The Expansion of Criminal Registries and the Illusion of Control

• Author: Molly J. Walker Wilson
• Position: Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Law, Associate Professor of Psychology, Saint Louis University School of Law
• Pages: 509-557

The Expansion of Criminal Registries and the Illusion

of Control

Molly J. Walker Wilson*

ABSTRACT

The American public consistently ranks crime prevention as

the single most important objective for the criminal justice system,

putting this goal ahead of punishment, enforcement, and

rehabilitation. One popular but controversial method recently

employed to prevent recidivism is the use of offender registries.

The most common type of registry currently in use is the sex-

offender registry. Responding to the public’s perception that sex

offenders pose a particular risk to society, federal legislators—as

well as legislators in all 50 states and the District of Columbia—

have enacted legislation creating mandatory sex-offender

registries. The primary rationale for tracking and notification

requirements was that giving the public access to information

would allow citizens to protect themselves and other vulnerable

members of society. A wealth of evidence suggests that sex-

offender registries have not accomplished the goal of making

citizens safer. Nevertheless, lawmakers in a number of states have

proposed new crime registries for offenses ranging from crimes

against children, to the manufacture of methamphetamine, to

murder. Moreover, poll data has revealed that the American public

supports expanding registries to include crimes other than sex

offenses. The rising popularity of public crime registries in spite of

evidence of their inefficacy is perplexing, until one considers the

social science research revealing individuals’ need to perceive

control over anxiety-provoking threats. The illusion of control and

attribution literature provides a rich body of work suggesting that

the implementation of such registries, rather than providing any

real instrumental advantage, serves to bolster feelings of self-

efficacy and minimize public anxiety.

Copyright 2013, by MOLLY J. WALKER WILSON.

* Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for the

Interdisciplinary Stud y of Law, Associat e Professor of Ps ychology, Saint Louis

University School of Law.

510 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 73

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ..........................................................................511

I. The Crime Registry Model ..................................................515

A. The Development of the Sex-Offender Registry ...........515

B. Offenders and Recidivism: Myth and Reality ...............519

C. The Inefficacy of Registration and Notification Laws...522

D. Ironic Effects of Registration and Residency

Requirements .................................................................524

II. A Continuing Trend: New and Proposed Crime

Registries ............................................................................528

A. Violent Offender Registries ...........................................529

1. Illinois ......................................................................529

2. Indiana ......................................................................530

3. Oklahoma .................................................................531

4. Virginia ....................................................................532

B. Methamphetamine Offender Registries .........................533

1. Illinois ......................................................................534

2. Tennessee .................................................................534

3. Minnesota .................................................................535

4. National Initiative ....................................................535

C. Domestic Violence Offender Registries ........................536

1. States Considering Domestic Violence Registries ...537

2. Private Organization Domestic Violence Registry ..538

D. Other Registries .............................................................538

III. The Psychological Need for Control ....................................541

A. Empirical Evidence and the Need for Control ...............543

B. The Role of Information Gathering in Efforts to

Control ...........................................................................546

C. Psychometric Study of Risk and Control .......................549

IV. The Need for Control and Crime Registries ........................551

Conclusion ...........................................................................557

2013] ILLUSION OF CONTROL 511

INTRODUCTION

The desire to exercise control over potential threats is a driving

force behind much of human behavior. When it comes to crime,

members of society demand legislation designed to protect them

against those offenders whom they perceive to be most dangerous.

One example of legislative attempts to satisfy the public’s desire

for protection is the promulgation of sex-offender registries.1

Public support for these registries has been fueled by a perception

that sex offenders prey on the most vulnerable members of society

and cannot be rehabilitated.2 Pedophiles, a subset of sex offenders,

are deemed especially dangerous because they target children. The

often secretive nature of sex crimes and the shame that the victims

experience create special problems for detection and reporting.

Lawmakers and proponents of sex-offender registries argue that

making sex offenders readily identifiable makes it easier for

citizens to avoid contact with offenders and assists law

enforcement in apprehension following the commission of an

offense.3 Ultimately, the public and legislators have concluded that

tracking sex offenders through public registries is a sensible

approach, providing a measure of protection against future

attacks.4

However appealing the strategy may be, empirical evidence

belies common wisdom regarding sex offenders. Two findings

suggest that registries are not the panacea they are assumed to be.

First, statistical data indicates that sex offenders are less likely than

other types of offenders to recidivate (at least with respect to sex

crimes).5 Second, detailed empirical studies suggest that registries

have failed in curtailing sex offenses.6 In fact, some evidence

suggests that registries, particularly in concert with residency

restrictions, have increased the likelihood of recidivism among sex

1. An April 29–May 1, 2005, Gallup survey found 94% of Americans in

favor, and only 5% opposed, to laws requiring registration of people convicted

of child molestation. Lydia Saad, Sex Offender Registries Are Underutilized by

the Public, GALLUP, June 9, 2005, available at http://www.gallup.com/poll

/16705/sex-offender-registries-underutilized-public.aspx. See also J ill S.

Levenson et al., Public Perceptions About Sex Offenders and Community

Protection Policies, 7 ANALYSES SOC. ISSUES & PUB. POL’Y 1, 2–3 (2007).

2. Levenson et al., supra note 1, at 3.

3. Id. at 3–5.

4. See id. at 4.

5. Bob Edward Vásquez et al., The Influence of Sex Offender Registration

and Notification Laws in the United States: A Time-Series Analysis, 54 CRIME &

DELINQ. 175, 176 (2008).

6. See infra Part I.