The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) recently published recommendations that registry laws be based on current research. The registry community is rightly excited to hear that because we know that the data are on our side: the registry makes no one safer. We know that the incidence of sexual offenses has neither stopped nor slowed since the introduction of publishing registries online.
Under Conclusions and Recommendations, ATSA tells us what we already know:
The research to date on SORN has not identified significant reductions in the incidence of sexual abuse or sexual offense recidivism as a result of this policy. This fact leads to the conclusion that SORN, as currently implemented within the United States, does not achieve the intended goals of preventing sexual abuse, protecting society, or effectively managing the risk of individuals convicted of sexual crimes. Current practices additionally have numerous unintended consequences which actually potentially increase, rather than decrease, risk factors for individuals required to register. If the goals of these laws are the prevention of sexual abuse and reducing recidivism risk, meaningful legislative reforms will be required.
If ATSA is paying attention to current research, that has to be good. If only they had stopped there but ATSA continues:
Based upon current knowledge and research, ATSA offers the following recommendations for evidence-based registration reforms:
• Discontinue one-size-fits all approaches for the registration and notification of individuals convicted of sexual crimes;
• Individualize registration and notification requirements based upon empirically validated risk assessment tools and similar methods;
They are correct that one size fits all is not a good approach. Swapping that practice for individual assessments, though, is going to open the door to peddlers of assessment tools and to law enforcement adopting a single assessment tool to evaluate all registrants. Assessments will be used to put people on the registry, not to release them. Am I jumping to conclusions here? Yes, but prove me wrong. In states that use individual assessments, how many people are released from the registry based on those assessments?
• Develop avenues and criteria for relief from registration which incorporates the desistance literature and recognizes the importance of treatment and supervision interventions for reducing recidivism risk, facilitating desistance and strengthening protective factors;
ATSA notes that housing, employment, and relationships all help with desistance. So why is ATSA not recommending that sex offense registries--the reason registrants have trouble finding housing, employment and building relationships--be ended altogether?
• Limit public community notification practices to the highest risk registrants, decrease broad-based dissemination of registrant information and/or re-establish law enforcement only registration practices coupled with allowing public inquiry about specific individuals;
How do we identify the highest risk registrants? The study used in the ATSA document used the Static 99R to pick them out. This is the same Static 99R that has come under heavy criticism for inadequacies in predicting future risk of an individual and for scoring that doesn't reflect how a person has changed, among other concerns. No matter which assessment tool is used, there is a risk in getting it wrong. When getting it wrong affects a person's liberty interest--will he be stuck on the registry for 15 years or for life?--an inadequate assessment tool cannot be trusted.
• Remove adjunct policies, such as residence restrictions, from SORN laws as they do not work and are one of the primary drivers for legal challenges. Adjunct policies also undermine protective factors and create unnecessary barriers for community reintegration;
If only the rest of the recommendations were so clearly spoken, right? But if residence restrictions create unnecessary barriers for community reintegration, what does ATSA think the registry itself does? Is there such a thing as necessary barriers to reentry?
• Recognize that a national one-size-fits all approach to SORN laws does not work within the U.S. and allow states to make adjustments to their registries based on individual needs without incurring any financial penalty;
This is a solid recommendation.
• Utilize registration as part of a larger management scheme for adults convicted of sexual crimes, with greater collaboration and focus on rehabilitative and reintegration efforts;
And we're back to looking at this group of people--those convicted of sex crimes--as people who need management. The group with a very low rate of re-offense is not a group that needs management.
• Enhance SORN information for law enforcement purposes, including steps to ensure the accuracy of the information and strengthening tracking of registrants moving between jurisdictions; and
Why? Does research show that registrants who move between jurisdictions commit more sex offenses? Ensuring the accuracy of information on a registry will not make it better. If ensuring accuracy means more people are arrested for registry violations, that is not an improvement.
• Strengthen partnerships between law enforcement and sexual offense specific management professionals, including treatment professionals.
Treatment professionals who have strong partnerships with law enforcement are likely to find themselves distrusted by the very group they hope to...to what? What does ATSA hope for?
Does it want to keep registrants coming back for therapy? Good therapy would be the answer for that, not keeping registrants subject to a regime that mandates therapy provided by therapists (ATSA members?) answerable to probation or parole instead of to the registrants themselves.
Does ATSA want to keep registrants under the thumb of law enforcement even though re-offense rates are very low? The registry keeps registrants vulnerable to arrest for violating laws that apply only to those on the registry. Does ATSA hope that more registrants will return to prison for forgetting to notify law enforcement that, for example, they bought or sold a car?
Does it want to keep that group under the thumb of law enforcement even though re-offense rates are very low and were very low even before we had registries?
Remember that ATSA said,
The research to date on SORN has not identified significant reductions in the incidence of sexual abuse or sexual offense recidivism as a result of this policy. This fact leads to the conclusion that SORN, as currently implemented within the United States, does not achieve the intended goals of preventing sexual abuse, protecting society, or effectively managing the risk of individuals convicted of sexual crimes. Current practices additionally have numerous unintended consequences which actually potentially increase, rather than decrease, risk factors for individuals required to register. If the goals of these laws are the prevention of sexual abuse and reducing recidivism risk, meaningful legislative reforms will be required.
...and yet ATSA wants to keep the registry in place. Why?
ATSA needs courage to do what it recommends: Heed the current research. Keeping the registry in place is not meaningful legislative reform.
Abolish the registry.
In 2013, I wrote about protecting the integrity of psychiatry.
