Juvenile Offenders and Sex Offender Registries: Examining the Data Behind the Debate

SEXUAL OFFENDERS WHO commit further crimes have been a cause of fear among the public for some time. In an attempt to lessen the numbers of them who recommit crime, in 1996 the federal government implemented a law that required sex offenders to register with a local law enforcement agency and also required that the registry be made public. The stated intent for offender registration was to deter sexual offending, punish and incapacitate sex offenders, provide law enforcement officials with an information tracking tool, and to increase the safety of the public (Farkas, 2002). The law, commonly known as Megan’s Law, is quite popular with the public (Proctor, Badzinski & Johnson, 2002; Phillips, 1998). One survey in Washington State found that more than 8 out of 10 respondents ranked the law as “very important” (Phillips, 1998). Even though the law is strongly backed by the general public, there is a debate about whether juveniles who commit sex offenses should be required to register and whether that information should be made public.

Data regarding adult sex offenders indicates that, among sex offenders who have been released from prison, 43 percent were rearrested for another crime and 5.3 percent of them were arrested for another sex crime within three years after their release (Langan, Schmitt & Durose, 2003). In a meta-analysis of research on sexual recidivism, also among adult offenders, Hanson and Bussiere discovered that 13 percent of convicted sexual perpetrators offended again within four to five years (1998). That percentage dropped only one percentage point when investigating recidivism of sexual assault offenders who targeted children (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998). Research by Lisak and Miller (2002) showed that 120 adult individuals were responsible for a total of 1,225 acts of interpersonal violence, defined as rape, battery, child physical abuse, and child sexual abuse. This translated into an average of 5.8 assaults per offender that were not reported to law enforcement officials (Lisak & Miller, 2002).

The characteristics of the crimes and the victims are varied for both adult and juvenile sex offenders. Half of child molesters were more than 20 years older than their victims and most of their victims were under the age of 13 (Langan, Schmitt & Durose, 2003). The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) illustrated that, of those people who were raped by a single offender, 10.8 percent of victims said the offender was under the age of 18 (Greenfeld, 1997). In a review of studies about juvenile sex offenders, researchers summarized that juvenile sex offenders are more likely to target victims much younger than themselves as compared to peers, and their victims tend to be female (Rightland & Welch, 2001). Moreover, 40 percent of those juvenile perpetrators abused victims under the age of six (Snyder, 2000). In a comparison between male and female juvenile offenders, it was found that, compared to males, females were more likely to target victims of the same sex (Vandiver & Teske, 2006). It should be noted, however, that sex crimes committed by juveniles are small in number. Stahl (2001) estimates that less than one percent of the cases in juvenile court are for forcible rape or other violent sex offenses. Additionally, the FBI reported that those under age 18 accounted for 16.2 percent of the forcible rape arrests in the United States in 2004. One should remember that these statistics are only applicable to those who were caught sexually offending.

In the debate over how to handle juvenile sex offender registration, some scholars have invoked the history of the juvenile justice system. In a summary of its foundation, Greenwood (2002) wrote that the juvenile justice system was intended to reflect the best interests of the child. Unlike criminal courts for adults, the juvenile court system was designed to give treatment and guidance for the young offender, rather than punishment (Greenwood, 2002). What are the implications of this regarding the registration of juveniles as sex offenders under Megan’s Law? Zimring argues in his book American Travesty: Legal Responses to Juvenile Sex Offending (2004) that the juvenile court system has typically been set up to protect juvenile offenders and do what is best for them; however, having juveniles register as sex offenders contradicts that goal. Trivits and Reppucci (2002) share Zimring’s concern, arguing that states requiring juveniles to register as sex offenders lose sight of the original intention of the juvenile justice system, because the goal of the registry is not to rehabilitate the offender, but rather to provide a sense of safety to the community. Furthermore, Letourneau and Miner (2005) hypothesize that applying sex offender policies such as registration and community notification to juveniles may cause adverse consequences for them. Registries may increase the likelihood of future offending by increasing the social isolation of offenders, a factor highly correlated with re-offending (Gutierrez-Lobos et al., 2001). Zimring (2004) does not deny that serious juvenile offenders need to be adjudicated through the juvenile court system, but he appears doubtful that registries are an effective deterrent, even among serious juvenile offenders. Zimring (2004) calls for informed research on this topic when he wrote, “there have been no extensive efforts to compare the characteristics and motivations of adolescent sex offenders with different types of adult offenders” (p. 55).

While this study does not measure motivation, it does purport to compare juvenile and adult sex offenders who are required to register as sex offenders under Texas state law. This descriptive study is intended to discover if there are significant differences between juvenile and adult offenders on a sex offender registry. It is hypothesized that there should be no difference between registered juvenile and adult offenders in terms of offender race and sex, crime committed, or risk level assigned by the state. One may expect to find differences with victim sex, as previous research has shown that juvenile offenders have a higher proportion of male victims as compared to adults (Aljazireh, 1993; Davis & Letienberg, 1987) and the average age of the victim, with juveniles hypothesized to be more likely to have younger victims. Moreover, it is expected that the age differential will be smaller between juvenile offenders and their victims, due to the juvenile offenders’ smaller age range. ..more.. by Sarah W. Craun (University of Tennessee, College of Social Work), and Poco D. Kernsmith (Wayne State University, School of Social Work)