Effectiveness of Registration and Notification Laws - Term Paper Example

Effectiveness of Registration and Notification Laws in Two s Introduction Megan Kanka, Jessica Lunsford, Adam Walsh, and Jacob Wetterling were just among several other children either victims of socially inappropriate sexual acts or whose offenders had previous records of sex crimes. Their stories moved the Federal government to enact laws requiring States to penalize sexual offenders and predators; and track them after released from legal custody believing that they have a high propensity to recidivate. However, as state statutes keep modifying, registration and notification requirements also keep multiplying – only becoming more than stringent and harmful to the convicted sex offender. This paper will provide statistical information in the hope to empirically determine whether reporting requirements influence the recidivating behavior of a convicted sex offender or predator. Specifically, this paper will study recidivism rates among registered sex offenders after release from incarceration or from any forms of legal punishment in two different states: 1.) State of California, which last amended registration and notification requirements in 2002; 2.) State of Alaska, which appended new reporting requirements in 2009. Registration and Notification: Federal Laws The rape and murder of seven year old Megan Kanka by a two-time convicted sex offender Jesse Timmendequas in 1994 spawned the Megan’s Law in 1996. Though Megan’s Law varies from state to state, it only has one general goal anyway: to notify communities when a sex offender resides within their location and to provide them necessary information about the offender (Larson, 2003). Like Megan’s Law, Wetterling Crimes against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (named after Jacob Wetterling who was murdered when he was eleven) also requires sex offenders to register. The Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act assisted the effort of creating a national database to track down sexual offenders (“Megan’s Law, registered,” n.d.). Now, the information can be accessed among states. Though registration and notification laws do not serve as a further castigation, they were never offender-friendly. Lawmakers go to argue that the personal interests and privacy of the sex offenders are just the least of the government’s concern compared to the general safety (“Megan’s Law, registered,” n.d.). Furthermore, information withheld and disclosed is up to the good judgment of the state government (Klaas, 2008). There are only two major ends to these laws: to deter sex offenders to re-offend and to promote public safety. Offenders can’t easily get pass from the system because there is a consistent exchange of information among registering agencies, deliberate policy-making, and rigorous monitoring of offenders (Nieto, 2004, pg. 21). California’s Registration and Notification Programs Since 1947, the local law enforcement bureaus in California had been tracking down the present locations of sex offenders through their registration program (California Department of Justice, 2000, pg. 5). The public was not allowed access to such information until the carrying out of the Child Molester Identification Line, a telephone inquiry service, in 1995 (Megan’s Law, 2008; California Department of Justice, 2000, pg. 6). While the State of California adopted its own form of Megan’s Law in 1996, Penal Code Section 290 describes an offender obligatory to register and notify local enforcers (“California Penal Code,” 2010). It was in 2004 when Assembly Bill 488 was signed into law allowing the public to an extended access of information about registered sex offenders via the internet (Megan’s Law, 2008). The registry provides a photo; necessary detailed information such as the last known location, identification marks, offenses committed, and aliases of the sex offender; and risk factor (offenses tend to commit), summarized in Penal Code Section 290. They can also track sex offenders through a map feature for a more visualized search. The State Department of Justice (the registering agency) registers all convicted sexual offenders and predators whether adult or juvenile who reside, work or go to school in California (KlaasKids, ”California,” 2010). Sexual offenders are required to disclose information about all their residential addresses, transient locations, schools, vehicles, driver’s licenses, occupations and employments; and provide identifying information such as fingerprints, palm prints; photographs, scars, marks, tattoos, and samples of blood and saliva for DNA analyses (KlaasKids, “California,” 2010). Registrants should report annually for life but temporary residents are required to report every 30 days while sexually violent predators (SVPs) are required to report every 90 days (KlaasKids, “California,” 2010). Of course, in case of a change of address, the registrant should notify the registering agency while the latter verifies the said information. Failure to comply all reporting requirements may result to further appropriate punishment (i.e. felony, misdemeanor) stipulated by the law. As the aforementioned information are updated, the responsible agency is also authorized and obliged to update the national database. The most recent but minor development in the registration laws in California occurred by October 2002 where campus information (that is if the offender is connected to one) should also be provided to the registering agency (Taft College, n.d.). Recidivism among Sex offenders in California To determine the influence of the new registration requirements to the criminal behavior of sexual offenders and predators, the crime rates prior and after the implementation are compared. There were 93, 139 registered sex offenders in California by the end of 2001 (Lockyer, 2002). By the beginning of 2003, it lost track of 33, 296 sex offenders from what should be 76, 350 registrants because “overworked” police enforcers failed to keep track and registrants were suddenly noncompliant (Curtis, 2003). However, by the end of the same year, the number suddenly rose to 99, 096 (Peters, 2005, p. 12). There was an increase of sexual offenses of six percent from 2001 to 2003. However, it is quite unidentifiable whether the increase rested on new sexual offenses not committed by previously convicted sexual offender. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) tracked 4, 287 sex offenders release in 2003 for three years. For the first year, 104 were rearrested for a new sex crime; 36, during the second year; and 12, for the third year. (as cited in CASOMB, 2008, p. 74) It is quite notable that the number of new sex offenses keeps diminishing every year. Most of them (43.60%) were readmitted to prison because of reasons other than a sex crime. A California report in 2006 indicated tracking ninety-three high-risk SVPs who had returned to the community. Within six years, only four were arrested for a new sex offense (as cited in Dornin, 2010). A research data gathered by CASOMB indicated that only 3.38% of 3, 577 sex offenders released between 1997 and 2007 committed another new sex crime within a ten-year period after release (as cited in Franklin, 2008). The same committee conducted another study, discovering 3.21% of 4, 204 paroled sex offenders released in 2002 committed another new sex offense within five years after release (as cited in Franklin, 2008). According to 2008 report from California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB), 15% of the 88, 240 sex offenders required to register were noncompliant (CASOMB, 2008, p. 159) and as of August 10, 2010, 12% out of 120, 477 offenders violated their obligation to register (KlaasKids, “California,” 2010). Unfortunately, most (if not all) of these statistical reports didn’t provide any information as to the whereabouts of the noncompliant sex offenders. From the statistical information provided above, it can be implied that California’s registration and notification laws may have contributed to deterring sexual offenders from executing another sexual crime. However, even before and after its adoption of Megan’s Law in 1996, California had unswerving sex crime rates though only slightly lower around 1996; and ironically had a remarkable statistical increase of sex offenses with nearly 41 sex crimes every month (Evin-McLarty et. al., 2008). Therefore, determining the direct influence of registration and notification laws to sex crime rates in California is still yet to be carefully studied. Alaska’s Registration and Notification Laws Like any other states in America, Alaska adopted another form of Megan’s Law to follow sex offenders and predators and notify the community where offenders currently reside. Though prior to Megan’s Law, Alaska already started implementing registration and notification practices since 1994 (Evin-McLarty et. al., 2008). The registering agencies in Alaska track all adult and juvenile sexual offenders and child kidnappers. Thirty days prior to the offender’s release from prison, he/she is already required to register. An offender is mandated to disclose about his/her current address, employment and employer information, vehicle and license number information; indicate identification marks and features; provide a recent photograph and a medical report that may indicate personality disorder or mental damage. The offender must update the local registering agency in case of a change of address (KlaasKids, “Alaska,” 2010). The offender should also report when they shave their beards, change hair color, and employment, or use any other vehicles. The public can intermittently access much of said information (e.g. physical description, street address, employer address, and offense committed) on the internet. On January 1, 2009, the State of Alaska included electronic communication information as new reporting requirements specifically the offender’s email addresses, instant messaging information, and all other internet communication identifiers (i.e. chat rooms IDs, or social networking site account user IDs) (“New reporting requirements”, n.d.). Sex offenders must therefore notify the responsible agency in case they change any of the required information from them. In Alaska, it must be done in writing. Recidivism among Sex Offenders in Alaska In a 2007 report by the Alaska Judicial Council, nine percent of the overall crimes in Alaska involve socially inappropriate sexual acts (p. 3). Plus, sex offender recidivism is almost near to the ground. Only three percent of the sex offenders from the same population had at least a new sex crime (p. 4). The report further indicated that the new sex offense were not as grave as what they been convicted with in 1999. It concluded that of all the offenders in Alaska, sexual offenders have the least habit to relapse into the same crime (p. 4). As of August 2010, there are 1, 816 sex offender registrants while 126 of them are noncompliant (KlaasKids, “Alaska,” 2010). The local law enforcers also track those who after release didn’t bother to fulfill their duty to register however, their respective information are in the same way placed over the internet. Alaska’s registry site currently has 2, 705 entries (“New reporting requirements”, n.d.). Since fiscal year 2008, there were 4, 316 sex offenders known in their state registry; seven percent needed research (since they do track those who have not registered whether unintentionally or not) (“Alaska criminal records,” n.d.). By the end of fiscal year 2009, it had 2, 530 sex offenders included in their registry while six only needed research though only 94% were dutiful. The number of the sex offenders registered almost halved from 2008 to 2009 because in the middle of 2008, Alaska Supreme Court absolved all sex offenders and/or child kidnappers convicted before August 10, 1994 from all the registration requirements (“Alaska criminal records,”, n.d.). Though recidivism among sex offenders is lower than any other offenders’ rates in Alaska, Megan’s Law was not importantly helpful in ceasing the growth of sexual violence committed by new sex offenders while it may have influenced the criminal behavior of formerly convicted sexual offenders. Reports said that sexual violence in Alaska is highest among the States in America for many years (D’oro, 2008). Since 1995, Alaska had the highest rate of sexual assaults. The report further said that around 2003 to 2004, in every 100, 000 Alaskans, there were 89 sexual assaults. It was the highest by far compared to the 32 average counts. Alaska has one of the most stringent reporting requirements in America. Broad programs had caused Alaska’s high reporting rates (Rosay, as cited in D’oro, 2008). Then it is quite ironic for the State to be one of those that birthed too many sexual assaults. In Alaska, one of its loopholes is that local law enforcement bureaus don’t actually indicate the risk factor of a sex offender (as cited in Periman, 2008). Deborah Periman, from the University of Alaska, argued that if registration and notification statutes become even more rigorous for sex offenders, the less useful they become (2008, p. 2). They make the would-be registrant to shun from authorities simply because requirements have become like a form criminal punishment for them (Periman, 2008, p. 2). In consequence, enforcers will lose track of these anxious sex offenders. Besides, it should be common sense that employers will most likely not hire those who have been convicted because they don’t want to tarnish the corporate reputation. Discussion and Conclusion Registration and public notification are two separate endeavors reaching the same ends. In registration, a sex offender reports all information required of him/her to local law enforcers (CASOMB, 2008, p. 158). Public notification, on the other hand, is the responsibility of the local enforcers. They update the community – making a vigilant public over sex offenders around their areas (CASOMB, 2008, p. 158). However, community notifications can become falsely imposed comforts (as cited in Koch, 2005). Registering agencies only notify communities about registered sex offenders they have tracked down but not those who went missing. In 2005, agencies all over US lost sight of approximately 100, 000 of the 551, 000 registrants (Koch, 2005). Registration and community notification statutes don’t analytically prove anything yet. Identifying the concrete influence or effectiveness of the Megan’s Law in averting sexual violence is still an ongoing systematic and psychological pursuit (Nieto, 2005, p. 52; Evin-McLarty et. al., 2008, p. 15). In a study determining the effectiveness of Megan’s Law, States of California, Ohio, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Hawaii, and Idaho had almost stagnant sexual crime rates while other states [in the sample population] had unpredictable crime rate patterns within a specified time frame prior and after the implementation of Megan’s Law (Evin-McLarty et. al., 2008, p. 13). This research data implies that Megan’s Law as a whole still lacks conclusion as to its efficacy. Unlike any other crimes, sexual violence can be the most emotionally-titillating such that laws that counteract such crimes appear to be emotionally-motivated. The Federal government only requires each State to follow the minimum standards; else it would result to defunding. Megan’s Law by its very nature is partial. That’s why these legal schemes have become more and more burdening to the sex offenders. One of the gaps with this law is that it doesn’t provide protective measures necessary for the public against sex offenders (as cited in Levenson, & Cotter, 2005, p. 52). As Periman writes, emotionalism should not get in the way when dealing with sexual offenders and predators (2008, p. 5). Legislators insist on believing that sex offenders will most likely reoffend after incarceration or any means of legal punishment when as a matter of statistical fact (Evin-McLarty et. al., 2008, p. 3), they are the least likely among all types of offenders to relapse into the same crime. In a nationwide study sampling 38, 000 convicted offenders involved in all crimes and released in 1994, only 26% of the sex offenders were readmitted to prison because of another sex crime (CASOMB, 2008, p. 71). The group had the lowest rate of recidivism. Megan’s Law, then, generally had also contributed to the deterring sex offenders from committing another sex crime. Since the problem is not apparently on the recidivism of sex offenders, then it lies mainly on the treatment and in the making of these laws: the scope (not mainly on its broadness) to which they can affect sex offenders psychologically though not detrimentally for it may result to another harmful effect to society. Appropriate psychological treatment must intervene to cure disorderly behavior. Treatment programs are usually the indicators of recidivism rates of sex offenders though the studies corresponding to it does not necessarily imply that registration and notification requirements are systematically and importantly useless in deterring sexual crimes. In 1973, fifty-five percent of untreated sex offenders released from California prisons committed another form of interpersonal assault other than a sex crime. Thirty-six percent of treated sex offenders had committed at least one more sexual crime while nineteen percent for nonsexual assaults (Guthman, 1980). Aside from proper treatment, policymakers should consider the innate rights of the sex offender that enforcers should not resort to violence or torture or anything that eventually leads to the total breaching of the private dignity or morale. Like any other people, they also have the right to live peacefully for their remaining days especially after successful rehabilitation. References Alaska criminal records and identification. (2010, June 21). Retrieved from http://gov.state.ak.us/omb/results/view_details.php?p=131#rd1838 Alaska Judicial Council. (2007). Criminal recidivism in Alaska. Alaska: Alaska Judicial Council. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.state.ak.us/reports/1-07CriminalRecidivism.pdf California Penal Code Section 290. (2010, March 8). Retrieved from http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/290.html California Penal Code Section 290-01 registration requirement. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.taftcollege.edu/newTC/StudentServices/handbook/ca_penal_code.htm California Sex Offender Management Board. (2008). An assessment of current management practices of adult sex offenders in California. California: CASOMB. Retrieved from http://www.casomb.org/docs/SOMBReport1.pdf California Department of Justice. (2000). California’s Megan’s Law. California: Violent Crime Information Center. Retrieved from http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:8Rh4Yw30o0YJ:ag.ca.gov/megan/pdf/ca_megans.pdf+californias+megans+law+california+state+justice&hl=en&gl=ph&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjnMIHncZcz45GNCPsWBzWgbnUo113PIr5uvbcILyT9hMBgp-NaoarZ63e_8lYbpEOq6U2jw-DGOXA52T8lpnMRlGSflkGgm04lO8yjqp5PSFG7EYFxevfJLQGqIAl9jka2exka&sig=AHIEtbQFD7l1Ldfgqr5OWbDuBkfUDASJIw Curtis, K. (2003, January 8). California ‘loses’ 33,000 sex offenders. Holland Sentinel. Retrieved from http://www.rentalresearch.com/CaliforniaLoosesSexOffenders.pdf Dornin, C. (2010, May 24). Facts and fiction about sex offenders (Once again, a ton of proof that recidivism is low). Retrieved from http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/2010/05/facts-and-fiction-about-sex-offenders.html D’oro, R. (2008, January 30). Rural Alaska steeped in sexual violence. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-01-29-alaska-sexualassaults_N.htm Evin-McLarty, G., Maddan, S., VanHouten, A., Walker, J., & Vasquez, B. (2008). The influence of sex offender registration and notification laws in the United States: A time-series analysis. Sage Journals, 28 (2), 175-192. Retrieved from http://cad.sagepub.com/content/54/2/175.abstract Franklin, K. (2008, June 23). CA study: Shockingly low sex offender recidivism. Retrieved from http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2008/06/ca-study-low-sex-offender-recidivism.html Guthman, D. (1980).MDSO Law: The assumptions challenged. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/tjeflr4&div=9&id=&page= KlaasKids Foundation. (2010, August 10). Alaska. Retrieved from http://www.klaaskids.org/st-alask.htm KlaasKids Foundation. (2010, August 10). California. Retrieved from http://www.klaaskids.org/st-cal.htm Klaas, M. (2008). Introduction. Retrieved from http://www.klaaskids.org/pg-legmeg.htm Koch, W. (2010, August 24). Despite high-profile cases, sex offense crimes decline. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-24-sex-crimes-cover_x.htm Larson, A. (2003, August). Megan’s Law. Retrieved from http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/megans_law.html#1 Levenson, J. & Cotter, L. (2005). The effect of Megan’s Law on sex offender reintegration. 21 (1), 49-66. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21 (1), 49-66. Retrieved from http://www.nacdl.org/sl_docs.nsf/128c5235c02f2fdd85256be4005e62ce/36512657017eb46e852570d600543b41/$FILE/Levenson-Megans%20Law%20Impact%20JCCJ.pdf Lockyer, B. (2002). California sex offender information: Megan’s Law. California: Violent Crime Information Center. Retrieved from http://ag.ca.gov/megan/pdf/ca_sexoff_0702.pdf Megan’s Law. (2008). Retrieved from http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/homepage.aspx?lang=ENGLISH Megan’s law, registered sex offenders and background checks. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.about-megans-law.com/ New reporting requirements. (n.d.). Retrieved http://www.dps.state.ak.us/Sorweb/sorweb.aspx Nieto, M. (2004). Community treatment and supervision of sex offenders: How it’s done across the country and in California. Sacramento, Ca: California Research Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/04/12/04-012.pdf Periman, D. (2008). Revisiting Alaskas sex offender registration and public notification statute. Alaska Justice Forum, 25 (1/2), 2-5. Retrieved from http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/forum/25/1-2springsummer2008/251.springsummer2008.pdf Peters, A. (2005). How to stop crime? Megan’s Law as a strategic approach to crime prevention in the USA. Retrieved from http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=LNGG2qFiIOcC&printsec=frontcover&hl=en&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false Read More