Treatment of Sex Offenders

226
J.S. Levenson
tences, more aggressive policing, enhancements in technology and surveillance, the
economic stability of the 1990s and early 2000s, changing demographics with the
aging of the US population, and other social dynamics related to norms and values
(Finkelhor & Jones, 2006 ; Uggen & McElrath, 2013 ; Zimring, 2006 ). Nevertheless,
concerns about recidivistic sexual violence have fueled the popularity of sex
offender policies.
As stakeholders have become more aware of sex offenders living in our communities,
ancillary laws aimed at preventing repeat victimization have also been
implemented, such as residential restrictions, enhanced probationary supervision,
and mandatory minimum sentencing (LaFond, 2005 ; Lamade, Gabriel, & Prentky,
2011 ; Levenson & D’Amora, 2007 ; Tabachnick & Klein, 2011 ; Zgoba, 2004 ). A
crucial question is the extent to which sex offender policies in general, and SORN
laws more specifically, have achieved their goal of reducing sex offense recidivism.
Most studies thus far have not detected a significant decline in sexual reoffending
that can be attributed to the enactment of such policies.
Effectiveness of Sex Offender Registration
and Notification Policies
At this time, due to the relatively recent implementation of these laws, the empirical
research is still in a nascent stage. Moreover, there are many methodological complexities
faced by researchers when conducting sex crime policy analysis. For
example, low recidivism base rates, the confound of multiple types of sex offender
policies enacted within short time frames, challenges obtaining valid recidivism
data, and the need for long follow-up periods all contribute to the challenges of
determining the impact of these laws. Moreover, though national guidelines exist,
the SORN policy in each state is idiosyncratic, complicating efforts to conduct
national sex offender policy research (Harris, 2011 ).
About two dozen studies have been conducted to evaluate the impact of SORN ,
and most involve one of two methodologies: group comparisons of sex offenders
required to register and those who are not and trend analyses of sex crime rates over
time. Two studies that have detected reductions in sex crime recidivism as a result
of SORN were conducted in Minnesota and Washington (Duwe & Donnay, 2008 ;
Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2005 ). Importantly, both states use
empirically derived risk assessment instruments to classify offenders, and they limit
public notification only to those who pose the greatest threat to community safety.
In Minnesota, the sexual rearrest rate of the notification group (5 %) was significantly
lower than both the prenotification group (35 % of those matched on risk but
released before the law went into effect) and the nonnotification group (13 % of
lower-risk offenders not subject to disclosure) (Duwe & Donnay, 2008 ). After controlling
for generally decreasing crime trends, researchers in Washington found a
significant decline in sex offense recidivism (from 5 to 1 %) after 1997 when SORN
laws were passed in that state (Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2005 ).