CENTER FOR SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
The Effective Management of Juvenile Sex Offenders in the Community
A Training Curriculum

 A Project of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice

 

Search:  

Section 7: The Legal and Legislative Response
1 Hour, 30 Minutes

TOPIC: THE LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE

Part III: How Registration and Community Notification Laws Apply to Juvenile Offenders

Note to Trainers: In August 2006, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (HR 4472) was signed into law. The Act establishes a comprehensive national system for the registration of sex offenders, including juvenile offenders 14 years of age or older whose offense (or attempted offense) was comparable to or more severe than aggravated sexual abuse. The Act contains several provisions related to the type of information that can be disclosed about the offender, the duration of registration requirements, the extent of community notification, and other issues. States have three years from the passage of the Act to comply with its requirements. Trainers are strongly encouraged to educate themselves about the specifics of the Act and how their state is responding to the mandates it has set forth. Additional information about the Act can be found at http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/AdamWalshAct.pdf

Although every state enacted or modified legislation about registration and notification for adults, not all of the states spoke to the applicability of these laws to juveniles. Some were completely silent on the issue. Others implied an adult–only scope of these laws by the specific language used in the statutes, and of course, some states very clearly referenced juveniles under the umbrella of these laws.

Some have theorized that these laws were applied to juveniles because of a belief that youth who offend sexually will go on to become adult sex offenders; this belief may be driven in part because a percentage of adult sex offenders report that they began offending as youth.¹⁵ However, current research indicates that most youth do not continue perpetrating sexual abuse as adults.¹⁶ Indeed, in some states, this data was among the reasons that juveniles were not included in their legislation. And in other states, this data has led to reconsideration about whether all juveniles should be subjected to the stigmatization of long–term or lifetime registration and community notification. Given what they have learned about these youth, some state legislatures have already modified their states’ approaches to juvenile sex offender registration and notification in an effort to balance the interests of public safety and the rehabilitation of the youthful offender.

On the whole, however, there remains a tremendous amount of variation in how states have implemented registration and notification policies for juveniles. The following section provides an overview of current practice in a number of states and notes a number of concerns associated with the broad application of these practices to juvenile sex offenders.

Concerns About the Broad Application of Registration and Community Notification Laws to Juvenile Sex Offenders

As I mentioned a moment ago, a number of concerns have been raised about automatically applying registration and notification practices to youth in the same manner that these laws have been applied to adult sex offenders.¹⁷ Earlier in this training, we discussed the unique developmental and other considerations that set youthful sex offenders apart from their adult counterparts, including their amenability to treatment and their already low rates of recidivism. Because of these specific differences, the rationale for these laws for these youth and the likelihood that they will have the desired effect are less evident.

Some of the additional concerns that have been raised by experts include:

• Some states do not differentiate which offenses trigger registration and notification requirements for juvenile offenders. In other words, even offenses that would not be considered “serious” could trigger registration and notification for a juvenile offender. In some states, this can mean that a juvenile was required to register for life for any sexual offense. For example, a youthful offender’s behavior—such as intercourse between a 16 year old male and his 14 year old girlfriend—may be statutorily illegal, even if both parties agree. This scenario, of course, is not typical of adults with a similar age difference, but may be enough in some states to trigger registration and notification for juveniles. This can also be problematic in light of the fact that the age of the victim is a common element on risk assessment instruments that determine the extent of community notification that will be conducted.¹⁸ As a result, the offense described above could trigger lengthy registration and/or widespread notification for the 16 year old offender.
• Juveniles may be subject to the same notification and registration requirements as adults, but are not always afforded the same procedural safeguards as their adult counterparts. While some states treat juvenile sex offenders in the same way as adults when it comes to registration and notification, they do not always have the same legal protections (including the right to a jury trial, bail rights, and protection from pre–indictment detention) as their adult counterparts.¹⁹ These procedural safeguards are essential; especially as the consequences of a juvenile’s behavior can mean that they may have to register or be subject to community notification for the rest of their lives.
• Juvenile sex offenses may be underreported or not adjudicated as sex crimes in order to avoid triggering registration and notification requirements. Some have theorized that sexual offenses perpetrated by youth may be diverted out of the juvenile courts or that juvenile sex offenders might be charged with lesser, non–sexual offenses in an effort to avoid the imposition of notification and registration requirements on youthful offenders.²⁰ This practice is problematic, in that when a youth pleads to a lesser offense, it may preclude him from accessing specialized sex offender treatment. If technically there is no “sex crime” then there may be no compelling reason to order sex offender specific treatment.²¹ On the other hand, juveniles who go to trial and are convicted of a more serious offense—even if it is their first offense—may end up in a correctional setting when a community–based or less restrictive and more treatment oriented setting would have been more appropriate.²² We have already heard how placing juveniles in a more punitive or correctional setting can negatively impact them when it is not warranted.
• Registration and notification processes are resource intensive and are sometimes applied without consideration for offenders’ risk levels. An assessment of an offender’s risk may not always play a role in the length and extent to which juveniles are subject to registration and notification. For low risk youthful offenders, or for juveniles overall, long–term or lifetime registration and notification may not be necessary or the best use of scarce law enforcement resources.
• There is an absence of research on the efficacy of registration and notification laws as they relate to juvenile sex offenders. Very little research has been conducted to explore the relationship between recidivism rates and registration and/or community notification; and what little has been done has focused on adult sex offenders and has not demonstrated a causal link between these laws and a decrease in recidivism.²³ Further, no controlled research at all has been carried out to assess the effectiveness of juvenile sex offender registration and notification practices. In the absence of research that shows that the potential costs are outweighed by the benefits, some have suggested that these laws should be used cautiously and sparingly with juveniles.²⁴
• The “labeling” effect these laws can have on a youthful offender can be detrimental. Because of the public attention that is drawn to offenders subject to registration and notification, juvenile sex offenders may become unduly stigmatized as a result. Such stigmatization may lead to isolation and rejection from peers, family, and other community members; effectively reducing some of the very support systems that could be helpful to the youth in his efforts to reintegrate successfully back into the community.²⁵ Several experts have noted that the potential exists for community notification practices in particular to have more risks and detrimental effects on juvenile offenders, their families, victims, and victims’ families than potential benefits for the public.²⁶ The negative consequences of notification and registration can include vigilantism and harassment that can compromise a juvenile’s ability to secure employment,²⁷ remain in school,²⁸ or for their families to secure or maintain housing,²⁹ all of which can contribute to the offender’s likelihood to reoffend.³⁰ Indeed, as you heard earlier, these are among the very kinds of issues that are targeted in treatment because they are related to outcomes. Additionally, if juvenile offenders are unable to return home for any reason (e.g., prior or potential victims live in the home), public registration and notification could hamper their efforts to secure independent housing.

One study about the implications of registration laws on juvenile sex offenders supports these concerns; noting that “registration statutes…harm youth more than they provide safety to the community.”³¹ Again, concerns about the potential for collateral consequences—as well as a growing appreciation for the contemporary literature about youthful sex offenders—have prompted some states to develop specialized approaches to registration and notification for juvenile offenders. We will discuss some of those approaches later in this section.