Acknowledgements

Human Rights Watch would like to thank all of the survivors of sexual violence, former offenders and their families, social workers, advocates, law enforcement officials, and attorneys who shared their experiences and perspective with us for this report.We are especially grateful to those who trusted us with very painful and personal stories.

Corinne Carey, former researcher for the US Program, undertook the original research for this report. The report was written by Sarah Tofte with the assistance of Jamie Fellner, director of the US Program, who also edited the report. Dr. Patrick Vinck, director of the Berkeley-Tulane Initiative on Vulnerable Populations at the Human Rights Center, University of California-Berkeley, tabulated the data for Human Rights Watch's study of North Carolina's online sex offender registry.Ashoka Mukpo, US Program Associate, and US Program interns Anjali Balasingham, Andrea Barrow, Madeline Gressel, and Kari White provided important research assistance. Zama Coursen-Neff, acting deputy director of the Children's Rights Division and Janet Walsh, acting director of the Women's Rights Division, reviewed the report. Ian Gorvin, deputy director of the Program Office, and Aisling Reidy, senior legal counsel, edited the report. Ashoka Mukpo, Grace Choi, and Andrea Holley provided invaluable production assistance.

We want to acknowledge our special gratitude to Patty Wetterling, Alisa Klein, Jim Rensel, Nancy Daley, Dr. Robert Prentky, and Dr. Levenson for providing guidance and insights in helping us to shape the research and writing of this report. Dr. Richard Tewksbury, Dr. Levenson, and Ms. Wetterling also reviewed the report.

Human Rights Watch would also like to thank Peter B. Lewis, the Open Society Institute, and the John Merck Foundation, all of whom generously support the work of the US Program.

I.Summary

The reality is that sex offenders are a great political target, but that doesn't mean any law under the sun is appropriate.

-Illinois State Representative John Fritchey

People want a silver bullet that will protect their children, [but] there is no silver bullet. There is no simple cure to the very complex problem of sexual violence.

-Patty Wetterling, child safety advocate whose son was abducted in 1989 and remains missing

What happened to nine-year-old Jessica Lunsford is every parent's worst nightmare.In February 2005 she was abducted from her home in Florida, raped, and buried alive by a stranger, a next-door neighbor who had been twice convicted of molesting children. Over the past decade, several horrific crimes like Jessica's murder have captured massive media attention and fueled widespread fears that children are at high risk of assault by repeat sex offenders. Politicians have responded with a series of laws, including the sex offender registration, community notification, and residency restriction laws that are the subject of this report.

Federal law and the laws of all 50 states now require adults and some juveniles convicted of specified crimes that involve sexual conduct to register with law enforcement-regardless of whether the crimes involved children. So-called "Megan's Laws" establish public access to registry information, primarily by mandating the creation of online registries that provide a former offender's criminal history, current photograph, current address, and other information such as place of employment. In many states everyone who is required to register is included on the online registry. A growing number of states and municipalities have also prohibited registered offenders from living within a designated distance (typically 500 to 2,500 feet) of places where children gather-for example, schools, playgrounds, and daycare centers.

Human Rights Watch appreciates the sense of concern and urgency that has prompted these laws. They reflect a deep public yearning for safety in a world that seems increasingly threatening. Every child has the right to live free from violence and sexual abuse. Promoting public safety by holding offenders accountable and by instituting effective crime prevention measures is a core governmental obligation.

Unfortunately, our research reveals that sex offender registration, community notification, and residency restriction laws are ill-considered, poorly crafted, and may cause more harm than good:

The registration laws are overbroad in scope and overlong in duration, requiring people to register who pose no safety risk;

Under community notification laws, anyone anywhere can access online sex offender registries for purposes that may have nothing to do with public safety. Harassment of and violence against registrants have been the predictable result;

In many cases, residency restrictions have the effect of banishing registrants from entire urban areas and forcing them to live far from their homes and families.

The evidence is overwhelming, as detailed in this report, that these laws cause great harm to the people subject to them. On the other hand, proponents of these laws are not able to point to convincing evidence of public safety gains from them. Even assuming some public safety benefit, however, the laws can be reformed to reduce their adverse effects without compromising that benefit. Registration laws should be narrowed in scope and duration. Publicly accessible online registries should be eliminated, and community notification should be accomplished solely by law enforcement officials. Blanket residency restrictions should be abolished.

Public Safety and Mistaken Premises

Proponents of sex offender registration and community notification believe they protect children in two ways: police have a list of likely suspects should a sex crime occur in the neighborhood in which a registered offender lives, and parents have information that will enable them to heighten their vigilance and to warn their children to stay away from particular people. Advocates for residency restrictions believe they will limit offenders' access to children and their temptation or ability to commit new crimes. While these beliefs may seem intuitively correct, they are predicated on several widely shared but nonetheless mistaken premises. Given these faulty underpinnings, it is not surprising that there is little evidence that the laws have in fact reduced the threat of sexual abuse to children or others.

Sex offender laws are based on preventing the horrific crimes that inspired them-but the abduction, rape, and murder of a child by a stranger who is a previously convicted sex offender is a rare event. The laws offer scant protection for children from the serious risk of sexual abuse that they face from family members or acquaintances. Indeed, people children know and trust are responsible for over 90 percent of sex crimes against them.

In addition, sex offender laws are predicated on the widespread assumption that most people convicted of sex offenses will continue to commit such crimes if given the opportunity. Some politicians cite recidivism rates for sex offenders that are as high as 80-90 percent. In fact, most (three out of four) former sex offenders do not reoffend and most sex crimes are not committed by former offenders. Patty Wetterling, a prominent child safety advocate who founded the Jacob Wetterling Foundation after her son was abducted in 1989, recently told Human Rights Watch,

I based my support of broad-based community notification laws on my assumption that sex offenders have the highest recidivism rates of any criminal. But the high recidivism rates I assumed to be true do not exist. It has made me rethink the value of broad-based community notification laws, which operate on the assumption that most sex offenders are high-risk dangers to the community they are released into.

Over-breadth of the Registration Requirement

The justifications offered for sex offender laws focus on sexually violent offenders. Yet people who have not committed violent or coercive offenses may nonetheless be required to register as sex offenders and be subject to community notification and residency restrictions. For example, in many states, people who urinate in public, teenagers who have consensual sex with each other, adults who sell sex to other adults, and kids who expose themselves as a prank are required to register as sex offenders.

Brandon M.'s case is an example. Brandon was a senior in high school when he met a 14-year-old girl on a church youth trip. With her parents' blessing, they began to date, and openly saw each other romantically for almost a year. When it was disclosed that consensual sexual contact had occurred, her parents pressed charges against Brandon and he was convicted of sexual assault and placed on the sex offender registry in his state. As a result, Brandon was fired from his job. He will be on the registry and publicly branded as a sex offender for the rest of his life. In his mother's words, "I break down in tears several times a week. I know there are violent sexual predators that need to be punished, but this seems like punishment far beyond reasonable for what my son did."

The over-breadth in scope is matched by over-breadth in duration: the length of time during which a former offender must register and be included in online registries is set arbitrarily, based on the nature of the crime of conviction and not on any assessment of the likelihood that the former offender continues to pose a safety threat. Indeed, legislators are steadily increasing the duration of registration requirements: in 17 states, registration is now for life. Yet former sex offenders are less and less likely to reoffend the longer they live offense-free.

Unfortunately, only a few states require or permit periodic individualized assessments of the risk to the community a former offender may pose before requiring initial or continued registration and community notification.

Unrestricted Access to Registry Information

If former offenders simply had to register their whereabouts with the police, the adverse consequences for them would be minimal. But online sex offender registries brand everyone listed on them with a very public "scarlet letter" that signifies not just that they committed a sex offense in the past, but that by virtue of that fact they remain dangerous. With only a few exceptions, states do not impose any "need to know" limitations on who has access to the registrant's information.With a national registry including every state registrant's online profile due to be complete by 2009, information about previously convicted sex offenders will be available to anyone anywhere in the country, without restriction.

Most registries simply indicate the statutory name of the crime of which a person was convicted, for example, "indecent liberties with a child." Such language does not provide useful information about what the offending conduct actually consisted of, and the public may understandably assume the worst. Jameel N. described for Human Rights Watch the public response to his inclusion on his state's online registry:

When people see my picture on the state sex offender registry they assume I am a pedophile. I have been called a baby rapist by my neighbors; feces have been left on my driveway; a stone with a note wrapped around it telling me to "watch my back" was thrown through my window, almost hitting a guest. What the registry doesn't tell people is that I was convicted at age 17 of sex with my 14-year-old girlfriend, that I have been offense-free for over a decade, that I have completed my therapy, and that the judge and my probation officer didn't even think I was at risk of reoffending. My life is in ruins, not because I had sex as a teenager, and not because I was convicted, but because of how my neighbors have reacted to the information on the internet.

Public Hostility to Registrants

Jameel N.'s experience of public hostility is all too typical. Former offenders included on online sex offender registries endure shattered privacy, social ostracism, diminished employment and housing opportunities, harassment, and even vigilante violence. Their families suffer as well.

Registrants and their families have been hounded from their homes, had rocks thrown through their home windows, and feces left on their front doorsteps. They have been assaulted, stabbed, and had their homes burned by neighbors or strangers who discovered their status as a previously convicted sex offender. At least four registrants have been targeted and killed (two in 2006 and two in 2005) by strangers who found their names and addresses through online registries. Other registrants have been driven to suicide, including a teenager who was required to register after he had exposed himself to girls on their way to gym class. Violence directed at registrants has injured others. The children of sex offenders have been harassed by their peers at school, and wives and girlfriends of offenders have been ostracized from social networks and at their jobs.

Residency Restrictions

Among laws targeting sex offenders living in the community, residency restrictions may be the harshest as well as the most arbitrary. The laws can banish registrants from their already established homes, keep them from living with their families, and make entire towns off-limits to them, forcing them to live in isolated rural areas. For example, former sex offenders in Miami, Florida have been living under bridges, one of the few areas not restricted for them by the residency restriction laws of that city.

There is no evidence that prohibiting sex offenders from living near where children gather will protect children from sexual violence. Indeed, the limited research to date suggests the contrary: a child molester who does offend again is as likely to victimize a child found far from his home as he is one who lives or plays nearby. A study by the Minnesota Department of Corrections found that individuals who committed another sex crime against a child made contact with their victim through a social relationship.

Moreover, the laws apply to all registered sex offenders regardless of whether their prior crimes involved children. It is hard to fathom what good comes from prohibiting a registered offender whose victim was an adult woman from living near a school bus stop. Stories of the senseless impact of residency restrictions are legion. For example, Georgia's residency restriction law has forced a 26-year-old married woman to move from her home because it is too close to a daycare center. She is registered as a sex offender because she had oral sex with a 15-year-old when she was 17.

Some lawmakers admit to another purpose for residency restriction laws. Georgia State House Majority Leader Jerry Keen, who sponsored the state's law banning registrants from living within 1,000 feet of places where children gather, stated during a floor debate, "My intent personally is to make [residency restrictions] so onerous on those that are convicted of [sex] offenses they will want to move to another state." Yet people who have committed sex offenses must live somewhere. For those who do pose a threat to public safety, they should be able to reside in communities where they can receive the supervision and treatment they need, rather than be forced to move to isolated rural areas or become homeless.

Juvenile Offenders

In most states, children (age 18 and younger) who are convicted of sex offenses can be subject to registration, community notification, and residency restrictions. The recently passed federal Adam Walsh Act requires states to register children as young as 14. Some of their offenses are indeed serious-for example, raping much younger children. But children are also subjected to sex offender laws for conduct that, while frowned upon, does not suggest a danger to the community, including consensual sex, "playing doctor," and exposing themselves. Some of the conduct reflects the impulsiveness and perhaps difficulty with boundaries that many teenagers experience and that most will outgrow with maturity. In some cases it seems nothing short of irrational to label children as sex offenders. Human Rights Watch spoke with a father whose 10-year-old son was adjudicated for touching the genitals of his five-year-old cousin. He told us, "My son doesn't really understand what sex is, so it's hard to help him understand why he has to register as a sex offender."

According to child development experts, many children move past the misdeeds of their youth, although some will require special support and treatment to do so. Although there is little statistical research on recidivism by youth sex offenders, the studies that have been done suggest recidivism rates are quite low. For example, in one study only 4 percent of youth arrested for a sex crime recidivated. Research also indicates that most adult offenders were not formerly youth offenders: less than 10 percent of adults who commit sex offenses had been juvenile sex offenders. Applying registration, community notification, and residency restriction laws to juvenile offenders does nothing to prevent crimes by the 90 percent of adults who were not convicted of sex offenses as juveniles. It will, however, cause great harm to those who, while they are young, must endure the stigma of being identified as and labeled a sex offender, and who as adults will continue to bear that stigma, sometimes for the rest of their lives.

Are the Laws Counterproductive?

Current registration, community notification, and residency restriction laws may be counterproductive, impeding rather than promoting public safety. For example, the proliferation of people required to register even though their crimes were not serious makes it harder for law enforcement to determine which sex offenders warrant careful monitoring. Unfettered online access to registry information facilitates-if not encourages-neighbors, employers, colleagues, and others to shun and ostracize former offenders-diminishing the likelihood of their successful reintegration into communities. Residency restrictions push former offenders away from the supervision, treatment, stability, and supportive networks they may need to build and maintain successful, law abiding lives. For example, Iowa officials told Human Rights Watch that they are losing track of registrants who have been made transient by the state's residency restriction law or who have dropped out of sight rather than comply with the law. As one Iowa sheriff said, "We are less safe as a community now than we were before the residency restrictions."

Many child safety and rape prevention advocates believe that millions of dollars are being misspent on registration and community notification programs that do not get at the real causes of child sexual abuse and adult sexual violence. They would like to see more money spent on prevention, education, and awareness programs for children and adults, counseling for victims of sexual violence, and programs that facilitate treatment and the transition back to society for convicted sex offenders. As one child advocate told Human Rights Watch, "When a sex offender succeeds in living in the community, we are all safer."

US Sex Offender Policies: Alone in the World

Sexual violence and abuse against children are, unfortunately, a worldwide problem. Yet the United States is the only country in the world that has such a panoply of measures governing the lives of former sex offenders. It is the only country Human Rights Watch knows of with blanket laws prohibiting people with prior convictions for sex crimes from living within designated areas. To our knowledge, six other countries (Australia, Canada, France, Ireland, Japan, and the United Kingdom) have sex offender registration laws, but the period required for registration is usually short and the information remains with the police. South Korea is the only country other than the United States that has community notification laws.

Officials in Australia, Ireland, and the United Kingdom have considered and in each case rejected the adoption of universal community notification laws (although in some cases, police are authorized to notify the public about the presence of a convicted sex offender in the neighborhood). After reviewing the experience of the United States, they concluded that there is little evidence that community notification protects the public from sex crimes, and that such laws are often accompanied by vigilante violence against registrants.

Rethinking Sex Offender Laws

Increasingly severe registration, community notification, and residency restriction laws have encountered little public opposition. Given the widespread belief in the myths about sex offenders' inherent and incurable dangerousness, it is perhaps not surprising that very few public officials have questioned the laws or their efficacy.

Proponents of sex offender laws say their first priority is protecting the rights of victims. Yet few public officials who have supported registration, community notification, and residency restriction laws have done so based on a careful assessment of the nature of sex crimes and the best way to prevent sexual violence. And few public officials have acknowledged their responsibility to protect the well-being and fundamental rights of all residents-including those who have been convicted of crimes.

Protecting the community and limiting unnecessary harm to former offenders are not mutually incompatible goals. To the contrary, one enhances and reinforces the other. In Minnesota, state legislators and government officials, in consultation with child safety and women's rights advocates, have constructed carefully tailored evidence-based laws that aim to prevent sexual violence by safely integrating former sex offenders into the community, restricting their rights only to the extent necessary to achieve that goal. Before they are released from prison, convicted sex offenders in Minnesota are assessed by a panel of experts, who determine whether an individual should be subject to registration and community notification, and if so for how long. The panel has the authority to periodically reassess the convicted sex offender's level of dangerousness and adjust his or her registration and community notification requirements accordingly. Community notification is on a need-to-know basis. As the Minnesota community notification law states, "The extent of the information disclosed and the community to whom disclosure is made must be related to the level of danger posed by the offender, to the offender's pattern of offending behavior, and to the need of community members for information to enhance their individual and collective safety." Minnesota has not adopted universal residency restriction legislation. Instead, law enforcement and the assessment panel jointly assess whether an individual on probation or parole should be subject to residency restrictions and what those restrictions should be.

The recently passed federal Adam Walsh Act forces states to either dramatically increase their registration and community notification restrictions or lose federal law enforcement grant money. While some states have rushed to amend their sex offender laws to comply with the Act, other states are considering not adopting the provisions, citing a concern that they will not benefit public safety.

As a human rights organization, Human Rights Watch seeks to prevent sexual violence and to ensure accountability for people who violate the rights of others to be free from sexual abuse. We are convinced that public safety will be as protected, if not more so, by modified registration laws targeted only at former offenders who pose a high or medium risk of reoffending, as determined through an individualized risk assessment and classification process, and by community notification that is undertaken by law enforcement on a need-to-know basis. We are also convinced that there is no legitimate basis for blanket residency restrictions. We do not object to time-limited restrictions that are imposed on individual offenders on a case-by-case basis, for example, as a condition of parole. But a wholesale banishment of a class of individuals should have no place in the United States.

Reforming sex offender laws will not be easy. At a time when national polls indicate that Americans fear sex offenders more than terrorists,[9] legislators will have to show they have the intelligence and courage to create a society that is safe yet still protects the human rights of everyone.

II. Methodology

Human Rights Watch reviewed the sex offender registration, community notification, and residency restriction laws of the 50 states in the United States and the District of Columbia. We ascertained the offenses that triggered mandatory registration requirements, the period of time for which the offender must remain registered, whether states classify registrants by level of risk, and what types of review procedures exist either to alter a registrant's level of risk or allow him to be relieved of reporting or notification obligations. We cross-checked the offenses that trigger registration and notification requirements with each state's criminal code to identify precisely what kinds of conduct triggered registration requirements. We also searched each state's juvenile code for specific provisions dealing with the obligation of young offenders to register and be subject to community notification.

Human Rights Watch visited all 50 state sex offender registry websites and that of the District of Columbia to determine what kind of information about registrants is available to the public. We communicated with law enforcement officials from 30 states about their state registries, in particular about whether the states had mechanisms for reporting vigilantism or harassment against registrants.

State laws and online registry information are constantly being modified. The information compiled in this report is accurate, to the best of our knowledge, as of July 1, 2007. States are constantly changing the information distribution format of their online sex offender registries, and some of the information in this report may already be outdated. For the most current registration and community notification requirements and distribution policies regarding a particular state's online sex offender registry, Human Rights Watch encourages readers to check their state's most current policies.

In addition to an exhaustive review of the published scientific and legal literature about sex offenders, we interviewed 122 sex offenders and 90 of their loved ones, all of whom are referred to in the report by pseudonyms, given their concerns about privacy. We spoke with a number of survivors of sexual abuse, members of victims' rights and child sexual assault prevention groups, child safety experts, and sex offender researchers. Finally, we interviewed state officials responsible for enforcing sex offender laws, including probation and parole officers and county sheriffs.

III. Recommendations

With the goal of increasing the effective protection of children and others from sexual violence while protecting former offenders from unnecessary, unjust, and even counterproductive laws, Human Rights Watch makes the following recommendations for changes in federal and state legislation.

Adam Walsh Act

All provisions of the Adam Walsh Act that deal with state registration and community notification requirements should be repealed.

If Congress does not repeal the Adam Walsh Act requirements as they pertain to state registration and community notification, states should not adopt the Adam Walsh Act provisions to their registration and community notification laws.

State Sex Offender Registries

Former offenders who have committed minor, non-violent offenses, such as prostitution between adults; non-lascivious indecency offenses, such as streaking and public urination; and consensual sexual activity with a minor who is within five years of age of the offender (statutory rape) should not be required to register.

No offender who was under the age of 18 at the time of his or her offense should be required to register. If states do require child offenders to register, then they should do so only after a panel of qualified experts determines that the child poses a high risk of sexual reoffense, and that public safety cannot be adequately protected through any means other than the child being subject to registration. A determination that registration is necessary should be reviewed at least on an annual basis for as long as the registration requirement lasts.

States should institute mechanisms by which offenders are removed from registries if they are exonerated; their convictions have been overturned, set aside, or otherwise vitiated; or if their conduct is no longer considered criminal.

States should regularly review all registration information to ensure its accuracy.

Former offenders should not be required to register with their schools or places of employment. Most state laws require, and employers always have the option of running, a criminal background check for prospective employees who will be working with children.

Registration should be limited to former offenders who pose a high or medium risk of committing a serious crime in the future, either of sexually abusing children or committing a violent sex crime against adults. The risk should be assessed on a case-by-case basis for each convicted sex offender, using tools that have predictive validity and take into consideration a variety of factors found by research to be associated with recidivism, including the nature of the crime, prior offending history, the age of the offender at the time of the crime, treatment or therapy history, and the length of time an individual has remained offense-free.

Former offenders considered low-risk for reoffending, on the basis of individual assessment, should not be required to register.

The period of inclusion on the registry for former offenders assessed as medium- and high-risk should be initially determined by his or her individual risk assessment and then be subject to periodic review with a view to extension or termination. An initial determination of lifetime inclusion should not be permitted. At periodic review, registrants should be able to present evidence of rehabilitation, change in life circumstances, incapacitation (for example, disease or disability) or substantial time living in the community without reoffense in order to obtain termination of the requirement to register or to have their assigned level of risk changed. After a fixed period of time, the burden should shift from the registrant to the state to prove that a registrant poses a public safety risk and must remain on the registry.

Community Notification

Access to sex offender registries should be limited to law enforcement.

Law Enforcement

Law enforcement officials should only release information about registered sex offenders on a need-to-know basis. This would include notification to the individual(s) victimized by the offender. When determining who else in the community should be notified, law enforcement officials should weigh factors such as the size of the community, the nature of the offense, the level of reoffense risk at which the registrant has been assessed, and the likelihood that access to the information will enhance the recipient's personal safety or that of their children.

Law enforcement officials should eliminate the use of posters, flyers, and other easily replicable materials to alert communities of the presence of a registered sex offender in their neighborhood. They should inform community members individually, using accurate and responsible language to describe the potential threat posed by the registrant.

Law enforcement and other local officials must recognize their responsibility and authority to keep all community members safe, including people who have been convicted of sex offenses. In deciding the method and scope of community notification, officials should be required to take into consideration the potential for community hostility against registrants and take any necessary steps to mitigate the potential hostility.

States should enact laws allowing all registrants to appear periodically before a panel of qualified experts to review the requirement that law enforcement publicly release their personal information. Registrants should be able to present evidence of rehabilitation, change in life circumstances, incapacitation (for example, disease or disability), or substantial time without reoffense in order to terminate community notification requirements.

Local officials should work with the Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM) and local agencies or organizations with the capacity to conduct community meetings aimed at safe reintegration of registrants when they move into a neighborhood. Community meetings should be designed as an opportunity for education about where the risk for sexual victimization lies and how to prevent sexual abuse before it occurs. Organizations to include in the development and implementation of these community meetings should be victim advocacy groups, sexual violence prevention and response professionals, and sex offender treatment and management agencies.

Online Sex Offender Registries

States should eliminate public access to online registries of sex offenders as a form of community notification.

States that do maintain online registries should only include information about offenders assigned a high level of risk, and only for so long as they are individually determined to pose such a risk.

Online registry search capabilities should only permit targeted searches (for example, by specific personal name or zip code). No member of the public should be able to search the entire database. States should also take steps to preclude the possibility of registry information being found via internet search engines.

Accountability for those who search online databases should be ensured by requiring the database user to specify the purpose for the search, and to provide his or her name and zip code (with such information kept confidential and accessible only by state officials and law enforcement).

Online registry databases should provide enough information to enable a layperson user to understand the nature of the sex offense of which the offender was convicted and the registrant's risk of recidivism. This should include more information than the identification of the statute he or she violated. Databases should indicate when the offense was committed, how long has passed since the registrant was released from incarceration, and contain both the registrant's and the victim's age at the time of the offense.

The information about a registrant revealed online should be limited to what is necessary to promote public safety. For example, information such as place of employment or place of education should not routinely be available.

Congress and state legislatures should incorporate stronger prohibitions against and penalties for misuse of online registration and community notification information to harass, threaten, or injure registrants or their family members, or to discriminate unreasonably against registrants in the denial of housing, education, or other necessary benefits and services. Online registries must prominently display warnings against misuse of information on the registry. Misuse of registration information should be vigorously prosecuted.

Registrants should have a periodic opportunity to petition to be removed from the online registry. Registrants should be able to present evidence of rehabilitation, change in life circumstances, incapacitation (for example, disease or disability) or substantial time without reoffense in order to terminate community notification requirements.

National Sex Offender Registry

Congress should eliminate public access to the national sex offender registry.

If the national sex offender registry is to be maintained, Congress should direct the Department of Justice to ensure that the national sex offender registry includes only such information from state registries as is consistent with the above criteria.

Residency Restrictions

Neither states nor localities should have residency restriction laws that apply to entire classes of former offenders. Authorized residency restrictions should be limited to individually tailored restrictions for certain offenders as a condition of the terms of his or her probation, parole, or other mandated supervision.

Treatment, Research, and Education

Federal and state governments should support sex offender treatment programs as a key component of sex offender management.

The Department of Justice and states should encourage and fund research to assess and compare the effectiveness of different strategies to prevent the perpetration and reoffense of sexual violence. This research should include efforts to identify and assess the impact that registration, community notification, and residency restrictions have on registrants, their families, and communities.

The Department of Justice should continue to support and fully fund the Center for Sex Offender Management, a national project of the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs, to provide training and education to communities to facilitate the safe reintegration of registrants.

Federal, state, and local governments should support collaborative efforts between citizens, law enforcement, offenders, victim advocacy and sexual violence prevention groups, and specialized sex offender treatment providers to enhance the successful reintegration of convicted sex offenders into the community in ways that promote community safety.

Federal, state, and local governments should support efforts to develop a range of strategies to prevent sexual abuse that go beyond control and treatment of former offenders, including educational programs for families, treatment and other resources for survivors of sexual violence, promotion of safety precautions by youth and adults, and those that treat the reduction of sexual violence as a public health campaign.

IV. Sexual Violence in the United States

Being sexually assaulted as a child, for me, was like having my heart ripped to shreds. I am still trying to put it all back together.

-Naomi L., a 32-year-old child sexual abuse survivor, who was molested from age six to 10 by her step-uncle [10]

Sexual violence is a serious problem, and any recidivism rate is too high. But recidivism rates for sex offenders are not as high as politicians have quoted in their attempts to justify the need for overly harsh sex offender laws.

-Dr. Jill Levenson, expert on sex offender treatment and management [11]

Patty Wetterling, a national child safety advocate whose son was abducted in 1989 and is still missing, has aptly identified the core problem with US registration, community notification, and residency restriction laws for sex offenders: "People want a silver bullet that will protect their children. There is no silver bullet. There is no simple cure to the very complex problem of sexual violence."[12] In order to effectively combat sexual violence, public officials must first understand it. Research on sexual violence reveals a very different picture of who the perpetrators are and what their likelihood of reoffending is compared to what the public assumes.

Sexual Violence

Sex crimes constitute a relatively small proportion of reported violent crimes in the United States. According to crime victimization surveys, rape and sexual assault accounted for 3.7 percent of the violent crimes in 2005 against people age 12 or older.[13] Nevertheless, given their impact on the victims, sex crimes must be seen as a significant problem, particularly when children are the victims. Furthermore, sexual violence is perhaps the most underreported violent crime, meaning that the number of victims of sexual violence is far higher than what is reported. For example, a study by the National Institute of Justice found that only one in five adult women rape victims (19 percent) reported their rapes to police.[14]

In one 2000 study that looked at data from 12 states, persons under the age of 18 at the time of the crime accounted for two-thirds of all victims of sexual assault reported to law enforcement agencies.[15] According to a 2006 report, an estimated 89,500 cases of child sexual abuse were substantiated by child protective agencies in 2000.[16] Children under the age of six represented one in every seven victims of sexual assault, or 14 percent of all victims.[17] In each of the different sexual assault categories (for example, forcible rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault with an object and forcible fondling) children below the age of 12 comprised about half of the victims.

In 2005 there were 191,670 recorded victims age 12 and older of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.[18] These statistics almost certainly underestimate the extent of the crimes, because victim fear, shame, or loyalty to the abuser contribute to underreporting.[19] Self-report victimization surveys have found that 23 percent of women were sexually abused before the age of 18.[20] Females are far more likely than males to be the victims of sexual violence, constituting 86 percent of all sexual assault victims.[21] Based on reported crimes, a male is most likely to be sexually assaulted at age four, and even then his risk of sexual assault is half that of females of the same age.[22] Among adolescents, females are victims of sexual assault at 10 times the rate of males.[23] Indeed, the proportion of female victims increases with age at the time of offense: by age 19, 95 percent of victims are female.[24]

The reluctance or inability of survivors of abuse or their family members to report sexual assault crimes to law enforcement contributes to the fact that the majority of sex crimes never lead to arrests and convictions.[25] The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that an arrest is made in only 27 percent of all cases of sexual assault. The assaults of juvenile victims were more likely to result in an arrest (29 percent) than were adult victimizations (22 percent), but assaults against children under age six resulted in an arrest in only 19 percent of the cases.[26]

Sexual violence in the US is, fortunately, decreasing-over the period 1993-2005, the rate of reported adult rape and sexual assaults declined 69 percent.[27] Incidents of reported sex crimes against children have also decreased significantly in the past decade. According to a 2004 report by the Crimes against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, cases of child sexual abuse substantiated by child protection agencies fell 40 percent between 1992 and 2000; the report's authors believe that some of this drop reflects a decline in the occurrence of sexual abuse, in addition to other factors such as stricter reporting practices.[28]

It would be difficult to overestimate the devastating effect sexual violence can have for survivors. For adults, the emotional and psychological consequences of sexual violence can be profound and enduring, including depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder.[29] According to the American Psychological Association, children who have been sexually abused may suffer a range of short- and long-term problems, including depression, anxiety, eating disorders, guilt, fear, withdrawal, self-destructive behaviors, and sexual acting out.[30] Given the consequences of sexual violence, it is understandable that society wants it to end.

Danger from Strangers?

With the purpose of helping parents identify unknown convicted sex offenders in the neighborhood, sex offender laws like community notification schemes reflect the assumption that children and adults are most at risk from strangers. Yet sexual violence against children as well as adults is overwhelmingly perpetrated by family members or acquaintances.

The US Bureau of Justice Statistics has found that just 14 percent of all sexual assault cases reported to law enforcement agencies involved offenders who were strangers to their victims.[31] Sexual assault victims under the age of 18 at the time of the crime knew their abusers in nine out of 10 cases: the abusers were family members in 34 percent of cases, and acquaintances in another 59 percent of cases.[32]When the sexual assault victim was under six years old, almost half (49 percent) of the offenders were family members.[33]

Sex abuse crimes against children that have received the most media attention and have consequently generated great public concern typically involve a child who has been kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and killed by a stranger. Although such crimes are seared into the public consciousness, they represent a tiny fraction of crimes against children. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) estimates that around 115 children are abducted per year by non-family strangers-of which 46 result in the death of the victim.[34] The number of those cases that included sexual abuse is unknown. According to a 1997 analysis of 1,214 juvenile kidnappings, 49 percent of juvenile kidnappings are perpetrated by family members, 27 percent by an acquaintance, and 24 percent by a stranger.[35]

High Rates of Recidivism?

Sex offender laws also reflect the assumption that previously convicted sex offenders are responsible for most sex crimes. Yet according to a 1997 US Department of Justice study, 87 percent of the people arrested for sex crimes were individuals who had not previously been convicted of a sex offense.[36]

The focus of sex offender laws on people who have previously been convicted of sex offenses may originate in the misperception that most if not all of those who have committed sex crimes in the past will do so again. Legislators, public officials, and members of the public routinely claim that people who have committed sex offenses pose a great risk to the public because they have "astronomically high" recidivism rates.[37] For example, federal legislators justified the need for federal sex offender laws by asserting sex offender recidivism rates of 40 percent, 74 percent, and even 90 percent.[38] Legislators rarely cite, nor are they asked for, the source and credibility of such figures. In addition, most of those who make public assertions about the recidivism rates of sex offenders take a "one-size-fits-all" approach; they do not acknowledge the marked variation in recidivism rates among offenders who have committed different kinds of sex offenses, nor the influence of other factors on recidivism.

Accurately measuring reoffense rates of people previously convicted of sex offenses is difficult, confounded by many factors.[39] Some offenders claim to have committed many offenses prior or subsequent to the one for which they were arrested and convicted.[40] It may be that such self-reports of long offense histories by a few offenders have led to the perception that all sex offenders have high rates of reoffending. But numerous, rigorous studies analyzing objectively verifiable data-primarily arrest and conviction records-indicate sex offender recidivism rates are far below what legislators cite and what the public believes.

The US Department of Justice tracked 9,691 male sex offenders in 15 states who were released from prison in 1994 and found that within three years only 5.3 percent of all sex offenders were arrested, and 3.5 percent convicted, for a new sex crime; 2.2 percent were rearrested for a sex offense against a child.[41] Among the released child molesters (defined in the study as someone convicted of a forcible or non-forcible sex crime against a child), 3.3 percent were rearrested for a sex crime against a child.[42] Sex offenders with prior histories of sex offenses had somewhat higher rates of rearrest: 7.3 percent of child molesters and 8.3 percent of all sex offenders with more than one prior conviction for a sex offense were rearrested for another sex crime.[43]

The most comprehensive study of sex offender recidivism to date consists of a meta-analysis of numerous studies yielding recidivism rates for a period of up to 15 years post-release for people convicted of such serious offenses as rape and child molesting.[44] The analysis, which included over 29,000 sex offenders, found that within four to six years of release, 14 percent of all sex offenders will be arrested or convicted for a new sex crime.[45] Over a 15-year period, recidivism rates for all sex offenders averaged 24 percent.[46] This is not a trivial rate by any means, given the seriousness of the offenses committed. Yet it also indicates that three out of four sexually violent offenders do not reoffend.

The study also found that recidivism rates varied markedly depending on the kind of sex crime committed. For example, recidivism within four to six years of release from prison was 13 percent for child molesters, and 24 percent for rapists. There are also differences within types of crime. For example, men who molest boys have the highest measured rates of recidivism of any sex offender.[47] Within five years, their rate of sexual recidivism was 23 percent, and an additional 12 percent committed another sexual offense over the next decade.[48] Thus, over a 15-year period, about one out of every three men who have molested boys will be arrested or convicted of another sex offense.

State-specific studies have yielded similar results. For example, in Ohio, only 8 percent of former sex offenders were reincarcerated for another sex offense within a 10-year period.[49] Sex offenders who returned for a new sex offense did so within a few years of release.[50] Within three years of their release, 2 percent of New York inmates who had served time for a sex offense returned to prison with a conviction for another sex offense.[51] Within nine years, the number was 10 percent.[52]

Sex offenders do not recidivate at far higher rates than other offenders, as is often believed. A federal study of prisoners released in 1994 found that 67.5 percent of all former prisoners were rearrested for a new offense within three years of their release.[53]Rearrest rates varied by category of crime: 70.2 percent for those who had been in prison for robbery, 74 percent for burglary, and 41.4 percent for homicide. Released rapists had a rearrest rate of 46 percent.[54] These rearrests are for any crime, not necessarily the same type of crime for which they had been in prison. Only 2.5 percent of prisoners who had been convicted of rape were arrested for another rape in the three-year post-release period.[55] The other released rapists were either rearrested for something other than rape (for example, non-sexual assault or property offenses) or not rearrested at all.

Some of the public misapprehensions about the rates at which sex offenders recidivate may have originated with calculations by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) as to the relative likelihood at which released prisoners are rearrested for the same type of crime as that for which they had been in prison. In a study published in 1997 based on prisoners released in 1983, the BJS calculated that relative to other offenders, a rapist was 10.5 times more likely than other released prisoners to be rearrested for another rape.[56] More recently, based on a study of prisoners released in 1994, the BJS calculated a rapist's likelihood of being rearrested for rape as 4.2 times a non-rapist's odds.[57]

However, the odds of 10.5 or 4.2 do not mean that rapists' rates of recidivism are 10.5 or 4.2 times greater than the recidivism rates of other offenders.[58] The figures are properly understood as indicating the "degree of specializing" that is apparent among many offenders.[59] For example, according to the BJS, a robber is 2.7 times more likely of being rearrested for another robbery as compared to an offender who had not been serving time for a robbery.[60] Specialization is not absolute; non-rapists are also rearrested on rape charges. For example, 1.2 percent of the prisoners who had been serving time for robbery were rearrested for rape.[61] Indeed, people who had been serving time for rape were responsible for only 4.8 percent of the rapes committed in the three-year post-release period by all prisoners released in 1994.[62]

Most prisoners who are going to reoffend do so fairly soon after their release from prison.[63] This is also true for sex offenders. For example, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, during the three years following release from prison in 1994, 40 percent of the rearrests of sex offenders for new sex crimes occurred in the first year.[64] In Ohio, of all sex offenders who came back to prison for a new sex offense within a 10-year post-release period, one-half did so within two years, and two-thirds within three years.[65] The corollary-for people who have committed sex offenses as well as other kinds of crimes-is that the longer someone remains offense-free in the community, the less likely he or she will commit another offense. For example, the 2004 meta-analysis of sex offender recidivism studies cited above indicated that an average of 20 percent of all sex offenders would be arrested or convicted for another sex offense over a 10-year period after being released into the community. But, for offenders who remained offense-free for five years, their recidivism rate for the next 10 years declined to 12 percent; for those who remained offense-free for 10 years, their recidivism over the next five years declined even further to 9 percent. After 15 years offense-free, the recidivism rate for the next five years was 4 percent.[66]

A number of other factors are also correlated with recidivism. One such factor is the relationship of the victim to the offender. Offenders whose victims were within the family recidivate at a significantly lower rate than offenders whose victims were outside of the family.[67] For all child molesters, the lowest reoffense rates were for those who abused family members-13 percent after 15 years living in the community.[68] The age at which a sex offender commits the sex offense also has a substantial association with recidivism. Offenders older than 50 when released from prison reoffended at half the rate of those younger than 50-12 percent versus 26 percent, respectively, after 15 years.[69]

Some experts who specialize in the treatment of individuals who commit sex offenses are not surprised that individuals caught for their sex crimes have a relatively low recidivism rate. As one treatment provider told Human Rights Watch, "When an individual is caught and held accountable for his behavior, he often becomes motivated to get better. His behavior is no longer a secret, and it becomes a reckoning point for him-he must decide whether he is going to change his behavior, or face the consequences."

Case Study: North Carolina

Human Rights Watch did a case study of North Carolina to determine how many of the offenders on its online sex offender registry had been convicted of another sex offense after they were released from prison into the community, and the kinds of crimes for which the registrants were required to register. We chose North Carolina because it is one of only two states that we could find whose registries list the date of release into the community. North Carolina's registry includes persons convicted of sexually violent offenses,[71] offenses against minors,[72] and other sex offenses.[73]Depending on the gravity of their offense, offenders must register either for 10 years or for life.[74] Ten-year registrants may petition for removal from the registry after 10 years, providing they fulfill certain requirements.[75] Lifetime registrants may not petition for removal from the registry.[76] Human Rights Watch analyzed the criminal histories reported on the registry for a statistically significant randomly chosen sample of 500 out of the total 10,073 registrants living in the community. The overwhelming majority, 98.6 percent, were one-time offenders, that is, their only sex offense was the one for which they were currently required to register. The earliest date of release in the sample was 12 years ago, and no offender living in the community 10-12 years from release has been reconvicted for another sex offense. Of the 36 percent of the sample (183 offenders) who had been out of confinement for more than five but fewer than 10 years, only 2.19 percent (four offenders) had been reconvicted. All four of these recidivists were reconvicted for "indecent liberties with a minor." In our sample, 67 percent of the registrants reported indecent liberties with a minor as the registerable offense (this is a broadly-defined offense[77] that need not include violence and need not even involve physical contact with the minor victim).[78]Another 10 percent were registered for rape (first and second degree).[79] The other 23 percent were registered for other sex crimes. Among the 13 registered sex offenders in our sample who were under 18 at the time of conviction, six were registered for indecent liberties with a minor, and four were convicted of second degree rape (rape not involving the use of a weapon).

Treatment

Treatment of sex offenders can contribute to community safety. Offenders who participate in and complete treatment are less likely to reoffend than those who do not.

As the Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM) has pointed out, the current emphasis on registration, community notification laws, and residency restrictions for individuals who have been convicted of sex offenses "has begun to overshadow the important role of treatment in sex offender management efforts."[80] The CSOM believes mandated specialized treatment as part of probation or parole conditions is an integral and important component of effective community supervision.

The classification, diagnosis, and assessment of sex offenders for treatment are complicated by a high degree of variability among individuals in terms of personal characteristics, life experiences, criminal histories, and reasons for offending.[81] The effectiveness of treatment at reducing reoffending behavior depends on many factors, including the type of sexual offender (for example, child molester or adult rapist), the specific treatment models and modalities being used, and the nature and extent of probation or parole supervision.[82] Most sex offender treatment programs in the United States use cognitive-behavioral treatment as well as relapse prevention (designed to help sex offenders maintain behavioral changes by anticipating and coping with the problem of relapse).[83] According to the CSOM, effective sex offender treatment holds offenders accountable and reflects the "notion that if an offender can be taught to manage successfully his propensity to sexually abuse, he becomes less of a risk to past and potential victims."[84]

Early studies, conducted in the 1970s and 80s, did not detect differences in recidivism rates between sex offenders who had undergone treatment and those who had not.[85] Some recent research has produced similar findings. These findings have been widely publicized, opening the door to public policies predicated on the assumption that "treatment doesn't work" and sex offenders will invariably recidivate.[86]

Other studies, however, have testified to the positive impact of sex offender treatment. For example, a recent meta-analysis of 43 studies of 9,454 convicted sex offenders (5,078 treated and 4,376 untreated) found that contemporary cognitive-behavioral treatment was associated with a 41 percent reduction in recidivism.[87]

V. Sex Offender Registration Laws

Look, I did something wrong. I think it makes sense that the police have the information they need to monitor my whereabouts. I accept that. I committed a crime, and I accept that consequence. That consequence makes sense. It's the rest of it that doesn't.

-Paul G., convicted in 1994 of adult rape, released from prison in 1995 [88]

If sex offender registries were limited to previously convicted sex offenders who had committed sexually violent crimes or sex crimes against children and who have been individually assessed as presenting a high or medium risk of committing similar crimes again, registration might help protect the public. Indeed, at least some registrants convicted of sexually violent crimes agree that registering with local law enforcement makes sense.[89] As a man convicted of rape in 1992 and released into his Idaho community in 2002 told Human Rights Watch, "The police should know where I live. They should monitor me. I have no problem going down to the police station to register. It's the price I pay for what I did."[90]

But registration is not limited to offenders who pose a significant risk of committing another serious crime. This chapter describes who is required to register, for what, and for how long.

The Role of Federal Law

While a few states have had sex offender registries since the 1940s, most states began creating registries in the 1990s.[91] Today all 50 states and the District of Columbia have them. Federal law now requires states to maintain sex offender registries and has limited state discretion regarding who must register, and for how long.

In 1994 the US Congress passed the Jacob Wetterling Crimes against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, named after an 11-year-old boy who was abducted at gunpoint while riding his bike near his home.[92] The law required states to establish sex offender registries, subject to the loss of a percentage of federal funding if they did not.[93] Under the legislation, people convicted of sexual abuse of children or sexually violent crimes against adults were required to register their current addresses with local law enforcement for 10 years following their release into the community.[94] The law authorized, but did not require, law enforcement officials to release to the public information on a registered sex offender when, in their discretion, they determined public notification about the registered sex offender's presence in the community was "necessary to protect public safety."[95]

In 1996 Congress expanded the length of registration required for individuals convicted of "aggravated" sexual violence and for sex crime recidivists.[96] These individuals were required to register for life.[97]

Ten years later, with the Adam Walsh Act of 2006, Congress again passed legislation increasing the categories of people that states were required to register as sex offenders and for how long they would have to do so.[98] The Act also authorized a national registry that would incorporate the information from every state registry.

The Adam Walsh Act significantly expands the federal requirements of who must register as a sex offender. The Act defines a sex offense as a "criminal offense that has an element involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another."[99] The law exempts consensual sexual conduct when the victim was at least 13 and the offender was no more than four years older.[100] For the first time, federal law under the Adam Walsh Act requires some juveniles to register (see Chapter VII, "Sex Offender Laws and Child Offenders").

The Adam Walsh Act creates three tiers or levels of registrants, determined solely by the conviction offense, with Tier I crimes the least serious and Tier III crimes the most serious. The tiers dictate the duration of the registry requirement.[101]

The Act also sets the frequency with which a former offender must update registry information: Tier I sex offenders must do so every year; Tier II sex offenders must do so every six months; and Tier III offenders must do so every three months. A registrant must not only register with local law enforcement in the jurisdiction where he or she resides, but must also register in the jurisdiction where he or she is employed or and goes to school.[102] The Act makes failure to register a violation of federal law, carrying with it a fine or imprisonment.[103] These registration requirements are applied to all registrants, for the duration of their registration. So, for example, a man convicted of soliciting an underage prostitute would have to register in the jurisdiction where he lives and also in the jurisdiction where he is employed (if different) and provide information about his employer to the police, even if his work does not involve contact with children.

One of the goals of the Act was to create more uniformity among state registration schemes, to avoid some of the confusion as to registration requirements when registrants moved to different states. However, since the Act does not limit the authority of states to go beyond federal law (see below), uniformity will still be elusive.

Moreover, the Act will preclude state officials from instituting registration laws they deem more reasonable or effective but which fall below the federal mandate.

In 1996 Congress authorized the creation of a national registry of offenders convicted of coercive, penetrative sex with anyone, sex with children under the age of 12, recidivists of any sexual offense, and sexually violent predators.[104] In 2005 the national registry went online with links to state online registries.[105] The Adam Walsh Act requires all states to upload their online sex offender database to the national database by 2009.[106]

State Registration Laws

The only reason I am considered a sex offender is because I committed an offense that triggers registration. In any other context, my crime would never be considered a sex offense, and I would not be considered a threat to society.

-Trent B., a Pennsylvania registrant convicted of streaking [107]

While federal law requires states to register former offenders convicted of certain offenses, it does not limit states' authority to increase the number of offenses that trigger registration or the duration of the requirement to register.

Expanding the Definition of Sex Offender

Most people assume that a registered sex offender is someone who has sexually abused a child or engaged in a violent sexual assault of an adult. A review of state sex offender registration laws by Human Rights Watch reveals that states require individuals to register as sex offenders even when their conduct did not involve coercion or violence, and may have had little or no connection to sex. For example:

At least five states require registration for adult prostitution-related offenses;[108]

At least 13 states require registration for public urination; of those, two limit registration to those who committed the act in view of a minor;[109]

At least 29 states require registration for consensual sex between teenagers;[110] and

At least 32 states require registration for exposing genitals in public;[111] of those, seven states require the victim to be a minor.

Case study: Oklahoma

Oklahoma law treats any type of public exposure as a sex offense that triggers 10 years on the sex offender registry, even if the offender had no sexual or lascivious motivation or intent at the time he or she exposed him- or herself.According to a local newspaper, nearly 600 registrants appear on Oklahoma's website for engaging in indecent exposure.[113] In 1999 a high school senior in Salina, Oklahoma was arrested for what his mother described to the local media as a "high school thing."[114] He reportedly exposed himself to a group of female freshman gym students on his way to the restroom. School officials notified the police, who took the young man away in handcuffs. He was incarcerated for four months pending trial, and pled guilty to indecent exposure. In addition to community service and a five-year suspended sentence, he was required to register as a sex offender. According to his mother, the stigma of the label drove him out of his community and away from his family. He dropped out of high school and moved to Tulsa. He had a hard time finding and maintaining employment. "It seemed like after that happened, he didn't care," his mother told a local newspaper.[115] The youth was found shot to death in November 2000 in what officials ruled a suicide. He was one month away from his 20th birthday. His mother now believes that some consideration should be given to sex offender registration requirements when the charge stems from a nonviolent act. "He was a pretty normal kid," she said. The sex offender registration requirements "changed his life."[116]

Increasing the Length of Time of Registration

No matter if I complete treatment, never reoffend, lead an exemplary life to the best of my ability, I will have to register as a sex offender for the rest of my life.

-Jacob V., South Carolina registrant convicted of possessing child pornography [117]

If the goal of sex offender registries is to enhance community safety, then the law should require registration for only so long as a former offender can reasonably be deemed to pose a meaningful risk of committing another sexually violent offense.Yet federal and state registration laws often require individuals to register for far longer.

Federal law requires mandatory lifetime registration for some offenders, and some states require lifetime registration for all offenders, with the duration of the registration under both federal and most state laws keyed solely to the crime of conviction. Under the Adam Walsh Act, Tier I sex offenders are required to register for 15 years, Tier II sex offenders for 25 years, and Tier III offenders for life.[118]

The Act does acknowledge in a limited way the significance of living offense-free:Tier I registrants can petition for removal from registration requirements if they maintain a clean record for 10 years. But Tier II offenders and Tier III offenders must register for 25 years or the rest of their lives, respectively, regardless of how long they live offense-free or present other evidence of rehabilitation.[119] Under this law, for example, a man who sexually abused a child in his family but has been living in the community offense-free for 20 years would nonetheless be required to continue to register until he dies.[120]

The Adam Walsh Act will extend the duration of registration for many offenders as states amend their laws to comply with it. But the law does not prevent states from setting longer registration requirements. Seventeen states currently require lifetime registration for all registrants-from the most minor offenders to the most serious.Two of these states, Alabama and South Carolina, do not provide any means by which a registrant might secure release from the registry requirement.[121] In Alabama, for example, a man convicted of soliciting an adult prostitute must register for life, with no way to obtain a release from the registration requirements. The other 15 states allow some registrants to petition a court for removal from registration requirements after living in the community offense-free for a specific number of years.[122]

Thirty-three states require some, but not all, offenders to register for life.[123] As best we can tell, lifetime registration in these states is typically reserved for more serious crimes.[124] In 24 of these states, former offenders who had been convicted of more serious crimes will have to register until they die, no matter how unlikely the possibility of recidivism. Six of these states permit lifetime registrants to petition for early release of the registration requirements.[125] The Adam Walsh Act may eliminate that option for most, if not all, of these registrants.

How Bad Can Registration Be? Chris F.'s Story [126]

I am 29 years old. I was adjudicated when I was 12 years old. I found some pornographic videos in my parents bedroom (they were well hidden but I was a kid and overturned everything) and invited some neighbor friends over to watch it while my parents were away. The neighbor I first invited was 12 years old. He told his friend who was 10 and that person told his friend who was 8. So there were 4 of us (all males) in a room watching these videos. What started off a little more as "you show me yours, I'll show you mine" turned into a bit more. There was not any force. I was adjudicated and placed in the California Youth Authority (CYA). I was out in 1997. I enrolled in college to study criminal justice, then switched to pre-law. I dropped out of classes when I found out the registration laws changed to apply toward college campus police departments. I could not see myself going in to register with classmates that were working their work study jobs with the campus security department. At age 23 I became Director of Security for a hotel. I got married at 25 and have a child now. [Among the incidents he experienced because of his registration status:] 1. When I was attending college, I lived in Sacramento, CA but my school was in Santa Rosa, which is about a 150 mile trip. I pulled over to sleep a bit during the commute in an empty parking lot. A city policy officer told me to move along, that it was illegal to sleep in a car. She knew that I was a registered sex offender and asked me about the crime I had committed. I told her about it, and she said she did not believe me. 2. I was pulled over for speeding for doing 80 mph in a 65 mph zone. Even though my crime and offender registration was supposed to remain confidential, the police officer announced that I was a registered sex offender to everyone in the car with me. That hurt my relationship with the people I was traveling with. 3. When I went to register at the police station, they had me wait in a busy hallway in a court building. I had to get a finger print and the officer doing it calls out my name in the hallway and then says, "step up for your sex offender registry finger print." Then the whole hallway knew what I was there for. 4. When I was working in Reno, doing security, my boss calls me into his office and lets me know I'm a registered sex offender based off the criminal check they did. He said "there must be some mistake. The date of the crime doesn't match. You aren't that old to be a sex offender." He allowed me to return to work. I quit shortly after that to save face. 5. I was fired from a job because I didn't disclose the fact that I was a registered sex offender, and they did a background check. This last firing was the reason I started pursuing to get my name off the law enforcement registry. I had had enough. I was taken off the registry at age 28. I am 29, and feel like my life can start over again.

Do Registries Help Law Enforcement?

Police have used sex offender registries to identify potential suspects when a sex crime has been committed in their jurisdiction. Yet, given that most sex crimes are not committed by registered offenders (See Chapter IV above), the utility of the registries for law enforcement is limited. For example, a 1999 study about Massachusetts' sex offender registry showed that of the 136 new sex crimes in a particular jurisdiction, only six were committed by individuals listed on a police registry.[127] Human Rights Watch asked a state law enforcement official in Minnesota whether the sex offender registry changed the way he investigated new sex crimes.He told us, "It gives us a place to start, but most suspects we arrest are not previously convicted sex offenders. Last year, Minnesota had 585 sex offender convictions, and only 58 of those individuals had a prior conviction for a sex offense."[128]

With over 600,000 men and women listed on sex offender registries,[129]law enforcement cannot actively monitor all the registrants. Human Rights Watch spoke to a police officer who oversees the sex offender registry for his city. He told us, "To be honest, it would be hard to go out and patrol every registrant on the list. We don't follow the guys around on the registry. We don't really check in on them, unless they failed to register and we have to try to find them."[130] Another law enforcement official told Human Rights Watch, "The expansion of state sex offender registries to include more offenses and longer registration periods has really compromised our ability to monitor high-risk sex offenders."[131] The chief probation officer in an Arizona county told Human Rights Watch, "Lawmakers have no idea the kind of burden they put on law enforcement when they increase the number of offenders who must register."[132]

The volume of registrants is such that law enforcement officials cannot even make sure that those who are supposed to register are doing so. In 2003, for example, the state of California admitted that it had lost track of 33,000 of the state's convicted sex offenders-44 percent of the 76,350 who should have been registering but were not.[133]As the lone officer responsible for tracking Sacramento's 1,945 registered sex offenders put it, "We could definitely use some help there is so many of them out there, it's hard to keep track."[134] In 2005 a study of Florida's sex offender registry found that over 7,000 registrants had run away or could not be found. "As a result, you have an excessively long list that does not generate enough accurate information to make registration useful to anyone," noted a child safety advocate.[135]

Rethinking Registration

There is little public safety purpose served by imposing registration requirements on those who pose a minimal risk to the community. Legislators should replace one-size-fits-all registration with a system that limits registration to those who have been individually determined to pose a high or medium risk to the community. In determining that risk, states should take into consideration the offender's prior record, the specific offense committed, the period of time he or she has lived in the community offense-free, and other factors that are statistically correlated with the likelihood of reoffending.For example, the Center for Sex Offender Management advocates individualized risk assessment for sex offenders that takes into consideration "the complex and varying nature of sexual abuse and the individuals who perpetrate it."[136] States should also allow all registrants to periodically petition or appeal for review of their initial risk-level status.

Carefully tailored, sensible registration is possible. For example, in Minnesota, a coalition of public officials, law enforcement personnel, and victims' rights organizations have created reasonable registration laws (see text box on Minnesota at the end of Chapter VI, "Public Access to Information on Sex Offenders").

VI. Public Access to Information on Sex Offenders

We knew nothing about him. If we had been aware of his record, my daughter would be alive today.

-Maureen Kanka, whose daughter, Megan, was abducted, sexually assaulted, and murdered by a neighbor who was a convicted sex offender [137]

Nothing is more threatening to our families and communities and more destructive of our basic values than sex offenders who victimize children and families. Study after study tells us that they often repeat the same crimes. That's why we have to stop sex offenders before they commit their next crime, to make our children safe and give their parents piece of mind.

-President Bill Clinton, in a 1996 radio address about the passage of Megan's Law [138]

Federal and state community notification laws give the public easy access to significant information about registrants. All 50 states have online sex offender registries which anyone with access to the internet can view. As noted in our previous chapter, by 2009 all state registration information that is publicly available will be uploaded onto the online national sex offender registry.[139]

Information on the registry typically includes not just a person's criminal conviction-which is in the public record, except in the case of juveniles-but also his or her current address and picture, and sometimes his or her license plate number and place of employment, among other information.[140] Community notification thus does not, as some contend, simply make public what is in already in the public record.Instead, it makes readily accessible additional information that would otherwise be private or difficult to obtain.[141]

Legislative History

On July 29, 1994, Jesse Timmendequas raped and murdered his neighbor, seven-year-old Megan Kanka, luring her into his home by asking her if she wanted to see his new puppy.[142] Timmendequas had two prior convictions for sexual offenses against children.[143] The story of Megan's murder, which occurred in a small central New Jersey community, received significant national attention. In the aftermath of the crime, Megan's parents stated that if they had known about Timmendequas' past, they would have been able to protect their daughter from him.[144] Parents and concerned citizens pressed for an expansion of the federal sex offender registration law (The Jacob Wetterling Act) to include community notification. Congress responded by passing Megan's Law in 1996.[145]All 50 states and the District of Columbia also passed their own Megan's Laws.[146]

Support for Megan's Laws within both Congress and state legislatures was overwhelming. When community notification came up for discussion in the US House of Representatives, only one representative voiced opposition and the bill eventually passed 418-0.[147] In Florida, legislators held no debate on the merits of making sex offender registrants' names public through community notification before unanimously passing the laws.[148] Megan's Laws passed with similar ease in other states; in Virginia, Illinois, and Washington, for example, they passed without a single "no" vote.[149]

Proponents of community notification framed it as a means by which to protect children from child molesters. Speeches featured stories of child victims who suffered serious abuse.[150] Yet Megan's Laws are not limited to individuals who have committed sexually violent crimes against children, who have abused children, or who have committed violent sex crimes against adults. Instead, in many states, community notification (just as registration per se) extends to individuals whose crimes bear a tenuous or no connection to either sex or violence.

Advocates of community notification believe putting registry information directly in the hands of the public will enable them to take steps to protect their children or themselves from convicted sex offenders-presumed to be dangerous and strangers.As discussed above, most convicted sex offenders will not recidivate, sex offender registries include only a small percentage of people who will commit sex offenses in the future, and most offenders are not strangers to their victims.

Community notification occurs two ways: law enforcement officials may notify communities directly and states make sex offender registries available online.

Community Notification by Law Enforcement

After the sheriff placed the flyers with [my husband's] face all over our neighborhood, neighbors stopped talking to us. People made copies of the flyer and passed it out in front of my son's school. They posted the flyers along my running trail. People came around at night and pounded on our windows. We eventually moved to a more isolated neighborhood. We couldn't handle the humiliation.

-Susan K., wife of a convicted sex offender [151]

The police posted fliers notifying the neighbors that my son was a sex offender. He found it too hard to live in his apartment complex. We never told my son this, but the neighbors actually stood out in the hallway and applauded as my wife and I moved his stuff out of his apartment.

-Bob K., whose son was adjudicated at age 14 for sexual contact with a minor [152]

All 50 states require some form of direct community notification by law enforcement for offenders convicted of certain sex offenses who have been released from custody and have moved into a community. Most state laws do not provide guidance to the police regarding who to notify or the method of notification.

Some police departments and sheriff's offices hang posters in community centers and libraries, or send letters or postcards to homes within a certain distance of the registrant.[153] Others publish notices in the local newspaper or broadcast pictures and addresses of the registrants on television.[154] Some law enforcement officials fund non-governmental non-profits to inform the community about released registrants.In New York, for example, Parents for Megan's Law has a contract with the state to distribute information about registrants recently released from custody.[155]

Under some state community notification schemes, law enforcement is authorized to disseminate information about registrants to a wide array of public and private entities and organizations. FFFor example, in New Jersey, notices about high risk ("Tier 3") registrants are distributed to private residences, businesses, schools, and community organizations in the area(s) where the offender lives and works. For moderate risk ("Tier 2") registrants, notices are provided to schools and community organizations. Notification concerning low risk ("Tier 1") offenders is provided only to law enforcement.[156]

Absent care in how notification is handled, law enforcement officials may inadvertently expand the scope of community notification beyond what is necessary to protect public safety, mislead the public about the actual risk a sex offender poses, and inflame community hostility and fear. When law enforcement notifies a community about the presence of a registrant by placing a notice in a local newspaper or on the local television station, for example, they expand notification to include more than those who live in close proximity to the offender.

Human Rights Watch spoke with a man convicted of possessing child pornography in 1996 who is subject to community notification laws in Florida:

When we moved in, in 2004, the police put flyers all over my neighborhood. I saw him hanging them up. It was my picture, and a description of the crime I committed, and it directed them to [Florida's sex offender website]. Our neighbor made copies of the flyer, and started passing them out door-to-door. One of my neighbors works in my office, and soon the flyers were around the office as well. I was let go a few days after they appeared. One day, as my wife dropped my son to school, there were the flyers, being passed out by one of my neighbors. When my wife asked her, she said she had made copies of the ones the Sheriff posted. It was humiliating for all of us, and it just made me want to hide. We eventually moved from the neighborhood. [157]

In addition to community notification laws, some courts and legislators have sought to notify the public about the presence of sex offenders through means that could deliberately expose the offender to public humiliation and degradation. A court in Georgia, for example, ordered J.B., a 59-year-old registrant, to put signs up on his property declaring that he is a child molester.[158] Lawmakers in at least two states have proposed requiring registrants to obtain special color-coded license plates-pink-on the theory that such plates would make them easily identifiable to children.[159]

Law enforcement officials sometimes make little effort to accurately inform the community about the conduct that triggered registration for the offender and what safety risks he or she may pose. For example, Human Rights Watch spoke with an individual who had consensual sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend when he was 20. "I was convicted of statutory rape, but when the police notified the community I live in, they didn't make it clear the circumstances. My neighbors, who are family friends, told us that the police [officer] just said I raped a girl. They didn't explain that she was my girlfriend, that it was consensual, and that the judge, the prosecutor, and my probation officer consider me to be a low-risk offender. He just said that I raped a girl.That makes people think I am a monster."[160]

Human Rights Watch spoke with a mother in Texas who received a postcard notifying her that a convicted sex offender moved into the neighborhood: "They might as well have written it in a foreign language," she said. "The postcard the police sent to my home was a bunch of legalese-I couldn't understand what exactly this individual had done to get his name on the registry, and I had no idea what his criminal history meant for the safety of my family. Now I worry that if this guy does something to a child in the neighborhood, the police will blame the parents for not being vigilant enough, like 'we gave you fair warning, and you failed to heed our warnings.' But I don't understand the threat. I am not saying one doesn't exist, I just don't understand it."[161]

Minnesota's community notification law is one of the few laws that carefully prescribes how and to whom law enforcement officials can disclose information about released former sex offenders (see text box about Minnesota below).

Internet Registries: Expanding Community Notification to the World

My husband is being encompassed into a group which the general public is made to think contains only pedophiles, child molesters, and rapists. The descriptions on the web are very general and misleading.At the very least, our state should actually take the time to [assess] each case and determine those who should actually be listed rather than blanket cover everyone.

-Heidi O., wife of a former prison guard convicted of inappropriately touching a female inmate [162]

Despite the rationale for community notification, online registries are not limited to offenders who have committed serious crimes, or are assessed to pose a significant risk of reoffending in the future. Nor is access to the registries limited to those who have a legitimate "need to know."

Some people insist that community notification via online registries does not invade a registrant's privacy because the registries contain information already in the public domain. This is an argument US courts have adopted in upholding community notification.[163] It is true that criminal records are available at courthouses for those who wish to inquire. But, as noted above, the online registries pull together, in an easily accessible fashion, information that is not usually part of one's criminal record.

State Internet Registries

I knew the planned internet registry had gone online when my neighbor came to my home and asked if I was a pedophile, because she had entered our zip code to search the database, and my name and picture appeared.

-Dave S., convicted in Oklahoma of possession of child pornography [164]

Every state has a searchable state-wide website with information about individuals required to register as sex offenders. Anyone with access to the internet can access state sex offender online databases and find out who is a registered offender. The information provided online for each offender typically includes the crime that triggered the registration requirement, name, photograph, physical description, date of birth, and current address of the registrant (although a few state online registries provide only the zip code of the individual). Some states provide additional personal information for certain offenders, including the address of the registrant's employer and the make, model, and license plate number of any vehicle the registrant drives.[165] Draft federal regulations for the Adam Walsh Act encourage states to list a registrant's home telephone number and email address.

Users of online registries can search by name to see whether a specific individual is registered, or can find out if there are any registered offenders in a particular neighborhood. The user need not live in the state whose registry is being searched, and states do not limit who can access the database. Those who search state and national databases can do so anonymously in every state except New York and Vermont, where those seeking to search the website must provide their names and addresses (which are kept confidential and seen only by state officials).[167]

Thirty-two states include every registrant who was convicted as an adult on their online database (this includes youths who were under 18, but convicted as adults).[168]Eighteen states (and the District of Columbia) exclude low- and, in some cases, medium-risk adult sex offenders from the internet registry.[169]Thirty-two states require some youth who were adjudicated as juveniles to be placed on the public registry.[170] The Adam Walsh Act now requires states to include on their online registries children age 14 or older at the time of the offense who were adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court, where the offense "was comparable to or more severe than aggravated sexual abuse, or was an attempt or conspiracy to commit such an offense."[171] (See section VII, "Sex Offender Laws and Child Offenders")

Failure to Inform: Inaccurate and Missing Information

The public needs to know there is a difference between a sexual OFFENDER and a sexual PREDATOR. You can't tell that from the web-site that my father is a sexual offender, but he is not a predator.

-Emily L., daughter of a Florida registrant convicted of indecent exposure to a minor [172]

Most online registries do not provide information that will enable the user to understand the nature of the offending conduct or the likelihood that the offender will reoffend.

The online registries of 22 states and the District of Columbia reflect no discernable indication of the offender's level of dangerousness.[173]The other 28 state registries reflect various strategies for suggesting dangerousness: at least nine indicate how long the offender is required to register;[174] at least two indicate that they include "only high level offenders";[175] at least five include a section describing the offense in detail;[176] at least seven use the terms "aggravated" or "habitual" to define more dangerous offenders;[177] at least two have a separate database for level two (medium risk) and level three (high risk) offenders;[178] and at least 15 states designate some offenders as "sexual predators," or "sexually violent predators"[179]

Only three state sites that Human Rights Watch could find provide the registrant's age at the time of the offense,[180] although all state registries provide the current age of the registrant. The lack of information about the offender's age can be extremely misleading. As the age of the registrant is updated every year, the age of difference between him and the victim becomes greater and greater. For example, Marcus A., who was convicted at 20 of having sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend, explained to Human Rights Watch that his state's sex offender website "lists my age, which is now forty-seven, and my victim's age, who I later married, as fifteen. It makes me look like a child rapist. I live alone now. I moved to a new neighborhood and I worry that everyone will just think I am some dirty old man living alone who likes to have sex with children."[181]

Alabama, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota and South Dakota are the only states Human Rights Watch found whose online registry provides crime descriptions that the general public may be able to understand (for example, "when male was 41, raped 14 year old female").[182] The other registries either cite the statute under which the offender was convicted or quote directly from it. The user is left to wonder what such terms as "lewd and lascivious behavior," "indecent liberties with a child," or "crime against nature" actually mean and what the registrant actually did.

Florida's website is typical. It provides no detail about a registrant's crime beyond the name of the statute under which the registrant was convicted. One Florida registrant was convicted of "criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree."[183] Someone not familiar with the law might believe the registrant had committed a sexually violent act, when in fact he had groped a 29-year-old woman at a clothing-optional music festival-conduct that while unacceptable does not make him a dangerous offender. At the other end of the spectrum is a Florida registrant whose conviction is listed as "sexual battery of a child by an adult."[184] While most users may well note that his crime involved a child, they would have no basis for knowing that he had had sex dozens of times with a 12-year-old boy.

As a Florida lawmaker advocating for the inclusion of more information on the state's website has pointed out: "Parents don't have time to be mini-detectives. I want to know the crime this person has been convicted of so I know the difference between someone who was being mischievous and went streaking and someone who [has] done horrible things to children."[186]

Whatever utility registries are supposed to have is further undercut by serious inaccuracies and gaps. In 2003, the Boston Herald reported that nearly half of the online registered sex offenders in Massachusetts could not be located because their listed addresses were no longer accurate.[187] Newspapers in Florida reported that almost half of the sex offenders on the state's internet registry were incarcerated, dead, or missing.[188] In Kentucky, researchers determined that approximately 25 percent of the addresses on the internet registry were incorrect.[189]

"Other Offender" Registries: What's in a Name?

In May 2006, the Illinois General Assembly passed legislation to create a registry for people who commit violent but non-sexual crimes against youth.[190] The registry provides the same kind of information that the sex offender registry does, and will be available to the public online.[191] According to a co-sponsor of the legislation, "We wanted to spare individuals convicted of violent but non-sexual crimes against youth from the stigma of being a registered sex offender."[192] Lance M., who was convicted of physically abusing a child in a crime that did not involve sexual assault sought to get his name excluded from the sex offender registry and placed on the separate violent offender registry precisely because, as he pointed out, "I didn't want people to think I was a sex offender."[193] The change in the law was also supported by some child safety advocacy groups.Laura Ahern, executive director of Parents for Megan's Law noted at the time of the law's passage, "Somehow, if it's not only sex offenders [on sex offender registries], it takes away the impact and the ability for the community to recognize the type of danger they are dealing with."[194]

Does Community Notification Work?

Currently, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether posting information about registered sex offenders on the internet is a valuable and effective public safety tool; however the public feels that the internet registry provides important information that can be used to protect families and expects such information to be a matter of public record.

-Findings of a special committee convened by the Vermont legislature to investigate the efficacy of internet registries [195]

Given the popularity and prevalence of community notification laws, surprisingly little research has been conducted on their impact. We know 