By Andy Hicks, MS CADC
While selecting a topic for the thesis to complete her Master of Social Work degree at Spring Arbor University, one might not imagine Christina Hamman choosing to focus on the sex offender registry and related notification laws. Ms. Hamman spent fifteen years of her life working with groups to prevent and end human trafficking. Yet, when looking for an area to focus her studies, she could not silence an itching question about sex offender registries: “If the goal is rehabilitation, why were the registries created?” Born from that question is Ms. Hamman’s thesis, “An Analysis of Sex Offender Policy in the United States: Their Failings and the Improvements to be Made.”
Ms. Hamman posits that current registry and notification laws were driven primarily by two factors. The first was states’ desires to comply with federal stipulations on shared revenue, and the second was to provide the public with a sense of safety. Subsequently, states applied registration and public notification laws to those convicted of sex offenses, perceptibly creating a feeling of enhanced safety without evidence to suggest the registries were efficacious in reducing sexual violence. In her review of the evidence, Ms. Hamman did not find any substantial benefits of registries, and went on to make a series of proposals and recommendations for policymakers and those who work mostly closely with people on the registry.
Some specific suggestions she has for policy changes include removing public notifications related to those on the registry and limiting notifications to only the victim(s) of the offense(s) for any given person on the registry. She suggests reinvesting the money saved in this process on rehabilitation programs for those who have abused. Additionally, she suggests excluding juveniles and those who commit low level offenses from placement on the registry. She further suggests decluttering the registry by removing most juveniles currently on the registry as well as those at lower risk to re-offend, reserving the registry for those who pose a more substantial risk.
Ms. Hamman argues that policymakers and legislators have a responsibility to inform the public about the ineffectiveness of the registry and notifications while working to narrow registry requirements. For practitioners, Ms. Hamman takes a social justice perspective, advising providers who treat sexual abusers to “get involved” in policy reform and advocacy. “If you gain knowledge that it’s not working,” says Ms. Hamman of the registries and notification laws, “it’s a disservice not to advocate for change.”
Ms. Hamman encourages probation and parole agents not to abandon their authoritative position or responsibility for public safety, but also to increase understanding of the challenges faced by those on the registry. She underscores the importance of agents considering the environment created by registries, and how registries often inhibit, rather than facilitate, effective reintegration and rehabilitation.
Ms. Hamman asks those in the general population to challenge the assumption that sex offender registries work to reduce sexual violence. She suggests that those who understand the limitations of the current registry system address the dysphemism that all those on the registry are “monsters or lepers,” which can serve to embolden those with vigilante mindsets. Sex offender registries were created mostly, Ms. Hamman notes, in response to high-profile, single-victim events not representative of problematic trends. The laws, along with their respective amendments, resulted in an increase in homelessness and unemployment and other conditions that may serve as aggravating factors for former abusers trying to live offense-free. In the interest of increasing actual safety rather than a mirage of security, Ms. Hamman makes the case that reforming existing registry and notification laws is a must.