Sex Offender Registry
National Sex Offender Registry
“Sex offenders are the scourge of modern America, the ‘irredeemable monsters’ who prey on the innocent” (Logan, 1999, p.1167). The colossal number of sex crimes is rapidly expanding across the United States and with it a wake of innocent victims. This expansion and increased victimization called for reform and demanded protection for the innocent. This protection came in the form of a new criminal justice policy, the sex offender registration.
“In the United States, offender registration was first used in the 1930s” as a means of banishing the unwanted offenders (Matson, Lieb & Feinberg, 1999, p. 1). In 1947 a registration statute was enacted in the state of California in efforts to reduce recidivism among …show more content…
sex offenders while at the same time making their presence known to law enforcement agencies and the public but the continuous rise in offenses triggered a ratification of this enactment (Sample and Kadleck, 2008). “The 1990s ushered in an unprecedented amount of sex offender legislation” in an attempt to combat this overwhelming lack of social control we as Americans are faced with (Sample and Kadleck, 2008, p. 40). The newly mandated federal and state laws enacted the policy for a sex offender registry.
“In 1994, Congress passed the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (Title XVII of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994)” (Matson, et al., 1999, p.1). This significant piece of legislation mandated that states create and maintain a registry of the violent sex offenders who committed crimes against children. The legislation also requires the offender to maintain and update their personal information, such as address and place of employment, for a minimum of 10 years after their release from prison. In addition, if the offenders were considered sexually violent they were required to update their personal information with the registry on a quarterly basis (Matson, et al, 1999). By 1996, 49 of the 50 states adopted a version of the federal Megan’s Law, “which mandates the release of information collected through state programs that require the registration of sex offenders if the information is ‘necessary to protect the public’” (Reid, 2009, p. 536). Today all 50 states have adopted some version of this law.
Laws or Acts such as the Community Protection Act, Megan’s Law, The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety ACT, the Jessica Lunsford Act, the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control ACT (SPPCA) and the Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act, just to mention a few, are attempts by legislators and policy administrators and managers at protecting the innocent while combating the dilemma of sex crimes in America. These legendary legislations and statutes ultimately led to the creation of the National Sex Offender Registry we have in place today. The National Sex Offender Public Website (NSOPW), a national sex offender registry monitored and maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigations and coordinated by the Department of Justice, manages the names of over 700,000 sex offenders in the United States alone. This website collectively houses the names of registered sex offenders from the 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, Territories of Guam, Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico and 31 Indian Tribes in one single, easily accessible location that allows members of the general public to search and locate, free of charge, information regarding known sex offenders (“Sex Offender”, n.d.). Accessible information includes but is not limited to items such as the offenders’ name, current offense, address, employer, photo with physical description, and vehicle license plate number (Williams, 2010, p. 1).
“Sex offender registration statutes are promoted as a means of: 1) deterring offenders from committing future crimes; 2) providing law enforcement with an additional investigative tool; and 3) increasing public protection” (Matson, et al., p. 1). The administrators and managers within the FBI and Department of Justice influence the planning and progression of the National Sex Offender Registry through these statutes. They plan for the interruptions and changes that result from the metamorphosis of the statues that have occurred since the inception of the registry.
The Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking (“SMART”, n.d.), an Office of Justice program that assists in the management of the National Sex Offender Registry, provides jurisdictions with guidance regarding the implementation of the Adam Walsh Act, which not only established a national sex offender registry law but also made imperative changes to the “sexual abuse, exploitation, and transportation crimes. The Act created new substantive crimes, expanded federal jurisdiction over existing crimes, and increased statutory minimum and/or maximum sentences” (“The Adam Walsh”, n.d., para 1). SMART provides “technical assistance to the states, territories, Indian tribes, local governments, and to public and private organizations. The SMART Office also tracks important legislative and legal developments related to sex offenders and administers grant programs related to the registration, notification and management of sex offenders” (“SMART”, n.d.). The mission of SMART is “to protect the public by supporting the national implementation of a comprehensive sex offender registration and notification system” (“SMART”, n.d.).
“According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, at year end 2005 there were more than 160,000 offenders convicted of rape or sexual assault in state prisons” (“Sex Offender Management”, n.d.).
At some point each of these convicted offenders will be released back into society, an estimated 10-20,000 per year, creating a valid challenge for the administrators and managers within the FBI and Department of Justice. “In response to this challenge, lawmakers have enacted many laws and policies aimed at controlling sex offenders in communities; and for those under some form of community supervision (i.e., probation or parole), a variety of strategies have evolved to effectively manage these offenders” (“Sex Offender Management”, n.d.). Also, “research demonstrates that observed recidivism rates for sexual, violent, and non-violent crimes are lower when sex offenders receive appropriate interventions, such as proper supervision and treatment (Aos, et al., 2006), it is incumbent upon public safety agencies to provide services to offenders that can ensure the most effective management of these offenders in an effort to reduce future victimization” (Unknown, 2008, p. …show more content…
2).
The evolution of these strategies has changed the management style of the administrators and managers responsible for the supervision of sex offenders. “Sex offender management is much more than simply supervision and treatment conducted by a few knowledgeable individuals in a community, effective sex offender management necessitates a comprehensive approach, one that the SMART Office supports” (“Sex Offender Management”, n.d.). “Jurisdictions across the country have recognized clearly that the effective management of sex offenders is more than just supervision and treatment: rather, it demands the thoughtful integration of these and other management components (including ensuring effective investigation, adjudication and sentencing; assessment; reentry; supervision; treatment; and registration and notification) and, perhaps as importantly, ongoing collaboration among those who are responsible for carrying out these activities” (Unknown, 2008, p. 1).
Major components in the comprehensive approach to management are those of effective communication and collaboration among those involved in the management of sex offenders. “The Comprehensive Approach to sex offender management is a framework that has been developed to define and encourage a strategic and collaborative response to managing sex offenders and reducing recidivism” (Unknown, 2008, p. 1). This management approach suggests an encouraging and valid foundation for jurisdictions to use in composing policies and practices geared toward the common goal of safety within the community.
“The Comprehensive Approach defines the core components of sex offender management for those who have a key role and/or vested interest in how to manage most effectively this challenging offender population” (Unknown, 2008, p. 2). The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs governs the Comprehensive Approaches to Sex Offender Management (CASOM) Grant Program which procures funds for the enhancement and improvement of the existing management of sex offenders (Unknown, 2008). Multiple jurisdictions developed a definitive treatment of sex offenders while improving victim support, establishing specially designed courts specific to sex offenders and sharpening the collaboration between jurisdictions. With the complexity of registration laws across jurisdictions each agency, law enforcement, courts, corrections and probation and parole must collaboratively work with one another in order to maintain an effective implementation of the National Registry. “The Comprehensive Approach recognizes the complex nature of sex offending and the need for key system stakeholders to facilitate accountability, rehabilitation, and victim and community safety throughout all phases of the justice system” (Unknown, 2008, p. 2). The Comprehensive Approach does, however, exceed the initial target of treatment and supervision by detailing the vast circle of associations among the varying jurisdictions of criminal justice agencies (Unknown, 2008).
Investigation, prosecution and disposition, assessment, treatment, reentry, supervision and registration and notification are the core components of the Comprehensive Approach to Sex Offender Management (Unknown, 2008). “The investigation, prosecution, and disposition of sex crimes set the stage for the remainder of the offender’s contract with the criminal justice system” (Unknown, 2008, p. 4). During the assessment component a diverse approach must be taken in order to be effective. “Well executed assessments are the key to informed decision making throughout the case management process, because the information gleaned from these reports can help stakeholders to understand the static (or unchangeable) factors in an offender’s history that can help to identify risk factors for recidivism over the longer term” (Unknown, 2008, p. 4). The assessment substantiates the shared and continuous efforts of each criminal justice agency as they work together with sex offenders. “Because research has demonstrated that the provision of sex offender-specific treatment is associated with reductions in both sexual and non-sexual recidivism, treatment is an essential component of a comprehensive sex offender management system” (Unknown, 2008, p. 5). The reentry of most sex offenders into society is inevitable and therefore justice administrators and managers should plan for such reentry by addressing the possible issues offender will face. “Ensuring that offenders nearing release are provided necessary risk reducing treatment, are linked to treatment services in the community, and are provided with other stabilizing supports (e.g., appropriate and sustainable housing and employment) is vital to successful offender reintegration” (Unknown, 2008, p.5). Sex offender supervision “coupled with sex offender-specific treatment—can result in marked reductions in recidivism, and equal emphasis on both is advised” (Unknown, 2008, p. 6). “Sex offender registration and notification laws have been enacted in an effort to deter offenders from committing future crimes; to provide law enforcement with an additional investigative tool; and to increase public protection by alerting the public to the presence of sex offenders in their communities (Unknown, 2008, p. 6). Clear and concise policies and procedures on the offender registration system and the functions of each criminal justice agency are imperative for effective implementation of the notification and registration process (Unknown, 2008).
“Sex offending is a multi-faceted and complex issue that can have a significant impact on victims and the community” hence the importance of the National Sex Offender Registry (Unknown, 2008, p. 7). Sex offenders that fail to register will be sanctioned under federal law. “The purpose behind the legislative-initiated policy was to provide protection to the public against sex offenders and to allow law enforcement organizations effectively to track sex offenders” (Williams, 2010, p. 1).
“The success of sex offender registration laws is based on several presumptions” (Reid, 2009, p. 537). The first of these presumptions is that potential sex offender victims will read a notification if given one and take the necessary precautions to prevent the victimization from occurring. The next presumption is that complete and precise offender data is reported to law enforcement agencies. A third presumption is that law enforcement agencies possess the necessary resources needed to effectively combat the tasks involved with sex offender notifications. A fourth presumption of potential victims is that the required notification and registration of sex offenders will deter predators from repeating a sexual offense in their own neighborhood. If one presumes that sexual offenders will be deterred from committing a sexual offense in their own neighborhood because of the required registration it must also be falsely presumed that traveling outside the registration and notification area is out of the offender’s realm (Reid, 2009).
These presumptions lead to a false sense of security within the criminal justice system which has become cause for the opposition of the National Sex Offender Registry policy. “Opponents of the sex offender registry argue that the registry does nothing more than infringe on the constitutional rights of the accused” (Williams, 2010, p. 1). This false sense of security and accusations of constitutional rights violations, along with the potential for a violation of due process rights, the belief of prolonged sentencing (serving a sentence of tracking after a completed prison sentence), belief that the requirement of offender registration is double jeopardy, and the belief that the policy violates the 8th Amendment protection from cruel and unusual punishment are all valid arguments against the policy. “However, the courts ruled that the sex offender registry did not violate any constitutional rights” (Williams, 2010, p. 1). “The Supreme Court evaluated the law and determined that although a burden on offenders the registry did not infringe on constitutional rights and does not expose offenders to threats, harassment, or violence but serves as a protection on society” (Williams, 2010, p. 1). “Because sex offenders were more likely to re-offend (Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 198281, 2003), lawmakers felt this constituted more regulation. However, critics of the law state it adds a penalty to the crime that was not there when the offender was sentenced and the laws inflict degrading and inhumane treatment of the offender” (“Sex Offender Registry Chapter”, n.d., para. 7). The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) is among the many opposed to several aspects of the sex offender statutes and registration and notification policy. “NACDL opposes the death penalty as a sanction for sex offenders, mandatory minimum sentences, sex offender registrations and public notification laws, civil commitment laws, and residence restriction” (Unknown, 2007, p. 2). The NACDL “recognizes that sex offenses and child sexual abuse cause great pain and suffering to victims and their families” and therefore defend the violation of rights and not the offense of the sex crime (Unknown, 2007, p. 3). The NACDL also realizes that the past two decades has generated a multitude of new sex offender laws. “These laws include sex offender registration and public notification statutes, minimum mandatory sentences, civil commitment for offenders who have already served a sentence, and efforts to apply the death penalty against offenders who have not killed anyone” (Unknown, 2007, p. 3). The NACDL believes that the punishment should fit the individual crime instead of having a blanket punishment for each category of sex crime; for example, they believe that an offender that rapes a 10 year-old girl should receive a tougher punishment than a 18 year-old that has consensual sex with a 15 year-old girl. The NACDL believe that “Sex Offender Registry and Community Notification laws have become pervasive” (Unknown, 2007, p. 6). The offender registration and community notification policies are separate but equal. “Registration and notification laws do result in significant disruption in the life of an offender and the offender’s family” (Unknown, 2007, p. 8). NACDL also believes that law enforcement agencies should only notify the community of a registered sex offender if and only if the offender poses a direct threat to the community at large. “Due process provisions should be available to offender to contest his classification based upon accepted risk assessment models” (Unknown, 2007, p. 8). “The good intentions of the legislature to protect society from the harm of dangerous sex offenders have been short-lived as the system fails to maintain the location of thousands of sexual offenders” (Williams, 2010, p. 2). The overall compliance with sex offender registration has declined with an approximate 300 sex offenders escaping the system requirements (Williams, 2010). “The policy issue of requiring sex offenders to register into a national database that becomes open to the public’s scrutiny is an issue of grave importance on society’s safety. The policy was formed with the best intentions of the government; however, the program needs to be evaluated to determine methods of tracking missing sex offenders” (Williams, 2010, p. 2). It is beyond imperative that each offender required to register do so. Law enforcement agencies diligently enforce the requirements and counter all attempts of offenders try to avoid the requirements of registration. Administrators and managers combat the issue of non-compliance with registration requirements by assigning specific officers to validate the information provided by the offender; sometimes even before the offenders release from prison. By taking these measures the administrators and managers within the agencies are able to effectively managing the offender while enforcing the policy. “The overarching goal of creating centralized registries of convicted sex offenders is to enhance public safety through multiples processes” (“Sex Offender”, n.d., p.
1). Since sex offender registries include personal identifying information such as fingerprints, DNA and handwriting samples, conviction information such as offense committed and jurisdictional information, these processes include, but are not limited to, the reinforcement and assistance in the investigations of sex crimes. The data obtained through sex offender registries offers assistance to investigators of law enforcement agencies, as well as other criminal justice agencies, in narrowing a suspect pool of offenders. “In addition, registries are designed to make sex offenders more visible to community members who, when they access or receive information about registered sex offenders living in their communities, may take increased protective steps” (“Sex Offender”, n.d., p. 1). The sex offender registration policy is used by the criminal justice system as a deterrent for future violations of sex crimes for repeat offenders by exposing them to the public for the criminal they are. The registry is also used to deter those who have yet to participate in criminal sexual behaviors and/or for those individuals that have concealed their criminal behaviors (“Sex Offender”,
n.d.). In order for the National Sex Offender Registration policy to be an effective form of policymaking among the collaborating agencies clear, comprehensive and concise policies and procedures must be adopted and implemented in order to determine which statutes of the policy are realistic, deterrent and operational. “This requires that staff are well-trained in the specific statutory requirements, agency policies, and specific procedures regarding the registration process, and the quality assurance or other monitoring practices are in place to ensure adherence to these procedures” (“Sex Offender”, n.d., p. 2). Administrators and managers within the criminal justice agencies that monitor the sex offender registrations are required to ensure the policies for registration are applicable to the existing agency policies and procedures. Discrepancies can occur across jurisdictions as the guidelines and policies for each state statue vary to some degree. “Some state statutes expressly indicate that registration is intended only for adult sex offenders, while other laws explicitly include juveniles adjudicated within the juvenile courts, waived to adult courts, or both” (“Sex Offender”, n.d., p. 2). Additional concerns that administrators and managers must keep in mind as they review, adopt and implement registration policies is that consistency and explanation are key factors in determining equality of treatment. “It is also important that policies outline the respective responsibilities of the various agencies or individual that have a role in sex offender registration” (“Sex Offender”, n.d., p. 2). “Policies must also specify the type of information that his to be collected for sex offender registries” (“Sex Offender”, n.d. p. 2). The National Sex Offender Registration policy shows discrepancies in collected information between the jurisdictions. However, an offender’s name, known aliases, address, conviction dates, type of offense (i.e., rape, molestation or sodomy), an identification number, photograph and fingerprints are the basic requirements of almost all state registries. Other states may required more detailed identifying information such as DNA analysis or information such as location of employment and vehicle registration for the purpose of being able to easily locate the offender if necessary (“Sex Offender”, n.d.). “The implementation of the National Sex Offender Registry, which provides law enforcement officials with greater access to cross-state registration information, may increase the consistency of sex offender registry data” (“Sex Offender”, n.d., p. 2). “Ideally, registration statutes and agency policies specifically outline expected protocols for ensuring that incarcerated sex offenders are informed of the applicable registration requirements prior to their release or that allow the registration process to be initiated prior to release” (“Sex Offender”, n.d., p. 2). Even though some offenders fail to register, the proper policies and procedures have been put in place in accordance with the newly updated legislative statutes. The goal of the enacted laws and statues is intended to provide awareness to the public allowing them to take necessary precautions, prevent sex offenders from participating in criminal activity/behavior, deterring offenders from participating in repeat offenses and to empower law enforcement agencies by providing an additional resource of information. With the rising number of sex crimes across the U.S., District of Columbia, Territories and Indian Tribes comes an alarming number of sexual predators/offenders, the offender registration policy has developed over the years into an accurate information center that is easily accessible by other jurisdictions. The criminal justice policy of sex offender registration generates resources that aid in the protection of society from sexual victimization.
References
Logan, W. A. (1999). Liberty interests in the preventive state: Procedural due process and sex offender community notification laws. Journal
Of Criminal Law & Criminology, 89(4), 1167. Retrieved From
Ebscohost.
Matsen, S., Lieb, R., and Feinberg, D. (1999, October). Sex offender registration: Policy overview and comprehensive practices.
Retrieved March 1, 2011 from: http://www.csom.org/pubs/sexreg.pdf
Reid, S. T. (2009). Crime and criminology (12th ed.). Oxford, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Sample, L.L. and Kadleck, C. (2008). Sex offender laws: Legislator’s accounts of the need for policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review
(2008) 19: 40. Doi: 10.1177/0887403407308292
Sex offender registration. (n.d.). On Center for sex offender management website. Retrieved February 23, 2011 from: http://www.csom.org/pubs/cap/6/6_1.htm Sex offender registry. (n.d.). On the FBI: Federal bureau of investigation website. Retrieved February 27, 2011 from: http://www.fbi.gov/scams-safety/registry
Sex offender registry chapter 589, 589.400-426: Opposition to sex offender laws. On Missouri Sex Offender Registry website. Retrieved March 29, 2011 from: http://www.mshp.dps.mo.gov/MSHPWeb/PatrolDivions/CRID/SOR/factsheet.html
SMART - Office of sex offender sentencing, monitoring, apprehending, registering, and tracking. (n.d.). In Office of Justice website.
Retreived February 12, 2011 from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/smart/
SMART – Sex Offender Management. (n.d.). In Office of Justice website.
Retreived February 12, 2011 from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/smart/sexoffendermgmt.htm
The Adam Walsh child protection and safety act resource page. (n.d.).
Retrieved March 18, 2011 from: http://www.fd.org/odstb_AdamWalsh.htm Williams, C. (2010, April 2). Policy analysis of the national sex offender registry: Keeping the children of America safe? Retrieved February 27, 2011 from: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2848624/policy_analysis_of_the_national_sex.html?cat=75
Unknown. (2008, November). The comprehensive approach to sex offender management. Retrieved February 23, 2011 from: http://www.csoml.org/pubs/Comp_Approach_Brief.pdf Unknown. (2007, February 24). General Format. Retrieved from:
http://www.nacdl.org/sl_docs.nsf/issues/sexoffender_attachments/$FILE/SexOffenderPolicy.pdf
“Sex offenders are the scourge of modern America, the ‘irredeemable monsters’ who prey on the innocent” (Logan, 1999, p.1167). The colossal number of sex crimes is rapidly expanding across the United States and with it a wake of innocent victims. This expansion and increased victimization called for reform and demanded protection for the innocent. This protection came in the form of a new criminal justice policy, the sex offender registration.
“In the United States, offender registration was first used in the 1930s” as a means of banishing the unwanted offenders (Matson, Lieb & Feinberg, 1999, p. 1). In 1947 a registration statute was enacted in the state of California in efforts to reduce recidivism among …show more content…
sex offenders while at the same time making their presence known to law enforcement agencies and the public but the continuous rise in offenses triggered a ratification of this enactment (Sample and Kadleck, 2008). “The 1990s ushered in an unprecedented amount of sex offender legislation” in an attempt to combat this overwhelming lack of social control we as Americans are faced with (Sample and Kadleck, 2008, p. 40). The newly mandated federal and state laws enacted the policy for a sex offender registry.
“In 1994, Congress passed the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (Title XVII of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994)” (Matson, et al., 1999, p.1). This significant piece of legislation mandated that states create and maintain a registry of the violent sex offenders who committed crimes against children. The legislation also requires the offender to maintain and update their personal information, such as address and place of employment, for a minimum of 10 years after their release from prison. In addition, if the offenders were considered sexually violent they were required to update their personal information with the registry on a quarterly basis (Matson, et al, 1999). By 1996, 49 of the 50 states adopted a version of the federal Megan’s Law, “which mandates the release of information collected through state programs that require the registration of sex offenders if the information is ‘necessary to protect the public’” (Reid, 2009, p. 536). Today all 50 states have adopted some version of this law.
Laws or Acts such as the Community Protection Act, Megan’s Law, The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety ACT, the Jessica Lunsford Act, the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control ACT (SPPCA) and the Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act, just to mention a few, are attempts by legislators and policy administrators and managers at protecting the innocent while combating the dilemma of sex crimes in America. These legendary legislations and statutes ultimately led to the creation of the National Sex Offender Registry we have in place today. The National Sex Offender Public Website (NSOPW), a national sex offender registry monitored and maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigations and coordinated by the Department of Justice, manages the names of over 700,000 sex offenders in the United States alone. This website collectively houses the names of registered sex offenders from the 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, Territories of Guam, Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico and 31 Indian Tribes in one single, easily accessible location that allows members of the general public to search and locate, free of charge, information regarding known sex offenders (“Sex Offender”, n.d.). Accessible information includes but is not limited to items such as the offenders’ name, current offense, address, employer, photo with physical description, and vehicle license plate number (Williams, 2010, p. 1).
“Sex offender registration statutes are promoted as a means of: 1) deterring offenders from committing future crimes; 2) providing law enforcement with an additional investigative tool; and 3) increasing public protection” (Matson, et al., p. 1). The administrators and managers within the FBI and Department of Justice influence the planning and progression of the National Sex Offender Registry through these statutes. They plan for the interruptions and changes that result from the metamorphosis of the statues that have occurred since the inception of the registry.
The Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking (“SMART”, n.d.), an Office of Justice program that assists in the management of the National Sex Offender Registry, provides jurisdictions with guidance regarding the implementation of the Adam Walsh Act, which not only established a national sex offender registry law but also made imperative changes to the “sexual abuse, exploitation, and transportation crimes. The Act created new substantive crimes, expanded federal jurisdiction over existing crimes, and increased statutory minimum and/or maximum sentences” (“The Adam Walsh”, n.d., para 1). SMART provides “technical assistance to the states, territories, Indian tribes, local governments, and to public and private organizations. The SMART Office also tracks important legislative and legal developments related to sex offenders and administers grant programs related to the registration, notification and management of sex offenders” (“SMART”, n.d.). The mission of SMART is “to protect the public by supporting the national implementation of a comprehensive sex offender registration and notification system” (“SMART”, n.d.).
“According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, at year end 2005 there were more than 160,000 offenders convicted of rape or sexual assault in state prisons” (“Sex Offender Management”, n.d.).
At some point each of these convicted offenders will be released back into society, an estimated 10-20,000 per year, creating a valid challenge for the administrators and managers within the FBI and Department of Justice. “In response to this challenge, lawmakers have enacted many laws and policies aimed at controlling sex offenders in communities; and for those under some form of community supervision (i.e., probation or parole), a variety of strategies have evolved to effectively manage these offenders” (“Sex Offender Management”, n.d.). Also, “research demonstrates that observed recidivism rates for sexual, violent, and non-violent crimes are lower when sex offenders receive appropriate interventions, such as proper supervision and treatment (Aos, et al., 2006), it is incumbent upon public safety agencies to provide services to offenders that can ensure the most effective management of these offenders in an effort to reduce future victimization” (Unknown, 2008, p. …show more content…
2).
The evolution of these strategies has changed the management style of the administrators and managers responsible for the supervision of sex offenders. “Sex offender management is much more than simply supervision and treatment conducted by a few knowledgeable individuals in a community, effective sex offender management necessitates a comprehensive approach, one that the SMART Office supports” (“Sex Offender Management”, n.d.). “Jurisdictions across the country have recognized clearly that the effective management of sex offenders is more than just supervision and treatment: rather, it demands the thoughtful integration of these and other management components (including ensuring effective investigation, adjudication and sentencing; assessment; reentry; supervision; treatment; and registration and notification) and, perhaps as importantly, ongoing collaboration among those who are responsible for carrying out these activities” (Unknown, 2008, p. 1).
Major components in the comprehensive approach to management are those of effective communication and collaboration among those involved in the management of sex offenders. “The Comprehensive Approach to sex offender management is a framework that has been developed to define and encourage a strategic and collaborative response to managing sex offenders and reducing recidivism” (Unknown, 2008, p. 1). This management approach suggests an encouraging and valid foundation for jurisdictions to use in composing policies and practices geared toward the common goal of safety within the community.
“The Comprehensive Approach defines the core components of sex offender management for those who have a key role and/or vested interest in how to manage most effectively this challenging offender population” (Unknown, 2008, p. 2). The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs governs the Comprehensive Approaches to Sex Offender Management (CASOM) Grant Program which procures funds for the enhancement and improvement of the existing management of sex offenders (Unknown, 2008). Multiple jurisdictions developed a definitive treatment of sex offenders while improving victim support, establishing specially designed courts specific to sex offenders and sharpening the collaboration between jurisdictions. With the complexity of registration laws across jurisdictions each agency, law enforcement, courts, corrections and probation and parole must collaboratively work with one another in order to maintain an effective implementation of the National Registry. “The Comprehensive Approach recognizes the complex nature of sex offending and the need for key system stakeholders to facilitate accountability, rehabilitation, and victim and community safety throughout all phases of the justice system” (Unknown, 2008, p. 2). The Comprehensive Approach does, however, exceed the initial target of treatment and supervision by detailing the vast circle of associations among the varying jurisdictions of criminal justice agencies (Unknown, 2008).
Investigation, prosecution and disposition, assessment, treatment, reentry, supervision and registration and notification are the core components of the Comprehensive Approach to Sex Offender Management (Unknown, 2008). “The investigation, prosecution, and disposition of sex crimes set the stage for the remainder of the offender’s contract with the criminal justice system” (Unknown, 2008, p. 4). During the assessment component a diverse approach must be taken in order to be effective. “Well executed assessments are the key to informed decision making throughout the case management process, because the information gleaned from these reports can help stakeholders to understand the static (or unchangeable) factors in an offender’s history that can help to identify risk factors for recidivism over the longer term” (Unknown, 2008, p. 4). The assessment substantiates the shared and continuous efforts of each criminal justice agency as they work together with sex offenders. “Because research has demonstrated that the provision of sex offender-specific treatment is associated with reductions in both sexual and non-sexual recidivism, treatment is an essential component of a comprehensive sex offender management system” (Unknown, 2008, p. 5). The reentry of most sex offenders into society is inevitable and therefore justice administrators and managers should plan for such reentry by addressing the possible issues offender will face. “Ensuring that offenders nearing release are provided necessary risk reducing treatment, are linked to treatment services in the community, and are provided with other stabilizing supports (e.g., appropriate and sustainable housing and employment) is vital to successful offender reintegration” (Unknown, 2008, p.5). Sex offender supervision “coupled with sex offender-specific treatment—can result in marked reductions in recidivism, and equal emphasis on both is advised” (Unknown, 2008, p. 6). “Sex offender registration and notification laws have been enacted in an effort to deter offenders from committing future crimes; to provide law enforcement with an additional investigative tool; and to increase public protection by alerting the public to the presence of sex offenders in their communities (Unknown, 2008, p. 6). Clear and concise policies and procedures on the offender registration system and the functions of each criminal justice agency are imperative for effective implementation of the notification and registration process (Unknown, 2008).
“Sex offending is a multi-faceted and complex issue that can have a significant impact on victims and the community” hence the importance of the National Sex Offender Registry (Unknown, 2008, p. 7). Sex offenders that fail to register will be sanctioned under federal law. “The purpose behind the legislative-initiated policy was to provide protection to the public against sex offenders and to allow law enforcement organizations effectively to track sex offenders” (Williams, 2010, p. 1).
“The success of sex offender registration laws is based on several presumptions” (Reid, 2009, p. 537). The first of these presumptions is that potential sex offender victims will read a notification if given one and take the necessary precautions to prevent the victimization from occurring. The next presumption is that complete and precise offender data is reported to law enforcement agencies. A third presumption is that law enforcement agencies possess the necessary resources needed to effectively combat the tasks involved with sex offender notifications. A fourth presumption of potential victims is that the required notification and registration of sex offenders will deter predators from repeating a sexual offense in their own neighborhood. If one presumes that sexual offenders will be deterred from committing a sexual offense in their own neighborhood because of the required registration it must also be falsely presumed that traveling outside the registration and notification area is out of the offender’s realm (Reid, 2009).
These presumptions lead to a false sense of security within the criminal justice system which has become cause for the opposition of the National Sex Offender Registry policy. “Opponents of the sex offender registry argue that the registry does nothing more than infringe on the constitutional rights of the accused” (Williams, 2010, p. 1). This false sense of security and accusations of constitutional rights violations, along with the potential for a violation of due process rights, the belief of prolonged sentencing (serving a sentence of tracking after a completed prison sentence), belief that the requirement of offender registration is double jeopardy, and the belief that the policy violates the 8th Amendment protection from cruel and unusual punishment are all valid arguments against the policy. “However, the courts ruled that the sex offender registry did not violate any constitutional rights” (Williams, 2010, p. 1). “The Supreme Court evaluated the law and determined that although a burden on offenders the registry did not infringe on constitutional rights and does not expose offenders to threats, harassment, or violence but serves as a protection on society” (Williams, 2010, p. 1). “Because sex offenders were more likely to re-offend (Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 198281, 2003), lawmakers felt this constituted more regulation. However, critics of the law state it adds a penalty to the crime that was not there when the offender was sentenced and the laws inflict degrading and inhumane treatment of the offender” (“Sex Offender Registry Chapter”, n.d., para. 7). The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) is among the many opposed to several aspects of the sex offender statutes and registration and notification policy. “NACDL opposes the death penalty as a sanction for sex offenders, mandatory minimum sentences, sex offender registrations and public notification laws, civil commitment laws, and residence restriction” (Unknown, 2007, p. 2). The NACDL “recognizes that sex offenses and child sexual abuse cause great pain and suffering to victims and their families” and therefore defend the violation of rights and not the offense of the sex crime (Unknown, 2007, p. 3). The NACDL also realizes that the past two decades has generated a multitude of new sex offender laws. “These laws include sex offender registration and public notification statutes, minimum mandatory sentences, civil commitment for offenders who have already served a sentence, and efforts to apply the death penalty against offenders who have not killed anyone” (Unknown, 2007, p. 3). The NACDL believes that the punishment should fit the individual crime instead of having a blanket punishment for each category of sex crime; for example, they believe that an offender that rapes a 10 year-old girl should receive a tougher punishment than a 18 year-old that has consensual sex with a 15 year-old girl. The NACDL believe that “Sex Offender Registry and Community Notification laws have become pervasive” (Unknown, 2007, p. 6). The offender registration and community notification policies are separate but equal. “Registration and notification laws do result in significant disruption in the life of an offender and the offender’s family” (Unknown, 2007, p. 8). NACDL also believes that law enforcement agencies should only notify the community of a registered sex offender if and only if the offender poses a direct threat to the community at large. “Due process provisions should be available to offender to contest his classification based upon accepted risk assessment models” (Unknown, 2007, p. 8). “The good intentions of the legislature to protect society from the harm of dangerous sex offenders have been short-lived as the system fails to maintain the location of thousands of sexual offenders” (Williams, 2010, p. 2). The overall compliance with sex offender registration has declined with an approximate 300 sex offenders escaping the system requirements (Williams, 2010). “The policy issue of requiring sex offenders to register into a national database that becomes open to the public’s scrutiny is an issue of grave importance on society’s safety. The policy was formed with the best intentions of the government; however, the program needs to be evaluated to determine methods of tracking missing sex offenders” (Williams, 2010, p. 2). It is beyond imperative that each offender required to register do so. Law enforcement agencies diligently enforce the requirements and counter all attempts of offenders try to avoid the requirements of registration. Administrators and managers combat the issue of non-compliance with registration requirements by assigning specific officers to validate the information provided by the offender; sometimes even before the offenders release from prison. By taking these measures the administrators and managers within the agencies are able to effectively managing the offender while enforcing the policy. “The overarching goal of creating centralized registries of convicted sex offenders is to enhance public safety through multiples processes” (“Sex Offender”, n.d., p.
1). Since sex offender registries include personal identifying information such as fingerprints, DNA and handwriting samples, conviction information such as offense committed and jurisdictional information, these processes include, but are not limited to, the reinforcement and assistance in the investigations of sex crimes. The data obtained through sex offender registries offers assistance to investigators of law enforcement agencies, as well as other criminal justice agencies, in narrowing a suspect pool of offenders. “In addition, registries are designed to make sex offenders more visible to community members who, when they access or receive information about registered sex offenders living in their communities, may take increased protective steps” (“Sex Offender”, n.d., p. 1). The sex offender registration policy is used by the criminal justice system as a deterrent for future violations of sex crimes for repeat offenders by exposing them to the public for the criminal they are. The registry is also used to deter those who have yet to participate in criminal sexual behaviors and/or for those individuals that have concealed their criminal behaviors (“Sex Offender”,
n.d.). In order for the National Sex Offender Registration policy to be an effective form of policymaking among the collaborating agencies clear, comprehensive and concise policies and procedures must be adopted and implemented in order to determine which statutes of the policy are realistic, deterrent and operational. “This requires that staff are well-trained in the specific statutory requirements, agency policies, and specific procedures regarding the registration process, and the quality assurance or other monitoring practices are in place to ensure adherence to these procedures” (“Sex Offender”, n.d., p. 2). Administrators and managers within the criminal justice agencies that monitor the sex offender registrations are required to ensure the policies for registration are applicable to the existing agency policies and procedures. Discrepancies can occur across jurisdictions as the guidelines and policies for each state statue vary to some degree. “Some state statutes expressly indicate that registration is intended only for adult sex offenders, while other laws explicitly include juveniles adjudicated within the juvenile courts, waived to adult courts, or both” (“Sex Offender”, n.d., p. 2). Additional concerns that administrators and managers must keep in mind as they review, adopt and implement registration policies is that consistency and explanation are key factors in determining equality of treatment. “It is also important that policies outline the respective responsibilities of the various agencies or individual that have a role in sex offender registration” (“Sex Offender”, n.d., p. 2). “Policies must also specify the type of information that his to be collected for sex offender registries” (“Sex Offender”, n.d. p. 2). The National Sex Offender Registration policy shows discrepancies in collected information between the jurisdictions. However, an offender’s name, known aliases, address, conviction dates, type of offense (i.e., rape, molestation or sodomy), an identification number, photograph and fingerprints are the basic requirements of almost all state registries. Other states may required more detailed identifying information such as DNA analysis or information such as location of employment and vehicle registration for the purpose of being able to easily locate the offender if necessary (“Sex Offender”, n.d.). “The implementation of the National Sex Offender Registry, which provides law enforcement officials with greater access to cross-state registration information, may increase the consistency of sex offender registry data” (“Sex Offender”, n.d., p. 2). “Ideally, registration statutes and agency policies specifically outline expected protocols for ensuring that incarcerated sex offenders are informed of the applicable registration requirements prior to their release or that allow the registration process to be initiated prior to release” (“Sex Offender”, n.d., p. 2). Even though some offenders fail to register, the proper policies and procedures have been put in place in accordance with the newly updated legislative statutes. The goal of the enacted laws and statues is intended to provide awareness to the public allowing them to take necessary precautions, prevent sex offenders from participating in criminal activity/behavior, deterring offenders from participating in repeat offenses and to empower law enforcement agencies by providing an additional resource of information. With the rising number of sex crimes across the U.S., District of Columbia, Territories and Indian Tribes comes an alarming number of sexual predators/offenders, the offender registration policy has developed over the years into an accurate information center that is easily accessible by other jurisdictions. The criminal justice policy of sex offender registration generates resources that aid in the protection of society from sexual victimization.
References
Logan, W. A. (1999). Liberty interests in the preventive state: Procedural due process and sex offender community notification laws. Journal
Of Criminal Law & Criminology, 89(4), 1167. Retrieved From
Ebscohost.
Matsen, S., Lieb, R., and Feinberg, D. (1999, October). Sex offender registration: Policy overview and comprehensive practices.
Retrieved March 1, 2011 from: http://www.csom.org/pubs/sexreg.pdf
Reid, S. T. (2009). Crime and criminology (12th ed.). Oxford, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Sample, L.L. and Kadleck, C. (2008). Sex offender laws: Legislator’s accounts of the need for policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review
(2008) 19: 40. Doi: 10.1177/0887403407308292
Sex offender registration. (n.d.). On Center for sex offender management website. Retrieved February 23, 2011 from: http://www.csom.org/pubs/cap/6/6_1.htm Sex offender registry. (n.d.). On the FBI: Federal bureau of investigation website. Retrieved February 27, 2011 from: http://www.fbi.gov/scams-safety/registry
Sex offender registry chapter 589, 589.400-426: Opposition to sex offender laws. On Missouri Sex Offender Registry website. Retrieved March 29, 2011 from: http://www.mshp.dps.mo.gov/MSHPWeb/PatrolDivions/CRID/SOR/factsheet.html
SMART - Office of sex offender sentencing, monitoring, apprehending, registering, and tracking. (n.d.). In Office of Justice website.
Retreived February 12, 2011 from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/smart/
SMART – Sex Offender Management. (n.d.). In Office of Justice website.
Retreived February 12, 2011 from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/smart/sexoffendermgmt.htm
The Adam Walsh child protection and safety act resource page. (n.d.).
Retrieved March 18, 2011 from: http://www.fd.org/odstb_AdamWalsh.htm Williams, C. (2010, April 2). Policy analysis of the national sex offender registry: Keeping the children of America safe? Retrieved February 27, 2011 from: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2848624/policy_analysis_of_the_national_sex.html?cat=75
Unknown. (2008, November). The comprehensive approach to sex offender management. Retrieved February 23, 2011 from: http://www.csoml.org/pubs/Comp_Approach_Brief.pdf Unknown. (2007, February 24). General Format. Retrieved from:
http://www.nacdl.org/sl_docs.nsf/issues/sexoffender_attachments/$FILE/SexOffenderPolicy.pdf