Public registration of sex offenders was prompted by good intentions and fueled by a laudable goal. But public registration was implemented before it could be researched. In fact, there was probably no way to research public registration without implementing it. Now, public registration has been researched and there is scientific proof that public registration does not reduce sexual reoffense.
While trying to see if registration worked, researchers stumbled upon an important discovery. They discovered that registration creates new victims. These new victims are the family, friends, and loved ones of registrants. These individuals are punished having committed no crime and having gone through no due process that could legitimize their punishment.
Below you will find summaries for a few of the scientific studies of registration. The results of these studies and many more provided some of the motivation to allow certain individuals to deregister.
Schram & Miloy, 1995 | ||
---|---|---|
125 registrants on supervision and highest level of notification |
90 Sex offenders not on registration |
No difference in recidivism over a four year period |
Adkins, Huff, and Strageber, 2000 | ||
---|---|---|
223 Registered sex offenders |
201 Unregistered sex offenders |
New Offenses 3% – registered sex offender 3.5% – unregistered sex offender |
Prescott & Rockoff, 2008 | ||
---|---|---|
Compared private law enforcement registration and public registration |
Private registration plus intensive supervision reduced victimization of family, friends, and acquaintances |
Public registration had no effect on any kind of recidivism |
Zevits, 2006 |
---|
Recidivism is Higher with Public Registration |
Public Registration Increase Risk Levinson, 2007 |
||
---|---|---|
Florida | Indiana & Connecticut | |
Lost job | 20% | 10% |
Landlord made move | 20% | 10% |
Neighbor made move | 15% | 11% |
Property Damage | 21% | 18% |
Threatened or harassed | 33% | 21% |
Physically assaulted or injured | 21% | 18% |
Harm to Registrant’s Family and Friends |
---|
16% to 19% of those who lived with the registrant were: Harassed, Assaulted, Injured or Property Damage (Levenson & Cotter, 2005) |
67% of family members – Some form of Harm (Zevits et al, 2000) |
42% of family members threatened or harassed (Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009) |
27% of family members experienced property damage |
7% actually physically assaulted (Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009) |