Police officer perspectives on the implementation of a sex offender community notification scheme
| Author | Andrew Day,Laura Whitting,Martine Powell |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461355716668539 |
| Published date | 01 December 2016 |
| Date | 01 December 2016 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
International Journal of
Police Science & Management
Police officer perspectives on the
2016, Vol. 18(4) 261–272
ª The Author(s) 2016
implementation of a sex offender
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
community notification scheme
DOI: 10.1177/1461355716668539
psm.sagepub.com
Laura Whitting
School of Psychology, Deakin University, Australia
Andrew Day
School of Psychology, Deakin University, Australia
Martine Powell
School of Psychology, Deakin University, Australia
Abstract
Community notification statutes, popularly known as ‘Megan’s Law’, were passed in rapid succession throughout the
United States following the enactment of landmark legislation in the state of Washington in 1990. Calls for the adoption of
similar legislation in Australia gained momentum following the introduction of ‘limited disclosure’ schemes in the United
Kingdom and, in 2012, one Australian state introduced a limited form of community notification. This study presents an
analysis of in-depth interviews with specialist police officers (N¼21) who are responsible for coordinating the ongoing
management, registration and monitoring of sex offenders who live in the community in this jurisdiction to understand
their perspectives on the scheme’s implementation. Systematic thematic analysis revealed that the officers were
particularly interested in understanding the impact that notification has on offenders, victims and the broader
community, and the police agency. The practice-based wisdom distilled from these interviews is used to inform a
discussion about the more widespread implementation of this type of public policy both in Australia and in other
countries that may be giving this consideration.
Keywords
Sex* offend*, community notification, public notification, notification, community disclosure, public disclosure, public sex
offender register, Megan’s Law, Sarah’s Law, Daniel’s Law
Submitted 22 Jun 2016, Revise received 15 Aug 2016, accepted 19 Aug 2016
Community notification statutes, popularly known as
Petrunik, 2003; Small, 1999; Thomas, 2011; Thompson
‘Megan’s Law’, were passed in rapid succession through-
and Greek, 2010). The form that notification takes varies
out the United States (USA) following the enactment of
from state to state (e.g. door-knocking, community meet-
landmark legislation in the state of Washington in 1990
ings, posters, flyers, social media; see Harris et al., 2015),
(Lasher and McGrath, 2012; Petrunik, 2003; Thomas,
but federal legislation mandates that all states must
2011)1. By 1996, when the federal government enacted
legislation mandating community notification, a majority
of states had already adopted this policy (Matson, 1996;
Corresponding author:
Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 1996); often
Laura Whitting, School of Psychology, Deakin University (Burwood
in response to public outcry in the wake of highly publi-
Campus), 221 Burwood Hwy, Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia.
cised sex offences against children (Levenson, 2003;
Email: l.whitting@deakin.edu.au
262
International Journal of Police Science & Management 18(4)
maintain a publicly accessible online sex offender register
deterrent effects by modelling mathematical equations and
(see Thomas, 2011). The information that is published gen-
testing their fit against aggregated arrest data for 15 U.S.
erally includes the offender’s name, date of birth, gender,
states. The authors tentatively concluded that the introduc-
address, past convictions, a physical description and photo-
tion of community notification had led to a decrease in the
graph, and may also include his or her driver’s licence
arrest rate for first-time offenders (i.e. those without any
number, a description of his or her motor vehicle including
prior convictions for sex offences), although this was offset
licence plate number, his or her place of employment, his or
by an increase in the arrest rate for repeat offenders. This
her victim’s gender and age, and risk rating (see Ackerman
finding led Prescott and Rockoff to hypothesise that there is
et al., 2011 for a descriptive analysis of the content of state-
a trade-off between general and specific deterrence; how-
based online public sex offender registries).
ever, they were unable to test this hypothesis systematically
When these laws first came into effect, generally only
due to the limitations of the available data.
those convicted of more serious sex offences against chil-
At the same time, evidence has emerged that commu-
dren were affected. The scope of these laws has, however,
nity notification can have collateral consequences that
expanded over time and the relevant criteria have come to
jeopardise offenders’ successful reintegration and rehabi-
include a wider range of offences, with some states now
litation (Edwards and Hensley, 2001; Lasher and
publishing the details of all adults – and in some cases
McGrath, 2012; Whitting et al., 2014). Surveys of offen-
juveniles – who have been convicted of a sex offence of
ders subject to notification reveal that harassment, threats
any kind (Appelbaum, 2008; Thompson and Greek, 2010).
and property damage are commonplace, which contri-
This is despite evidence that community notification may
butes to heightened psychological distress (Levenson and
not reduce rates of sexual offending. Drake and Aos’
Cotter, 2005; Levenson, D’Amora and Hern, 2007;
(2009) meta-analysis of the impact of the passage of sex
Tewksbury, 2005; Zevitz and Farkas, 2000b). Offenders
offender registration and notification laws on crime rates in
also commonly report that they experience the loss of
the USA, for example, concluded that they did not lead to
social supports, housing and employment as a result of
statistically significant reductions in recidivism. However,
notification (Levenson and Cotter, 2005; Levenson,
they cautioned that the evidence upon which this conclu-
D’Amora and Hern, 2007; Tewksbury, 2005; Zevitz and
sion was drawn was limited (the seven studies which were
Farkas, 2000b). This is significant given the well-
judged to be of sufficient rigour to be included reported
established correlation between each of these factors and
conflicting findings and three had small sample sizes).
recidivism (Hanson and Harris, 2000; Hanson and
Drake and Aos were also unable to separate the indepen-
Morton-Bourgon, 2005; Hanson et al., 2007). Further-
dent effects of registration and notification. A subsequent
more, it has been suggested that community notification
systematic review of the literature by Socia and Stamatel
can hinder effective risk management by driving offen-
(2010), however, lends weight to the general conclusion
ders underground (see Chan et al., 2010; Hudson, 2005;
of Drake and Aos; namely that the introduction of com-
Logan, 2011; Petrunik, 2003; Wood and Kemshall, 2007).
munity notification in the USA has had no demonstrable
Despite the lack of robust evidence supporting the effec-
effect on recidivism.
tiveness of these laws, they enjoy widespread support in the
Fewer studies still have investigated whether commu-
USA. Surveys of the public have generally found a high
nity notification deters those who have never been con-
level of endorsement for community notification policies
victed of a sex offence. Although some (e.g. Letourneau
(Anderson and Sample, 2008; Harris and Socia, 2014;
et al., 2010) have found evidence of a general deterrent
Katz-Schiavone and Jeglic, 2009; Levenson, Brannon
effect, others (e.g. Sandler et al., 2008) have not. None-
et al., 2007; Lieb and Nunlist, 2008; Phillips, 1998)2. Fewer
theless, the results of a larger-scale multistate study by
studies have examined the views of professional stake-
Va´squez et al. (2008) are informative. These authors con-
holders. This small but growing body of research indicates
ducted interrupted time series analysis in order to deter-
that criminal justice professionals are generally the most
mine whether registration and notification laws had an
supportive, with Levenson et al. (2010), for example,
impact on the incidence of rape in 10 U.S. states. No clear
reporting that they were significantly more likely than other
trends emerged from their analysis, with six states showing
professionals who worked with offenders (most of whom
no significant change, three states showing a significant
had a background in mental health) to agree with the noti-
decline and one state showing a significant increase in the
fication laws in their state and to believe that all sex offen-
rate of rape. Va´squez et al. (2008) concluded that these
ders should be subject to notification. Interestingly, the
laws had not had a uniform observable influence on rates
majority of the criminal justice professionals surveyed indi-
of sexual offending.
cated that they would support sex offender policies even if
A more recent large-scale multistate study by Prescott
there was no scientific evidence showing they reduce child
and Rockoff (2011) examined both specific and general
sexual abuse.
Whitting et al.
263
Tewksbury and colleagues have drawn similar conclu-
out across England and Wales (Kemshall and Weaver,
sions based on the findings of a programme of research
2012). Shortly thereafter, Scotland introduced a similar
investigating the views of law enforcement officials
scheme following its own pilot (Kemshall and Weaver,
(Tewksbury and Mustaine, 2013), probation and parole
2012).
officers (Tewksbury et al., 2011), prison wardens...
To continue reading
Request your trial