Skip to main content Accessibility help

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

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:06:39.933Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Law Enforcement and SORN

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2021

By
Kristen M. Zgoba  and
Richard Tewksbury
Edited by
Wayne Logan  and
J. J. Prescott
Wayne Logan
Affiliation:
Florida State University School of Law
J. J. Prescott
Affiliation:
University of Michigan Law School
Get access

Summary

Chapter 4 discusses the relationship between SORN laws and law enforcement. Since the inception of SORN laws, proponents of registration and notification have viewed them as tools for effective law enforcement. The significant financial costs to maintain and enforce these laws, however, may outweigh any usefulness they offer to law enforcement in terms of reducing sex offense victimization. The chapter first describes how states implement SORN laws. State and local law enforcement agencies are charged with the initial registration of covered individuals. Thereafter, these agencies monitor registrants and facilitate community notification. They conduct unannounced visits, maintain online registries, and inform community groups. These tasks impose substantial costs on the police, diverting resources from other criminal justice priorities. Many agencies form specialized units for SORN enforcement; others outsource aspects to private, for-profit companies. The chapter next analyzes how law enforcement personnel perceive SORN laws – in particular, their effectiveness. Studies show that individuals in law enforcement often doubt the efficacy of registration and notification, despite consistently supporting them. Law enforcement agents also recognize the costs SORN laws carry for their agencies and priorities. Ultimately, this chapter questions whether SORN laws are worth the costly burdens they impose on law enforcement.

Keywords

law enforcementsex offender registration and notification implementationsex offender registry costslaw enforcement budgetsstate and local governmentcommunity notificationpolicesheriff departmentsoutsourcinglaw enforcement perspectivessex offender policy effectiveness
Type
Chapter
Information
Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Laws
An Empirical Evaluation
 , pp. 48 - 58
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

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

References

References

Albuquerque Journal (May 31, 1955), Two Laws Provide Invisible Weapons Against Crime in Minnesota City.Google Scholar
Armstrong, M., Miller, M., & Griffin, T. (2014). An examination of sex offender registration and notification laws: Can community sentiment lead to ineffective laws? In M. K. Miller, J. A. Blumenthal, & J. Chamberlain (eds.), Handbook of Community Sentiment (pp. 239–251). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Bandy, R. (2011). Measuring the impact of sex offender notification on community adoption of protective measures. Criminology & Public Policy, 10(2), 237–264.Google Scholar
Belzer, R. (September 2015). The costs and benefits of subjecting juveniles to sex offender registration and notification. R Street, Study number 41.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Maxine. Sex Offenders in Oregon: State Fails to Track Hundreds, Oregonian (October 2, 2013), www.oregonlive.com/sexoffenders/special-presentation/.Google Scholar
Bonnar-Kidd, K. (2010). Sexual offender laws and prevention of sexual violence or recidivism. American Journal of Public Health, 100(3), 412–419.Google Scholar
Call, Corey (2018). The community corrections perspective toward sex offender management policies and collateral consequences: Does contact with sex offenders matter?. Criminal Justice Studies, 31(1), 1–7.Google Scholar
Carter, M., Bumby, K., & Talbot, T. (2004). Promoting offender accountability and community safety through the comprehensive approach to sex offender management. Seton Hall Law Review, 34, 1273–1297.Google Scholar
Center for Sex Offender Management (2008). Key Roles of Law Enforcement in Sex Offender Management. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Connor, D. P., & Tewksbury, R. (2017). Public and professional views of sex offender registration and notification. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society, 18(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Cubellis, M., Walfield, S., & Harris, A. (2018). Collateral consequences and effectiveness of sex offender registration and notification: Law enforcement perspectives. Intl. Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(4), 1080–1106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farkas, M., & Zevitz, R. (2000). The law enforcement role in sex offender community notification: A research note. Journal of Crime and Justice, 23(1), 125–139.Google Scholar
Finn, P. (1997). Sex Offender Community Notification (Volume 2, Number 2). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U. S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Gaines, J. (2006). Law enforcement reactions to sex offender registration and community notification. Police, Practice and Research, 7(3), 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Government Accountability Office (2013). Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act: Jurisdictions face challenges to implementing the Act, and stakeholders report positive and negative effects. GAO-13–211: Published February 7, 2013.Google Scholar
Harris, A., Lobanov-Rostovsky, C., & Levenson, J. (2016). Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration & Notification. Document Number 250181. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U. S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Harris, A., Levenson, J., Lobanov-Rostovsky, C., & Walfield, S. (2018). Law enforcement perspectives on sex offender registration & notification: Effectiveness, challenges and policy priorities. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 29(4), 391–420.Google Scholar
Harris, A., Levenson, J., & Ackerman, A. (2014). Registered sex offenders in the United States: Behind the numbers. Crime & Delinquency, 60, 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judd, R., & Lobos, I., “We’re Just Waiting for Someone to Ruin Lives”: School Officials Told of Release of Man with “Predatory” Nature, Seattle Times, July 21, 1989.Google Scholar
Justice Policy Institute. What will it cost states to comply with the Sex Offender Registration Notification Act www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08–08_fac_sornacosts_jj.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kabat, A. R. (1998). Scarlet letter sex offender databases and community notification: Sacrificing personal privacy for a symbol’s sake. American Common Law Review (35).Google Scholar
Lawson, L., & Savell, S. (2003). Law enforcement perspective on sex offender registration and community notification. APSAC Advisor, 15(1), 9–12.Google Scholar
Levenson, J., & Tewksbury, R. (2009). Collateral damage: Family members of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 54–68.Google Scholar
Levenson, J. S., Brannon, Y. N., Fortney, T., & Baker, J. (2007). Public perceptions about sex offenders and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 7, 137–161.Google Scholar
Logan, Wayne. (2009). Knowledge as Power: Criminal Registration and Community Notification Laws in America. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Matson, S. (1999). Sex Offender Registration: Policy Overview and Comprehensive Practices. Washington, DC: Center for Sex Offender Management, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Mustaine, E.E., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). What can be learned from a sex offender registry? An 8 year follow up. Journal of Community Corrections, 23(1), 5–10.Google Scholar
Mustaine, E. E., Tewksbury, R., Connor, D.P., & Payne, B. K. (2015). Criminal justice officials’ views of sex offenders, registration and community notification. Justice System Journal, 36(1), 63–85.Google Scholar
New Jersey Legislature (2001). Legislative Findings and Declarations, sec. 2C:7–12.Google Scholar
Newsday, May 6, 2016, www.newsday.com/opinion/letters/letter-why-a-new-deal-for-megan-s-law-group-1.11769142Google Scholar
N.Y. Times (July 4, 1935), Birmingham Police to Register All Ex-Felons in the City.Google Scholar
OffenderWatch, https://offenderwatch.com/.Google Scholar
Ragusa-Salerno, L. M., & Zgoba, K. M. (2012). Taking stock of 20 years of sex offender laws and research: An examination of whether sex offender legislation has helped or hindered our efforts. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35(3), 335–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolfe, S. (2019). When a sex offender comes to visit: A national assessment of travel restrictions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(6), 885–905.Google Scholar
Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. (2006). Perceptions of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26(3), 309–334.Google Scholar
Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. (2013). Law enforcement officials’ views of sex offender registration and community notification. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 15(2), 95–113.Google Scholar
University of Pennsylvania Law Review (1954), Criminal Registration Ordinances: Police Control Over Potential Recidivists, v. –, p. 103.Google Scholar
Walfield, S., Levenson, J., Cubellis, M., Harris, A., & Lobanov-Rostovsky, C. (2017). Law enforcement views on sex offender compliance with registration mandates. American Journal of Criminal Justice. DOI: 10.1007/s12103-017-9386-6.Google Scholar
Whitting, L., Day, A. 7 Powell, M. (2016). Police officer perspectives on the implementation of a sex offender community notification scheme. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 18, 261–272.Google Scholar
Zgoba, K., Witt, P., & Dalessandro, M. (2008). Megan’s Law: Assessing the Practical and Monetary Efficacy. Document Number 225370. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U. S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Zgoba, K., Miner, M., Letourneau, E., Levenson, J., Knight, R., & Thornton, D. (2015). A Multi-state Recidivism Study Using Static-99 and Static-2002 Risk Scores and Tier Guidelines from the Adam Walsh Act. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. DOI: 10.1177/1079063215569543.Google Scholar
Zgoba, K., Veysey, B., Dalessandro, M. (2010). Do the best intentions predict best practices: An analysis of the effectiveness of Megan’s law. Justice Quarterly, 27(5), 667–691.Google Scholar

Caselaw

Jones v. County of Suffolk, 936 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2019).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

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

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

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

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

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

Available formats
×