Sex offender registration and notification laws as a means of legal control

• Published date: 21 December 2010
• Date: 21 December 2010
• Pages: 43-63
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/S1521-6136(2010)0000015005
• Author: Deborah Koetzle Shaffer

SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION

AND NOTIFICATION LAWS

AS A MEANS OF LEGAL

CONTROL

Deborah Koetzle Shaffer

ABSTRACT

In response to a number of highly publicized sexually-oriented and violent

crimes against children, the federal government enacted legislation aimed

at monitoring sex offenders in the community. Sex offender registration

and notification laws are intended to prevent sexual victimization by

informing the general public about would-be danger, providing the police

with additional investigative tools, and deterring offenders from engaging

in further criminal behavior. Despite public support for these laws, it is

not clear they effectively reduce sex offending. This essay reviews the

development of these laws, their application, and the impact of

registration and notification.

INTRODUCTION

In early 2010, 17-year-old Chelsea King went missing while out for a run in

San Diego; her remains were found a few days later in a local park. The

Social Control: Informal, Legal and Medical

Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance, Volume 15, 43–63

Copyright r2010 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 1521-6136/doi:10.1108/S1521-6136(2010)0000015005

43

police identified John Gardner III as the primary suspect. Shortly thereafter,

he was also linked to the disappearance and murder of 14-year-old Amber

Dubois who had been missing since the previous year. Convicted of both

crimes, he is currently serving a life sentence without the possibility of

parole. Previously convicted of the molestation of a 13-year old, Gardner

was a registered sex offender at the time of his arrest. These events, and

others like them, call into question the efficacy of sex offender registration

and notification laws as a means for providing legal control of known sex

offenders.

Efforts to legally control sex offenders can be traced back to the early

1900s (see Lieb, Quinsey, & Berliner, 1998). Building on early attempts

to manage this population, today’s laws are aimed at civil commit-

ment following release from prison, sex offender registration, residency

restrictions, and community notification. Although early laws were intended

to target sexually violent offenders who had extrafamilial victims, today’s

laws largely fail to make such a distinction and govern the broader class of

sex offenders. As a result, the majority of sex offenders in the United States

are subjected to some form of additional legal control beyond incarceration

or community supervision.

The most common of these initiatives are the sex offender registry and

notification (SORN) laws. Estimates suggest that over 700,000 sex offenders

are subject to registration in the United States (National Center for Missing

and Exploited Children [NCMEC], 2010). These laws generally require sex

offenders to register their home address and place of employment with the

state or local authorities. The registries are then used as the source of

notification to the public. Offenders are classified along a tier system with

higher level offenders subjected to broader notification. For example, while

Tier 1 offenders are required to register, they are rarely subjected to

public notification. Instead, their information is made available to criminal

justice agencies including local law enforcement and the courts. In contrast,

higher risk offenders (Tier 2 and Tier 3) are often the subject of public

notification. Notification can take a number of forms including both passive

and active notification. Passive notification requires residents to actively

seek information by contacting the police or searching the registry, whereas

active notification is the release of information through flyers or mailings

to notify the public about the presence of a sex offender in the community.

While each state has some version of SORN, there is a great deal of

variation across states in terms of the classification and notification

processes (Cohen & Jeglic, 2007). Recent legislation has mandated that

all states come into compliance with federal guidelines regarding SORN or

DEBORAH KOETZLE SHAFFER44