1. NAFC Annual Conference
Parental Use of the Sex Offender Registry: A Routine Activities Approach
Jeff Bryson, Ph.D., LPC, ALPS, CCSOTS
AAMFT Clinical Fellow
PsiMed Inc.
Lakin Correctional Center and WV Parole
23 September 2014
NAFC Annual Conference
Indianapolis, IN
Click to add notes

2. Introduction
The purpose of this presentation is to present findings of qualitative research on the ways parents use the sex offender registry.
How presentation will benefit audience: Adult learners are more interested in a subject if they know how or why it is important to them.
Presenter’s level of expertise in the subject: Briefly state your credentials in this area, or explain why participants should listen to you.

3. What is SORNA? Two components: Mandatory registration
Community notification

4. Why we have SORNA
Jacob Wetterling
Megan Kanka
Adam Walsh

5. Does SORNA work?
Most research is based on rational choice/deterrence theory
Does it reduce the number of first-time offenders?
Does it reduce the number of recidivists?
Is this a fair way of assessing it’s effectiveness?

6. Rational Choice Theory
The criminal as a thinking being
Human beings seek to decrease pain and increase pleasure
Crime can be deterred if punishment is certain, swift, and commensurate with the crime, lex talionis

7. SORNA does not appear to deter first-time offenders or recidivists
Letourneau, et al. (2010) found an 11% decrease in South Carolina’s first time sex offenses during the first 10 years of the registry, but found that after the first 10 years (beginning in 2005) there was a sharp increase in first time offenses. No explanation was profered as to the reason for this increase.

8. SORNA does not appear to deter first-time offenders or recidivists
Bonnar-Kidd (2010) found the registry to have little or no impact on recidivism, but suggested there were significant negative impacts on the offenders themselves.
Radkowski (2008) found a 5.1% recidivism rate prior to the institution of the registry, and an 8.0% recidivism rate since the registry was instituted.

9. SORNA Implementation May Affect Its Effectiveness
Vásquez, Maddan, and Walker (2008) found the registry to be ineffective in reducing recidivism rates among sex offenders across a sample from 10 U.S. states.
They found that three states did show decreased recidivism (Hawaii, Idaho, Ohio) but the overall recidivism rate was not statistically affected by the these three states.
Though they minimize these findings, it is possible that the way SORNA is implemented may have an affect on its effectiveness.

10. Public Use of the Registry
Beck and Travis (2004): notified community members were more likely to engage in protective behaviors.
Kernsmith, Comartin, Craun, and Kernsmith (2009):
Notification increased protective behaviors
Only 27% believed a sex offender lived near-by

11. Craun (2010): only about one third of the research sample who had a registered sex offender living within one-tenth of a mile were aware of the offender’s presence.

12. Vásquez, Maddan, and Walker concluded: “If one were analyzing the legislation, from the perspective of arming a community to reduce offenses as opposed to legislation that deters offenders, however, one would need to consider the possibility that when communities do not actively use sex offender registries to protect their members, the legislation fails to affect those offenses,” (p. 188).

13. Problems with the research
Welchans (2005) points out that there has been so much change in the registry since its inception, that research has been limited by this fact
Simply comparing official re-offense rates may miss an important positive outcome of the registry – re-offenders are getting caught due to being on the registry
Re-offense rates may not be the best measure of SORNA’s success due to lack of use by the public

14. Routine Activities Theory
Cohen & Felson (1979)
Crime occurs when three required elements are present:
A likely/motivated offender
A suitable target
Lack of capable guardians

15. Routine Activities Theory
Three other elements may be present
Props
Camouflage (secrecy)
Audience (e.g., terrorism)

16. Paucity of Research on RAT and SORNA
What little research is available suggests that parents don’t necessarily change their protective behaviors, so the registry doesn’t really have an impact on their protection of their children
What serves as a capable guardian? (cf. Tewksbury, Mustaine, and Stengel, 2008)

17. Bandy (2011)
Sample: 192 Minneapolis residents living within 3 blocks of a registered sexual offender and 215 residents in the same neighborhood living more than 3 blocks from a registered sex offender
Examined 17 protective behaviors and found no differences between the experimental group and the control group
Exception: altruistic-protective behaviors did increase in the notification sample

18. Bandy’s List of Self-Protective Behaviors
Self-avoidant behaviors: avoid unsafe areas at night, avoid unsafe areas at day, limited activities due to crime
Self-protective behaviors: extra locks, kept a dog, carried weapon, security lights, self-defense class, gotten a roommate, engraved ID on property, stopped walking at night, bought a gun, burglar alarm, joined block club, new neighborhood, change job/shift, involved with crime prevention specialists

19. Bandy’s List of Altruistic-Protective Behaviors
Altruistic avoidant behaviors: avoid unsafe areas during night/day, limit activities
Altruistic defensive behaviors: lock doors/ windows, not let strangers in, not speak to strangers, be aware of dangerous persons, be aware of sex offenders, learn self-defense, carry defense item

20. Findings

21. Participants
N=9 Gender: 78 % female, 22% male # of children: 11 daughters, 16 sons, total=27 Marital status: 44% first marriage, 22.5% remarried, 22.5% cohabiting with a partner, 11% divorced Age: median=36 years, mean=37 years Income: median=$55K, mean=$60.7K

22. Employment: 89% corrections, 11% military spouse Of those working in corrections, half worked in correctional programs, and half worked in health care. Years of experience: median=10, mean=9.1 State of residence: WV=7, Other=2 Urban/rural: All participants lived in small towns (<5000)

23. Frequency of accessing the registry: no consistency among participants
Method of accessing the registry: 88% used a government website, 22% used 11% used an Apple iPhone application. None used the federal Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website (

24. Procedure
Empirical phenomenological
Process and descriptive coding

25. Prior to Accessing the Registry
Descriptive Theme: Concern regarding unknown dangerous individuals Process Theme: Constant supervision as a protective behavior prior to first use of the sex offender registry Process theme: Education regarding risk and bad behavior

26. Purpose of the Registry
Descriptive Theme: To provide intelligence for protection Descriptive Theme: To calm fears Descriptive Theme: Accidental use

27. Use of the Registry
Process Theme: Gathering intelligence for planning (Halloween, overnight stays, moving) Process Theme: Avoidance – limiting contacts with individuals on the registry Process Theme: Warning children of specific dangers Process Theme: Use of the photograph

28. Balancing Safety with Security
Descriptive Theme: Conflict – how much information is too little versus too much.

29. Little girl at the library
Success Story
Little girl at the library

30. Strengths and Weaknesses
Descriptive Theme: Strength – public awareness Descriptive Theme: Weakness – slowness of updates Descriptive Theme: Weakness – not all sex offenders are the same Descriptive Theme: Only includes convicted SOs

31. Desired Changes
Descriptive Theme: Desire for more detailed information Descriptive Theme: Personal determination of risk level

32. Discussion

33. Questions to ask
Since most sex offenses are committed by someone known to the victim, does the sex offender registry really help?
Is the registry a microsystems tool or a macrosystems tool?

34. Legal decisions
Kenney v. Mendoza-Martinez and the test of punitive law
Involves disability or restraint
Has historically been regarded as punishment
A finding of scienter (intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud)
Whether it promotes the aims of punishment and deterrence
Whether an alternative purpose can be assigned to it
Whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose

35. Smith v. Doe (2003)
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Alaska’s registry, claiming it was punishment, and therefore constituted an ex post facto violation (Doe v. Otte, 2001)
The USSC overturned the 9th Circuit’s ruling, holding that the AK’s registration and notification law was clearly civil in purpose, and that any punitive effects were coincidental and the public safety concern outweighed those effects

36. Since the passage of Adam Walsh
United States v. Shenandoah (2010) held that the Adam Walsh Act was constitutional and enacted to close loop-holes in previous laws (3rd Circuit).
United States of America v. Jimmy Coleman (2012) held that Congress had not overstepped its authority in enacting the Adam Walsh Act (6th Circuit).

37. Reynolds v. United States (2012) United States Supreme Court
Addressed only the question of “whether the Act requires pre-Act offenders to register before the Attorney General validly specifies that the Act’s registration provisions apply to them.”
In theory, this decision upheld the constitutionality of the Adam Walsh Act, while addressing specific issues of the Attorney General’s role in it’s application

38. In sum, the USSC has determined
The registry is not an ex post facto violation
The registry is not cruel and unusual punishment
The registry does not violate the right to due process so long as the only the fact to be proved is a conviction for a qualifying offense – basing inclusion on the registry on risk level, then, requires due process
If the registry does become punitive, it may become an ex post facto violation

39. Recommendations
Increase public awareness through better public education
Include more detailed information regarding the sexual offenses listed on the registry
Increase the timeliness of updating the computer registry in real time