Perceptions of Sex Offender Registration: Collateral Consequences and Community Experiences

ABSTRACT In the mid-1990s, the Jacob Wetterling Act and Megan's Law were passed, respectively, formalizing the practice of registering sex offenders in publicly accessible, state-wide databases. The laws were passed in an effort to prevent recidivism of sex offenders and to promote community awareness of convicted sex offenders living in communities. However, the creation of these registries have led to numerous unforeseen collateral consequences for offenders. In qualitative in-depth interviews with registered sex offenders in Jefferson County, Kentucky, respondents reported experiencing difficulties with employment and relationships, instances of harassment, stigmatization, and persistent feelings of vulnerability, all of which they believed were attributable to their status as registered sex offenders. The collateral consequences reported by sex offenders are consistent with those reported for felons in past research. However, the extent to which sex offenders experienced these consequences appears to be greater and more intense. Notes 1According to the Bureau of Justice Assistance, The Byrne Formula Grant Program was created by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100–690). As explained on the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) webpage, "The Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Grant Program (Byrne Formula Grant Program) is a partnership among federal, state, and local governments to create safer communities. BJA is authorized to award grants to states for use by states and units of local government to improve the functioning of the criminal justice system—with emphasis on violent crime and serious offenders—and enforce state and local laws that establish offenses similar to those in the federal Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6) et seq.). Grants may be used to provide personnel, equipment, training, technical assistance, and information systems for more widespread apprehension, prosecution, adjudication, detention, and rehabilitation of offenders who violate such state and local laws. Grants also may be used to provide assistance (other than compensation) to victims of these offenders. 2Information on the Kentucky Sex Offender Registry website includes for each offender name, registration date, date of birth, current address, county of residence, date of last update for the entry, sex, height, weight, hair and eye color, offenses for which the offender has been convicted, length of registration (ten years or life) and whether or not the offender is compliant with registration requirements. Additionally, most offenders also have a photo included on their registration page (although, as reported by Tewksbury 2002 a significant minority of individuals does not have photographs accompanying their information. Registry information is maintained and updated by the Kentucky State Police. The registration process does include collection of a DNA sample from all offenders, although at present this information is not directly linked to the registry. It should be noted that Kentucky does not do community notification. And although each registrant is assigned a "risk level," many registrants do not know their assigned risk level, and this is not reported on the registry. Only a registrant's period of registration—ten years or life—is posted. Lifetime registration is required for all high risk registrants, as well as for those who move in from another state. 3This is slightly lower than previous research that has show rates of inaccurate addresses for registered sex offenders of 4.1% (Tewksbury Citation2005) 14% (Tewksbury Citation2004) and 26.4% (Tewksbury Citation2002). Additionally, it should be noted that in the current study five registrants scheduled interviews and then either did not show for their scheduled interview appointment or refused to complete the interview after meeting with the researcher. 4Three individuals called to scheduled interviews but refused when they were informed that they were not being paid. Also, one individual called to ask "whether this is mandatory? Do I have to do it for my probation?" When informed it was not mandatory the individual hung up. Four other individuals called, asked questions about the project, promised to call back to schedule interviews, but did not do so. 5Although Kentucky does do a risk assessment and designate all registrants as low, moderate, or high risk, almost no registrants interviewed knew their assigned risk level. Additionally, just ten of the registrants asked the interviewer if he could explain to the registrant how the determination of either a ten-year or lifetime registration was imposed.