1 / 37

Sex Offender Registers and Adolescents: helpful, harmful or no effect?

Sex Offender Registers and Adolescents: helpful, harmful or no effect?. Elizabeth J. Letourneau, Ph.D. Family Services Research Center Medical University of South Carolina April 7, 2010. Presentation Overview. Registration and notification Research Questions

blaze-winters
Download Presentation

Sex Offender Registers and Adolescents: helpful, harmful or no effect?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sex Offender Registers and Adolescents: helpful, harmful or no effect? Elizabeth J. Letourneau, Ph.D. Family Services Research Center Medical University of South Carolina April 7, 2010

  2. Presentation Overview • Registration and notification • Research Questions 1: Do SORN Policies Target High-Risk Youth? 2: Do SORN Policies Deter Recidivism? 3: Do SORN Policies Deter First-Time Sex Crimes? 4: Are There Unintended Policy Effects? • Summary of Research Results • Policy Implications and Recommendations

  3. Sex Offender Registration and Notification • Since 1994, U.S. federal legislation has required states to compel some sex offenders to register information with police • Since 1996, U.S. federal legislation has required states to release some registrant’s information for purposes of public notification

  4. The original federal registration and notification acts did not address the registration and notification of juveniles adjudicated of sex offenses as minors

  5. However, registration and notification laws coincided with professional publications on • “juvenile super-predators” • clinical views that juveniles who sexually offended were beyond help Against this background many states included juveniles in their sex offender registration and notification (SORN) policies

  6. Four Research Questions More recently, the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (AWA) required states to register and place online juveniles who had sexually offended Tens of thousands of juveniles are currently required to register in the US and most are subjected to some type of public notification The AWA will greatly increase the scope of juvenile registration and notification

  7. Four Research Questions There currently is sufficient research to begin to examine the actual effects of registration and notification as applied to juveniles: • Do SORN policies selectively target high-risk youth? • Do SORN policies reduce youth recidivism? • Do SORN policies reduce youth first-time offending? • Do SORN policies influence juvenile case processing?

  8. Question 1: Do Registration and Notification Policies Selectively Target High-Risk Youth? Regarding existing SORN policies: • Vandiver (2006) reported that, of 300 registered Texan juveniles, just 13 (4%) had committed a new sex crime as young adults • Letourneau & Armstrong (2008) reported that, of 111 registered South Carolina youth, just 2 (2%) had committed a new sex crime across an average 4.3-year follow-up

  9. Question 1: Do Registration and Notification Policies Selectively Target High-Risk Youth? Regarding the AWA: • Caldwell, Ziemke & Vitacco (2008) found that AWA tiering system was significantly related to recidivism • However, the highest tier was associated with significantly lower violent crime recidivism

  10. Answer to Question 1: “No” • The results from these studies indicate that SORN policies fail to identify high-risk youth • Rather, existing state policies and the AWA overwhelmingly target low risk youth

  11. We have completed numerous studies addressing the remaining three research questions • Our research focused on data from South Carolina, United States of America

  12. Similarity Between SC & Federal Policies Federal AWA Offense based Includes no risk assessment process Lower age limit of 14 Requires 25 years or lifetime registration for all juvenile registrants Requires online notification for all juvenile registrants SC SORN Offense based Includes no risk assessment process No lower age limit Requires lifetime registration for all juvenile registrants Requires targeted notification for all juvenile registrants and online notification for some

  13. Description of SC Registered Youth From January 1995 to July 2006: 12% of registered offenders (N = 855) were 17 years or younger at index offense Mean age at conviction = 15 years (SD = 1.6 years); range = 8-17 years Mean age at initial registration = 21 years (SD = 7 years); range = 10-53 years 98% were male 55% were African American; 45% White

  14. Description of SC Registered Youth The most common index sex offenses included: Criminal sexual conduct w/minor 33% Criminal sexual conduct 31% Lewd act on child under 16 18% Assault w/intent to commit CSC 8% Indecent exposure/voyeurism 5% Aggravated assault/battery 2%

  15. Question 2: Do Registration and Notification Policies Deter Sexual or Other Recidivism? One primary goal of SORN is to create in sex offenders the perception that authorities and the public know “their identities, locations, and past offenses” so that offenders are discouraged from “engaging in further criminal conduct” (SORNA Final Guidelines, pp 3-4)

  16. Recidivism Rates of Matched Registered & Nonregistered Youth The aim of this study was to compare the recidivism rates of 111 registered youth matched to 111 nonregistered youth • Matching criteria: • year of index sex offense • age at index sex offense • race • type of index sex offense • prior person offenses • prior nonperson offenses • Follow-up: M = 4.3 years (SD = 2.5 years) Letourneau, E. J., & Armstrong, K. S. (2008). Recidivism rates for registered and nonregistered juvenile sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 20, 393-408 .

  17. Results • Just 2 (.09%) youth had new sexual offense convictions during follow-up, precluding analysis • 22 (10%) youth had new violent offense during follow-up and the Cox model was not significant • 66 (30%) youth had new nonviolent convictions and the model was significant

  18. Results • The nonviolent offenses of registered youth tended to be misdemeanors • The nonviolent offenses of nonregistered youth tended to be felonies • We suspect that the difference in nonviolent offenses was due to a surveillance effect in which law enforcement was more likely to arrest or charge registered youth for the appearance of relatively minor infractions

  19. The Influence of SORN on Juvenile Sexual Recidivism Youth registration status could • Remain unchanged: registered throughout follow-up • Remain unchanged: not registered throughout follow-up • Change from not registered to registered over the course of follow-up Thus, in a second study we examined registration status as a time varying covariate, in contrast to categorizing youth as either registered or not Letourneau, E. J., Bandyopadhyay, D., Sinha, D., & Armstrong, K. S. (2009). The influence of sex offender registration on juvenile sexual recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20, 136-153

  20. Results • 95 (7.5%) youth had new sex crime charges • 32 (2.5%) youth had new sex crime convictions • There was a trend indicating registration status predicted new sex crime charges but not new sex crime convictions • Registration status significantly predicted new nonviolent crime charges but not convictions

  21. Summary of Recidivism Study Results • Registration status was predictive (or nearly so) for sex and nonviolent crime charges but not convictions • We interpreted these results again as indicating a surveillance effect: • Registered youth were subjected to greater law enforcement surveillance resulting in more charges • Charges were not associated with more convictions • Suggesting that the legal threshold for charging registered youth with new offenses is lower than for charging nonregistered youth with new offenses

  22. Answer to Question 2: “No” • SC’s SORN policy does not deter sexual or violent recidivism • SC’s policy had the unintended effect of increasing youths’ likelihood of being charged with relatively minor public order offenses, possibly due to a surveillance effect

  23. Question 3: Do Registration and Notification Policies Deter First-Time Juvenile Sex Crimes? The general deterrence or primary prevention of crime is an aim of most legal policies and a frequent defense for extreme interventions such as the death penalty

  24. Effects of SORN on General Deterrence We examined trends in the occurrence of first-time juvenile sex crime and other criminal charges from 1991 to 2004 The data set contained information on 26,574 youth charged with 28,288 crimes • 3,148 youth charged with sex crimes • 23,046 youth charged with assault crimes • 2,094 youth charged with robbery crimes Letourneau, E. J., Bandyopadhyay, D., Armstrong, K. S., & Sinha, D. (in press). Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Requirements Deter Juvenile Sex Crimes? Criminal Justice and Behavior

  25. Results • Results indicated significantly fewer first-time sex and robbery crime charges after policy implementation than before • South Carolina’s SORN policy was designed to influence sex but not robbery offenses • Another policy implemented at the same time as SORN lowered the age for which youth were automatically charged as adults • When cases of juveniles prosecuted as adults were included in the analyses, the intervention effects were no longer statistically significant

  26. Answer to Question 3: “No” SC’s SORN policy does not deter first-time juvenile sex or violent crimes

  27. Question 4: Do Registration and Notification Policies Have Other Unintended Effects? • The aim of this study was to examine the influence of SORN on prosecution decisions and judicial outcomes for juvenile offenders • Population: • All juvenile sex crime charges (N = 5,503) • All juvenile assault crime charges (N = 14,095) • All juvenile robbery crime charges (N = 2,942)

  28. Results for Probability of Prosecution There was a 41% reduction in the odds of prosecutors moving forward on juvenile sex crime cases after registration was enacted relative to before registration

  29. Results for Probability of Guilty Finding • There was a 67% increase in the odds of guilty findings for juvenile sex crime cases after registration than before registration

  30. Answer to Question 4: “Yes” SC’s SORN policy does influence juvenile sex crime case processing decisions • We believe prosecutors were “protecting” youth from lifetime registration by dismissing more juvenile sex crime cases after registration was enacted • We believe the increase in guilty findings for sex crime is due to prosecutors moving forward selectively on more serious cases • We also suspect that plea bargains increased over time, which also would increase the rate of guilty determinations in more recent years

  31. Question 4: Do Registration and Notification Policies Have Other Unintended Effects? • In an ongoing study we are exploring the effects of SORN on juvenile sex crime plea bargains • Cases were coded as having pleaded if an original sex crime charge was changed to a non-sex crime charge at adjudication • Assault and robbery cases were coded as having pleaded if the original charge was of a higher severity level than the adjudication charge

  32. Results The probability of pleading from sex to nonsex crime charges more than doubled from 10% to 25% over time Sex Violent

  33. Answer to Question 4: “Yes” Again SC’s SORN policy influenced juvenile judicial decision making, possibly reducing community safety: • Fewer youth are prosecuted for sex crimes • Youth who are prosecuted often plead to nonsex offenses and thus do not receive sex offender-specific supervision and treatment protocols

  34. Summary South Carolina’s SORN policy is conviction-based, requires life-long registration, and subjects youth to targeted and online notification procedures This policy • Overwhelming targets low risk youth • Fails to influence sexual or violent recidivism • Increases risk of nonviolent offense charges • Fails to influence first-time sex crimes • Deters prosecutors from moving forward on juvenile sex crime cases and encourages plea bargains

  35. Policy Recommendations Five specific policy reforms are suggested: • In the absence of abolishing registration requirements altogether, these should be based on objective measures of recidivism risk posed by an individual youth rather than on a youth’s conviction offense • Because recidivism risk measures are imperfect and imprecise, only high risk (and not low or medium risk) youth should be subjected to registration • For those high risk youth subjected to registration, the duration of registration should be limited to reflect the developmental stage of the youth (e.g., ending with formal supervision)

  36. Policy Recommendations • Registered youth should not be subjected to public notification • Registered youth should not be subjected to collateral consequences triggered by registration • In the US, collateral consequences include residency restrictions, prohibitions from entering public school grounds, GPS monitoring, etc. • In Australia, collateral consequences include limitations on future employment and inability to have charges waived after 10 offense-free years

More Related