19:
77:
190:
91:
444:
released into states without registration laws were slightly less likely to re-offend. The study also showed that blocks in
Washington DC where sex offenders lived did not have higher rate of sex crimes nor overall crimes. The study concluded that registered sex offenders do not appear to have lower rates of recidivism than those sex offenders who are not required to register, and that knowing where a sex offender lives does not reveal where sex crimes, or other crimes, will take place.
544:, the recidivism rates of sex offenders subject to registration and extensive notification between 1997 and 1999 (n = 47) were compared with those of sex offenders who had limited notification requirements (n = 166). No statistically significant differences in sex crime rearrest rates over a 4-year follow-up period were found, as 19 percent of the extensive notification group sexually recidivated, compared to 12 percent for the limited notification group.
661:' SMART Office, there is no empirical support for the effectiveness of residence restrictions. In fact, a number of negative unintended consequences have been empirically identified, including loss of housing, loss of support systems, and financial hardship that may aggravate rather than mitigate offender risk. In addition, residence restrictions lead to the displacement and clustering of sex offenders into other areas, particularly rural areas.
488:, adult sex crimes were compared to nonsexual assault and robbery crimes pre- and post-SORN implementation (N=194,575, of which 19,060 were sex crime arrests). Data were examined for 1990 through 2005. SORN implementation occurred in 1995. The study found that the sex crime rate declined by 11 percent from pre- to post-SORN while the rates of assault and robbery did not, suggesting the possibility that SORN was a deterrent to sex crimes.
424:
existing offenders. However public registration was found to cause an increased rate of recidivism among Sex
Offenders on the public register. There is considerable debate among academics as to how "Effectiveness" should be defined. Many see the increased rate of recidivism among registered offenders as a failure; others point to the deterrent effect of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws (SORN) as being evidence of success.
627:
481:
states (Hawaii, Idaho, and Ohio). In six states (Arkansas, Connecticut, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, and West
Virginia), no significant change was observed following SORN implementation, and one state (California) actually had a statistically significant increase in sex crimes following SORN implementation. Based on the varied findings, the authors concluded there was no systematic influence of SORN on the rate of reported rape.
468:
approximately 1.21 sex offenses per 10,000 people, which correspond to 13 percent reduction on average. This drop in crime was found to benefit local victims (acquaintances, neighbors, and victims of known offenders, as well as possibly family members, friends, and significant others). The study found no evidence that registration had any effect to the level of crime against strangers. The same study found that
605:
post-release supervision, improved treatment, or unmeasured historical factors unique to the 1990-1996 period. They further concluded that applying community notification to low-risk offenders would hinder their ability for successful community re-entry, and probably would not produce appreciable reduction in sexual recidivism given the low base rate (5-7% within 3 years) of recidivism in that sample.
537:, researchers compared the recidivism rates of offenders subject to SORN with those of offenders who were not subject to this strategy (n = 550). Based on a 6.5-year follow-up period, offenders subject to SORN recidivated at a rate of 7 percent, compared to 11 percent for offenders who were not subject to SORN; however, these differences were not found to be statistically significant.
473:
registration information public was found to increase the number of sex offenses by more than 1.57 percent. The authors concluded that providing information on convicted sex offenders to local authorities may be beneficial as this increases monitoring and likelihood of punishment for recidivism, which translates to lower rate of recidivism as predicted in
672:
567:. Some of those offenders were subject to SORN, while others were not because SORN requirements were not yet in place. The study found that the sex offenders subject to SORN sexually recidivated (defined as a new Washington state conviction for a felony sex crime) at a 2-percent rate, while the pre-SORN group recidivated at a 7-percent rate.
530:
conviction) at a rate of 3 percent, compared to the nonregistry group's 3.5-percent recidivism rate. This difference was not statistically significant. However, when the recidivism rates of parolees and probationers were compared, the researchers found that registration requirements may have had more of an impact on parolees.
551:
study. Again, the recidivism rates of sex offenders subject to SORN (n = 139) were compared with those of sex offenders not subject to SORN. Based on a 54-month followup, sex offenders subject to SORN were found to have a sex crime rearrest rate of 19 percent while the rate for the non-SORN group was
516:
A meta-study by professor
Kristen M. Zgoba from Florida International University and Meghan A. Mitchell from the University of Central Florida found 18 studies that had been done on the effectiveness of sex offender registration and notification laws by September 2021. Of these 18 studies, 7 studies
480:
A similar analysis focused on the impact of SORN on rape in 10 states. Using
Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data on rapes reported to the police as the outcome measure, the study found that statistically significant reductions in reported rape occurred following the implementation of SORN in 3 of the 10
504:
analyzed sex crime, assault, robbery, burglary, and larceny arrests from 1986 through 2006. Study results indicated that the implementation of the state's sex offender registry did not decrease the rearrest rate for convicted sex offenders, deter non-registered offenders from offending, or decrease
529:
study, a group of sex offenders subject to registry requirement (n = 233) who were also under legal supervision were compared to a matched group of preregistry sex offenders not under supervision (n = 201). In a 4.3-year followup, the registry group sexually recidivated (defined as a new sex crime
443:
compared data on over 9,000 sex offenders released from prison in 1994. About half of those offenders were released into states where they needed to register, while the other half did not need to register. The study found little difference in the two groups' propensity to re-offend. In fact, those
613:
A majority of states have some kind of registration for juveniles adjudicated delinquent of sex offenses. The vast majority of those states require registration and public notification for juveniles transferred for trial and convicted as an adult. In a review of UCR sex crime arrest data from 47
512:
juveniles who committed sexual offenses between 1990 and 2004 (N = 1275) found that 7.5 percent were charged with a new sex offense and 2.5 percent were adjudicated for a new sex offense during a 9-year follow-up period. More importantly, the researchers found that registration was not associated
423:
Prescott and
Rockoff (2011) found that Sex Offender Registration policies in the United States were effective at reducing crime by providing general deterrence. The study found that non public registration policies were effective in reducing sex crime arrests due to enhanced police monitoring of
604:
groups was found to be 3.2%, 32.8% and 9.6%, respectively. The authors concluded that these results suggest a community notification system based on tiered risk-management has an effect of reducing recidivism, although they noted that part of the effect might arise from heightened penalties and
472:
laws may affect sex offense frequency, although not in a way as lawmakers intended. Notification laws were found to reduce the number of sex offenses when the size of the registry is small but these benefits disappear when more offenders are made subject to notification requirements. Making the
467:
laws reduce the frequency of reported sex offenses, particularly when the number of registrants is large but making the registry information available to the broader public may "backfire", leading to higher overall rates of sex crime. An average-size registry was estimated to decrease crime by
420:—particularly repeat sex offenses—from occurring. While these hypotheses were not empirically tested prior to the implementation of SORN requirements, a significant body of research using various methods has since examined the impact of SORN, particularly in relation to recidivism.
496:
find evidence of a positive SORN effect, recidivism was examined in the context of registration status for 6,064 male offenders convicted of at least one sex crime in that state between 1990 and 2004. The study found that registration status did not predict recidivism.
517:
concluded that registration and notification laws decreased recidivism, 5 studies concluded that registration and notification laws increased recidivism, and 6 studies concluded that registration and notification laws did not either increase or decrease recidivism.
18:
103:
415:
It has been suggested that sex offender registration and notification (SORN) policies may be a specific deterrent for sex offenders; that it would facilitate sex offender awareness, monitoring, and apprehension; and that it would in the end help prevent
411:
and apply public notification only on high risk offenders. Some policies — especially residency restrictions and community notification — may adversely impact on public safety due to the obstacles they create to successful reintegration of an offender.
594:
technique and consisted of 125 offenders released between 1990-1997 who likely would have been assigned to Level 3, and would have been subject to community notification had the law been at place at the time of their release. A second control group
436:, which essentially examines an outcome of interest using many observations before and after the implementation of a specific intervention. Several interrupted time series analyses assessing SORN have been completed in recent years.
1358:
491:
A number of state studies did not find evidence that SORN implementation positively impacted the rate of sexual offending or recidivism. One of these studies was also focused on South
Carolina. In the South Carolina study that
586:") sex offenders. This group was subject to broad community notification after release from Minnesota prisons between 1997 and 2002. Two control groups were compared with this notification group. The first control group -
614:
states for 1994 through 2009, a statistically significant decrease in the rate of sex crime arrest in either juvenile registration states or juvenile notification states after implementation of SORN policies was not found.
126:
370:
1215:
Letourneau, E. J.; Levenson, J. S.; Bandyopadhyay, D.; Armstrong, K. S.; Sinha, D. (2 April 2010). "Effects of South
Carolina's Sex Offender Registration and Notification Policy on Deterrence of Adult Sex Crimes".
559:
sex offenders pre- and post-community notification (N = 10,592), researchers found no significant differences in sexual (7 percent) or general (46.6 percent) rearrest rates based on an 8.2-year follow-up period.
194:
37:
residence improves the public's ability to guard themselves and their children from sexual victimization. Despite this wide public acceptance, empirical observations do not uniformly support this belief.
1251:
Letourneau, E. J.; Levenson, J. S.; Bandyopadhyay, D.; Sinha, D.; Armstrong, K. S. (16 December 2009). "Effects of South
Carolina's Sex Offender Registration and Notification Policy on Adult Recidivism".
599:
consisted of offenders assigned to Level 1 and Level 2 who were released between 1997-2002 and not subject to broad community notification. The sexual re-conviction rates within a 3-year period for the
477:. By making the same information public offenders become more likely to commit crimes because the associated psychological, social, or financial costs make crime-free life relatively less attractive.
1499:
Holmes, Stephanie (1 May 2009). "An
Empirical Analysis of Registration and Notification Laws for Juvenile Sex Offenders". Northwestern University - Department of Management & Strategy.
342:
1544:
356:
328:
60:
392:' SMART Office, sex offender registration and notification requirements arguably have been implemented in the absence of empirical evidence regarding their effectiveness.
574:, a law requiring community notification on high-risk offenders was implemented in 1997. To examine the relationship between community notification and recidivism, the
736:
Levenson, Jill S.; Brannon, Yolanda N.; Fortney, Timothy; Baker, Juanita (12 April 2007). "Public Perceptions About Sex Offenders and Community Protection Policies".
396:
216:
1030:
321:
30:
637: with: Section should address what kinds of restrictions apply (e.g., is it proximity to schools and parks, types of residence, etc.?). You can help by
119:
764:
261:
1151:
363:
513:
with sexual recidivism; however, nonsexual, nonassault recidivism (defined as a new charge) significantly decreased for those on the registry.
53:
may have been lowered by SORN policies, while a few have found statistically significant increase in sex crimes following SORN implementation.
1280:
474:
680:
575:
505:
the overall rate of sex crimes. It was also noted that 94.1 percent of child molestation arrests were for first-time sex offenders.
448:
26:
marks the passage of "Zachary's Law", which requires a statewide Sex Offender Registry, with Sandy Snider, mother of Zachary Snider
440:
433:
150:
1456:
Freeman, N. J. (18 May 2009). "The Public Safety Impact of Community Notification Laws: Rearrest of Convicted Sex Offenders".
172:
916:
DUWE, GRANT; DONNAY, WILLIAM (May 2008). "The Impact of Megan's Law on Sex Offender Recidivism: The Minnesota Experience".
1412:
Zevitz, Richard G. (June 2006). "Sex Offender Community Notification: Its Role in Recidivism and Offender Reintegration".
838:
Zevitz, Richard G. (June 2006). "Sex Offender Community Notification: Its Role in Recidivism and Offender Reintegration".
871:
49:
following the implementation of sex offender registration and notification (SORN) regimes. A few studies indicate that
1373:
1034:
1281:"Does a watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New York State's sex offender registration and notification law"
994:
658:
389:
1083:
42:
76:
33:(SORN) laws in the United States are widely accepted, with supporters believing that disclosing the location of
809:"The Influence of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws in the United States: A Time-Series Analysis"
268:
189:
1359:"The effectiveness of Sex Offender Registration and Notification a meta analysis of 25 years of - Studocu"
883:
779:
708:
335:
808:
1401:. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
591:
460:
90:
1174:
888:
784:
713:
165:
525:
Several state-level studies have not found evidence of a positive SORN effect. For example, in an
1303:
1233:
1129:
1012:
564:
548:
404:
432:
One research method employed to assess the effectiveness of SORN for adult sexual offenders is
1512:
1504:
1500:
1121:
1055:
Levenson, J. S. (1 February 2005). "The Effect of Megan's Law on Sex Offender Reintegration".
944:"Sex offender sentencing in Washington State: Has community notification reduced recidivism?"
463:(UCR) data from 15 states over more than 10 years. The study found evidence that police-only
1465:
1421:
1340:
1295:
1261:
1225:
1166:
1113:
1064:
925:
893:
847:
820:
789:
745:
718:
556:
501:
143:
46:
1485:
Sex Offender Sentencing in Washington State: Has Community Notification Reduced Recidivism?
407:) where community notification has indicated some effectiveness employ empirically derived
1525:
289:
563:
One study finding a positive effect examined the recidivism of 8,359 sexual offenders in
1001:. Office of Justice Programs - Sex Offender Management and Planning Initiative (SOMAPI).
998:
509:
485:
484:
Several studies have examined the impact of SORN in individual states. For example, in
112:
626:
1538:
1327:
Letourneau, E. J.; Bandyopadhyay, D.; Sinha, D.; Armstrong, K. S. (5 December 2008).
1237:
1201:
The Influence of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws in the United States
929:
749:
697:"Public Awareness and Action Resulting From Sex Offender Community Notification Laws"
696:
303:
296:
583:
408:
275:
209:
50:
34:
1198:
Walker, J.T; Maddan, S.; Vasquez, B.E.; VanHouten, A.C; Ervin-McLarty, G. (2006).
676:
1328:
657:
Some SORN laws regulate where sex offenders are permitted to live. According to
417:
1440:
1425:
1199:
1133:
1102:"Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?"
1101:
872:"Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?"
851:
793:
534:
1469:
1393:
1344:
1265:
1229:
1125:
1068:
824:
722:
571:
541:
400:
23:
1442:
Community Notification: A Study of Offender Characteristics and Recidivism
1329:"The Influence of Sex Offender Registration on Juvenile Sexual Recidivism"
1483:
1395:
Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Limited Effects in New Jersey
943:
1031:"The Registration and Community Notification of Adult Sexual Offenders"
1299:
1033:. The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. Archived from
1170:
1117:
1084:"The Pursuit of Safety: Sex Offender Policies in the United States"
897:
1488:. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. 2005.
17:
609:
Effectiveness of registration requirements for juvenile offenders
578:
conducted a study comparing differences between three groups. A
1279:
Sandler, Jeffrey C.; Freeman, Naomi J.; Socia, Kelly M. (2008).
552:
22 percent, a difference that is not statistically significant.
526:
765:"Collateral Damage: Family Members of Registered Sex Offenders"
946:. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. December 2005.
621:
807:
Vasquez, B. E.; Maddan, S.; Walker, J. T. (26 October 2007).
1445:. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
343:
Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States
638:
865:
863:
861:
763:
Levenson, Jill; Tewksbury, Richard (15 January 2009).
1204:. Little Rock, AR: Arkansas Crime Information Center.
1013:"Studies question effectiveness of sex offender laws"
329:
National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws
1381:. Des Moines, Iowa: Iowa Department of Human Rights.
870:Prescott, J.J.; Rockoff, Jonah E. (February 2011).
602:
notification, pre-notification and non-notification
235:
Effectiveness of sex offender registration policies
989:
987:
985:
983:
981:
979:
977:
975:
973:
1152:"Sex Offender Registries: Fear without Function?"
971:
969:
967:
965:
963:
961:
959:
957:
955:
953:
41:Critics argue that the statistics do not reveal
999:"Chapter 8: Sex Offender Management Strategies"
695:Anderson, A. L.; Sample, L. L. (4 April 2008).
451:in 2008, distinguishing between the effects of
397:Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers
384:Effectiveness of registration and notification
217:Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe
106:and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act
1375:The Iowa Sex Offender Registry and Recidivism
364:
8:
1545:Sex offender registries in the United States
1372:Adkins, G.; Huff, D.; Stageberg, P. (2000).
322:Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws
195:Constitutionality of sex offender registries
911:
909:
907:
738:Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy
127:International Megan's Law to Prevent Demand
1100:Prescott, J.J.; Rockoff, Jonah E. (2011).
457:community notification (public registries)
371:
357:
120:Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
55:
31:Sex offender registration and notification
887:
783:
712:
262:Julia Tuttle Causeway sex offender colony
1057:Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice
428:Interrupted time series analysis studies
104:Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children
1145:
1143:
687:
618:Effectiveness of residency restrictions
582:consisted of 155 Level 3 ("high public
409:sex offender risk assessment procedures
67:
1521:
1510:
283:Controversial designations as offender
7:
772:American Journal of Criminal Justice
547:Similar findings were reported in a
521:Studies employing a comparison group
500:Another state study taking place in
681:United States Department of Justice
576:Minnesota Department of Corrections
1288:Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
1106:The Journal of Law & Economics
679:from websites or documents of the
14:
1439:Schram, D.; Milloy, C.D. (1995).
1150:Agan, Amanda Y. (February 2011).
475:simple model of criminal behavior
449:University of Michigan Law School
930:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00114.x
750:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2007.00119.x
675: This article incorporates
670:
625:
441:University of Chicago Law School
434:interrupted time series analysis
188:
151:California Proposition 83 (2006)
89:
75:
336:Women Against Registry - W.A.R.
1392:Zgoba, K.; Bachar, K. (2009).
1333:Criminal Justice Policy Review
1254:Criminal Justice Policy Review
701:Criminal Justice Policy Review
173:Sexually violent predator laws
1:
1218:Criminal Justice and Behavior
1159:Journal of Law and Economics
1089:. VERA Institute of Justice.
876:Journal of Law and Economics
508:An analysis that focused on
453:registration (police- only)
43:a statistically significant
1561:
995:Office of Justice Programs
659:Office of Justice Programs
390:Office of Justice Programs
1426:10.1080/14786010600764567
852:10.1080/14786010600764567
794:10.1007/s12103-008-9055-x
129:for Child Sex Trafficking
1470:10.1177/0011128708330852
1414:Criminal Justice Studies
1345:10.1177/0887403408327917
1266:10.1177/0887403409353148
1230:10.1177/0093854810363569
1069:10.1177/1043986204271676
840:Criminal Justice Studies
825:10.1177/0011128707311641
744:(1): 070619081026002––.
723:10.1177/0887403408316705
59:This article is part of
45:shift in sexual offense
1458:Crime & Delinquency
813:Crime & Delinquency
203:Supreme Court decisions
68:Sex offender registries
677:public domain material
27:
461:Uniform Crime Reports
447:A study conducted in
21:
592:statistical matching
237:in the United States
197:in the United States
70:in the United States
22:Governor of Indiana
399:, the states (e.g.
166:PROTECT Act of 2003
1082:Velázquez, Trace.
590:was built using a
580:notification group
28:
1520:Missing or empty
1019:. 30 August 2011.
655:
654:
597:non-notification-
388:According to the
381:
380:
185:Constitutionality
51:sexual recidivism
1552:
1530:
1529:
1523:
1518:
1516:
1508:
1496:
1490:
1489:
1480:
1474:
1473:
1453:
1447:
1446:
1436:
1430:
1429:
1409:
1403:
1402:
1400:
1389:
1383:
1382:
1380:
1369:
1363:
1362:
1355:
1349:
1348:
1324:
1318:
1317:
1315:
1314:
1308:
1302:. Archived from
1300:10.1037/a0013881
1285:
1276:
1270:
1269:
1248:
1242:
1241:
1212:
1206:
1205:
1195:
1189:
1188:
1186:
1185:
1179:
1173:. Archived from
1156:
1147:
1138:
1137:
1097:
1091:
1090:
1088:
1079:
1073:
1072:
1052:
1046:
1045:
1043:
1042:
1027:
1021:
1020:
1009:
1003:
1002:
991:
948:
947:
940:
934:
933:
913:
902:
901:
891:
867:
856:
855:
835:
829:
828:
804:
798:
797:
787:
769:
760:
754:
753:
733:
727:
726:
716:
692:
674:
673:
650:
647:
629:
622:
588:prenotification-
565:Washington state
549:Washington state
439:A study done in
373:
366:
359:
192:
93:
79:
56:
1560:
1559:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1519:
1509:
1498:
1497:
1493:
1482:
1481:
1477:
1455:
1454:
1450:
1438:
1437:
1433:
1411:
1410:
1406:
1398:
1391:
1390:
1386:
1378:
1371:
1370:
1366:
1357:
1356:
1352:
1326:
1325:
1321:
1312:
1310:
1306:
1283:
1278:
1277:
1273:
1250:
1249:
1245:
1214:
1213:
1209:
1197:
1196:
1192:
1183:
1181:
1177:
1154:
1149:
1148:
1141:
1099:
1098:
1094:
1086:
1081:
1080:
1076:
1054:
1053:
1049:
1040:
1038:
1029:
1028:
1024:
1011:
1010:
1006:
993:
992:
951:
942:
941:
937:
915:
914:
905:
889:10.1.1.363.1170
869:
868:
859:
837:
836:
832:
806:
805:
801:
785:10.1.1.615.3651
767:
762:
761:
757:
735:
734:
730:
714:10.1.1.544.7814
694:
693:
689:
671:
667:
651:
645:
642:
635:needs expansion
620:
611:
523:
430:
386:
377:
348:
347:
317:
316:Reform activism
309:
308:
290:Genarlow Wilson
269:Miracle Village
250:
242:
241:
236:
230:
222:
221:
196:
186:
178:
177:
155:
133:
128:
105:
87:
69:
12:
11:
5:
1558:
1556:
1548:
1547:
1537:
1536:
1532:
1531:
1491:
1475:
1464:(4): 539–564.
1448:
1431:
1420:(2): 193–208.
1404:
1384:
1364:
1350:
1339:(2): 136–153.
1319:
1294:(4): 284–302.
1271:
1260:(4): 435–458.
1243:
1224:(5): 537–552.
1207:
1190:
1171:10.1086/658483
1165:(1): 207–239.
1139:
1134:10.1086/658485
1118:10.1086/658485
1112:(1): 161–206.
1092:
1074:
1047:
1022:
1004:
949:
935:
924:(2): 411–446.
903:
898:10.1086/658485
882:(1): 161–206.
857:
846:(2): 193–208.
830:
819:(2): 175–192.
799:
778:(1–2): 54–68.
755:
728:
707:(4): 371–396.
686:
685:
684:
666:
663:
653:
652:
632:
630:
619:
616:
610:
607:
555:In a study of
522:
519:
510:South Carolina
486:South Carolina
429:
426:
385:
382:
379:
378:
376:
375:
368:
361:
353:
350:
349:
346:
345:
339:
338:
332:
331:
325:
324:
318:
315:
314:
311:
310:
307:
306:
300:
299:
293:
292:
286:
285:
279:
278:
272:
271:
265:
264:
258:
257:
251:
248:
247:
244:
243:
240:
239:
231:
228:
227:
224:
223:
220:
219:
213:
212:
206:
205:
187:
184:
183:
180:
179:
176:
175:
169:
168:
162:
161:
154:
153:
147:
146:
140:
139:
132:
131:
123:
122:
116:
115:
109:
108:
100:
99:
88:
85:
84:
81:
80:
72:
71:
65:
64:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1557:
1546:
1543:
1542:
1540:
1527:
1514:
1506:
1502:
1495:
1492:
1487:
1486:
1479:
1476:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1452:
1449:
1444:
1443:
1435:
1432:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1408:
1405:
1397:
1396:
1388:
1385:
1377:
1376:
1368:
1365:
1360:
1354:
1351:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1323:
1320:
1309:on 2015-04-02
1305:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1282:
1275:
1272:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1247:
1244:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1211:
1208:
1203:
1202:
1194:
1191:
1180:on 2016-01-25
1176:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1153:
1146:
1144:
1140:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1096:
1093:
1085:
1078:
1075:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1051:
1048:
1037:on 2016-06-17
1036:
1032:
1026:
1023:
1018:
1017:Science Daily
1014:
1008:
1005:
1000:
996:
990:
988:
986:
984:
982:
980:
978:
976:
974:
972:
970:
968:
966:
964:
962:
960:
958:
956:
954:
950:
945:
939:
936:
931:
927:
923:
919:
912:
910:
908:
904:
899:
895:
890:
885:
881:
877:
873:
866:
864:
862:
858:
853:
849:
845:
841:
834:
831:
826:
822:
818:
814:
810:
803:
800:
795:
791:
786:
781:
777:
773:
766:
759:
756:
751:
747:
743:
739:
732:
729:
724:
720:
715:
710:
706:
702:
698:
691:
688:
682:
678:
669:
668:
664:
662:
660:
649:
640:
636:
633:This section
631:
628:
624:
623:
617:
615:
608:
606:
603:
598:
593:
589:
585:
581:
577:
573:
568:
566:
561:
558:
553:
550:
545:
543:
538:
536:
531:
528:
520:
518:
514:
511:
506:
503:
498:
495:
489:
487:
482:
478:
476:
471:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
445:
442:
437:
435:
427:
425:
421:
419:
413:
410:
406:
402:
398:
395:According to
393:
391:
383:
374:
369:
367:
362:
360:
355:
354:
352:
351:
344:
341:
340:
337:
334:
333:
330:
327:
326:
323:
320:
319:
313:
312:
305:
304:Kevin Gillson
302:
301:
298:
297:Janet Allison
295:
294:
291:
288:
287:
284:
281:
280:
277:
274:
273:
270:
267:
266:
263:
260:
259:
256:
253:
252:
249:Social issues
246:
245:
238:
233:
232:
229:Effectiveness
226:
225:
218:
215:
214:
211:
208:
207:
204:
201:
200:
199:
198:
191:
182:
181:
174:
171:
170:
167:
164:
163:
160:
157:
156:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:Jessica's Law
142:
141:
138:
135:
134:
130:
125:
124:
121:
118:
117:
114:
111:
110:
107:
102:
101:
98:
95:
94:
92:
83:
82:
78:
74:
73:
66:
62:
58:
57:
54:
52:
48:
44:
39:
36:
35:sex offenders
32:
25:
20:
16:
1494:
1484:
1478:
1461:
1457:
1451:
1441:
1434:
1417:
1413:
1407:
1394:
1387:
1374:
1367:
1353:
1336:
1332:
1322:
1311:. Retrieved
1304:the original
1291:
1287:
1274:
1257:
1253:
1246:
1221:
1217:
1210:
1200:
1193:
1182:. Retrieved
1175:the original
1162:
1158:
1109:
1105:
1095:
1077:
1063:(1): 49–66.
1060:
1056:
1050:
1039:. Retrieved
1035:the original
1025:
1016:
1007:
938:
921:
917:
879:
875:
843:
839:
833:
816:
812:
802:
775:
771:
758:
741:
737:
731:
704:
700:
690:
656:
643:
639:adding to it
634:
612:
601:
596:
587:
579:
569:
562:
554:
546:
539:
532:
524:
515:
507:
499:
493:
490:
483:
479:
470:notification
469:
465:registration
464:
456:
452:
446:
438:
431:
422:
418:sex offenses
414:
394:
387:
282:
276:Pervert Park
255:Homelessness
254:
234:
210:Smith v. Doe
202:
193:
158:
136:
96:
40:
29:
15:
918:Criminology
646:August 2023
459:, analyzed
113:Megan's Law
86:Legislation
1522:|url=
1313:2016-01-09
1184:2016-01-09
1041:2016-01-09
665:References
535:New Jersey
405:Washington
1238:144913847
1126:0022-2186
884:CiteSeerX
780:CiteSeerX
709:CiteSeerX
572:Minnesota
542:Wisconsin
401:Minnesota
24:Evan Bayh
1539:Category
1513:cite web
997:(2012).
557:New York
502:New York
61:a series
1505:1710745
494:did not
97:Federal
1503:
1236:
1132:
1124:
886:
782:
711:
63:on the
47:trends
1399:(PDF)
1379:(PDF)
1307:(PDF)
1284:(PDF)
1234:S2CID
1178:(PDF)
1155:(PDF)
1130:JSTOR
1087:(PDF)
768:(PDF)
159:Other
137:State
1526:help
1501:SSRN
1122:ISSN
584:risk
527:Iowa
455:and
1466:doi
1422:doi
1341:doi
1296:doi
1262:doi
1226:doi
1167:doi
1114:doi
1065:doi
926:doi
894:doi
848:doi
821:doi
790:doi
746:doi
719:doi
641:.
570:In
540:In
533:In
1541::
1517::
1515:}}
1511:{{
1462:58
1460:.
1418:19
1416:.
1337:20
1335:.
1331:.
1292:14
1290:.
1286:.
1258:21
1256:.
1232:.
1222:37
1220:.
1163:54
1161:.
1157:.
1142:^
1128:.
1120:.
1110:54
1108:.
1104:.
1061:21
1059:.
1015:.
952:^
922:46
920:.
906:^
892:.
880:54
878:.
874:.
860:^
844:19
842:.
817:54
815:.
811:.
788:.
776:34
774:.
770:.
740:.
717:.
705:19
703:.
699:.
403:,
1528:)
1524:(
1507:.
1472:.
1468::
1428:.
1424::
1361:.
1347:.
1343::
1316:.
1298::
1268:.
1264::
1240:.
1228::
1187:.
1169::
1136:.
1116::
1071:.
1067::
1044:.
932:.
928::
900:.
896::
854:.
850::
827:.
823::
796:.
792::
752:.
748::
742:7
725:.
721::
683:.
648:)
644:(
595:-
372:e
365:t
358:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
