Registration, Notification, and Residency Restrictions of Those Committing Sex Offenses

Communities have widely adopted laws regarding registration, notification and residency restriction of those convicted of sex offenses to reduce the risk of sex crimes. All states, territories and the District of Columbia have passed registration and notification laws.[1] At least 30 states and hundreds of smaller jurisdictions have passed residency restrictions.[2]

Registration and notification laws are meant to help law enforcement monitor those convicted of offenses and solve crimes, help residents protect themselves and their children, and deter crime. Specific requirements vary between jurisdictions. But all jurisdictions mandate that convicted those convicted of sex offenses register their addresses with law enforcement and allow the general public to gather some information about such individuals nearby. Residency restriction laws forbid those convicted of sex offenses from living near locations such as schools and daycare centers. These restrictions are based on the assumption that individuals choose their victims from among the people close by.

NIJ supports research projects in several states to learn about the implementation and effects of registration, notification and residency restriction laws. While these laws are popular, there has been very little evidence of their effectiveness in reducing crime. Studies assess whether these laws discourage reoffenses and first-time offenses and measure unintended consequences, such as effects on judicial decision-making. This research aims to provide valuable information that can inform future public policies for management of individuals who have committed offenses.

Final reports

• An Evaluation of Sex Offender Residency Restrictions in Michigan and Missouri, Beth M. Huebner, Timothy S. Bynum, Jason Rydberg, Kimberly Kras, Eric Grommon and Breanne Pleggenkuhle, July 2002, NCJ 242952.
• Residence Restriction Legislation, Sex Crime Rates, and the Spatial Distribution of Sex Offender Residences, Kelly M. Socia, September 2011, NCJ 235979.
• Evaluating the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Policies for Reducing Sexual Violence Against Women, Elizabeth J. Letourneau, Jill S. Levenson, Dipankar Bandyopadhyay, Debajyoti Sinha, and Kevin S. Armstrong, September 2010, 231989.
• Megan’s Law: Assessing the Practical and Monetary Efficacy, Kristen Zgoba, Philip Witt, Melissa Dalessandro, and Bonita Veysey, December 2008, NCJ 225370.

Learn more about:

• Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Research Finds Limited Effects in New Jersey
• Sex Offender Residency Restrictions: How Mapping Can Inform Policy

Notes

note 1] Zevitz, Richard G., and Mary Ann Farkas, [Sex Offender Community Notification: Assessing the Impact in Wisconsin. Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, December 2001, NCJ 179992.

[note 2] Meloy, Michelle L., Susan L. Miller, and Kristin M. Curtis, “Making Sense out of Nonsense: The Deconstruction of State-Level Sex Offender Residence Restrictions,” American Journal of Criminal Justice 33 (June 2008): 209-222.

Where this page came from

This page was imported from National Institute of Justice. Published by the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, whose content is not copyrighted (its reuse policy); its pictures, stock photography, are not copied.

Nobody has written it yet — it is the source material at a new address, which is why search engines are asked to skip it and why no one earns from it. It is up for grabs: take it on, and it is yours to rewrite and to earn from.