Report Recommends Significant Registration Changes

Three prominent social workers, including Jill Levenson, recommend significant changes in “sex offender” registries in a recently released report. The recommended changes are

(1) juveniles should be dropped from “sex offender” registries,
(2) the length of registration should be guided by risk assessment research,
(3) procedures for relief and removal should be available,
(4) discretion should be returned to judges and
(5) residency restrictions should be abolished.

The recommendations are based upon several factors, including that while “registries make people feel safer, the data indicate that their actual effectiveness in preventing sexual recidivism is quite weak”. The report also notes that federal government data show that “having to register as a sex offender did not lead to significant reductions in sex offense recidivism”.

According to the report, the “unique label of sex offender” profoundly obstructs the ability of a registrant to successfully re-enter society due to employment difficulties, housing disruption, relationship loss, threats and harassment as well as property damage. The report also states that registrants often suffer from “psychosocial symptoms” such as shame, stigma, isolation, anxiety, depression, and hopelessness. Further, these impacts often extend to family members who report “financial, practical, social and psychological effects” as well as threats and harassment by community members and social rejection of children by teachers and classmates.

The report also addresses the fiscal considerations of registration about which “law enforcement agents and others have expressed concerns” due to fiscal and workforce demands.

“Resources spent on policies that overextend their reach while failing to enhance public safety take funding away from other rehabilitation and reintegration programs as well as from victim services and prevention initiatives”. The report advocates a “paradigm shift toward empirically-based sex offender management systems which could prove more cost-efficient than current policies.
The report unequivocally supports the abolition of residency restrictions because they “demonstrate no evidence of preventing recidivistic sex crimes”. The report notes that individuals “do not abuse children because they live near schools or parks”.

Full Report

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

…(6) The registry (if we must have one) should be only for those on probation or parole.

…Once off probation/parole the registry requirement ends! The sex offender registry is a form of informal parole/probation regardless of what it’s called…The affects are the same. There is a thing called life-time parole and there are are also still civil commitment laws…Why again do we have a sex offender registry?

Amazing how long it takes for these problems to be recognized.

This is exactly what I want the psychological community to do even more of by stepping up to the plate and yelling “Foul” when they should.

1). They can’t even decide who is a juvenile.
2). Risk assessment research is pseudo scientific garbage
3). The procedures for removal and relief even if standardized are tilted to the supporters of registries and biased
4). Hmm, “judges should be given discretion?” No way, each judge rules differently on every case, and they’re not qualified to make mental\criminal health decisions and never were.
5). It’s the only thing they got right

I bet when the children of RC’s grow up they get even with these people, because we all know they’re being discriminated against, treated differently, not just by other kids, but teachers and others alike. Yea, one day they will get even with you scum bag people. Breed the hate, it will bite you sooner or later. Social workers are some of the most vile, selfish, people I’ve ever encountered. They think tax payer money belongs to them and we are just beggars for benefits we are entitled to because we helped pay for them. Their research and opinions with the exception of ending residency restrictions is more registry nonsense. What can you expect from people who work for the government of slavery we have now.

Citing this study by Levenson, Grady, and Leibowitz:

“The world’s leading researchers on sex offender risk and recidivism have been conducting longitudinal research for over two decades and have developed, refined, and validated actuarial risk assessment tools (such as the Static-99-R) that demonstrate predictive ability to screen offenders into relative
risk categories (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2009; Hanson & Thornton, 1999; Hanson, Thornton, Helmus, & Babchishin, 2015; Helmus et al., 2012).”

So the authors of this study cites studies done by Hanson, Thornton and Helmus — who are, not coincidentally, “developers” of the Static-99R — to “demonstrate predictive ability” to make the recommendations showing the Static-99R’s “accuracy” in this report?

Why did they not pick a less biased source to analyze the accuracy and GREAT limitations of the Static-99R’s methodology?

What this report fails to mention is that when the Static-99R is examined for ostensible “accuracy,” labeled “high-risk” sex offenders show about 20 percent accuracy within a scope of five-years. At 10-years, high-risk sex offenders show about five percent accuracy. And at 17-years, the ‘high-risk’ label is not at all accurate. So at best, at least within a five-year scope, the Static will only accurately flag about ONE OUT OF FIVE offenders. So, within a five-year period, for every four incorrectly flagged high-risk sex offenders, only one is correctly flagged.

At 10-years, the Static-99R is only about five percent accurate. So at best, at least within a 10-year scope, the Static will only accurately flag about FIVE OUT OF 100 offenders. So, within a five-year period, for every 95 inaccurately flagged high-risk sex offenders, only five is correctly flagged

And again, at the 17-year mark, the high-risk sex offender label is not at all accurate.

Someone tell me how the Static-99R is able to “demonstrate predictive ability?”

OH GREAT! Another bogus study praising bogus “risk” assessments like the Static 99R scam. I have respect for Jill Levenson, as she has generally released fair scholarly material that help our civil rights cause. But do these “researchers,” including Levenson, not see the future negative effect of praising the Static 99R scam? By advocating use of the Static 99R scam, they are perversely creating a new problem altogether! The fact that these three authors cite FOUR bogus studies by Hanson, Thornton, and Helmus — who are all created the Static 99 scam — shows that Levenson relied on biased sources to make the conclusion that the Static 99R is able to ‘demonstrate predictive ability,’ when it totally does not. Respectfully, less that chance statistics is not ‘predictive ability.’ Better off flipping a coin.

From their mouths to God’s ears…

You know, I routinely reject and berate the use of any form of predictive pseudo-science or tools in making determinations about risk and reoffense. My major argument has always been that once a person is released from incarceration or is free to be in society no law can prevent them from committing a crime, and it is an indisputable fact. Even so, there are those persons who claim their research is valid and reliable, despite the fact that statistics from around the country demonstrate their use of predictive tools are not valid or reliable. This is a major concern, because they are the persons whose opinions are most accepted by politicians and judges, and they earn large sums of money for those opinions.


For the sake of argument, I will concede that there are some persons who will reoffend, and that it is predictable, based upon their societal history; and of course there are exceptions to every possible scenario. For instance, a serial adult or minor rapist offender of non family members would likely reoffend if the circumstances enabled them too. It’s that simple. It demonstrates they have acquired a pathological condition. Especially if they used actual violence, force or weapons, and abduction and killing of a person is a clear sign of a total loss of control. On the other hand if the offenses did not involve sexual intercourse, actual violence, weapons and force, abduction or death, the likelihood is greatly reduced, since this person clearly has control and borders they are not willing to cross, such as a “toucher.”

1) In those cases involving date rape, statutory rape, consensual sexual abuse, a predictive best guess scenario would have to be made based upon number of convictions, length of time of involvement with the person, a persons societal and familial relationships history, type of punishment imposed, alcohol or drugs used during the act, and of course nature of the acts, to include frequency. Frequency provides a determination of the necessity or desire for the act. High frequency indicates high need and excited or lack of control tendencies, low frequency indicates low need or more controlled and reduced tendencies. Which would seem plausible to determine risk of recidivism?

Based upon the above information, a general assessment can be made in regard to alleged predictive analysis.

2) In all of these cases, a claim of public safety has been made to permit the registries to exist, however, there are clear differences between public offenses and familial offenses. Public offenses include all acts against persons outside of the offenders blood family members. Private offenses include all acts against persons in the offenders blood line family.

3) In the case of stranger or non familial acts an assessment would have to considered a greater need. This deals with public safety almost exclusively. Therefore, the case could be made for non dehumanizing civil commitment, or longer terms of supervision. But, registries are unnecessary because they provide no protection against this form of offender should they elect to reoffend. And state and national conviction or sex offense websites are easily accessed to determine who a person may be dating or associating with. Now if the public is too lazy or ignorant to use them, then nothing will help them.

4) In the case of private or family acts these are acts that fall almost exclusively to situations of excessive infatuation, control, stress, or incidental events. In these cases the awareness of the charges and conviction are sufficient for most families to prevent any further interaction between these persons, including orders of protection, and societal pressures. And again, registries are unnecessary since these acts rarely extend to acts against the public or non family members.

If you think this analysis is helpful your welcome, if you compare and contrast it against static or other predictive tools you will find some similarities, but also many differences. In any case, as stated there are exceptions to any scenario, but it is my opinion that the facts support this case analysis.

Here’s something they should add…those convicted of crimes where there is no real “victim” should be removed from the registry.