State Sex Offender Registry Web Sites: A Content Analysis of All 50 States and the District of Columbia
Christina Lombardo
The article is copyrighted. All rights pertain.
Introduction
A significant social problem that many people face today is sexual abuse and violence. Most people who experience a form of sexual abuse and/or violence are extremely ashamed. The intense feelings of shame that accompany the victims of sexual offenses cause those victims to keep that shame and the cause of it a secret. For that reason, many victims of sexual violence keep their victimization a secret. The secret nature of sexual abuse and violence often veils the elevated number of Americans who actually do experience such victimization (Welchans, 2005).
History and Nature of the Problem
In 2004, the Uniform Crime Reports, compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, calculated that 94,635 forcible rapes had been reported in the United States (U.S. Department of Justice, USDOJ, 2004). The Bureau of Justice Statistics, in one report, stated that in 2005, for every 1,000 people age twelve and older, one rape or sexual assault occurred (USDOJ, 2005). In examining college-age women, one study found that 28 out of every 1,000 women were the victim of rape or attempted rape within a six month period (Fisher et al., 2000 as cited by Welchans, 2005).
Children can be the victims of sexual offenses and assaults too. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 16% of all rape victims, across twelve studied states, were under the age of twelve (Langan, et al, 1994 as cited by Welchans, 2005). In 1998 alone, the number of corroborated cases of child sexual abuse reached over 103,500 in the United States (Jones, et al, 2001 as cited by Welchans, 2005). Freeman-Longo (1996) reported that as many as one in every five children is at risk for sexual victimization before reaching their eighteenth birthday.
Sex Offender Characteristics
Popular media outlets, like fictional books and movies, may lead most people to believe that sexual perpetrators are strangers to their victims. For example, a common vision may be that of a man jumping out of a bush and grabbing a woman from behind. This is not, however the usual case. In fact, in most instances of sexual victimization, the perpetrator of the offense is someone the victim knows (Levenson et al, 2005). According to Welchans (2005), the usual suspect is actually a friend, acquaintance, or even a family member of the victim. In 2002, Lisak and Miller (as cited by Welchans, 2005), reported that in studying 1,225 acts of rape, battery, child sexual abuse, and child physical abuse, a total of 120 individuals were responsible for all of them. All of the above mentioned acts of interpersonal violence were unreported to law enforcement agencies. In 1995, Elliot et al (as cited by Malesky et al, 2001) found that 30% of all child sex offenders reported that they had each victimized between 10 and 450 different children. Given that some sexual offenders do in fact have multiple victims, it is crucial to examine techniques that will prevent recidivism by sexual offenders (Malesky et al, 2001). Community notification and sex offender registry statutes are avenues currently being explored by criminal justice professionals in an attempt to make citizens more aware, and also to combat recidivism rates of sexual offenders.
Definitions & Goals of Community Notification
Community notification laws are those that compel criminal justice and law enforcement agencies to provide information to citizens and certain community groups when released sexual offenders move in to a neighborhood (Johnson et al., 1999). The idea behind community notification statutes is that by increasing community awareness, parents will be able to better protect their children from dangerous sex offenders because they will know who, and where, such offenders are (Freeman-Longo, 1996). Another idea behind community notification and registration laws is the reduction of sexual offender recidivism rates. By notifying communities of who sexual offenders are, the offender will less likely be able to lure potential victims. This is due to the fact that the potential offender will know that the entire community is aware of their presence and their history (Freeman-Longo, 1996). In other words, the two main goals of community notification statutes are (1) to increase public safety by providing increased awareness of the presence of sexual offenders, and (2) to prevent recidivism by released sexual offenders on future potential victims. If a potential victim knows that a convicted sexual offender is living near them, it is assumed that they can take necessary steps to prevent the victimization of themselves and those around them (Petrosino, 1999). The dissemination of information regarding sexual offenders living among communities allows citizens to make more informed decisions, thus enhancing their safety (Levenson et al., 2005).
What Led To Community Notification and Registration Laws?
In order to explain how community notification laws came to be, it is important to review some very important pieces of legislation. The first community notification law was passed in Washington State in 1990. The Community Protection Act allowed law enforcement agencies to provide information about sex offenders to citizens, under certain circumstances. At this time, states varied in the amount of information they provided, what procedures to follow before notification of a sexual offender’s release in to a community, the category of sex offender for which the information would be released, and to whom the information would be released (Berliner, 1996).
In 1994, after the 1989 abduction, sexual assault, and murder of an eleven year old boy, the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act was passed. The passage of this act led to a sexual offender registration and notification movement across the United States (Beck et al., 2004). The Wetterling Act required that each state implement registries of sexually violent offenders, or crimes against children, but allowed for discretion of how community notifications would be disseminated through out each state’s communities (Beck et al, 2004; Welchans, 2005). States were required to embrace and stick to certain minimum standards (Tewksbury, 2005). Under the Wetterling Act, each state was required to track an offender’s residences, annually, for a minimum of ten years (Welchans, 2005). Each state was given until September of 1997 (approximately three years) to comply with the law or the consequence would be a 10% reduction of that state’s federal anti-crime funding (Beck et al, 2004). Offenders who were known to be repeat offenders or those who committed extremely heinous sexual offenses were made to be lifetime registers (Office of the Attorney General, 1999 as cited by Welchans, 2005).
Also in 1994, a seven year old girl named Megan Kanka was raped and strangled to death by a neighbor. That neighbor had already been convicted of a sexual offense on two previous occasions (Caputo et al, 2004). Megan Kanka’s parents were unaware that their neighbor was a twice-convicted sexual offender (Petrosino, 1999). Maureen Kanka, Megan’s mother, led the movement to enact a sex offender registration law accompanied by community notification attributes (Petrosino, 1999). The legislation passed in New Jersey – Megan’s home state – by Governor Whitman and went in to effect in late 1994 (Petrosino, 1999). The death of Megan Kanka in 1994, along with public outrage regarding the perpetuation of sex offender anonymity, led to the amendment of the Wetterling Act in 1996 (Levenson et al, 2005; Caputo et al, 2004). The amendment, known as Megan’s Law, changed the language of the Wetterling act from “local law enforcement ‘may’ disclose relevant information as needed to protect the public, to local law enforcement ‘shall’ release relevant information that is necessary to protect the public” (Koenig, 1998 as cited by Beck et al, 2004). Under Megan’s Law, states now had an obligation to construct and implement community notification statutes in an effort to inform citizens about convicted sex offenders living in their communities (Levenson et al., 2005).
Finally, in 2003, immediately following some notable legal battles (which will be discussed in further detail), the Wetterling Act was again modified. The new amendment is called the Prosecutorial Remedies & Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act, or simply, the PROTECT Act. This new amendment mandates that all 50 states develop and maintain Internet web sites displaying sexual offender registry information for the purpose of citizen awareness (Levenson, 2005).
Legal Claims and Criticisms
Levenson and Cotter (2005) suggest that legal statutes held up by the United States Supreme Court indicate that community notification laws and sexual offender registries are practices that are here to stay. There have been several legal battles, brought upon by convicted, and released sexual offenders, aimed at ending, or getting around, such practices. There are also countless criticisms of community notification statutes and sexual offender registration.
In 2003, two main legal battles were heard and decided upon by the United States Supreme Court. In the first, Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, the defendants argued that Megan’s Law was unconstitutional because it violated the right to due process guaranteed by the 14th amendment (Welchans, 2005). A statute in Connecticut allowing sex offenders to be identified on an Internet registry was challenged (Levenson et al, 2005). The defendants in Connecticut v. Doe maintained that a hearing should be held to determine whether or not the sex offender is “currently dangerous” before posting their registry information on the Internet (Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, 2003). The Supreme Court justices, however, held that a trial and conviction was enough, and therefore, gave due process, thus Connecticut’s statute did not violate the 14th Amendment (Welchans, 2005; Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, 2003).
In a second case, Smith v. Doe, two convicted sexual offenders challenged Alaska’s version of Megan’s Law. The defendants argued that the law retroactively imposes punishment on convicted sexual offenders who were sentenced before the law was passed and took affect. (Smith v. Doe, 2003). The two argued that because they had fulfilled all of their requirements for being sexual offenders before the passage of Alaska’s Megan’s Law, mandating their participation in public sexual offender registration, violated their constitutional right against ex post facto punishment (Petrosino, 1999; Welchans, 2005; Smith v. Doe, 2003). A majority of the United States Supreme Court decided against the defendants and, according to Welchans (2005) found that “Megan’s Law is regulatory, not punitive; therefore, the defendants could be mandated to register.”
In addition to the legal claims that have been made against, and defeated by community notification and registration legislation, many criticisms of the practice exist. First, some critics believe that community notification is a response to sexual violence that is driven by emotions and that in turn, it may provide a false sense of security to communities (Levenson et al, 2005; Freeman-Longo, 1996; Malesky et al, 2001). Also, just because a person is known through out one community to be a sexual offender does not mean that his/her urges will hot be displaced on another community which is unaware of the person’s past (Freeman-Longo, 1996). Levenson and Cotter (2005) suggest that because it is known that many sexual offenses are committed by family members, community notification and pubic registry laws may avert reporting by victims of family members. Additionally, notification may lead to the unintended identification of victims (Levenson et al, 2005), vigilantism toward known offenders by fearful citizens (Freeman-Longo, 1996; Malesky et al, 2001; Levenson et al, 2005; Miller, 1998 as cited by Trivits et al, 2002), and increased public fear within communities (Freeman-Longo, 1996; Beck et al, 2004).
Mental health professionals have their own take on sexual offender notification and registration policies. They believe that sexual offender registries and community notification laws lead to increased stress on offenders which, in turn, increases the likelihood that an offender will recidivate (Tewksbury, 2005; Malesky et al, 2001). Malesky and Kiem (2001) studied the opinions of mental health professionals and found that most believe that the fear of being placed on a sexual offender registry will not deter instances of offending, rather they believe that fear will decrease sexual offenders’ desire to be honest about past crimes, thus hindering the entire treatment process.
In 2005, Tewksbury reported what he called the “collateral consequences of sex offender registration.” The most common consequences that released convicted sex offenders made to publicly register face, according to prior research, include loss of employment, losing or being denied a place of residence, impolite treatment while in public, loss of friends, and being harassed due to public registration (Tewksbury, 2005; Miller, 1998 as cited by Trivits et al, 2002). Another common condemnation of sexual offender registries and community notification statutes is that the current notification laws assume that sexual offenders are a homogeneous group and that all types of sexual offenders (adult, child, child pornographers, exhibitionists, etc.) will recidivate at the same rates (Sample et al, 2006). Finally, community notification statutes have been compared to Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter. Scholars have contended that making registries public allow for communal humiliation of the released, and supposedly treated, sexual offender (Johnson et al, 1999).
Why Study Sex Offender Registry Web Sites?
Despite the various legal battles and countless criticisms of sexual offender notification and registry statutes, each of the 50 states has enacted legislation mandating that information regarding released sexual offenders is made public. In fact, registration laws were expanded to include those people convicted of violent sexual acts against both children and adults, and nonviolent sexual acts against children, including possessing, viewing, or manufacturing of child pornography, juvenile solicitation, and enticement of a child over the Internet (Sample et al, 2006). Today, such statutes exist in all 50 states and in the District of Columbia (Zevitz et al, 2000 as cited by Beck et al, 2004).
Due to concerns regarding dodging methods by sexual offenders or potential sexual offenders in families, along with the stigma that encases sexual abuse, a community-wide approach seems to be the answer (Miller et al, 1988 as cited by Cox, 1998). Research suggests that there is evidence that programs that proactively promote education of child sexual abuse and child abduction can in fact, improve knowledge and enhance prevention skills (MacMillan et al, 1994 as cited by Cox, 1997; Beck et al, 2006). The strides in legislation toward community notification and public registry imply a shift in the penal process from one that sought to normalize sexual offenders to community norms, to one that aims to manage sex offenders in different categories and sub-categories (Simon, 1998).
Sex offenders are seen as today’s monsters (Simon, 1998). Unpromising rates of recidivism, by sexual violators of both adults and children; compounded by the high number of children being sexually victimized, along with media coverage of especially egregious re-offenders encouraged the use of community notification and registration statutes (Welchans, 2005).
Methodology
There are several notification methods commonly used by communities to publicly notify residents of a convicted, and released sexual offender’s presence. Some of these include media releases, door-to-door flyers, community meetings, phone calls, and most recently, Internet web sites. The purpose of this study is to examine the content of the sex offender registry web sites of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Currently, there are various studies that look in to the effect of the sexual offender registration and public notification statutes on communities, and also on the offender. There are even studies that compare methods for dissemination of public notification and registry information between counties in one state, or between two states. However, no research exists to date that examines the contents of each state’s sex offender registry web site.
Objectives
1. Review existing literature on sex offender registries and community notification statutes.
2. Describe the contents of the sex offender registry web sites of all 50 states.
3. Identify the similarities and differences in the contents of the sex offender registries of all 50 states.
Results
For the purpose of this study, the District of Columbia should be included wherever reference is made to all U.S. states. All of the states in the United States, including the District of Columbia, have a sex offender registry web site made accessible to citizens. The department that is responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of such sites varies from state to state. In general, those departments fall in to seven different categories.
In just over one third (33.33%) of all U.S. states, sex offender registry web sites are maintained by state police. In almost 22%, such web sites are kept up by the state’s Department of Public Safety. The Department of Corrections controls and maintains sex offender registry web sites in close to 6% of U.S. states, while the Office of the Attorney General is responsible for almost 10% of such web sites. Various states utilize some type of investigative bureau (13.73%) in order to ensure the upkeep of their sex offender registry website. Only two states (Rhode Island and South Carolina) have a specific Sex Offender Registry Unit that is held responsible for web site update and maintenance, and almost 12% of the states utilize some “other” department. In two states (Arkansas and Vermont) the Criminal Information Center is used. Others include the Division of Criminal Justice Services (New York), the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (Minnesota), the State Bureau of Identification (Delaware), and finally, the State Department of Justice (Montana).
The majority of the state sex offender registry (SOR) web sites (80.39%) have placed links to the various laws and statutes – state and federal – that mandate that such web sites exist. In fact, only two states (Illinois and Kansas) do not mention those laws and statutes at all. The majority of U.S. states’ SOR web sites list two different disclaimers, or warnings, regarding the information available on their web sites. The first disclaimer was found on over 94% of U.S. state’s SOR web sites, stating that the information publicly available should not be used to threaten, intimidate, harass, or injure those listed on the registry, or legal, criminal action would be the result. On over three quarters (78.43%) of all U.S. state’s SOR web sites, a second disclaimer warns citizens that the information is updated regularly, but that because the sex offenders themselves report the information provided, it may not always be accurate.
Searchable Attributes
Research in this study shows that citizens are provided with certain general attributes in order to search SOR web sites for sex offenders in their communities. Those general attributes are highlighted in Figure 1. Approximately 96% of all states offer searches of their databases by the sex offender’s last name, while the first name is sufficient in almost 65% of state’s online registries. In less than 30% of all state’s online registries, residents have the option to search for offenders using their home address. Citizens in over 75% of all U.S. states can search by city and county, and in over 88% of states, databases are searchable by zip code. Only seven states (13.73%) offer an option to search all entries, and over half (56.86%) of the state SOR web sites allow a citizen to search by only the first letter of a sex offender’s last name.
In addition to the general searchable attributes offered by most states, there are also states that offer searches of physical characteristics. For instance, in seven states (13.73%), citizens have the option to search for a registered sex offender by his/her race, and in just over 9% of all U.S. states, a citizen can search the SOR web site by the offender’s gender. Physical characteristics including height, weight, eye color, and hair color can be used to search for registered offenders in four states (7.84%). Additionally, in nine states (17.65%), residents have the option to search SOR databases by the offender’s birth date or age range.
Citizens in eight states (15.69%) can search SOR databases by offender type (i.e. sex offender, sex predator, non-compliant offender) or by level, or tier, of the committed offense (i.e. level/tier 1, 2, 3). In both Hawaii and Maryland, residents are given the option to search the state’s SOR website for only those who commit offenses against children.
Information Provided Regarding Registered Sexual Offenders
In over half of all U.S. states (56.86%), sex offenses are categorized, classified, or placed on levels or tiers of seriousness. Even though those who commit lower levels of offenses are considered to carry less potential for risk, 58.82% of all U.S. states still require them to register, and still provide residents with pertinent information about them. In five states (9.80%), information is provided for only those offenders who have been classified as either “high-risk” offenders or sexual predators. In over half (64.71%) of all U.S. states, juveniles are required to register and have their information posted on the SOR web site. Many of those states require that juveniles meet certain conditions in order to have their registry information posted. Some of those conditions include those juveniles who are convicted in an adult court, those who have public registry included in their sentence, as well as those who are both non-compliant and meet varying age requirements.
As with the types of searchable attributes, there are also certain types of offender information that are generally listed on each state’s SOR web sites. Slightly over 94% of all state SOR web sites provide pictures of all registered offenders. Three states (Arkansas, Colorado, and Montana) supply pictures for those who have been convicted of sexual offense, but not for those who are registered because they have committed a violent non-sexual act against a child. Every state provides the name of the offender, and almost 63% provide known aliases of each offender.
Over 92% of U.S. states provide citizens with the full home address of each registered sexual offender. Certain states only offer limited address information. For instance, California only lists the offender’s zip code, Rhode Island only lists the street name, Vermont only lists the offender’s city of residence, and Washington lists the entire address of the offender, but leaves out the last two digits of the offender’s street number. A little under one third (31.37%) of all states also inform residents of each registered offenders work, school, or temporary address, and Nebraska provides the places that each offender frequents throughout the state.
Most states provide certain standard physical characteristics of each of the registered sex offenders. These are shown in Figure 2. Over 92% of all state's SOR web sites list the offender’s gender, and the majority (94.12%) list either the offender’s age or his/her date of birth. Nevada only provides the offender’s birth year. Additionally, the race or ethnicity of each registered offender is listed on the SOR web site of 88.24% of all states. Also commonly provided for residents are the height and weight (86.28%) as well as the hair and eye color (84.31%) of each offender required to register. Surprisingly, only slightly more than 41% of all states provide citizens with any marks, scars, or tattoos that each registered offender may have.
Almost every state (94.12%) provides residents with the sexual offense(s) that each offender has been convicted of, and slightly over half (50.98%) offer descriptions of the actual crime. Twenty-two (43.14%) states provide the age and gender of the offender’s victim, but only five states (9.80%) tell residents whether or not the victim knew his/her perpetrator. Surprisingly, only a little over 37% of all state SOR registries provide the offender’s registration date, and only one-third provide citizens with the most current date that the offender’s information had been verified. Just over three quarters (76.47%) of all state’s online registries do inform citizens if an offender is non-compliant.
Useful Links
Most citizens do not have knowledge of criminal codes or legislative terminology used by criminal justice professionals to define certain crimes; however, only 58.82% of all state SOR web sites provide residents with such a web link (see Figure 3). In fact, only slightly over one-half of all state’s SOR web sites offer a list of “Frequently Asked Questions” and their answers, and surprisingly, only nineteen states (37.26%) provide information for citizens regarding safety tips for themselves and for those around them, including their children. Sixteen states (31.37%) provide some form of information for registered offenders regarding sex offender registration requirements, including forms for address change or temporary address change.
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to gain knowledge on what is provided for residents in the United States on state provided, web-based, public sex offender registries. Research in this study shows that there are commonalities from state to state in what attributes are searchable and in what is provided upon obtaining search results. The majority of all state SOR web sites are searchable by the offender’s last name, and by the resident’s city, zip code, and county. A great number of state SOR registries provide citizens with the offenders name, part of his/her address, age or date of birth, and a picture of the offender. Many states also provide safety tips for parents as well as information for those offenders who must register with the state. There are also some states in the U.S. that have gone beyond minimum notification criterion as mandated by state and federal legislation.
E-mail Notification, Alert Lines, & Information lines
The overabundance of technology that is available in the United States today makes it hard to believe that very few state SOR web sites offer e-mail notification, telephone alert lines, and/or telephone information lines to citizens when a sexual offender moves in to their community. Only six (11.77%) U.S. states provide an e-mail notification service for their residents to notify them that a sex offender has, or will be moving in to their area. One state (Virginia) only provides electronic notification via e-mail to childcare facilities, public and private educational institutions, foster homes, nursing homes and to those citizens who reside in the same zip code as the notified facility. Similarly, there are only two states (3.92%) in the U.S. that provide alert lines for their residents. Such alert lines allow residents to submit their phone numbers so that when a registered sex offender is known to be relocating to their community, they will receive a phone call telling them to check the state’s SOR web site for information regarding the sexual offender that will be moving in. Even more shocking is the fact that only one state (New York) offers a sex offender information line where residents can call and ask questions about sexual offenders and sexual crimes. Since many of the concerns regarding state sex offender registry web sites surround harassment of sexual offender’s and increased citizen fear, it is surprising that more states would not offer some sort of informational line that concerned residents could call to ease their fears and answer their questions.
Absconders & Non-Compliant Sexual Offenders
There are many different sexual crimes and many different classifications used from state to state, throughout the U.S. for categorizing sexual offenders. Not all sexual offenders are known to pose a high, or even moderate risk to citizens once released from prison or treatment facilities. However, there are those offenders who are known to be very dangerous and often repeat offenders. Although many states inform citizens if an offender is non-compliant, not all states allow residents to search strictly for non-compliant or absconding offenders. In fact, less than 16% of all U.S. states allow citizens to perform a search for non-compliant or absconding sexual offenders. Given the seriousness of some sexual crimes and the effects that victims of sexual offenses endure, one may consider that a convicted sexual offender who refuses to comply with registry laws may pose more of a potential risk to the community that they reside in. Therefore, it is surprising that more states do not allow searches of non-compliant or absconding offenders, if for no other reason than to protect their citizens. In addition, citizens may have information regarding those who are non-compliant and therefore may have the potential to assist law enforcement agencies in ensuring that those who fail to register or verify their registry information are found and made to comply with registration laws.
Vehicle Information
Only six (11.77%) of all U.S. states provide citizens with sexual offenders’ vehicle information. This number is surprising given the fact that victims of sexual crimes are often abducted by their perpetrators before any sexual offense is committed. Providing citizens with vehicle characteristics such as license plate number, make, model, and color of a known sexual offender’s vehicle may further prevent sexual crimes and repeat offenses from occurring because people would know which cars in their communities they and their children should avoid.
Utilization of Mapping Tools
There are many mapping tools available for utilization on state SOR web sites that would provide useful information to citizens. If a sex offender’s address (work, school, and home) were plotted on a map in relation to schools, daycares, parks, and libraries, for example, many citizens would be better able to protect themselves and those around them, including children from contact with a sexual offender. However, only one third of state SOR web sites employ mapping instruments for use by citizens. Interactive and satellite maps could prove to be extremely useful to residents who want to protect themselves and those around them from a potentially dangerous offender.
The National Public Sex Offender Registry
The United States Department of Justice, in collaboration with all 50 states and the District of Columbia has recently introduced a nationwide, Internet-based sex offender registry web site. The National Sex Offender Public Registry is somewhat of a one-stop shop for citizens across the U.S. to search for the identity and location of sexual offenders. Participating states provide the information that they keep regarding sexual offenders to the U.S. Department of Justice who then makes that information available through their web site. Using this website, citizens can search for information regarding sexual offenders by providing a name, zip code, county, city, or state. The criterion for searching is limited by what each individual state provides. Some sexual offenders may choose to reside in a state where people would not be aware of the crimes they had previously committed thus bettering their chances for finding new potential victims. The National Public Sex Offender Registry allows citizens to locate a sexual offender, even if that offender is not originally from their state, or if a sex offender who has committed a crime in one state has relocated to a different state.
This one stop shop for registered sex offenders throughout the U.S. could also be very helpful to citizens who do not know how to go about finding information in their own state, or those who are thinking of relocating to a different state. There are some cities within states that are known to have many sexual offenders living in them, and someone who is relocating may not be aware of that. Given the potential for protecting the United States from sexual offenders, it is surprising that only less than one fifth of states in the U.S. provide a link to the National Public Sexual Offender registry.
Recommendations
The current study examined the content of sexual offender registry web sites of all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia and found that there are general attributes that citizens can search for, as well as general listings that are provided for informational use by citizens. There are also those states that go beyond the generalities provided by the majority of U.S. states, as mandated by state and federal legislation. One recommendation that stems from this study is that each state should implement a type of electronic notification, via e-mail for its citizens when a known sexual offender moves within one mile of their home. It would also be helpful if parents could look at a map of a certain school or daycare and see if there are any registered sexual offenders living close to that facility. Next, a separate search for only those sexual offenders who are non-compliant or absconders should be endorsed by each state and by the National Public Sex Offender Registry, especially given that the potential for finding new victims becomes easier for an offender who resides in a community where no one knows of their previous offenses. Even though there are some states that do provide such a listing, that offender may not be residing in that state and thus, a national non-compliant list would be more effective.
The emergence of Internet-based sexual offender registries has been both applauded and criticized; however, the information provided seems to have the potential to protect citizens from victimization. This study shows what general information can be located on state sex offender registry web sites and what types of information are provided that seem to go above and beyond generalities provided, as well as which types tools and information should be added to better inform citizens of the presence of sexual offenders in their neighborhoods.
REFERENCES
¨ Beck, V.S., & Travis III, L.F. (2004). Sex Offender Notification and Fear of Victimization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, Retrieved November 1, 2006, from
http://journals.ohiolink.edu:20080/local-cgi/send-pdf/061013091348227968.pdf.
¨ Beck, V.S., & Travis III, L.F. (2006). Sex Offender Notification: An Exploratory Assessment of State Variation in Notification Processes. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, Retrieved November 3, 2006, from
http://journals.ohiolink.edu:20080/local-cgi/send-pdf/061013092510229001.pdf.
¨ Caputo, A.A., & Brodsky, S.L. (2004). Citizen coping with community notification of released sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 22, 239-252.
¨ Cox, A.D. (1997).Preventing child abuse; A review of community-based projects I: Intervening on processes and outcome of reviews. Child Abuse Review. 6, 243-256.
¨ Cox, A.D. (1998).Preventing child abuse; A review of community-based projects II: Issues arising from reviews and future directions. Child Abuse Review. 7, 30-43.
¨ Federal Bureau of Investigation, (unknown). Investigative programs: Crimes against children. Retrieved October 28, 2006, from State Sex Offender Registry Web Sites Web site:
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/cac/states.htm¨ Freeman - Longo, R.E. (1996).Feel good legislation: Prevention or calamity. Child Abuse & Neglect. 20, 95-101.
¨ Johnson, M., & Babcock, W.A. (1999). Toward a Moral Approach to Megan's Law. Journal of Mass Media Ethics. 14, 133-145.
¨ Levenson, J.L., & Cotter, L.P. (2005). The Effect of Megan's Law on Sex Offender Reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, Retrieved November 3, 2006, from
http://journals.ohiolink.edu:20080/local-cgi/send-pdf/061013094833230201.pdf.
¨ Malesky, A., & Keim, J. (2001). Mental health professionals’ perspectives on sex offender registry web sites. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. 13, 53-63.
¨ Petrosino, A.J., & Petrosino, C (1999). The Public safety potential of Megan's Law in Massachusetts: An Assessment from a sample of criminal sexual psychopaths. Crime and Delinquency. 45, 140-158.
¨ Sample, L.L., & Bray, T.M. (2006). Are sex offenders different? An Examination of arrest patterns. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 17, 83-102.
¨ Simon, J. (1998).Managing the monstrous: Sex offenders and the new penology. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 4, 452-467.
¨ Tewksbury, R. (February 2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, Retrieved November 8, 2006, from
http://journals.ohiolink.edu:20080/local-cgi/send-pdf/061013113529249081.pdf¨ Trivits, L.C., & Reppucci, D. (2002). Application of Megan's law to juveniles. American Psychologist. 57, 690-704.
¨ United States Supreme Court (2003). Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe (538 U. S. ____ (2003), October Term: 2002 from U.S. Supreme Court Web site:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/01-1231.pdf¨ United States Supreme Court (2003). Smith v. Doe (Cite as: 538 U. S. ____ (2003)). October Term: 2002, from U.S. Supreme Court Web site:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/01-729.pdf¨ United States Department of Justice, (2006). Dru Sjodin national sex offender public web site. Retrieved November 15, 2006, Web site:
http://www.nsopr.gov/¨ United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (2004). Uniform Crime Reports. Retrieved November 27, 2006, from U.S. Department of Justice Web site:
http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeOneYearofData.cfm¨ United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (2005). Criminal Victimization. Retrieved November 10, 2006, from U.S. Department of Justice Web site:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvictgen.htm¨ Welchans, S. (2005).Megan's Law: Evaluations of sexual offender registries. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 16, 123-140.
