Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:17:35.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - The Public and SORN Laws

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2021

By
Lisa L. Sample
Edited by
Wayne Logan  and
J. J. Prescott
Wayne Logan
Affiliation:
Florida State University School of Law
J. J. Prescott
Affiliation:
University of Michigan Law School
Get access

Summary

Chapter 5 examines the role the public plays in passing and implementing SORN laws. It argues that understanding how the public views SORN laws and how it uses registry information is critical to reform efforts. The chapter begins with SORN laws’ roots in public opinion toward individuals convicted of sexual offenses. High-profile crimes drive the public’s strong and consistent support for SORN laws. However, altruistic fear rather than fear of personal victimization accounts for this support. The chapter also examines how people use publicly available registries. Studies indicate that only a minority of people access sex offender registries. Moreover, those who do access registry information do so primarily out of curiosity. Further, it is at best unclear whether registries induce users to take protective actions likely to reduce their risk of victimization – and whether registries even make people feel safer. The chapter concludes by arguing that the public’s opinion about SORN laws turns ultimately on what the public intends them to accomplish. If public safety plays any role, public support may wane over time. Given the public’s modest use of registries, it may be time to rethink public registries and prioritize providing actually useful information to the public.

Keywords

public opinionpublic attitudessex offense policysex offender registration and notification historypublic opinions of victimization risksex offender registry usesex offender registry reformpublic opinions of sex offendersmoral panics
Type
Chapter
Information
Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Laws
An Empirical Evaluation
 , pp. 59 - 77
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agan, A. Y. & Prescott, J.J. (2014). Sex offender law and the geography of victimization. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 11, 786–828.Google Scholar
Anderson, A. L., Evans, M. K., & Sample, L. L. (2009). Who accesses the sex offender registries? A look at legislative intent and citizen action in Nebraska. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law, and Society, 22(3), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, A. L. & Sample, L. L. (2008). Public awareness and action resulting from sex offender community notification laws. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19(4), 371–396.Google Scholar
Anderson, A. L., Sample, L. L., & Cain, C. (2015). Residency restrictions for sex offenders: Public opinion on appropriate distances. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 26(3), 262–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, M. M., Miller, M. K., & Griffin, T. (2015). An examination of sex offender registration and notification laws: Can community sentiment lead to ineffective laws? In Miller, M. K., Blumenthal, J. A., & Chamberlain, J. (eds.), Handbook of Community Sentiment (pp. 239–251). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avrahamian, K. A. (1998). A critical perspective: Do “Megan’s Laws” really shield children from sex predators? Journal of Juvenile Law, 19, 301–317.Google Scholar
Bandy, R. (2011). Measuring the impact of sex offender notification on community adoption of protective behaviors. Criminology & Pub. Pol’y, 10, 237.Google Scholar
Beck, V. S. & Travis, L. F. (2004). Sex offender notification and fear of victimization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(5), 455–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, V. S. & Travis, L. F., (2006). Sex offender notification: An exploratory assessment of state variation in notification processes, Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(1), 51–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bench, L. L. & Allen, T. D. (2013). Assessing sex offender recidivism using multiple measures: A longitudinal analysis. The Prison Journal, 93(4), 411–428.Google Scholar
Berryessa, C. & Lively, C. (2019). When a sex offender wins the lottery: Social and legal punitiveness toward sex offenders in an instance of perceived injustice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 25(3), 181–195.Google Scholar
Bierie, D. M. (2015). Enhancing the National Incident–Based Reporting System: A Policy Proposal. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(10), 1125–1143.Google Scholar
Boyle, D. J., Ragusa-Salerno, L. M., Marcus, A. F., Passannante, M. R., & Furrer, S. (2013). Public knowledge and use of sex offender internet registries: Results from a random digit dialing telephone survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 1914–1932.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bumby, K. M. & Maddox, M. C. (1999). Judges’ knowledge about sexual offenders, difficulties presiding over sexual offense cases, and opinions on sentencing, treatment, and legislation. Sexual Abuse, 11(4), 305–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burchfield, K., Sample, L. L., & Lytle, R. (2014). Public interest in sex offenders: A perpetual panic. Criminology, Crim. Just. L & Soc’y, 15, 96.Google Scholar
Calvert, J. F. (1999). Public opinion and knowledge about childhood sexual abuse in a rural community. Child Abuse & Neglect, 3(7), 671–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Call, C. (2020). The influence of victim type on the public’s perception of sex offender registration and notification. Justice Policy Journal, 17(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Campregher, J., & Jeglic, E. L. (2016). Attitudes toward juvenile sex offender legislation: The influence of case-specific information. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 25(4), 466–482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caputo, A. A. & Brodsky, S. L. (2003). Citizens coping with community notification of released sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 22(2), 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chadee, D., Ali, S., Burke, A., & Young, J. (2017). Fear of crime and community concerns: Mediating effect of risk and pragmatic fear. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 27(6), 450–462.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. & Jeglic, E. L. (2007). Sex offender legislation in the United States: What do we know? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51(4), 369–383.Google Scholar
Comartin, E. B., Kernsmith, P. D., & Kernsmith, R. M. (2009). Sanctions for sex offenders: Fear and public policy. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48(7), 605–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, D. (2020). Impressions of ineffectiveness: Exploring support partners’ attitudes toward sex offender registration and notification. Psychology, Crime & Law, 26(2), 128–147.Google Scholar
Cooley, B. N., Moore, S. E., & Sample, L. L. (2017). The role of formal social control mechanisms in deterring sex offending as part of the desistance process. Criminal Justice Studies, 30(2), 136–157.Google Scholar
Craun, S. W. (2010). Evaluating awareness of registered sex offenders in the neighborhood. Crime & Delinquency, 56(3), 414–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cucolo, H. E. & Perlin, M. L. (2013). They’re planting stories in the press: The impact of media distortions on sex offender law and policy. University of Denver Criminal Law Review 3, 185–246.Google Scholar
DeVault, A., Miller, M. K., & Griffin, T. (2016). Crime control theater: Past, present, and future. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 22(4), 341–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellman, I. M. & Ellman, T. (2015). “Frightening and high”: The supreme court’s crucial mistake about sex crime statistics, Constitutional Commentary, 30, 495–508.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. (1991). Cognitive-experiential self-theory: An integrative theory of personality. In Curtis, R. C. (ed.), The Relational Self: Theoretical Convergences in Psychoanalysis and Social Psychology (pp. 111–137). New York, NY: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
Estacio, E. V., Whittle, R., & Protheroe, J. (2019). The digital divide: Examining socio-demographic factors associated with health literacy, access and use of internet to seek health information. Journal of Health Psychology 24(12), 1668–1675.Google Scholar
Gallup. (2020). Crime. Gallup.com. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1603/crime.aspx.Google Scholar
Garofalo, J. & Laub, J. (1978). The fear of crime: Broadening our perspective. Victimology, 3(3–4), 242–253.Google Scholar
Green, L. (1996). The concept of law revisited. Michigan Law Review, 96(6), 1687–1717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, R. K., Harris, A. J. R., Helmus, L., Thornton, D. (2014). High-risk sex offenders may not be high risk forever, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29 (15), 2792–2813.Google Scholar
Hanson, R. K., Harris, A. J. R., Letourneau, E., Helmus, L. M., & Thornton, D. (2018). Reductions in risk: Once a sexual offender not always a sexual offender, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1), 48–63.Google Scholar
Harris, A. J. & Pattavina, A. (2009, November). Missing sex offenders and the utility of sex offender registration systems. Paper presented at the America Society of Criminology, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Harris, A. J. & Cudmore, R. (2016). Community experience with public sex offender registries in the United States: A national survey. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 29(3), 258–279.Google Scholar
Harris, A. J. & Socia, K. M. (2016). What’s in a name? Evaluating the effects of the “sex offender” label on public opinions and beliefs. Sexual Abuse, 28(7), 660–678.Google Scholar
Higgins, E. M. & Rolfe, S. M. (2016). “The sleeping army”: Necropolitics and the collateral consequences of being a sex offender. Deviant Behavior, 38(9), 1–16.Google Scholar
Jenkins, P. (1998). Moral Panic, Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America. London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Jung, S., Allison, M., Toop, C., & Martin, E. (2020). Sex offender registries: Exploring the attitudes and knowledge of political decision makers. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kernsmith, P. D., Craun, S. W., & Foster, J. (2009a). Public attitudes toward sexual offenders and sex offender registration. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 18(3), 290–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kernsmith, P. D., Comartin, E., Craun, S. W., & Kernsmith, R. M. (2009b). The relationship between sex offender registry utilization and awareness. Sexual Abuse, 21(2), 181–193.Google Scholar
Key, V. O. (1961). Public Opinion and American Democracy. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Kim, B., Benekos, P. J., & Merlo, A. V. (2016). Sex offender recidivism revisited: Review of recent meta-analyses on the effects of sex offender treatment. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(1), 105–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koon-Magnin, S. (2015). Perceptions of and support for sex offender policies: Testing Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, and Baker’s findings. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(1), 80–88.Google Scholar
Lees, M. & Tewksbury, R. (2006). Understanding policy and programmatic issues regarding sex offender registries. Corrections Today, 68(1), 54–56.Google Scholar
Letourneau, E. J., Levenson, J. S., Bandyopadhyay, D., Sinha, D., & Armstrong, K. S. (2010). Effects of South Carolina’s sex offender registration and notification policy on adult recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21(4), 435–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levenson, J. S. (2008). Collateral consequences of sex offender residence restrictions. Criminal Justice Studies, 21(2), 153–166.Google Scholar
Levenson, J. S. (2007). The new scarlet letter: Sex offender policies in the 21st century. In Prescott, D. (ed.), Applying knowledge to practice: Challenges in the treatment and supervisions of sexual abusers (pp. 21–41). Oklahoma City, OK: Wood ‘N’ Barnes Publishing & Distribution.Google Scholar
Levenson, J. S., Ackerman, A. R., & Harris, A. J. (2014). Catch me if you can: An analysis of fugitive sex offenders. Sexual Abuse 26(2), 129–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levenson, J. & Prescott, D. S. (2014). Déjà vu: from Furby to Långström and the evaluation of sex offender treatment effectiveness. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 20(3), 257–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levenson, J. & Tewksbury, R. (2009). Collateral damage: Family members of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(1–2), 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(1), 137–161.Google Scholar
Levenson, J., Letourneau, E., Armstrong, K., & Zgoba, K. M. (2010). Failure to register as a sex offender: Is it associated with recidivism?. Justice Quarterly, 27(3), 305–331.Google Scholar
Logan, W. A. (2009). Knowledge as Power: Criminal Registration and Community Notification Laws in America. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lovell, E. (2007). Megan’s Law: Does it Protect Children? London: Policy and Public Affairs, NSPCC.Google Scholar
Maguire, M. & Singer, J. K. (2011). A false sense of security: Moral panic driven sex offender legislation. Critical Criminology, 19(4), 301–312.Google Scholar
Malesky, A. & Keim, J. (2001). Mental health professionals’ perspectives on sex offender registry web sites. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 13(1), 53–63.Google Scholar
Manchak, S. M. & Fisher, L. R. (2019). An examination of multiple factors influencing support for sex offender policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(6), 925–947.Google Scholar
Mancini, C., Shields, R. T., Mears, D. P., & Beaver, K. M. (2010). Sex offender residence restriction laws: Parental perceptions and public policy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(5), 1022–1030.Google Scholar
Mancini, C. & Budd, K. M. (2016). Is the public convinced that “nothing works?” Predictors of treatment support for sex offenders among Americans. Crime & Delinquency, 62(6), 777–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, M. & Marinucci, C. (2006). Support behind tough sex offender initiative. San Francisco Chronicle, 3B.Google Scholar
Maurelli, K. & Ronan, G. (2013). A time-series analysis of the effectiveness of sex offender notification laws in the USA. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 24(1), 128–143.Google Scholar
Meloy, M., Curtis, K., & Boatwright, J. (2013). The sponsors of sex offender bills speak up: Policy makers’ perceptions of sex offenders, sex crimes, and sex offender legislation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(4), 438–452.Google Scholar
Morgan, R. E. & Oudekerk, B. A. (2018). Criminal Victimization. U.S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
Morgan, R. E. & Oudekerk, B. A. (2019). Criminal victimization, 2018 (NCJ 253043). Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. (US Department of Justice, Washington, DC.).Google Scholar
Phillips, D. M. (1998). Community Notification as Viewed by Washington’s Citizens. Washington: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
Planty, M., Langton, L., Krebs, C., Berzofsky, M., & Smiley-McDonald, H. (2013). Female Victims of Sexual Violence, 1994–2010 (pp. 3–4). Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
Petrosino, A. J. & Petrosino, C. (1999). The public safety potential of Megan’s Law in Massachusetts: An assessment from a sample of criminal sexual psychopaths. Crime and Delinquency, 45(1), 140–158.Google Scholar
Pickett, J. T., Mancini, C., & Mears, D. P. (2013). Vulnerable victims, monstrous offenders, and unmanageable risk: Explaining public opinion on the social control of sex crime. Criminology, 51(3), 729–759.Google Scholar
Prescott, J.J. (2016). Portmanteau ascendant: Post-release regulations and sex offender recidivism. Connecticut Law Review, 47, 1035–1078.Google Scholar
Prescott, J.J. (2012). Do sex offender registries make us less safe? Regulation, 35(2), 48–55.Google Scholar
Prescott, J.J. (2011). Child pornography and community notification: How an attempt to reduce crime can achieve the opposite. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 24, 93–101.Google Scholar
Prescott, J.J. & Rockoff, J. E. (2011). Do sex offender registration and notification laws affect criminal behavior? Journal of Law and Economics, 53, 161–206.Google Scholar
RAINN. (2020a). Perpetrators of Sexual Violence: Statistics. RAINN.org. www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence.Google Scholar
RAINN. (2020b). Scope of the Problem: Statistics. RAINN.org. www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem.Google Scholar
Redlich, A. D. (2001). Community notification: Perceptions of its effectiveness in preventing child sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 10(3), 91–116.Google Scholar
Reynolds, N., Craig, L. A., & Boer, D. P. (2009). Public attitudes towards offending, offenders and reintegration. In Wood, J. L., Gannon, T. A. (eds.), Public opinion and criminal justice (pp. 166–186). Portland, OR: Willan.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V. (1992). Public opinion, crime, and criminal justice. Crime and Justice, 16, 99–180.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V. & Stalans, L. J. (2004). Restorative sentencing: Exploring the views of the public. Social Justice Research, 17(3), 315–334.Google Scholar
Saad, L. (2005, June 9). Sex offender registries are underutilized by the public. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/16705/sex-offender-registries-underutilized-public.aspx.Google Scholar
Salerno, J. M., Murphy, M. C., & Bottoms, B. L. (2014). Give the kid a break—but only if he’s straight: Retributive motives drive biases against gay youth in ambiguous punishment contexts. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 20(4), 398.Google Scholar
Sample, L. L. (2001). The social construction of the sex offender. [Unpublished dissertation]. University of Missouri–St. Louis.Google Scholar
Sample, L. L. (2004). The relationship between burglary and sex offending. Sex Offender Law Report, 5(3), 23–26.Google Scholar
Sample, L. L. (2006). An examination of the degree to which sex offenders kill. Criminal Justice Review, 31(3), 230–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sample, L. L. (2011). The need to debate the future of community notification laws. Criminology and Public Policy, 10(2), 265–274.Google Scholar
Sample, L. L. & Bray, T. M. (2003). Are sex offenders dangerous? Criminology & Public Policy, 3(1), 59–82.Google Scholar
Sample, L. L. & Bray, T. M. (2006). Are sex offenders different? An examination of re-arrest patterns. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17(1), 83–102.Google Scholar
Sample, L. L., Evans, M. K., & Anderson, A. L. (2011). Sex offender community notification laws: Are their effects symbolic or instrumental in nature? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 22(1), 27–49.Google Scholar
Sample, L. L. & Kadleck, C. (2008). Sex offender laws: Legislators’ accounts of the need for policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19(1), 40–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmucker, M. & Lösel, F. (2015). The effects of sexual offender treatment on recidivism: An international meta-analysis of sound quality evaluations. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(4), 597–630.Google Scholar
Schram, D. D. & Milloy, C. D. (1995). Community Notification: A Study of Offender Characteristics and Recidivism. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
Schwartz, M. A. & Tatalovich, R. (2019). Public opinion and morality politics: lessons from Canada and the United States. Comparative Sociology, 18(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
Snedker, K. A. (2006). Altruistic and vicarious fear of crime: Fear for others and gendered social roles. Sociological Forum. 21(2), 163–195.Google Scholar
Sobel, R. (2001). The Impact of Public Opinion on US Foreign Policy since Vietnam: Constraining the Colossus. Oxford University Press on Demand.Google Scholar
SociaJr., K. M. & Stamatel, J. P. (2010). Assumptions and evidence behind sex offender laws: Registration, community notification, and residence restrictions. Sociology Compass, 4(1) 1–20.Google Scholar
Soothill, K. & Francis, B. (2010). Public/Human rights: The debate rumbles on. New Law Journal, 160, 94.Google Scholar
Stevenson, M. C., Smith, A. C., Sekely, A., & Farnum, K. S. (2013). Predictors of support for juvenile sex offender registration: Educated individuals recognize the flaws of juvenile registration. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 22(2), 231–254.Google Scholar
Tewksbury, R. (2002). Validity and utility of the Kentucky sex offender registry. Federal Probation, 66(1), 21–26.Google Scholar
Tewksbury, R. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 67–81.Google Scholar
Tewksbury, R. & Jennings, W. G. (2010). Assessing the impact of sex offender registration and community notification on sex-offending trajectories. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(5), 570–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tewksbury, R. & Lees, M. (2006). Perceptions of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26(3), 309–334.Google Scholar
Vozmediano, L., San-Juan, C., Vergara, A. I., & Alonso-Alberca, N. (2017). “Watch out, sweetie”: The impact of gender and offence type on parents’ altruistic fear of crime. Sex Roles, 77(9–10), 676–686.Google Scholar
Warr, M. (1992). Altruistic fear of victimization in households. Social Science Quarterly, 73(4), 723–736.Google Scholar
Warr, M. (2000). Fear of crime in the United States: Avenues for research and policy. Criminal Justice, 4(4), 451–489.Google Scholar
Warr, M. & Ellison, C. G. (2000). Rethinking social reactions to crime: Personal and altruistic fear in family households. American Journal of Sociology, 106(3), 551–578.Google Scholar
Williams, M., Comartin, E., & Lytle, R. (2020). The politics of symbolic laws: State resistance to the allure of sex offender residence restriction. Law & Policy, 42(3), 209–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, A. R. (2013). Situating Intersectionality: Politics, Policy, and Power. New York, St. Martin Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, M. R. & Pruitt, D. K. (2019). Grooming hurts too: The effects of types of perpetrator grooming on Trauma symptoms of child sexual abuse in adult survivors. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 28(3), 345–359.Google Scholar
Wood, J. (2009). Why public opinion of the criminal justice system is important. In Wood, J. & Gannon, T. (eds.), Public Opinion and Criminal Justice, Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
Yankelovich, D. (1991). Coming to Public Judgement. Making Democracy Work in a Complex World. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
Zevitz, R. G. (2003). Sex offender community notification and its impact on neighborhood life. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal, 20(1), 41–61.Google Scholar
Zevitz, R. G. & Farkas, M. A. (2000). Sex offender community notification: Examining the importance of neighborhood meetings. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18(2/3), 393–408.3.0.CO;2-O>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zevitz, R. G. (2006). Sex offender community notification: Its role in recidivism and offender reintegration. Criminal Justice Studies, 19(2), 193–208.Google Scholar
Zgoba, K. M., Miner, M., Levenson, J., Knight, R., Letourneau, E., & Thornton, D. (2016). The Adam Walsh Act: An examination of sex offender risk classification systems. Sexual Abuse, 28(8), 722–740.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×