Communities want to know when convicted sex offenders are living in their midst. For a quarter century, federal law has guaranteed communities the right to know. In 1994, Congress mandated that all states develop sex offender registries. Two years later, Megan’s Law provided that sex offender information must be made public.
In the ensuing decade, sex offender laws and registries sprang up in all states — but not always with the full impact intended. In some instances, technology deficits limited information sharing across registries and jurisdictions, a synergy vital to tracking mobile offenders. Resource shortfalls strained states’ abilities to keep up with the growing volume of offenders required to register their presence, and with new types of identifying data for offenders. Jurisdictional inconsistency left a patchwork of programs, evidencing a need for national norms.
…
In the end, the researchers reported many states have run into barriers preventing them from substantially implementing all SORNA standards, due to resource constraints, incompatible state or local laws, a lack of requisite legislative will, or a combination of factors.
Read how they plan to expand SORNA
While I understand their purpose is to enforce federal law; they are actively ignoring the reality of SORNA. The States don’t like it, the data doesn’t support it, and the Courts are beginning to see it for what it is.
Instead of revisiting the law, they recognize that the states likely will not implement more of the law, and plan other methods to force the issue. I see them asking Congress to formally preempt state law on this issue.
No one has ever said the Feds were the brightest wax coloring book tools in the box.
“The research described in this article was funded by NIJ grant 2014-AW-BX-K003, awarded to University of Massachusetts Lowell. The article is based on the report “Information Sharing and the Role of Sex Offender Registration and Notification” (2020), by Andrew J. Harris (principal investigator), Kimberly Kras (co-investigator), and Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky (co-investigator). The team also produced an executive summary.” Executive summary is 25 pages and full report is 182. Links for them are within the last paragraph of this article if anyone’s interested.
I live in one of those 24 states where the SO web site does not comply with the federal requirements, thank God. Not being on the web site and outed to the public has allowed me to work, make a decent living, and raise my kids, both of whom are in college. In less than a year my 10 years will but up and off the state registry and no longer under Federal SORNA. Even so, the struggle for me will continue with international travel and other states still requiring I register. It will however be much better for me than the vast majority of registered citizens. Yes, the law should be changed for it protects no one and hurts more than it helps.
As long as the Hit Lists exist I promise that I’ll make them worse than worthless. I will be around random children all the time. I was this past weekend. I will be all this week. I’ll also be delivering real consequences this week.
These idiot criminal regimes can tell whomever they want where I live. I’ll continue to laugh at them and make it worthless. They can “Register” my vehicles and license plates. I’ll continue to laugh at them and promise them it will never help them with anything. They can “Register” my e-mail addresses and anything else they want. I laugh in their faces.
They request war. It is the obligation of all good, moral Americans to deliver it.
All People Forced to Register need to strike preemptively. Ensure that if a criminal regime murders you today that they will still have lost their war.
They believe we need more “effective” tracking of people who AREN’T DOING ANY HARM? After a PANDEMIC just hit??? Aren’t they at least glad they survived?!
No, this was the way they were always going to be. They were never going to play nice so registrants need to respond in kind. Anyone who submits to new rules every time is selling out. Resist their bs, there should be NO REGISTRY PERIOD. The backers are always playing the victim card. The scum district attorneys have found their perfect sword and they’ve manipulated the agenda so that it’s become untouchable. The legislature isn’t doing anything to stop it. The whole system needs to be pulled out from the roots.
If you’re a free person fight for those who aren’t. Pick yourselves up, the system is not bigger than you. Don’t settle for personal victories where you can cash in and bow out. Everyone wants to leave this behind when they can. Think about how little the pool of help already is and how worse off those who are just starting their journey are. The help was there for those who needed it, they in turn should do the same for others. You want to see change? Get busy and be the next ACSOL.
You know that’s the only way, nobody’s going to step in and do this for you. You have to do it yourselves. But at least you know that when you do nobody else can lay claim to that victory BUT YOU.
Here’s an idea National Institute of Justice, “Strengthen Science, enhance justice”, science has never supported the registry and study after study shows what a dismal failure it’s been. Sounds to me you are in bed with big government and SMART office. You morons need to be tracked for the harm and waste you cause to this country based on your hate and bloated paychecks.
TRACKING……
As in a package being hauled by a major carrier. An object, a thing, a known convict, but never just a human. The didn’t just build a database! They began human indentured servitude to it.
I wake up everyday and think How the hell did I get stuck in this neverending nightmare
Being placed on the registery is a death sentence a slow death sentence.
Thank GOD I was really young when I was placed on the registry and hopefully I’ll be Walking away from this phuct up situation in my 30s.
SORNA isn’t going anywhere in reality their comeing and the fact that Kamala Harris aka (TOP COP) is gonna be vice president dosen’t look good she’s gonna pass the new SORNA laws in America the Democrats are coming to clean house the president’s action in the last 4 years have opened the door for politicians to say and do whatever they want.
I feel for teenagers 18 and under cought up in this madness their whole lives are ruined.
Good luck
“In some instances, technology deficits limited information sharing across registries and jurisdictions, a synergy vital to tracking mobile offenders. Resource shortfalls strained states’ abilities to keep up with the growing volume of offenders required to register …” What a shame!
And in the mean time, we at DOJ and every other LE organization have done our best to disregard all research and data that indicate convicted sex offenders have an extraordinary lead low recidivism rate.
(Oh wait, they author failed to include that information?? What a surprise!)
I have just sent the articles authors the following email:
RE: “Information Sharing and the Role of Sex Offender Registration and Notification”
Dear Drs. Harris, Kras, and Lobanov-Rostovsky,
I read you article regarding the technical shortfalls of sex offender registries. While I understand you may have little interest in “killing the golden goose” that helps fund your work, I have to ask:
1. Do your research and publication efforts ever emphasize the extremely low re-offense rates of individuals convicted of sex offenses??
2. Do you considered it appropriate for individuals to be permanently identified by what may have been a one-time occurrence in their life?
Note these lists are always referred to as “Sex Offender Registries” as if all the individuals on these registries are currently and continuously in the process of committing sex offenses, as opposed to what may have been a one-time offense from 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Why are the lists not referred to as “sex offense” registries??
3. Do you ever address the collateral damage done to families of those required to register as convicted sex offenders??
4. Do you ever emphasize the fact that the great majority of new sex offenses are committed by individuals not listed on any Registry, most frequently perpetrated by family members or other trusted individuals known to the victim??
If sex offense registries were truly successful at reducing the number of sex offenses, after all these decades of public registries, wouldn’t the rate of sex offenses be greatly reduced and incredibly low?
5. Do you have any empirical evidence that registries actually reduce the occurrence of sex offense crimes??
6. If sex offense registries are effective at their purported purpose of protecting the public, do you also advocate for the creation of other publicly accessible criminal offense registries, such as a domestic violence offender registry, a DUI driver registry, a violent assault offender registry, a gang violence registry, etc?? If you do not advocate for such registries, why not??
This would seem especially important for the public’s safety since the individuals committing those offenses all have very high re-offense rates, so why do no publicly accessible registries for such offenders exist to protect the public from these offenders?? By not advocating for these publicly accessible registries, are you not being disingenuous in your support only for sex offense registries to the exclusion of other such registries??
As I am sure you are aware, there are now nearly 1 million individuals in the U.S. who are required to register on sex offense registries. Many of these individuals – approximately 20% – are themselves children – the very individuals such sex offense registries are intended to protect. Doesn’t that bother you??
As I do a quick Google search of your names, publications, and presentations, I see that there are a great many people involved in the business (“industry”, really) of sex offense registries. But how are these registries anything more than modern public pillories of individuals, posting their information for all to see for anywhere from 10 years to a lifetime??
Do you consider these registries to be just??
Your piece begins by stating “Communities want to know when convicted sex offenders are living in their midst.” I’m very sure that if you survey the public to ask them if they would like such _public safety resources” as a domestic violence offender registry or a DUI driver registry, the vast majority would say “yes”, they would want such registries. But those are not provided to the public. So what makes sex offense registries different…. aside from what appears to be blatant pandering to the public’s prurient interests and the mass media’s sex offense hysteria which has now been going on for the last 50 years??
I sincerely hope you will consider and reflect upon these questions and how they relate to your work.
My thanks for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
David __________
_______ , California
I’ve just sent the following email message to the articles authors:
RE: “Information Sharing and the Role of Sex Offender Registration and Notification”
Dear Drs. Harris, Kras, and Lobanov-Rostovsky,
I read you article regarding the technical shortfalls of sex offender registries. While I understand you may have little interest in “killing the golden goose” that helps fund your work, I have to ask:
1. Do your research and publication efforts ever emphasize the extremely low re-offense rates of individuals convicted of sex offenses??
2. Do you considered it appropriate for individuals to be permanently identified by what may have been a one-time occurrence in their life?
Note these lists are always referred to as “Sex Offender Registries” as if all the individuals on these registries are currently and continuously in the process of committing sex offenses, as opposed to what may have been a one-time offense from 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Why are the lists not referred to as “sex offense” registries??
3. Do you ever address the collateral damage done to families of those required to register as convicted sex offenders??
4. Do you ever emphasize the fact that the great majority of new sex offenses are committed by individuals not listed on any Registry, most frequently perpetrated by family members or other trusted individuals known to the victim??
If sex offense registries were truly successful at reducing the number of sex offenses, after all these decades of public registries, wouldn’t the rate of sex offenses be greatly reduced and incredibly low?
5. Do you have any empirical evidence that registries actually reduce the occurrence of sex offense crimes??
6. If sex offense registries are effective at their purported purpose of protecting the public, do you also advocate for the creation of other publicly accessible criminal offense registries, such as a domestic violence offender registry, a DUI driver registry, a violent assault offender registry, a gang violence registry, etc?? If you do not advocate for such registries, why not??
This would seem especially important for the public’s safety since the individuals committing those offenses all have very high re-offense rates, so why do no publicly accessible registries for such offenders exist to protect the public from these offenders?? By not advocating for these publicly accessible registries, are you not being disingenuous in your support only for sex offense registries to the exclusion of other such registries??
As I am sure you are aware, there are now nearly 1 million individuals in the U.S. who are required to register on sex offense registries. Many of these individuals – approximately 20% – are themselves children – the very individuals such sex offense registries are intended to protect. Doesn’t that bother you??
As I do a quick Google search of your names, publications, and presentations, I see that there are a great many people involved in the business (“industry”, really) of sex offense registries. But how are these registries anything more than modern public pillories of individuals, posting their information for all to see for anywhere from 10 years to a lifetime??
Do you consider these registries to be just??
Your piece begins by stating “Communities want to know when convicted sex offenders are living in their midst.” I’m very sure that if you survey the public to ask them if they would like such _public safety resources” as a domestic violence offender registry or a DUI driver registry, the vast majority would say “yes”, they would want such registries. But those are not provided to the public. So what makes sex offense registries different…. aside from what appears to be blatant pandering to the public’s prurient interests and the mass media’s sex offense hysteria which has now been going on for the last 50 years??
I sincerely hope you will consider and reflect upon these questions and how they relate to your work.
My thanks for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
David ___________
_______ , California
I don’t remember seeing a “right to know” in the constitution.
Someone should find and publish the personal names and addresses of these disingenuous, worm-like beaurocrats who author these reports.
Just like with vigilantes, there are hundreds of thousands of angry sex offenders in the US, looking to hold the nazi regime accountable…
If something happens to them, “oh well! Too bad!” – that’s the same attitude they have toward us.
It’s time to reflect their hate and fear back at them. It’s time to hold them accountable.
What is odd is there is this 20-year study on the effectiveness of the registry: https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=247350
An excerpt from that 20-year study abstract: *** “The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses.” ***
Here’s an article about that 20-year study: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/sex-offender-registration-and-notification-research-finds-limited-effects-new
That article is from the same office of expanding the SORN. It’s as if they don’t care about that 20-year study so they can focus on how to effectively make the national SOR expanded to all states and territories. What about that 20-year study?
If you were emailing this group of authors, then I’d suggest adding these two links I provided as a query as to why they are trying to expand something that doesn’t work and remains very costly?
My God, if you read their report, it reads like something the Nazi SS bureaucrats would submit to Hitler about the Jews and the “Final Solution”!!
I’m NOT kidding – read it!!
One of the local papers around here publishes notices when registrants are released from confinement into the community. They often will include a line which reads “will be a lifetime member of the sex offender registry” or something very close to that.
They make it sound like something desirable or wanted. I don’t thing that ‘registry’ describes it at all. A registry is something you do for wedding gifts. What we are talking about is something much more than a registry.
Word choice is always so important; euphemistic phraseology can hide a multitude of sins. So, it is with the term “registry” . As Worried in Wisconsin (and others) have appropriately pointed out , the word “registry” connotes something pleasant or quaint. So, I am inclined to vote for Will Allen’s suggestion: “Idiotic, Immoral, Illegal, and Counterproductive Hit List.” There’s no white-washing those words. And, again, word choice is paramount, especially when nefarious and underhanded conduct is occurring. Upon my release from prison in Connecticut in May of 2017, I met with my parole agent and she referred to me as her “client.” When I questioned the use of “client,” she explained that her supervisors thought “client” was more dignified than “parolee.” I couldn’t prevent the instinctual chuckle that I produced. She asked what I thought was funny. I took a chance and expressed my thoughts. Well, if I am your client, what services will you be providing. She responded, “It is my job to make sure that you do not present a problem to society; and if you do, then it is my job to correct the issues that are making you be problematic.” I then asked, “Will you be assisting me in obtaining a job?” Her response: “Well, not exactly, but I will give you a list of felon friendly businesses. Then it is up to you to call them and get the job.” She presented me with a list that did not include phone numbers or addresses. And, initially, I was not allowed to use a computer. So, the list of businesses she gave me were essentially worthless. At the end of our first conversation, I asked, “Well, since I am your client may I fire you?” She smirked and said, “That’s not how it works.” I ended with, “Well, then I am not really your client. But I will do all that is asked of me as a parolee.” “Registry” and “client” are terms used to make those making the rules feel better about themselves.
Hmmm.🤔 I have emailed the article’s authors twice. No response. Cowards. Just like the Nazis.
@David
David- Thank you so much for your efforts. And while it’s insulting and craven of the authors not to respond to your pertinent and poignant points, I encourage you to continue to email them until you receive a response. Perhaps you can request a “No Thank You” email from them, if they have no intention of defending their misguided claims. That might prompt them into responding in some fashion. I plan on sending those authors an email, as well. I have begun my own crusade by attempting to enlist the help of a syndicated columnist whose works I began reading while I still lived in Connecticut. I emailed him back in 2019, before relocating to California. I provided him with my criminal history and asked if he would be interested in embarking on a series of columns that would address larger issues concerning the criminal justice system. He did respond, and did ask me to clarify what I had in mind. I sent a few more emails but then my transfer was approved and my correspondence was put on hold. Recently, I sent him the following email:
Dear Mr. Walker-
My name is Glenn ______. In February of 2019 I emailed you and explained to you my crime and battles with the criminal justice system. My wife and I have since relocated from Stamford, CT to Los Angeles, CA, and my frustration with the criminal justice system remains. I became a fan of your commentary while living in Connecticut; and that appreciation has continued since I moved to California.
The impetus behind this correspondence is to open up a dialogue that perhaps will lead to some real change for those currently incarcerated and those who have technically been released from prison, but still remain ensnared by narrow-minded thinking.
I was a public school educator for twenty years before being incarcerated for twenty-one months.
I bring perspective that would be of value towards genuine reform in a system that is broken. Since my release in May of 2017, I have known that involvement in restructuring the current system of rehabilitation for former inmates is part of my journey.
I respect your insight and am reaching out with the fervid hope of joining forces and making a difference in an area that we both know is in dire need of resurrection.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely-
Glenn _________
If I don’t receive a response in a timely fashion, I will send this email, again. At moments like this I think of Andy Dufresne (from “Shawshank Redemption”) and his response after receiving a grant from the State for the prison library; he wasn’t satisfied with the amount of the check and stated, “From now on, I’ll write two letters a week, instead of one.”
@ underdog (a/k/a Glenn): Where in CT? (I was in Fairfield.)
@ underdog/Glenn: Please contact me at: PrivateMailBoxx@mail.com if comfortable doing so.