Sex Offender Registration

Registration / Community Notification

This is commonly known as 'Megan's Law,' named after Megan Kanka, who was killed in New Jersey by a released sex offender who lived near her house (with two other ex-offenders). Jesse Timmendequas had served his complete sentence, and thus was not under any sort of supervision (such as parole), and had been living near Megan for some eighteen months. On July 29, 1994, he lured seven-year-old Megan into his home by asking her if she wanted to see his new puppy.

Once Megan was considered missing, Timmendequas was among the first persons questioned by police, since he lived across the street and diagonally across from Megan. After nearly twenty-four hours of questioning, Timmendequas asked to speak to one of his roommates, to whom he then confessed.

Megan's parents claimed to be shocked upon discovering that Timmendequas had previous convictions for sexual offenses against children. However, The Princeton Times indicated that Megan had been forewarned to stay away from the house where Timmendequas lived. (Robert Freeman-Longo. "Public Notification of Sex Offender Release: Prevention or Problem?" The Safer Foundation , Brandon, Vermont, 1996, pg. 5) Neighbors of the Kanka family confirmed that Megan's parents knew that a sex offender lived in the house where Megan was killed. (Tim O'Brien. "Would Megan's Law Have Saved Megan?" New Jersey Law Journal , July 8, 1996, pg. 1)

Obviously, murdering a child is a horrendous thing to do. And there is, of course, no doubt whatsoever that Megan's death was a source of immense grief for her family and friends.

Having said the above, it is simply not true that the Kanka family 'didn't know.' But for political reasons, it was necessary to maintain a pretense of ignorance.

Thus, 'Megan's Law' follows in the tradition of the raising of the age of consent in the late nineteenth century, as well as the crusade against child pornography, all three having been based on gross exaggerations and flat-out lies. (See History section of this site.)

But, beyond the issue of its origins, the fact is that, 'Megan's Laws' just do not work :

B14 [893] "[D]espite the public perception that recidivism is a more serious problem among sex offenders than other criminals, research on sex offenders in the past few decades reveals that recidivism for sex offenses is relatively low. That the public perception of recidivism rates is false or misleading is reason to question whether registration (and community notification) laws should exist."

[898] "[I]f actual recidivism rates motivated registration laws, drug dealers and burglars should be the prime target of registration laws, rather than sex offenders."

[937] "If recidivism were truly the reason behind community notification laws, legislatures would impose them on burglars, robbers, and drug offenders, each of whom have higher overall recidivism rates than sex offenders. If the real reason were the severity of sex crimes, and the vulnerability of society to such crimes, murderers and other violent criminals would also be subject to community notification. The reasons given for imposing community notification on sex offenders simply do not justify imposing community notification solely on sex offenders."

[See Recidivism section of this site.]

S5 [8] "Studies in two states have demonstrated that community notification did not result in a decrease in the number of sex crimes against children."

[33] "There is no great difference between recidivism rates in areas with community notification [and] those without it."

C7 [549] "The [present] study focused on the ten years prior to and ten years immediately following the enactment of Megan's Law...Over the twenty-year period, 48 of the [550] studied sex offenders were rearrested for another sex offense, a rate of 7.6%. Among other things, the research revealed that Megan's Laws had no effect on community tenure or reducing sexual re-offenses. It also had no effect on the type of first-time sexual offense or re-offense or the number of victims involved in sex offenses. The report concluded that, '[g]iven the lack of demonstrated effect of Megan's Law on sexual offenses, the growing costs may not be justifiable.'...The overall rate of sex offenses in New Jersey has fallen steadily from 61 crimes per 100,000 population in 1986 to 29 crimes per 100,000 population in 2005. The rate of decline was unaffected by the enactment of Megan's Law."

F8 [314] "[T]here is no scientific research or data to support the effectiveness of this unfunded federal mandate. One study of public notification of sexual offender release conducted by the State of Washington showed there was no reduction in the incidence of sexual abuse reports."

M14 "A 2008 study analyzing statistics compiled by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services concluded that...public notification has had no meaningful impact on sexual reoffending."

W5 [2] "There is no research...indicating central registries actually reduce recidivism. A study in Washington state during the first years of registration found no statistically significant differences between offenders who were subjected to notification...and those who were not...(Lieb, 2006)."

[4] "Levenson (2003) observes...[that] there is no empirical evidence that [community notification laws] are effective in preventing sexual abuse."

W27 [101] [Patty Wetterling's son, Jacob, was kidnaped back in the 1980s. It would not be until Labor Day weekend of 2016 that his fate would finally become known. Sadly, his remains were discovered in a field not far from his home, after law enforcement officials were led to the site by the person who murdered him, a man who had been interviewed as a potential suspect shortly after Jacob's disappearance. The following is a portion of an interview:]

Wright: What are your general thoughts about the Adam Walsh Act [the major rewrite of federal sex offender laws enacted in 2006]?

Wetterling: This law applies to a very, very tiny percentage of our general population. There are many pieces to it that are very costly and don’t necessarily work...These laws don't necessarily stop crimes from happening, and they cost a ton of money. These are two issues that I have great concerns over. Additionally the AWA allocates zero dollars for prevention.

[Both Mrs. Wetterling and Mrs. Kanka had to deal with the hollowing grief of having one of their own children murdered. But it bears noting that, whereas 'Megan Kanka' is virtually a household name, 'Jacob Wetterling' is not. It seems likely that a major reason for this discrepancy is the fact that, whereas Mrs. Kanka participated enthusiastically in making political hay of her family's tragedy, even acceding to the public being sorely misled as to what the Kankas actually knew, Mrs. Wetterling was far more wary of politicians and the media exploiting her family's tragedy for their own ends, and insisted on always telling the truth , even when doing so was not what political grandstanders wanted to hear.]

M33 [53] [from Abstract:] "This study investigates the opinions of 133 mental health professionals who work with sex offenders regarding the implications of public sex offender registry websites. Over 80% of the participants in this study do not believe that sex offender registry sites will affect the number of children who are sexually abused each year. Seventy percent of the respondents also believe that a listing of sex offenders on the web will create a false sense of security for parents, and over 60% of the respondents believe that sex offenders who are listed on these sites will become targets of vigilantism in their community."

[59] "Parents may be less vigilant because they erroneously assume that because the adult is omitted from the registries, he or she is not a threat to their child...[P]arents may not be as concerned about their child's safety because their neighborhood is 'sex offender free' according to the web site; when, in actuality, child sex offenders can enter their neighborhood at any time without the parents' knowledge. Finally, an offender who has never been convicted would not be on any registry and thus the parents would not know about his or her offending history."

L18 [150] "This study examines the views of 261 sexual abuse professionals regarding sex crime policies."

[151] "Interestingly...most parents reported that they did not alter their supervision of children as a result of community notification. (Phillips, 1998)"

[So, then, what's the point of community notification?]

[152] "Curiously, less knowledge about child sexual abuse yielded greater support for notification. (Redlich, 2001)"

[Perhaps this is not at all surprising: The more you know about child sexual abuse, the more you realize that notification is pointless (or worse).]

"When mental health practitioners were surveyed about their perspectives, the majority expressed cynicism about potential deterrence effects, did not believe that notification would decrease sexual abuse, abd voiced concerns about false reassurance conveyed to parents by registries. (Malesky & Keim, 2001)"

[153] "[W]hen attitudes toward sex offenders were investigated in a sample of forensic staff and students, staff members viewed offenders more positively than students, and those who acknowledged a history of sexual abuse viewed offenders less negatively than those who had not been victimized. (Ferguson & Ireland, 2006)"

[Once again, those with more knowledge have less negative attitudes .]

[Now to the results of the Levenson et al. study itself:]

[160] "Surprisingly, having a child in one's own home who had been a sex-crime victim was not associated with negative perceptions, nor was self-report as a victim [163] of a sex crime.

"In general, those not working directly with sex offenders had more favorable views of [present] policies and less tolerance of sex offenders living in communities...Highly educated participants searched registries less often, and were more likely to agree that registries offered a false sense of security."

[164] "Professionals with more direct knowledge about the out-group displayed less fear and anger, more tolerance, and less confidence in policies that rely on public notification."

W6 [233] "After a review of the literature, Lovell (2007) concluded, 'There is no evidence that community notification has resulted in a decreased number of assaults by strangers on children' (pg. 3)...More specifically, Zevitz (2003) examined sex offenders who were subject to notification procedures. He tracked their rates of return to prison over a 4-1/2-year period and found that, after controlling for demographic and criminal history variables, notification had no direct effect on the likelihood of being remanded to prison."

[235] "[S]everal scholars have directly examined notification's ability to reduce reoffending, but they have not found any significant effects of community notification on sex offenders' behavior. (Adkins et al., 2000; Levenson, 2006; Scharm & Milloy, 1995; Walker et al., 2005; Zevitz, 2003)"

[457] "Research has shown that community notification does not reduce reoffending. (Hopkins & Koss, 2005)"

W5 [4] "Levenson (2003) observes that community notification...creates high workloads and costs for law enforcement...(p. 29)."

F8 [314] "[Another inherent problem with notification laws is] the mobility of sex offenders. There is nothing to stop a sexual abuser who wants to molest children or rape women from going into neighboring communities, where he or she is not known, to select a victim."

W5 [2] "There is nothing to keep an offender from going into adjacent communities and abusing a child there."

S5 [30] "[T]he National Center on Institutions and Alternatives (NICA) quoted Walter Dickey, a University of Wisconsin law professor[, as] saying: '[Community notification] is designed to get people to think that it will take repeat offenders off the street; it tricks people into thinking the problem has been solved. The truth is that Community Notification and Registration have been legislated not because it's good crime control but because it's good politics.'" [Emphasis added.]

[246] "Sex offender registries...may be wildly popular but there is simply no reliable evidence that they work. When a task force convened by Canada's federal government reviewed all available evidence in 2000, it concluded a registry 'would not significantly improve' public safety, and the money spent on a registry would do more good elsewhere. The government went ahead anyway, and the minister in charge privately apologized to the civil servants handling the file. 'It's politics,' he told them."

Throughout this site, for purposes of brevity sources are abbreviated ('A1,' etc.). However the titles of some are so good, they bear repeating outside of the 'Bibliography' itself. The following is one of them:

"The Expansion of Criminal Registries and the Illusion of Control"

W34 [511] "Two findings suggest that registries are not the panacea they are assumed to be. First, statistical data indicates that sex offenders are less likely than other types of offenders to recidivate (at least with respect to sex crimes). Second, detailed empirical studies suggest that registries have failed in curtailing sex crimes. In fact, some evidence suggests that registries, particularly in concert with residency restrictions, have increased the likelihood of recidivism among sex [512] offenders. These findings suggest that resources may be better spent on education and prevention or on identifying potential offenders. The research also suggests that current registries and related measures may be exacerbating the very problem that they are designed to address.

"In spite of serious questions about the efficacy of sex-offender registries, the popularity of other types of offender registries is burgeoning. New criminal registries have been proposed in a number of states. One category of registry involves tracking offenders who have committed violent offenses. In some cases, these registries are limited to crimes against minors. Other violent-offense registries include crimes involving all types of victims. Still others include specific types of violent offenses, such as murder. A number of states have enacted registries designed to track the production of methamphetamine. In other states, proposals have focused on registering perpetrators of domestic violence or those convicted of animal abuse and neglect.

"This article explores the question of why lawmakers continue to propose new criminal registries in light of the questionable utility of the registries we currently have. What is it about crime registries that appeals to legislators and the public? Why do members of society perceive that publicly tracking offenders will [513] make the public safer? Behavioral research provides clues to these questions. Specifically, empirical psychological studies have revealed that crime registries accomplish the goal of making people feel safer by providing an increased sense of control over the sources of risk that seem most threatening.

"Crime prevention tools are especially likely to garner support when they target the types of crimes that seem most threatening. Behavioral research shows that individuals are most afraid of risks that are unfamiliar and uncontrollable, independent of whether these risks statistically pose the greatest threat."

[519] "As a majority of mental health professionals predicted from the outset, registries have not been effective in reducing the number of sex offenses committed. Evidence of this is borne out in empirical investigations and scholarly articles on the topic of sex-offender registration laws. The balance of the scholarship concludes that registration and notification laws are not effective at decreasing recidivism and instead may be increasing recidivism among the targeted population of offenders."

[522] "Many of the lawmakers who supported new [registration/notification] legislation seem to have been motivated more by a desire to appear proactive to their constituents than out of a belief that the legislation would reduce crime. In a sample of 35 Illinois legislators, only four were confident that sex-offender registration and notification laws were effective, yet nearly all of them agreed that the current sex-offender acts addressed the public's demand for action."

[525] "While other types of offenders may be able to start fresh after release, sex offenders are branded in a fashion that eliminates the potential for a clean slate...Because these offenders feel marginalized, they are less likely to adopt mainstream social values. An offender who is initially motivated to effect real and permanent social change may eventually become resentful and discouraged. Thus, ironically, experts have suggested that these laws can result in higher rates of recidivism."

[556] "Ironically, sex offense rates were declining when most of the registration and notification laws were being passed. Rape arrest rates have decreased steadily since 1991 (in a period prior to the enactment of sex crimes legislation), and child sexual abuse rates have declined as well. These statistics belie the notion that legislators passed sex-offender registry laws because of an increase in the number of sex offenses. Instead, it appears that the laws were passed in response to highly publicized cases and the resulting public concern. While arrests for sex crimes were waning, publicity about sex crimes increased. For example, a 2001 study by Lisa Sample of [The] University of Missouri [-] St. Louis revealed a 128% increase in the number of articles pertaining to sex crimes in three newspapers during the period when legislation was pending and enacted.

"Fear sells stories. Because the media selectively features the very crimes that are most likely to cause concern, these crimes are also cognitively available to members of the public. A very human desire to exert control over sources of harm leads members of the public to demand, and legislators to endorse, crime control methods designed to provide information to those looking for a measure of comfort in the face of fear-provoking news stories. In recent years, crime registries seemingly restore control to members of the American public who are besieged by bad news about threats posed by criminal offenders. However appealing, these crime registries are expensive to implement, and they divert resources from other potentially more effective methods of crime control. Findings from studies of sex-offender registries provide evidence of the problematic nature of satisfying the need for control through registry and notification laws."

F8 "Passing legislation should follow a process by which legislators research the issue, have some supportive evidence that the law will work, and are willing to allocate funds at state and federal levels to ensure states will carry out and uphold the law. This is not so with Megan's Law, for which no public hearings were held, no supportive research exists, and no federal funds were allotted."

L5 [541] "[T]he Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children Act and Sexually Violent Registration Act...was a component of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, passed into law in 1994...[T]he Wetterling Act essentially coerced individual states into setting up sex-offender registration systems, through the threat of withholding criminal justice funding to states without registration systems in place by 1997."

M14 "The fact that the [New York State Sex Offender Registration] Act ['SORA'] used past crimes as the touchstone, probably sweeping in a significant number of people who pose no real threat to the community, served to feed suspicion that something more than regulation of safety is going on; when a legislature uses prior convictions that outpace the law's stated civil aims, there is room for serious argument that the ulterior purpose is to revisit past crimes, not prevent future ones."

W5 [4] "In reviewing the community notification laws, Levenson (2003) observes there are clear political winners that give the illusion of public safety."

[232] "[O]f those [surveyed] who did not access the sex offender information [online], most (88%) felt personally safer, and safer for their families, knowing this information was available. Despite public support for registration and notification laws, it seems that few people may access the information, yet the knowledge that this information exists may make people feel safer. Other scholars, however, suggest these laws may do little to reduce public fear of victimization or reduce reoffending. (Avrahamian, 1998; Petrosino & Petrosino, 1999; Tewksbury, 2002; Zevitz & Farkas, 2000)"

[457] "[C]ommunity notification...give[s] the community a false sense of security. (McAlinden, 2007; Presser and Gunnison, 1999)"

B14 [913] "A true shame punishment would attempt to shape the offender's moral character -- to shame him into conforming to the community's moral code. Advocates of community notification, however, reject the notion that sex offenders can rehabilitate. Shaming thus becomes merely an outlet for the community's rage."

S5 [25] "Since the majority of sex offenders are incestuous, placing the names and addresses on the registry also placed the address and last name of the victim, the child of the offender, placing them in danger and subjecting them to public harassment as well."

F8 [313] "There are many inherent problems with public notification laws; however, a few critical problems stand out. First, more than seventy-five percent of cases involving the sexual abuse of children are perpetrated by someone the child knows, not strangers. In these cases, public notification will have little impact on preventing abuse, especially [314] when denial (which is very common in intrafamilial sexual abuse) is present."

N2 "[T]he solutions to sexual predation are not solutions at all, but frustratingly inadequate, and often ethically and legally murky, tools...None of these efforts, of course, address the reality that the overwhelming majority of victims are assaulted by people they know, who never appear in any database."

M14 "The vast majority of sex offenses against children are not committed by strangers lurking around schools and playgrounds, but by family members and acquaintances."

W5 [2} "[N]otification laws assume most sexual offenses are committed by strangers. But in reality, more than 75% are committed by family members and by people known to the victim. (Winick, 1998) Family members are going to be well aware of the history of the sex offender."

W27 [102] Wetterling: "[M]ost people victimize somebody who is very close to them, somebody in their family or a neighbor, someone who has their trust..[103] [W]e're putting all of our energy into the smallest piece of the puzzle."

W6 [230] "[M]ost victims of sex crimes, both children and adults, know their attackers, calling into question the assumption of sex offenders as strangers to their victims...[231] While seeking out strangers, the public may overlook those family members, friends, and acquaintances who are more likely to victimize their children."

[457] "[C]ommunity notification...deflect[s] attention from non stranger sexual violence, which features in the majority of sexual offense cases..."

S36 [297] "[R]egistration and community notification laws are based on the false assumption that strangers commit most sexual offenses. However, the research [298] unequivocally finds that sex offenders are more likely to victimize family members, intimate partners, or acquaintances. In fact, according to a Bureau of Justice study (Snyder, 2000), 93% of all child sexual abuse victims knew their abuser (24.3% were family members and 58.7% were acquaintances)...With most sexual crimes being committed by family members or someone known to the victim, registration laws may be ineffective because they focus, almost exclusively, on sexual offenses committed by strangers."

J3 "Of all the worries the public registries create...the most frightening for many families is vigilantism. In 2005, a man killed two sex offenders he tracked through a Washington State community-notification web site. And last year, a 20-year-old Canadian man with a list of 29 names and addresses from the Maine Sex Offender Registry went to the homes of two convicted offenders, shooting and killing them. Both men were strangers to the killer."

B14 [907] "Washington state provides several examples of community notification generating a panic which transformed into vengeance. The most notorious incident of vindictive behavior occurred in July 1993, when unknown arsonists torched the house of convicted child molester Joseph Gallardo just hours before he was scheduled to arrive there after his release from [908] prison. In another case, residents of a small community threw eggs at the residence of a convicted rapist and made death threats to his family. Other sex offenders are simply left homeless because no landlord will take them. Sometimes the community outrage and rejection forces the offender out of town -- where the cycle begins anew in the next community -- or eventually out of the state where the offender is no longer subject to the notification law."

M32 [1581] "Vigilante violence, even if rare...places convicted sex offenders subject to registration in a frightening bind: either be subject to felony reconviction and reincarceration for failure to register, or risk severe physical attack and harassment. While this is obviously cruel as applied to persons convicted of minor offenses, the harshness entailed by the community notification regime -- forcing a choice between social ostracism, or even lethal violence, and lengthy incarceration -- is unjust as a collateral sanction even as applied to individuals with more serious convictions."

W5 [2] "There is no evidence supporting the assumption that, when neighbors know the identity of a recently discharged sex offender, they will act responsibly. They may take matters into their own hands and the result will be further violence."

W6 [457] "[S]exual offender laws depend on full compliance, which does not occur if offenders 'go underground' in an attempt to avoid stigmatization and humiliation. (Ronken & Lincoln, 2001)"

M14 "'Widespread dissemination of offenders' names, photographs, addresses, and criminal history serves not only to inform the public but also to humiliate and ostracize the convicts. It thus bears some resemblance to our shaming punishments that were used earlier in our history to disable offenders from living normally in the community.' (Smith v. Doe, 538 U.SA. 84, 109 (Souter, J., concurring))"

"SORA [New York State's Sex Offender Registration Act] is a cruel and foolish law born of unreason and vindictiveness and a throwback to the days of displaying sinners in the marketplace in stocks."

S5 [31] "A sex offender has served his time and is released from jail. He registers with the local authorities, rents an apartment and gets a job, quietly minding his own business and trying to get back on his feet. He carefully complies with the requirements of his release in terms of where he lives and works. Then his name goes out on the Internet, and someone a few blocks or miles away learns of his existence. In a sincere effort to protect the community, this individual prints out and plasters photos of the ex-sex-offender all over town. Not surprisingly, the registrant begins being harassed, his employer is anonymously called and threatened, and so the registrant loses his job. The harassment continues until the registrant is driven from his home and becomes homeless. Now he is much harder for law enforcement to track because he has no known address, he has no job, and no means of support. He may even turn to crime in order to eat. Stress of this kind can also lead to or aggravate mental illness, which would cause more risk to the community...Long-term provocation of registrants could very well set up the very same anxieties, frustrations, depression and despair that may have precipitated their deviant behavior in the first place."

M14 "The [New York State] Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) is based on the assumption that 'sex offenders' are a distinct class of people with an incurable compulsion to sexually assault other people. Unlike with other ex-offenders, the state actively obstructs their re-integration into the community after they have served their sentences. For persons adjudicated as presenting a high or moderate risk of sexually reoffending, SORA imposes onerous registration requirements and a lifetime of public stigma, making normal civil life impossible."

B14 [899] "[R]egistration laws explicitly reject the idea that the state can rehabilitate sex offenders."

[910] "By informing the public of a sex offender's presence, community notification laws jeopardize an offender's chances of reintegrating into society and leading a productive life. Community notification laws destroy the anonymity that is crucial to reintegration. A reformed sex offender cannot become a productive member of society so long as the community treats him as a criminal. Reintegration requires effort from both parties: the offender must abide by the rules of society, and the community must allow the offender to enter community life.

"One purported premise of our criminal justice system is to rehabilitate criminals. Reintegration is typically a reward for the rehabilitated offender. Proponents of community notification laws oppose sex offenders' reintegration into society because they believe that sex offenders are rarely rehabilitated when released from prison, and are likely to never rehabilitate. Of course, not all sex offenders are incorrigible. Some respond to therapy or other rehabilitative programs...Moreover, a community's rejection of [911] the possibility of rehabilitation may become a self-fulfilling prophecy of discouraging offenders from attempting to change their behavior."

[936] "The offender is held up before the community as an object of scorn, hatred, and fear. He is forever labelled a sex offender, stripped of any other identity he might otherwise have in the eyes of society. To reduce a person to this label affronts his dignity by ignoring his identity as a human being and regarding him only as an object to be controlled and feared. The refusal to accord dignity to one human being reflects upon the dignity of the whole society."

W5 [2] "Although registration and notification laws may not reduce recidivism, several commentators speculate there are ways in which such laws could actually increase reoffending. (Berliner, 1996) Winick (1998) observed that registration may result in the sex offender being characterized as deviant and ostracized by the community in ways that may seem impossible to overcome. By denying them a variety of employment, social and educational opportunities, the sex offender label may prevent these individuals from starting a new life and making new acquaintances, with the result that it may be extremely difficult for them to discard their criminal patterns. Continued shaming and stigmatization may produce anger and further deviance. They may eventually feel their essential identity is as a sex offender.

"Additionally, registration and notification laws may result in some people reoffending: 'We cannot dismiss the possibility that some percentage of offenders will reoffend because of the stress and pressure imposed by a hostile, rejectionist community that has branded the offender as a pariah. Thus we may be unwittingly increasing the likelihood that some sex offenders reoffend. There is ample clinical evidence to suggest that maintenance in the community is the most difficult part of reducing offense risk.' (Prentky (1996), pg. 296)"

[3] "Released sex offenders have been asked directly about how the registration and notification requirements affected them. Levenson and Cotter (2005) surveyed 183 from Florida. One-third reported dire events such as the loss of a job or home, threats or harassment, or property damage. The majority of identified negative events such as stress, isolation, loss of relationships, fear, shame, embarrassment, and hopelessness...Of the two-thirds of the offenders who viewed their internet registry information, almost half reported some information was incorrect.

"Zevitz and Farkas (2000) interviewed 30 offenders in Wisconsin who were subjects of community notification meetings...[A]ll but one said the community notification process adversely affected their transition from prison to the outside world. They frequently mentioned loss of employment and exclusion of residence as consequences of notification and the ensuing detrimental publicity. Some weren't hired, others fired. Community members picketed against their landlords. Some were evicted. One was relocated seven times in five months. Some had to live in minimum security correctional centers because there was no housing for them in the community.

"Twenty-three out of 30 described being humiliated regularly, being ostracized by neighbors and lifetime acquaintances, and being harassed or threatened by nearby residents or strangers. All were concerned for their safety. Twenty spoke of how community notification unfavorably affected [the] lives of family members, such as their parents. Although none of the 30 had been revoked for a new sexual offense, some thought the pressure might put them in the cycle to recommit an offense; that eventually something could snap. Some saw it as an insurmountable obstacle preventing their chance to ever succeed in society.

"Tewksbury (2005) found similar results in a study of 121 registered sex offenders in Kentucky. A significant minority experienced social stigmatization, for both the offender and for the offender's family. If the offender feels his case is hopeless and he will always be seen in a negative light, he may come to believe that reoffending would make little difference to him...Public censure may encourage him to retreat into denial and defensiveness...Tewksbury concludes: 'In the end the value and utility of sex offender registration needs to be questioned and reevaluated with achievement of the stated goals balanced against unintended costs and consequences.' (p. 70)"

W6 [234] "Researchers have begun noting the adverse effects that registration and notification may have on offenders and their behaviors. (Levenson & Cotter, 2005; Mustaine et al., 2006; Tewksbury, 2005; Tewksbury & Lees, 2006; Zevitz, 2003) Sex offenders reported experiencing harassment, social isolation, stigmatization, and feelings of vulnerability as a result of sex offender laws, all of which are associated risks of sexual offending. (Levenson & Cotter, 2005; Tewksbury, 2005; Tewksbury & Lees, 2006, 2007; Zevitz & Farkas, 2000)"

F8 [314] "There is nothing to stop the sexual abuser who wants to molest children or rape women from going into neighboring communities, where he or she is not known, to select a victim. Even if the abuser chooses to stay within his own neighborhood or community, one must wonder how many names, addresses, and faces a child or adult can keep track of or memorize."

N2 "The list of registered offenders is so large as to be almost useless."

S18 [86] "[M]any nonviolent sex crimes against children have been added as registerable offenses."

W6 [232] "Despite public support for [registration and notification] laws, scholars have suggested that few citizens may access sex offender information or act upon the information learned. (Anderson & Sample, 2008) Anderson & Sample (2008) surveyed approximately 1,800 Nebraska residents and found that, although the overwhelming majority of residents knew of the registry and the availability of this information, only about one third of citizens accessed registry information, and most of these received their information from the newspaper as opposed to the registry web site. Moreover, of those who accessed registry information, only one third took any preventive measures for themselves or their children as a result."

[Therefore, only one-ninth, or about 11% of those surveyed made any real use of the registry information.]

L24 [7] "Few people seem to utilize registries with any regularity or take preventive measures after searching a registry...Despite the fact that registries make people feel safer, the data indicate that their actual effectiveness in preventing sexual recidivism is quite weak."

[9] "Labeling theory proposes that self-identity and behavior of individuals may be determined or influenced by the words used to describe or classify them, the stigma and isolation resulting from labels attached to those who deviate from social norms can be demeaning and may become deeply entrenched in one's self-concept...Labeling and its resulting social rejection is also related to the concepts of stereotyping and self-fulfilling prophecy, such as when an individual internalizes assumptions about him or herself made by others and then behaves in a way that conforms to that notion...Thus, when we [10] label people by the very description we don't want them to be, we actually prevent the cognitive transformation that plays a role in social conformity and reduced recidivism risk..."

[25] "[W]hen people have nothing to lose, they begin to behave accordingly." [Emphasis added.]

B14 [907] "In reality, informed communities can do little more to protect themselves from uninformed communities. If individuals fear abductions from playgrounds or attacks in parking lots, knowing the identity of a sex offender cannot help them to be more vigilant in watching their children or escorting their friends to their cars. Although avoiding a particular individual may create a sense of security, community-notification laws do not protect residents from the unregistered or first-time offender. People must still be cautious in supervising and educating their children and in protecting themselves in public."

"[F]or the most part a community can do little to protect itself from a particular sex offender that would be different from protecting itself from sex offenders in general."

S5 [30] "In a Wisconsin study of the effects of Community Notification, some surprising results emerged: A nearly equal percentage of notification attendees left the meeting feeling more concerned about the sex offender."

[37] "The registry is not functioning as intended. Instead of helping parents, it is terrifying them. Imagine going on the registry and discovering that 50 sex offenders live within 10 miles of your home. It just makes parents feel paranoid and helpless, because with that many of what they think are predatory pedophiles around, what can a responsible parent do but keep their children inside all the time watching TV and playing video games, instead of letting them run and play outside like normal children?"

F8 [314] "[T]he outcome data from sexual abuse prevention and education for children has mixed results, with some concern that this type of information may traumatize children rather than assist them in feeling safe. Public notification may wind up having similar results. Children may become afraid to venture out into their neighborhoods and surrounding areas for fear that 'a sex offender may get me.'"

W5 [4] "Levenson (2003) observes...that community notification increases anxiety in parents..."

[2] "In commenting upon the newly passed notification laws, Prentky (1996) observes that notification of persons not within the criminal justice system, such as police, raises...major problems."

W27 [108] Wetterling: "[O]ver time, I began looking [at proposed laws], and I asked law enforcement what would have helped you? They said it would have helped to know who was in the area. From a law enforcement perspective, that makes sense...[B]ut when they expanded it to community notification, I wasn't even sure if I liked that. It made me very nervous about people not handling the information well.

[102] Wetterling: "Community notification, the way we do it in Minnesota, I think it is respectful because they not only notify the community about the offender, but they also educate people about dangerous behaviors -- for example, anybody who may be giving your child too much attention or giving them presents, gifts, money, trying to spend a lot of time with them. That's preventive information that can stop a bad relationship or a bad situation from happening. Then, law enforcement briefly spends about 5 minutes talking about the one guy who's coming out. It deemphasizes the absolute anger and energy that's usually thrown at one person..."

M14 "Unfortunately, judicial rulings have not always upheld [New York State's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA)] due process protections. Instead of holding the People to their burden of proof, some rulings have adjudicated SORA registrants as high or moderate risk based on accusations in the criminal complaint, grand jury testimony or even internal law enforcement documents that have never been corroborated or cross-examined...If accusations are presumptively true, what do we need a judicial hearing for?

"Over 32,000 persons in New York State bear the status of 'sex offender' [as of 2011]. About 2,000 persons are added every year.

"No just legal process considers bare accusations as proof of anything..."

"Public safety is not served by throwing basic principles out the window. SORA is a cruel and foolish law born of unreason and vindictiveness..." [Emphasis added.]

"It does nothing for public safety while causing great misery to individuals and creating a permanent underclass. The statute nevertheless requires a high showing before permitting the drastic lifetime deprivation of protected liberty interests that results from being stigmatized by the state as a sex offender. Courts are bound to uphold this protection."

S36 [284] [from Abstract:] "[T]his study examined differences in sexual offense arrest rates before and after the enactment of New York State's Sex Offender Registration Act. Results provide no support for the effectiveness of registration and community notification laws in reducing sexual offending by: (a) rapists, (b) child molesters, (c) sexual recidivists, or (d) first-time offenders, casting doubt on the ability of laws that target repeat offenders to meaningfully reduce sexual offending."

[296] "[I]t appears that the enactment of SORA had little, if any, impact on rates of sexual offending."

[297] "[This] study proposed the general question of whether there are differences in sexual offense rates before and after the enactment of SORA, as well as the two specific questions of: (a) whether registration and notification laws are decreasing re-arrest rates for convicted sex offenders, or (b) whether registration and notification laws are deterring nonregistered offenders from committing registerable sexual offenses. According to the analyses, all three of these questions are answered negatively. That is, results of the analyses indicate that the 1996 enactment of SORA (and thus the beginning of the registry) had no significant impact on rates of total sexual offending, rape, or child molestation, whether viewed as a whole or in terms of offenses committed by first-time offenders or those committed by previously convicted sex offenders (i.e., repeat offenders)." [Emphasis added.]

"The current study also found that 95.9% of all arrests for any RSO [registerable sexual offense], 95.9% of all arrests for rape, and 94.1% of all arrests for child molestation were of first-time offenders. Thus, as none of these offenders had any prior convictions for sexual offenses, none of them were on the sex offender registry (or would have been on the registry had it existed) at the time of their offenses. This finding casts doubt on the ability of sex offender registration and notification laws, as well as residency and occupational restriction laws, to actually reduce sexual offending. That is, these laws were specifically designed to limit the ability of convicted sex offenders to re-offend by limiting their opportunities to do so, and it appears that only a small portion of sexual offending (i.e., 4-5%) might be influenced by these legislative measures.

"Thus, the results of the present study support those of prior research (e.g., Schram & Milloy, 1995; Walker et al., 2005) and cast serious doubts on the effectiveness of sex offender registries to significantly reduce rates of sexual offending."

[Do the facts matter ?]