DB response

John Defilippi 

Sex Offender Registries

COLLAPSE

Top of Form

While sex offender registries first appeared in California in the mid-1940s, they expanded significantly in the mid-1990s with the passage of the Jacob Wettering Act and Megan’s Law (Bierie, 2016, p. 263).  From this initial movement, a host of other legislative acts were passed on the federal level which attempted to protect victims, particularly children.  These included the Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996, the 1998 Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act, The Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act as part of the Violence Against Women Act of 2000, and the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act (Office of Justice Programs, 2019).  The passage of the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act of 2006 was significant as it attempted to bring consistency to many of the various statewide registries by having uniform policies, procedures, and data (Bierie, 2016, p. 263).  

Individual states began enacting their own versions of Megan’s law beginning in 1990 with Washington state (Easterly, 2015, p. 367).  The remaining states all enacted comparable statewide Megan’s Laws from 1990 to 1998, with the last state enacting a statewide registration and notification law being Virginia (Easterly, 2015, p. 367).  There has been a great debate about the factors which influenced the enactment of these laws.  Undoubtedly, the media coverage and public outrage over several stranger abductions and murders of children had a profound influence (Easterly, 2015, p. 355).  People wanted to keep their children safe, and legislatures saw these laws as a method of doing something to keep children safe from predators. However, this does not mean that sex offender registries no not have debate surrounding them.  Studies have shown that the public, law enforcement, and even sex offenders themselves support these registries (Bierie, 2016, p. 264).  On the other side of the argument, academics and treatment providers often criticize the effectiveness of the registries (Bierie, 2016, p. 264).  These opponents argue that studies have not supported an influence on sex crime rates due to the implementation of a registry, approximately 90% of sex crimes victims know their assailants, and registrants are harmed by the stigma of being on a registry which negatively influences many facets of their lives including housing, employment, and social interaction within their community (Bierie, 2016, p. 264).  Opponents argue that the 1990s, which witnessed the rapid implementation of sex offender registry laws, had a general decline in crime and no appreciable increase in sex related crimes (Easterly, 2015, p. 355).  One published academic, Bianca Eastery of Lamar University, feels that the rapid push for sex offender registries nationwide was fueled by the conservative movement and enhanced in states where there was not one party in control of both the executive and legislative branches of state government (Easterly, 2015, p. 370).  For example, Virginia, which was previously mentioned in this post as the last state to adopt a statewide registry, had a heavily Republican controlled General Assembly and a Republican governor.

Virginia’s Sex Offender Registry is legislated by Section 9.1 of the Code of Virginia (Virginia State Police, 2019).  The Virginia State Police is tasked with the operation of the sex offender registry, the registry website, and enforcement of non-compliance.  The Code of Virginia divides offenders into two classes:  violent sex offenders and sex offenders (Virginia State Police, 2019).  Sex offenders are required to register per court mandate for conviction of certain sexually based offenses but can be relieved of registration requirements via a court order (Virginia State Police, 2019).  Violent sex offenders are required to register for life without exception (Virginia State Police, 2019).  Virginia takes a very strict approach to registration requirements with a dedicated unit within the State Police of civilian compliance officers and specialized Troopers who are tasked with accomplishing registrations, performing random verification of residence and work addresses, and seeking charges for violations.

The management of sex offenders once released from prison is a hotly debated topic.  As stated before, the general public and law enforcement want registries while academics will point to ineffectiveness (Bierie, 2016, p. 264). One of the most common arguments by opponents is that registration will cause a stigma that prevents released offenders from assimilating into their communities (Bierie, 2016, p. 264).  Another part of this argument is that 90% of sex crimes committed against children are committed by acquaintances rather than strangers, thus the registry is not needed since the victim would have already known and been in contact with the offender (Bierie, 2016, p. 264).  This statistic is misleading, however.  While this may not protect against a family member who commits an assault, it will notify parents of a potential offender who is aquatinted in other ways.  Children are exposed to many adults who they are acquainted with in their lives.  This include babysitters, coaches, teachers, and even other childrens’ parents or family members.  Statistics and research have shown over a 20-year span covering 6000 police departments, 60% of assaults were committed by non-family member acquaintances of the victim (Bierie, 2016, p. 265).  We do not want to create added hardship and become retributive in how we manage sex offenders once released, but the wellbeing of the communities and children must be paramount.  God and Jesus teach us that we can be forgiven for our sins, and we as Christians should forgive.  But we must also realize that sin does carry consequence, especially the grave, horrific sins committed by these offenders.  The stigma and hardship endured by having to register may be part of the consequence of their sin.  There is a statistic that 5% to 15% of released sex offenders will be rearrested for a sex crime (Bierie, 2016, p. 265).  This demonstrates that there is recidivism.  Compared to many other crimes, like property crimes or white-collar crimes, reoffending means another child is irrevocably harmed for the remainder of their life if not robbed of their life entirely.  When I teach a criminal investigations class to new Special Agents at the State Police Academy, I tell them that we do not get a do over or a mulligan if mistakes are made during an investigation.  If we make a mistake, someone else gets hurt before the offender may be arrested again.  We must take this approach regarding sex offenders and the registry. Without such a mechanism, parents may unknowingly allow their child to take piano lessons, be coached, or spend time at a friend’s home where a predator is present.  The cost of failure is too high, and we must take every precaution.

References

Bierie, D. M. (2016). The utility of sex offender registration: a research note. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 22(2), 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2015.1100760.

Easterly, B. (2015). Playing Politics with Sex Offender Laws: An Event History Analysis of the Initial Community Notification Laws across American States. Policy Studies Journal, 43(3), 355–378. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12084.

Office of Justice Programs. (2019). Legislative History of Federal Sex Offender Regulation and Notification. Retrieved from https://www.smart.gov/legislation.htm.

Virginia State Police. (2019).  Sex Offender Registry Background.  Retrieved from https://sex-offender.vsp.virginia.gov/sor/background.html. 

Bottom of Form