ND: North Dakota’s sex offender registry gets update to provide residents more information

Source: kfyrtv.com 6/25/22

BISMARCK, N.D. (KFYR) – In 1947, California became the first state in the US to have a sex offender registry program and, over the years, other states followed suit. North Dakota’s law was passed in 1991. The registries are meant to give residents the tools to protect themselves from victimization. Now, North Dakota’s registry is getting an upgrade to provide residents more information.

The website, sexoffender.nd.gov, will now display photos of all offenders regardless of risk level and offer additional search functions to determine offender location and description of crimes. Individuals can also sign up to receive notifications about any offender. More information can be found on the website.

Read the full article


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.
  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
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

From the article:

In 1947, California became the first state in the US to have a sex offender registry program and, over the years, other states followed suit. North Dakota’s law was passed in 1991. The registries are meant to give residents the tools to protect themselves from victimization. Now, North Dakota’s registry is getting an upgrade to provide residents more information.


For years, law makers have grappled with the best way to deal with offenders. Psychology Today reports that research is inconclusive on how effective sex offender registries are to prevent individuals from committing additional crimes, but some research shows registries can deter first-time offenses.

As of last week, there were more than 1,600 sex offenders with a requirement to register in North Dakota.

This seems very illogical to say “some research shows registries can deter first-time offenses” while citing California.

California has over 100,000 registrants, almost 10 times more than North Dakota today. And with CA having a huge head start on the registry, which was a lifetime term before last year’s passing of SB-384, we can say as a matter of fact that the registry does not deter first-time offenses.

North Dakota is making all of its registrants equate to being high-risk registrants. Before this new implementation, only high-risk registrants were available to the public. North Dakota is blatantly using the registry as “deterrence“! That is a form of punishment! And this is a form of retribution at the expense of non high-risk registrants!

ACSOL better log this a huge piece of evidence of how terrible a decision the 2003 Smith v Doe was. Many dissenters identified the slippery slope of the restrictions that could become out of hand.

There is no intrinsic value in the registry, so it has to be sold as an infomercial by law enforcement and the local DAs. Sign up for alerts? These are fascist public safety propaganda techniques engineered exclusively to give mothers the illusion of control and a false sense of empowerment.

Talk about a shooting gallery! These people are sitting ducks for violence against them. You can even choose what offender you wish to follow. No more tracking device needed. Disgusting.

” Research is inconclusive how registries help prevent other offenses”. Who did they ask , Dr. Phil?
“Some research shows………….” How about stating your source of that research.

response email I sent to author,

Your article has so many holes that if it were a boat it would sink.
 Every reputable study has proven that the registry does nothing to prevent offenders from committing additional crimes nor provide any type of community safety. In fact it hurts the community by creating a person that is possibly homeless, jobless and thereby increasing the chance of committing some crime. 
You throw out the phrase “some research”. What research. I could just as easily say, “Some research shows the Earth is flat”. Again, every REPUTABLE research shows the vast majority of offenders are in fact 1st timers. Now how can you say that the registry is then stopping the offense. 
I suggest you put a little more time into YOUR OWN research of the subject. You will find that the Recidivism rate of sex offenses is the 2nd lowest of any felony, with only murder being lower. This has nothing to do with any registry, which is nothing more than a political tool to either get a person elected to office or receive additional funding. 
One more comment before I finish. Have you ever wondered why there aren’t DUI registries, domestic abuse registries or registries related to drug crimes, which either damage or claim more children’s lives in a month than all the registrable offenses have done since it’s inception. Food for thought.

Author’s email, erika.craven@kfyrtv.com. Let her know how erroneous her “facts” are.

Making communities safer by insuring that legions of people can’t ever recover from a mistake, can’t get decent housing, employment, relationships, and many other options needed to move forward in life. Yes, homless camps of disillusioned and hopeless people is a sure way to make a community safer. And let’s make sure all the nut case vigilantes can find out where these people live so some night in a drunken stupor they can find a soft target. Just brilliant. Sounds like some low IQ, uninspired politicians that don’t have any answers for the state of the economy are looking for re-election any way they can get it inpsite fo their incompetence.

These registrants were doing labor, now it is more labor. For the convenience of others. It is as simple as that. Too often people confuse the word “convenience” with “intelligence.”

My husband is a low risk offender and this change was devastating. We have two boys to protect along with my reputation with my career. I called the attorney general’s office asking who was having issues that this needed to be changed. I was told law enforcement agencies. I called our local sheriff’s department which is one of the largest in the state and I was specifically told they had no issues. Our previous AG got it right, this AG needs some education. Low risk offenders are not a problem in ND. All the news articles are new offenders, not offenders on the registry. It’s a joke.