This article presents a literature review of the empirical evaluations of sex offender registration and community notification policy, commonly known as Megan’s Law. A background of the social problem that stimulated the policy formation of Megan’s Law is provided. Literature searches presented 12 empirical evaluations on different aspects of Megan’s Law. These evaluations focused on stakeholder, client-centered, goal-oriented, and process evaluations. Many sex offenders found some value to Megan’s Law in both deterring future abuse and when DNA collection was used in reducing false accusations. Implementation of this policy varied both within states and between states. Community members generally support the policy’s concept. Goal-oriented evaluations are not supportive of the policy’s effectiveness. Suggestions for future evaluative research on this policy are given.
Bonilla, D. M., & Woodson, J. L. (2003, February 14). Continuing debate over Megan’s law; some question whether sex offender lists curb crime. The state statue is set to expire next year. The Los Angeles Times, p. B2.
2.
California Office of the Attorney General. (2002). California sex offender information: Megan’s Law. Retrieved May 28, 2003, from http://caag.state.ca.us/megan/pdf/ca_sexoff_0702.pdf
3.
Connecticut Department of Public Safety v.Doe, (01-1231) 271 F.3d38, reversed (2003).
4.
Edwards, W., & Hensley, C. (2001). Contextualizing sex offender management legislation and policy: Evaluating the problem of latent consequences in community notification laws. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45, 83-101.
5.
Elbogen, E. B., Patry, M., & Scalora, M. J. (2003). The impact of community notification laws on sex offender treatment attitudes. International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, 26(2), 207-219.
6.
Firestone, P., Bradford, J. M, McCoy, M., Greenberg, D. M., LaRose, M. R., & Curry, S. (1999). Predication of recidivism in incest offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 511-531.
7.
Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual victimization of college women (NCJ #182369). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
8.
Greenfield, L. (1997). Sex offenses and offenders: An analysis of data on rape and sexual assault (NCJ #163392). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
9.
Hanson, R. K. (2002). Recidivism and age: Follow-up data from 4,673 sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 1046-1062.
10.
Hanson, R. K., & Bussiere, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348-362.
11.
Jones, L., & Finkelhor, D. (2001). The decline in child sexual abuse cases (NCJ #184741). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
12.
Langan, P. A., & Wolf Harlow, C. (1994). Child rape victims, 1992 (NCJ #147001). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
13.
Lisak, D., & Miller, P. M. (2002). Repeat rape and multiple offending among undetected rapists. Violence and Victims, 17, 73-84.
14.
Malesky, A., & Keim, J. (2001). Mental health professionals’ perspectives on sex offender registry web sites. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 13(1), 53-63.
15.
Matson, S., & Lieb, R. (1996). Community notification in Washington state: 1996 survey of law enforcement. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved May 23, 2003, from http://www.wa.gov/wsipp/crime/cprot.html
16.
Megan’s Law, H.R.2137 (1996).
17.
Office of the Attorney General. (1999). Megan’s Law: Final guidelines for the Jacob Wetterling crimes against children and sexually violent offender registration act (NCJ#98-33377). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
18.
Petrosino, A. J., & Petrosino, C. (1999). The public safety potential of Megan’s Law in Massachusetts: An assessment from a sample of criminal sexual psychopaths. Crime & Delinquency, 45(1), 140-158.
19.
Phillips, D. M. (1998). Community notification as viewed by Washington’s citizens. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved May 23, 2003, from http://www.wa.gov/wsipp/crime/cprot.html
20.
Redlich, A. D. (2001). Community notification: Perceptions of its effectiveness in preventing child sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 10, 91-116.
21.
Rennison, C. M. (2002a). Criminal victimization 2001; changes 2000-01 with trends 1993- 2001 (NCJ #194610). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
22.
Rennison, C. M. (2002b). Rape and sexual assault: Reporting to police and medical attention, 1992-2000 (NCJ #194530). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
23.
Schram, D. D., & Darling Milloy, C. (1995). Community notification: A study of offender characteristics and recidivism. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved May 23, 2003, from http://www.wa.gov/wsipp/crime/cprot.html
24.
Smith v. Doe, (01-729) 259 F.3d 979, reversed & remanded (2003).
25.
Tewksbury, R. (2002). Validity and utility of the Kentucky sex offender registry. Federal Probation, 66(1), 21-26.
26.
Vedung, E. (1997). Public policy and program evaluation. New Brunswick, CT: Transaction Publishers.
27.
Younglove, J. A., & Vitello, C. J. (2003). Community notification provisions of “Megan’s Law” from a therapeutic jurisprudence perspective: A case study. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 21(1), 25-38.
28.
Zevitz, R. G., & Farkas, M. A. (2000a). Sex offender community notification: Examining the importance of neighborhood meetings. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 18(2/3), 393-408.
29.
Zevitz, R. G., & Farkas, M. A. (2000b). Sex offender community notification: Managing high-risk criminals or exacting further vengeance?Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 18(2/3), 375-391.
30.
Zevitz, R. G., & Farkas, M. A. (2000c). The impact of sex-offender community notification on probation/parole in Wisconsin. International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology, 44(1), 8-21.
