integrating the Etiology of Sexual Offending into Evidence-Based Policy and Practices
- 9 Juvenile Registration and Notification Are Failed Policies That Must End
- Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
Chapter 4 discusses the relationship between SORN laws and law enforcement. Since the inception of SORN laws, proponents of registration and notification have viewed them as tools for effective law enforcement. The significant financial costs to maintain and enforce these laws, however, may outweigh any usefulness they offer to law enforcement in terms of reducing sex offense victimization. The chapter first describes how states implement SORN laws. State and local law enforcement agencies are charged with the initial registration of covered individuals. Thereafter, these agencies monitor registrants and facilitate community notification. They conduct unannounced visits, maintain online registries, and inform community groups. These tasks impose substantial costs on the police, diverting resources from other criminal justice priorities. Many agencies form specialized units for SORN enforcement; others outsource aspects to private, for-profit companies. The chapter next analyzes how law enforcement personnel perceive SORN laws – in particular, their effectiveness. Studies show that individuals in law enforcement often doubt the efficacy of registration and notification, despite consistently supporting them. Law enforcement agents also recognize the costs SORN laws carry for their agencies and priorities. Ultimately, this chapter questions whether SORN laws are worth the costly burdens they impose on law enforcement.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification LawsAn Empirical Evaluation, pp. 48 - 58Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
References
Albuquerque Journal (May 31, 1955), Two Laws Provide Invisible Weapons Against Crime in Minnesota City.Google Scholar
Armstrong, M., Miller, M., & Griffin, T. (2014). An examination of sex offender registration and notification laws: Can community sentiment lead to ineffective laws? In M. K. Miller, J. A. Blumenthal, & J. Chamberlain (eds.), Handbook of Community Sentiment (pp. 239–251). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Bandy, R. (2011). Measuring the impact of sex offender notification on community adoption of protective measures. Criminology & Public Policy, 10(2), 237–264.Google Scholar
Belzer, R. (September 2015). The costs and benefits of subjecting juveniles to sex offender registration and notification. R Street, Study number 41.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Maxine. Sex Offenders in Oregon: State Fails to Track Hundreds, Oregonian (October 2, 2013), www.oregonlive.com/sexoffenders/special-presentation/.Google Scholar
Bonnar-Kidd, K. (2010). Sexual offender laws and prevention of sexual violence or recidivism. American Journal of Public Health, 100(3), 412–419.Google Scholar
Call, Corey (2018). The community corrections perspective toward sex offender management policies and collateral consequences: Does contact with sex offenders matter?. Criminal Justice Studies, 31(1), 1–7.Google Scholar
Carter, M., Bumby, K., & Talbot, T. (2004). Promoting offender accountability and community safety through the comprehensive approach to sex offender management. Seton Hall Law Review, 34, 1273–1297.Google Scholar
Center for Sex Offender Management (2008). Key Roles of Law Enforcement in Sex Offender Management. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Connor, D. P., & Tewksbury, R. (2017). Public and professional views of sex offender registration and notification. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society, 18(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Cubellis, M., Walfield, S., & Harris, A. (2018). Collateral consequences and effectiveness of sex offender registration and notification: Law enforcement perspectives. Intl. Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(4), 1080–1106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farkas, M., & Zevitz, R. (2000). The law enforcement role in sex offender community notification: A research note. Journal of Crime and Justice, 23(1), 125–139.Google Scholar
Finn, P. (1997). Sex Offender Community Notification (Volume 2, Number 2). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U. S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Gaines, J. (2006). Law enforcement reactions to sex offender registration and community notification. Police, Practice and Research, 7(3), 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Government Accountability Office (2013). Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act: Jurisdictions face challenges to implementing the Act, and stakeholders report positive and negative effects. GAO-13–211: Published February 7, 2013.Google Scholar
Harris, A., Lobanov-Rostovsky, C., & Levenson, J. (2016). Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration & Notification. Document Number 250181. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U. S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Harris, A., Levenson, J., Lobanov-Rostovsky, C., & Walfield, S. (2018). Law enforcement perspectives on sex offender registration & notification: Effectiveness, challenges and policy priorities. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 29(4), 391–420.Google Scholar
Harris, A., Levenson, J., & Ackerman, A. (2014). Registered sex offenders in the United States: Behind the numbers. Crime & Delinquency, 60, 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judd, R., & Lobos, I., “We’re Just Waiting for Someone to Ruin Lives”: School Officials Told of Release of Man with “Predatory” Nature, Seattle Times, July 21, 1989.Google Scholar
Justice Policy Institute. What will it cost states to comply with the Sex Offender Registration Notification Act www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08–08_fac_sornacosts_jj.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kabat, A. R. (1998). Scarlet letter sex offender databases and community notification: Sacrificing personal privacy for a symbol’s sake. American Common Law Review (35).Google Scholar
Lawson, L., & Savell, S. (2003). Law enforcement perspective on sex offender registration and community notification. APSAC Advisor, 15(1), 9–12.Google Scholar
Levenson, J., & Tewksbury, R. (2009). Collateral damage: Family members of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 54–68.Google Scholar
Levenson, J. S., Brannon, Y. N., Fortney, T., & Baker, J. (2007). Public perceptions about sex offenders and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 7, 137–161.Google Scholar
Logan, Wayne. (2009). Knowledge as Power: Criminal Registration and Community Notification Laws in America. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Matson, S. (1999). Sex Offender Registration: Policy Overview and Comprehensive Practices. Washington, DC: Center for Sex Offender Management, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Mustaine, E.E., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). What can be learned from a sex offender registry? An 8 year follow up. Journal of Community Corrections, 23(1), 5–10.Google Scholar
Mustaine, E. E., Tewksbury, R., Connor, D.P., & Payne, B. K. (2015). Criminal justice officials’ views of sex offenders, registration and community notification. Justice System Journal, 36(1), 63–85.Google Scholar
Ragusa-Salerno, L. M., & Zgoba, K. M. (2012). Taking stock of 20 years of sex offender laws and research: An examination of whether sex offender legislation has helped or hindered our efforts. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35(3), 335–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolfe, S. (2019). When a sex offender comes to visit: A national assessment of travel restrictions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(6), 885–905.Google Scholar
Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. (2006). Perceptions of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26(3), 309–334.Google Scholar
Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. (2013). Law enforcement officials’ views of sex offender registration and community notification. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 15(2), 95–113.Google Scholar
University of Pennsylvania Law Review (1954), Criminal Registration Ordinances: Police Control Over Potential Recidivists, v. –, p. 103.Google Scholar
Walfield, S., Levenson, J., Cubellis, M., Harris, A., & Lobanov-Rostovsky, C. (2017). Law enforcement views on sex offender compliance with registration mandates. American Journal of Criminal Justice. DOI: 10.1007/s12103-017-9386-6.Google Scholar
Whitting, L., Day, A. 7 Powell, M. (2016). Police officer perspectives on the implementation of a sex offender community notification scheme. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 18, 261–272.Google Scholar
Zgoba, K., Witt, P., & Dalessandro, M. (2008). Megan’s Law: Assessing the Practical and Monetary Efficacy. Document Number 225370. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U. S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Zgoba, K., Miner, M., Letourneau, E., Levenson, J., Knight, R., & Thornton, D. (2015). A Multi-state Recidivism Study Using Static-99 and Static-2002 Risk Scores and Tier Guidelines from the Adam Walsh Act. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. DOI: 10.1177/1079063215569543.Google Scholar
Zgoba, K., Veysey, B., Dalessandro, M. (2010). Do the best intentions predict best practices: An analysis of the effectiveness of Megan’s law. Justice Quarterly, 27(5), 667–691.Google Scholar