May 1, 2013

V. Life on the Registry

Sex offender registration and notification laws impose harsh, sometimes debilitating, and often lifelong sanctions on children convicted or adjudicated guilty of sex offenses. Many of the individuals interviewed for this report described being placed in a juvenile facility for a few years after being found guilty of the underlying sex offense; those convicted as adults spend time in adult prison. When they return to their communities as teenagers or young adults, they are already significantly behind their contemporaries in education, socialization, establishing stable family relations, and developing employment skills. Yet, required to register as sex offenders, they soon learn they face further obstacles that may be nearly impossible to overcome.

As we document below, youth placed on registries are often ostracized, threatened, and subject to strict residency requirements. Many are in effect banished from their neighborhoods, prevented from attending school, and subjected to restrictions that “potentially permeate every aspect of their lives.”[173] The following sections offer a portrait of life as a youth sex offender growing up on the sex offender registry.

Psychological Impact

Stigmatization and Isolation

Adolescence is a developmental period characterized by identity formation.[174] Labels stick and can last a lifetime. The label of “sex offender,” “child molester,” or “sexually violent predator” can cause profound damage to a child’s development and self- esteem.[175] Stigmatization can also lead to fear or mistrust by others, suspicion, rejection, or isolation from family and friends.

These harms are compounded by the shame that comes with registration and notification, which often lacks an endpoint.[176] Subjecting alienated and confused youth sex offenders to long-term public humiliation, stigmatization, and barriers to education and employment exacerbates the psychological difficulties they already experience.

Among the 281 youth offenders and family members of 15 additional youth offenders interviewed for this report, most (250 people, or 84.5 percent) described negative psychological impacts that they attributed to their status as a registrant, such as depression, a sense of isolation, difficulty forming or maintaining relationships, and suicide ideation. Nearly a fifth of those interviewed (58 people, or 19.6 percent) said they had attempted suicide; three of the registrants whose cases we examined did commit suicide. 

The following are examples of the psychological harm youth offenders experience:

  • Christian W. was 14 years old when he went on the registry for sexually inappropriately touching his younger cousin. At age 26, Christian told Human Rights Watch, “I live in a general sense of hopelessness, and combat suicidal thoughts almost daily due to the life sentence [registration] and punishment of being a registrant. The stigma and shame will never fully go away, people will always remember. The consequences will always be there even if one could eventually get off the registry.”[177]
  • “As a female, I feel like a piece of meat when I have to go update my registration. I think they assume that because I am on the registry I am easy.”[178]
  • “He’s changed.… [H]e is angry and depressed. I’m afraid this shame and stigma is more than my son can stand.”[179]
  • “I have been registering since I was 12 years old. I am now 26. Sex offender registration is slow death by humiliation.”[180]
  • “The police always expect you are the worst of the worst sex offenders and so they treat you that way. Most of them look down on you as if you are the scum of the earth.”[181]
  • A 16-year-old who has been on the registry in Louisiana for two years told us, “for sex offenders, our mistake is forever available to the world to see. There is no redemption, no forgiveness. You are never done serving your time. There is never a chance for a fresh start. You are finished. I wish I was executed because my life is basically over.”[182]

Typically, children and adolescents have difficulty navigating close interpersonal relationships. Because of the stigma associated with sex offenders, registration laws place youth offender registrants’ personal relationships “in grave jeopardy.”[183] For example, Dominic G. was placed on the registry for an offense committed when he was 13. Now age 22, he is still on the registry and on sex offender parole, which means that anyone he wants to talk to, by phone or in person, is required to first fill out a form and obtain approval by his parole officer.[184] Another youth offender told Human Rights Watch, “I’m a ghost. I can’t put my name on a lease, I never receive mail. No one cares if I am alive. In fact, I think they would prefer me dead.”[185]

The alienation that emerges from a system set up to regulate personal relationships can thwart healthy development in young people. By contrast, young people who are encouraged to connect with their communities and family members “build hope, a sense of control over one’s environment, expectations for success in school and work,” and a chance for healthier development.[186]

Suicide

Human Rights Watch found that, left with little hope of ever leading a normal life, some youth offenders on the registry opted for what they may have viewed as the only remaining route of escape—suicide. One expert told us, “Suicide [among children placed on sex offender registries] is a possibility … even predictable.”[187]

A registrant told Human Rights Watch, “I attempted suicide when I was 20 due to an article printed in the newspaper about my case. I was just a kid.”[188] Another said, “I sometimes pray that I won’t wake up the next day.”[189] A third said, “when I was 19 I slit both wrists. I would have bled to death if my friend hadn’t found me.”[190]

Parents described how their children were flooded by feelings of despair when they realized that the “sex offender” label would stay with them forever, regardless of whether their name could be found on the state registry. One child was adjudicated delinquent for a sex offense at age 11. At the age of 17 he took his own life. His mother explained, “Under the law at the time he was looking at being put on the public registry when he turned 18. His picture, address and information on the Web…. He just couldn’t bear it.”[191]

Another young man who was placed on the registry at age 12 committed suicide at age 17, a few months after Michigan passed a law to remove offenders who were under 14 at the time of the offense from the registry. His mother said “Everyone in the community knew he was on the sex offender registry, it didn’t matter to them that he was removed … the damage was already done. You can’t un-ring the bell.”[192]

The mother of a former registrant told Human Rights Watch about the circumstances that led to her son, Carson E., taking his own life in 2008. Adjudicated delinquent at the age of 13 for rape, he successfully completed sex offender treatment and as a result was later removed from the public registry and subject to law-enforcement-only registration. But nearly 10 years after his offense, he started facing serious difficulties. Carson’s mother reports that during college he was denied housing and employment due to his status, which was revealed during criminal background checks. At the age of 25, and within weeks of graduating from college, Carson committed suicide. His mother says she knows in her heart that he killed himself because upon graduation, he was going to look for professional work and knew his background would come up in every job interview.[193]

Dominic G.

Dominic G. was living in Texas when Human Rights Watch interviewed him in 2012. In 2006, when he was 15 years old, Dominic was charged with having molested his sister when he was approximately 14 and she was approximately 12. Dominic denied the allegations. In 2007, after Dominic had spent over a year going back and forth between a psychiatric hospital and jail, his defense attorney told Dominic and his mother that if he did not admit to the allegations, he would be transferred to adult court and face up to 20 years in prison. Grace N., Dominic’s grandmother, said Dominic later told her, “Grandma, I didn’t know what to say.”  Dominic admitted to the allegations by entering a plea in December 2007 and was committed to the Texas Youth Commission (the Texas juvenile detention system).

While in detention, Dominic received honors and was known for his artistic skill. By the age of 17 he was granted special permission to attend college courses off campus. He was able to work and earn money. Dominic’s mother died in 2009, when he was 18, and his younger brother and sister have lived with his maternal grandmother, Grace, ever since. In April 2012, at the age of 21, Dominic was released from detention and placed on parole under the jurisdiction of the adult criminal court until the year 2037.

In December 2012, Dominic’s sister came home and broke down crying to her grandmother. Grace told Human Rights Watch that the young woman “was sobbing hysterically, screaming ‘Don’t hate me. Don’t hate me.’ Then finally she said, ‘I made the whole story up about Dominic, he never touched me. They kept telling me that I was going to go to jail if I didn’t tell the story right.’”[194]

Dominic is subject to sex offender registration and notification requirements. Shortly before his release on parole, Dominic met with a parole officer who gave him “stacks of papers and rules to read and sign.”[195] Dominic was told that he was being placed on “Condition X” parole, which requires him to register as a sex offender.[196] Among other conditions, he must:

  • Not participate in any volunteer activities without prior written approval of the parole officer;
  • Not enroll in or attend any institution of higher learning, including a community college, without prior parole board approval and notification to the victims of “the sex offense”;
  • Not view, possess, purchase, or subscribe to any photographs, literature, magazines, books, or visual media that depict sexually explicit images;
  • Submit to polygraph examinations as approved by the parole officer and board;
  • Not attend any program that includes participants who are 17 years of age or younger or go within 500 feet of any place that children commonly gather, including schools, day care facilities, playgrounds, and public swimming pools;
  • Not become involved in dating, marriage, or platonic relationships with anyone who has children 17 years old or younger without the written approval of the parole officer;
  • Not reside with, have unsupervised contact with, or cause to be contacted by any child 17 years or younger (other than his own children, should he have any) in person or by telephone, correspondence, or video or audio device ;
  • Not own, maintain, or operate computer equipment without written authorization from the parole officer;
  • Not own, maintain, or operate photographic equipment, including still photos, videos, or any electronic imaging equipment unless approved in writing by the parole officer; and
  • Submit to a search of the person, motor vehicle, place of residence, and property, without a warrant at any time, day or night.

During the pre-release meeting, Dominic also had to sign a Collateral Contact Form, which required him to identify a contact to assist in monitoring his behavior. The form states that this person may be, for example, a roommate, employer, family member, spouse, significant other, pastor, sponsor, or friend. Dominic specified his maternal grandmother, Grace. But Grace was told that she can never have Dominic in her home because his sister, the victim, resides there.

In early January 2013, Dominic tried to commit suicide. Grace said “he slashed his wrists and I knew I had to call his parole officer to get permission to take him to the hospital.”[197] Even though it was an emergency, the parole officer threatened to arrest Dominic for violating parole if he was not brought to the parole office first to sign papers before going to the hospital.[198] Grace took her bleeding grandson to the parole office, parked the car, and ran inside so she could sign the papers. The parole officers demanded that she bring Dominic from the car into the office so that he could sign the papers. After a stressful few minutes, a parole officer came out and told Grace that she could take Dominic to the hospital.[199] Dominic remained in the hospital for nearly two weeks.[200]

Violent Attacks

Laws that place youth offenders on sex offender registries expose them to vigilante attacks and are at odds with existing state laws that protect the confidentiality of juvenile records.  Among the 296 cases examined for this report, 154 (52 percent) youth offenders experienced violence or threats of violence against themselves or family members that they directly attributed to their registration. For example:

  • Isaac E. has been on the registry since he was 12 years old, after pleading guilty to a charge of “indecent liberties by forcible compulsion” for touching the chest of a girl. The victim of his offense, a female classmate, was also 12. Isaac states that the state registry does not provide information about the date of conviction for the sex offense, and updates the age of the registrant each year.[201] As time passes, this makes people who committed sex offenses as children look like adult sex offenders. If someone looks Isaac up on the registry, unless they take the time to find out that the offense was committed nearly 15 years earlier, it appears as if he is an adult who sexually assaulted a 12-year-old child. Isaac says “it is very misleading and makes people very angry. My brother, who looks like me, was once harassed and nearly beaten to death by a drunk neighbor who thought he was me.”[202]
  • Bruce W. is the father of two sons placed on registry at ages 10 and 12 for the same offense committed against their younger sister, then age 8. He says that a man once held a shotgun to his 10-year-old son’s head.[203]
  • Camilo F. was placed on the registry at age 14. He says strange cars started following him home from school. “One time a man from one of those cars yelled ‘child molester’ at me.”[204] Camilo said a week later several bullets were fired from a car driving by. “The bullets went through the living room window as my family and me watched TV.”[205]
  • Carson E., from northern Washington, started registering at the age of 13. For the first few years, his picture was on the public website. During this time, he faced harassment and threats from his peers at school. At one point when he was in ninth grade, Carson was beaten severely by some people in the area, his mother recalled. Despite pleading from his parents, Carson refused to file a report with the police.[206]
  • “Neighbors harassed our family. We later found out that one of the neighbors shot our family dog,” said the mother of one registrant.[207]
  • Terrance W. was placed on the sex offender registry for an offense committed when he was 14. He said, “I fear for my father’s life since I live with him. The registry is being used more and more as a publicly available hit list for vigilantes to murder or assault those on the registry.”[208]

Family photos of two boys at ages 10 and 8 (now adults in their late twenties) who were subject to sex offender registration for offenses committed at ages 12 and 10. Individuals aware of their registration have thrown molotov cocktails through the window of the family home, as well as threatened, insulted, and shouted profanities at all members of the family. Weatherford, Texas, May 1, 2012. © 2012 Nicole Pittman

Other registrants experienced harassment as a result of their registration status. One female youth sex offender explained, “I was on the public registry at age 11 for the offense of unlawful sexual contact. They thought I was not a virgin. Random men called my house wanting to ‘hook up’ with me.”[209]

A male youth offender living in Texas recounted several incidents of harassment: “I was in the [school] parking lot and this truck drove by and started throwing beer bottles at me. I had to run inside. They yelled, ‘Get out of our school, you child molester! I wish I could kill you!’” Another time, he says, he was approached by a man who said, “that’s my house over there and those are my kids and if you ever come near my house, I’m gonna blow your brains out.” The male youth sex offender also told us that “multiple people had said they planned on throwing me off the town water tower.”[210]

Impact on Families

Registration laws can have a severe impact on the families of registrants.[211] Among the 296 youth offender registrants whose cases were examined for this report, 76.7 percent said their registration status had serious repercussions for their families and family relationships. These included, among others, adding to the family’s economic challenges, difficulty in securing or maintaining an approved residence, and straining or severing family relationships.

Young people exiting custody in the juvenile justice system or adult prisons are often discharged back to families already struggling with domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health issues, unemployment, and poverty.[212] Plans are rarely in place to support youth when they return to their families. Children face unemployment, school enrollment challenges, and sometimes homelessness upon release.[213]

The impact may be more pronounced for families with children subject to sex offender registration requirements. “With parents often the targets of blame for the sins of their children, parents of sex offenders can experience just as much fear, shame and paranoia as their children,” social worker David Prescott said.[214]

Many registrants and family members told Human Rights Watch about the stresses placed on families as a result of registration. These include the following examples:

  • Luna L. has two sons on the sex offender registry stemming from the same offense: sexual battery, or inappropriate touching, of a 10-year-old foster child who lived in their home. The brothers, Camilo F. and Julián C., were ages 14 and 16 at the time of the offense. Luna had to petition the local government to make an exception for her young boys to return to her house after their release from juvenile detention. Still today, six years after her sons were arrested, Luna worries about the possibility they will be arrested if they do not come home before curfew. She says she cannot sleep until both arrive home from 12-hour workdays as restaurant managers, before their 11 p.m. curfew.[215]
  • One young man who spoke to Human Rights Watch, Ignacio P., was six years old when his brother Fernando P., then 12, was placed on the sex offender registry for allegedly molesting a child in the neighborhood. In 2011, after registering as a sex offender for nearly 14 years, Fernando was acquitted of the sex offense and removed from the registry when the neighbor recanted the allegations. Ignacio, who is now 20 years old, initially described being a sibling of a child registrant as “easy,” but then said his parents were so “consumed with fighting to help Fernando that they ignored me. I was invisible. I could do anything and not get in trouble ... as long as I didn’t get arrested.”[216]
  • In 2008, Julián C.was adjudicated delinquent of sexual battery of a child for an offense that occurred when he was 16 and the victim was 10 years old. The offense involved penetration of the child victim, who was a foster child living in the home at the time. Julián was committed to a juvenile prison and, once released, was required to attend sex offender treatment, placed on an electronic monitor, and sentenced to six years’ on adult sex offender probation. At the time Human Rights Watch interviewed Julián, he was still on probation while working full time and attending classes at a local college in Jacksonville, Florida. Julián lives at home with his mother, father, brother, and the brother’s fiancée. Julián’s brother and fiancée were expecting a baby girl in November 2012. Probation told Julián that he would need to move from the home when the baby was born, or that his brother, fiancée, and the baby would need to live elsewhere. The family challenged this condition in court. Each member of the household had to sign a five-page document explaining that the baby would never be alone with Julián. The Judge granted the exception and Julián was allowed to remain at home with his family.[217]
  • A youth sex offender who was placed on the registry at age 14 explained, “because of sex offender restrictions my family had to be divided up. I could not live with children. My father stayed in our house with my younger brother. My mother and me moved in with my grandparents 2 hours away.”[218]

Families also suffer as a result of the public stigma associated with the registration status of their loved one. One youth sex offender explained, “A neighbor put a sign on our lawn saying ‘the State let a 13 year old rapist go free and he lives here.’”[219]

Financial Burdens

Parents of registrants reported experiencing increased financial burdens from the moment their child was placed on the registry. Some family members of registrants lost their jobs as a result of the sex offender registration status of their family member. “I was a principal of a school. I lost my job when the school district found out that I had a young child on the registry.”[220]

The fees associated with registration can be prohibitively high for a young person. These expenses often fall on the family, especially when the individual on the registry is a dependent child. Depending on the jurisdiction and the registrant’s classification level, initial registration fees can cost anywhere between $50 and several hundred dollars per year. In the state of Louisiana, Human Rights Watch documented a case (see text box “James” below) in which registration fees and costs associated with registration totaled just over $1,000 annually. The fees associated with registration can be prohibitively high for a young person. These expenses often fall on the family, especially when the individual on the registry is a dependent child. Depending on the jurisdiction and the registrant’s classification level,   initial registration fees can cost anywhere between $800 and $1,200 and total upwards of $2,000 per year.

Jackson D., at age 12, near his home in Garland, Texas, the year he was placed on the sex offender registry. © 2012 Nicole Pittman.

Jackson D., who has been registering as a sex offender since he was 12 years old, said, “my mom had to pay my fees. I was too young to work. If you don’t pay, they re-arrest you and convict you for failure to register.”[221] Jackson turned 23 on the day we interviewed him. He still lives with his mother. He struggles to keep jobs to help his mother prevent the house from going into foreclosure.

Children of Registered Sex Offenders

The effects of registration can touch later generations of children as well. Many of the individuals we spoke with were placed on the registry as children but are now married with children of their own. Offender registration laws can have especially harmful impacts on the children of registrants. A 2009 study found that 75 percent of the children of registrants had lost friendships as a result of a parent’s status as a registered sex offender. Additionally, 59 percent reported that other children at school treated them differently when it was discovered that they had a parent on the registry.[222] Another study found that a Kentucky policy restricting registered sex offender parents from attending their children’s school functions interfered with their parenting role and could have serious deleterious consequences for the entire family.[223] Children of registrants reportedly experience adverse consequences including stigmatization, violence, harassment, and differential treatment by teachers and classmates. In one instance, a teenage girl in Texas shot herself to death after her father’s photo appeared on the state Internet registry, embarrassing her at school.[224]

Most youth offender registrants with children we spoke with had very young children who had not yet attained school age. We were able, however, to interview a few school-age children with a parent on the registry. These children reported being treated differently or teased because of their parent’s registration status.

Hunter E. said he was sad that his father was on the sex offender registry. He added that “everyone at school knows my father is a registered sex offender,” and he feels like his classmates and teachers “look at him strangely.”[225] At age 11, Hunter is the same age his father was when he was arrested for the sex offense that placed him on the registry.

Mark O. is a registered sex offender for having had sexual intercourse when he was 17 years old with his 15-year-old girlfriend.[226] He was placed on the sex offender registry after he signed the birth certificate of the daughter he fathered with that girlfriend. Years later, after Mark and his no-longer-underage partner married and had a second child, their first daughter was mortified when a teacher warning her class about sexual predators punched the school’s ZIP code into the online sex offender registry and her dad’s name came up. Her parents had told her that her dad was on the sex offender registry, “but it wasn't something the whole class knew, until then.”[227]

A 10-year-old child, Cindy D., said she can never have a birthday party at her own house. “I cannot bring my friends here because my father cannot be around other children,” she said.[228] Cindy’s father was 14 when he had consensual sex with his 13-year-old girlfriend. In Delaware, where they live, a child under 14 years of age cannot legally give consent. Cindy’s father is now 28 years old and has not been in trouble with the law since, but because he is a registered sex offender, he cannot have unsupervised contact with children under the age of 18.

We asked both non-registered and registered parents to describe ways that their children have been directly affected by sex offender registration laws. They reported that because of various restrictions, the registered parent is unable to participate in most of the child’s activities such as attending a school play, going to sporting events, and attending their child’s birthday party. Individuals placed on the registry for offenses committed over a decade ago, when they were children, cannot even pick up their own children at school.

Jerry M. was placed on the registry for an offense he describes as “sexual play during ‘truth or dare’ with younger kids when I was 11 years old.”[229] Now as a parent in his late twenties, Jerry says “I worry about my two little children, ages 4 and 2, having to live in a publicly identified house and having to pay this lifelong price for something that happened years before they were born. I want to be involved in their lives but I also want them to be able to live free to be who they are without having to carry such a burden.”[230]

One girl with a father on the sex offender registry wrote Human Rights Watch a letter about her life as a child of a registered sex offender. The young woman did not want her name or location identified in this report for “fear it would put us in more danger,” but she wrote,

I would like to take the time to tell you what it is like to be a child of a [registered] sex offender. I wake up every morning wondering how many [sex offender] signs may be on our front lawn; how many people are going to ride by our house, point, and take pictures; how many people are going to watch every move we make today; and how many times people are going to call the police to report that my parent has done something for which an average person would be normal but because my parent is a known “Sex Offender” its suspicious behavior how many more birthdays will be with just family because other parents will not let their kids come to my party; how many parties will I not be invited to [sic]; how many more sports games will my parent not be allowed to watch me play; and how many field trips will I not attend because it is too hard to listen to the whispers of the other parents?[231]

Housing

Local lawmakers have passed municipal ordinances prohibiting individuals on sex offender registries from residing or traveling within close proximity to places where children commonly congregate. Given the large number of parks, schools, daycare centers, and playgrounds in some cities, there can be very few places where sex offenders can live.

In one study, adult registrants cited difficulties in finding housing and being forced to move as the most common problems resulting from their registrant status.[232] A study conducted in Orange County, Florida found that the law banning individuals on the sex offender registry from living within 1,000 feet of a school, daycare, or bus stop would allow them to reside in less than four percent of the county.[233] In Miami-Dade County, Florida, which has a 1,750-foot residency restriction, affordable housing is nearly nonexistent.[234] In Kentucky, a study showed that 45 percent of individuals registering for adult sex offenses reported a loss of housing or inability to find housing.[235] A Wisconsin study revealed that 83 percent of the adult registrants had trouble finding and/or maintain housing.[236] In South Carolina, one study found that nearly half of all the houses in the state would be restricted under the local 1,000-foot restriction zone.[237]

Studies show that adolescents and young adults on sex offender registries have an even harder time securing housing than older adults on registries.[238] Of the 296 youth offender registrants whose cases were examined for this report, over 44 percent (132 respondents) told us they had experienced at least one period of homelessness as a result of the restrictions that come with being registered.

Aaron I., who is on the registry in Florida for an offense committed at the age of 15, constantly struggles to find housing for himself and his wife. “I have found a few places to rent but as soon as we move in the police and neighbors harass us until we get evicted. They keep us homeless. I am banned from living in a homeless shelter. It is impossible to meet these expectations.”[239] Another youth offender said, “It really never ends. Currently I am homeless … for something that happened when I was 12 years old.”[240]

The majority of parents with a child on the registry interviewed by Human Rights Watch reported having trouble providing shelter for their family due to residency restrictions requiring the child registrant to live a certain distance from schools, parks, playgrounds, daycare centers, or bus stops. And once they are living on their own, registrants face similar challenges in procuring housing. For example:

  • Audrey R. faced a choice between keeping a house she owned and living with her 14-year-old son, who was on the sex offender registry for inappropriately touching an 8-year-old girl Audrey had been babysitting. Audrey sent her son to live in another county with relatives while she tried to sell her house.[241]
  • Luna L. said that the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice told her that her son, who had been adjudicated delinquent at age 14, would not be allowed to live in her house because it was too close to a school. She contested this decision and won. But Luna’s voice cracked as she recalled, “my son had to stay in jail an additional year while we fought to get my house approved.”[242]
  • David H., a foster child living with a foster family in Michigan, was found guilty of a sex offense that required him to start registering at the age of 13.[243] He was accused of fondling his foster parents’ young daughter. David completed treatment and therapy and later went on to college. At the beginning of his first semester in college, David was arrested for failure to register. David was charged not because he failed to update his record with his college address but because he failed to inform the State Police that he was attending an institution of higher learning. He simply did not know he needed to inform the police of his attendance on campus. Failure to register is a felony punishable by up to four years in prison.[244]

Public housing authorities can also evict the family of a child on the sex offender registry. The federal Office of Housing and Urban Development allows local housing authorities to terminate assistance to an entire family if any member of the household is arrested or adjudicated delinquent of certain sex offenses.[245]

Because state registration, notification, and residency restrictions often stipulate that offenders may not live in or near the homes of victims, housing issues can become extremely complicated when the victim of a youth offender registrant is a sibling. In these instances, parents are faced with a horrible choice between which of their children to keep in the home. Some parents are forced to place a child with a relative or family friend, or to place a child in the care of the state.

Lucas W. was 17 when he was arrested and adjudicated delinquent of aggravated sexual assault for having consensual sex with his younger girlfriend, Emma J. Lucas was given five years deferred adjudication for the sexual offense. Later, he and Emma married. But Lucas was subsequently arrested twice for violations of probation. He described a “vicious cycle” whereby he was unable to find a job due to his status as a sex offender or a place for his family to live that complied with residency restrictions, and thus could not afford his registration and mandatory therapy fees.[246]

In 2000, Lucas was arrested for failure to register and subsequently sentenced to 10 years in prison. While incarcerated, his wife gave birth to their daughter. Emma, who refused to help prosecutors nearly 15 years ago, said that “[Lucas] has always been my true love but the registration laws have taken a toll on all of [us].”[247] Emma took their daughter to visit Lucas regularly during his entire incarceration. In 2009, Lucas was finally released from prison to a halfway house where he was to remain until he could find proper housing. But he had problems finding suitable housing outside of the city’s sprawling child safety zones, and as a result, Lucas had to remain apart from Emma and their daughter for yet another year.

Lewis A.

At the age of 14, Lewis A. was adjudicated delinquent of criminal sexual contact in the first degree and was placed in a juvenile treatment facility for about a year. Upon his release, Lewis was made a ward of the state and placed in foster care because his Dad said he could not manage him. At the age of 18, he no longer qualified for foster care and was on his own.

Upon release from foster care, Lewis contacted Isabella D., a grade school teacher who knew him before his arrest. “I was his special education teacher before this happened in a classroom for students classified as having cognitive impairments (mental retardation.) When he got out of foster care he managed to find me and I have tried to help him get his life back on track as much as possible,” said Isabella.[248]

When Human Rights Watch first interviewed Lewis, he was just 18 years old and had spent nearly nine months homeless in Kalamazoo, Michigan. He survived the previous winter by living in an abandoned building. “It used to be a restaurant, maybe 15 years ago, it was a boarded up abandoned building with no running water.” [249] Isabella and another teacher helped Lewis by giving him places to shower and wash his clothes.

Isabella describes her former student as “a sweet and honest young man who is very vulnerable.”[250] Isabella worked with Lewis to get him assessed with a disability so that he could get some services. The results of his IQ test helped him qualify for adult educational services, $200 monthly in social security benefits, $200 monthly in food stamps, and a housing voucher. The voucher, through Michigan Rehabilitation Services, helped with the rent, but it took months to find an apartment that would (1) accept the voucher and (2) rent to a registered sex offender. As the voucher ran out they had to apply for an extension to get more time to look for housing. Finally in August 2012, Lewis moved into his own apartment. He also enrolled in an adult program and was working towards getting his GED.

Lewis was supposed to spend Thanksgiving 2012 with Isabella and her family, but he decided to spend the weekend with his father. Immediately after the holiday, Lewis was arrested for vandalizing a cemetery with some older men. Lewis’ housing voucher was revoked and he lost his apartment. In December 2012, Lewis pled guilty to the vandalism charge and has since served his time. But he still sits in jail. As a registered sex offender, Lewis cannot be released from jail until he has a permanent address. Lewis cannot live in public assisted housing because he is a registered sex offender.

Isabella has tried to help get Lewis shelter and made referrals to shelters and other agencies. She recently contacted agencies that assist individuals with mental disabilities and was told that all referrals must come from the community mental health center. The community mental health center will not consider making a referral until it can conduct intake, i.e., until Lewis is out of jail and center staff can meet with him in person. Isabella said, “it is impossible to find him housing. I don’t know how he is ever going to be released from jail.… We are scrambling, he has no place to go.”[251]

Isabella and the other teacher still visit Lewis every week in jail. She told us, “I do understand that he is 18 years old and is responsible for his own actions but he is a young man with a disability who was removed from his home at the age of 14.”[252]

Even though Michigan law does not subject juveniles adjudicated as young as Lewis to public notification, it is very difficult for him to live day-to-day. “He will never show up on the registry because he was 14 when he committed his offense, but life is still one mess after another. He can’t get housing, a job, pay his fees.”[253] At the time this report was written, Lewis remained in jail, unable to be released without a residence and unable to get a residence because he is in jail.

Restrictions on Movement

In addition to residency restrictions, most jurisdictions also impose “no loitering/child safety zones” around schools, playgrounds, parks, daycare centers, and other locations where children congregate. Essentially, these restrictions ban registrants from passing through certain areas of the city.

Interviewees reported having to map out routes before traveling anywhere. For example, Blake G., originally from Connecticut, was arrested at the age of 15.[254] His crime was having a sexual relationship with his 13-year-old girlfriend.[255] Since his girlfriend was under the age of consent, Blake was charged as an adult for a sexual offense and subsequently placed on the sex offender registry. Shortly after the conviction, Blake’s parents moved the family from Connecticut to a new state. Blake was required to register as a sex offender in the new state. The county where Blake and his family moved to also had stringent residency and zoning restrictions. Blake, who is still a minor, is banned from being “within 300 feet of a place where children regularly congregate, including but not limited to, a school, day care center, playground, park, or bus stop.”[256] Blake described the difficulty he faces navigating his new city, saying, “I have to look at a map before I walk anywhere. I can be arrested if I am walking anywhere near a school or park.”[257] Blake’s mother said she thinks her son is afraid to leave the house.

There are also strict restrictions on the presence of registrants near bus stops. Bus stops are plentiful and not well-defined. In rural areas, school bus stops are not marked or labeled and are often at the end of a driveway or any designated location where the school bus picks up a child. In Orange County, Florida, where the law prohibits a registered sex offender from residing within 2,500 feet of a school bus stop, day care center, park, or school, researchers mapped residential parcels of land and found that 99.6 percent of parcels were located within 2,500 feet of a bus stop. [258]

Travel or Moving to Another Jurisdiction

Because they live with their parents or other adult caregivers, children and very young adults have little control over where they live. Since there is no uniformity among the various states’ registration and notification laws, registration becomes even more complex and onerous when a registrant travels or moves to a new jurisdiction. States differ as to which offenses trigger registration, and state systems do a very poor job of working together to ensure registrants who travel are treated fairly.

For example, Elijah B. started registering at age 16. When he moved to Texas, he transferred his registration from Flint, Michigan to Houston. A few years later, Elijah met his wife. Both were working and they lived together in a new apartment. Elijah explained to Human Rights Watch,

One day while I was at work, the police pulled up in an unmarked car and placed me in the back of the car. Everyone at my job was coming to see me get arrested. Then my general manger made a point to come and publicly fire me in front of everyone because I’m labeled a “so-called sex offender.” I was extradited from Texas to Michigan, handcuffed in a van going state to state picking up other inmates in other states…. It took a full week to get to Flint. I sat in jail for three months accused of failing to register in Michigan. I was finally released when they realized that I was no longer required to update my address in Michigan because I was a resident of Texas and registered properly there.[259]

After his release, Elijah had to find his own way home to his wife in Texas.

When a person has an out-of-state conviction or adjudication, most states require registration which is “comparable, similar, or substantially similar to” a listed registerable offense. However, all too often state registration systems treat individuals convicted of sexual offenses in other states differently from individuals convicted of the same offenses within the state. For instance, in Florida, “exposing the genitals in a lewd or lascivious manner” is a sexual offense requiring registration.[260] In Alabama, however, this offense is not a felony, and if committed by an Alabama resident would not trigger Alabama’s registration requirements. However, Alabama law would require a Florida resident who committed the same crime to register as a sex offender if he moves to Alabama.[261]

Interference with Education

Since registered sex offenders are often banned from being near schools, registration can have an immediate impact on a youth offender’s school attendance and educational opportunities.

Children can find their access to education curtailed even before they begin registering. Many children convicted of sexual offenses are expelled from public school.[262] Often, the school’s code of conduct allows students to be disciplined in school for behavior that occurs outside of school and off school grounds. In most jurisdictions, discipline can take the form of suspension, expulsion, or alternative school placement, any of which can affect the quality of the student’s education and access to higher education opportunities.[263] In some jurisdictions, certain charges brought against a child can lead the school district to place the student in an alternative education program even without an adjudication of delinquency.[264]

Crimes committed on school grounds can have immediate consequences in many states. For example, in Delaware, if police find probable cause to believe a child committed a crime at school, the student must be immediately suspended and referred to alternative services.[265] The Delaware attorney general also “reports any serious crimes committed off school grounds directly to schools.”[266]

Among the 296 youth offender registrants whose cases were examined for this report, a majority (52.4 percent, or 154 respondents) stated that they had been denied access to or experienced severe interruptions in their primary or secondary education as a result of their registration. Others had difficulties in school because of the public nature of their registration status. One youth offender said, “Someone in my high school made flyers of my registration page. They taped them all over the school.”[267] Another said, “This all started in 2003 when I was 12 years old. I didn’t go back to regular school until 10th grade. By then it was too late and I was terrified everyone would find out I was a registered sex offender. I dropped out but later got my GED.”[268]

Registration can negatively affect a child’s access to higher education. Most applications for higher education require information about the applicant’s criminal convictions.[269] While individuals generally do not need to disclose juvenile delinquency adjudications because they are not criminal convictions, registration laws require that they do so if the delinquency involves sexual offenses. Several individuals we spoke with believe this has negatively affected their college admissions.

Ongoing Economic Consequences

Employment

The most commonly reported consequence of registration for adult sex offenders is difficulty finding and maintaining employment.[270] While most employment applications, like college applications, request information about the applicant’s criminal convictions, not juvenile adjudications, sex offender registration status must be disclosed by job applicants regardless of whether the individual was adjudicated delinquent or convicted in adult court. Individuals we interviewed said that their registration status for offenses committed as children decades ago continues to limit their job opportunities.

Certain institutions, including public schools, child care centers, and nursing homes, are legally required to investigate and obtain criminal histories of all applicants for professional or certified licensed positions.[271] State laws prohibit individuals on the sex offender registry from applying for licenses and certifications which require a criminal background check, thus precluding registrants from becoming nurses, doctors, lawyers, and emergency medical technicians such as paramedics. Some states implement blanket laws to prevent registered sex offenders from obtaining certain types of employment or volunteer positions.[272] In addition to the obvious prohibitions, such as on  working at a school or day care center, some states have sought to limit employment in other areas, such as operating an ice cream truck or a school bus; working at a carnival, circus, street fair, amusement park, or long-term care facility; or serving as an athletic coach, manager, or trainer.[273]

Maya R., whose case is profiled in section IV above,  was arrested and charged with a sexual offense at age 10 for an incident in which she and her stepbrothers, then ages 8 and 5, “flashed” each other and play-acted sex while fully-clothed.[274] A year later, Maya pled guilty to the charges of criminal sexual conduct in the first and second degree, offenses that required her to register as a sex offender for 25 years. Maya also spent nearly four years at a juvenile prison. She said, “My experiences in a juvenile prison helped motivate me to want to become a social worker. Being part of the juvenile justice system, made me determined to prove that with determination, love, and a little support, productive citizens can emerge.[275] I could not believe how many young girls in the facility were lost and without one caring family member. Many girls in there were forced into prostitution by a parent.”[276]

Upon release from prison, Maya persevered and overcame the barriers inherent in being on the registry to graduate from high school, obtain a Bachelor of Arts degree in both social work and comparative religion, and earn a Masters in Social Work (MSW) degree.[277]In 2011, a year after she got her MSW, Maya was relieved of her duty to register under a newly passed Michigan law.[278]Maya was on track to get her social work license, but background checks and old information on the internet revealed she was once on the registry. “I was first accepted for and then refused an internship with a great organization. This was my dream placement, but most agencies and organizations in my field have polices that don’t allow the employment of individuals on the sex offender registry. I have been refused internships by countless other organizations because of being on the public registry,” Maya stated.[279] She lost her internship and has been unemployed since. Despite being 16 years removed from her only arrest and despite having been taken off the registry, the stigma remains. Maya is hopeful that she will one day complete an internship, become a licensed social worker, and realize her dream of helping homeless individuals.[280]

Elijah B. said, “I get hired and fired from so many jobs. I can usually keep a job for a few weeks until the employer’s name and address goes up on the sex offender registry [because registrants must provide this information]. Employers say its ‘bad for business’ to keep me on. I accumulate about 20 W-2 forms at the end of each year.”[281] Another registrant told Human Rights Watch, “Working for the city cleaning out tunnels with acid was the only job I could get for a while.”[282] A third said, “employment is difficult. I have to support my wife and kids. I estimate that between January to April 2012 I have applied for 250 positions.”[283]

Registration Fees and Associated Costs

Many states require sex offenders to pay a one-time initial registration fee. For example, Colorado imposes a registration fee of between $150 and $400, depending on the seriousness of the sex offense.[284] California imposes a fee of $300 on registrants.[285] New York state charges a $50 registration fee,[286] Indiana charges $50, and Ohio charges $100 per year.[287] An Illinois law requires registrants to subsidize the sex offender registration process by paying a fee of $100 to the local police department.[288]

A registrant must keep the registration current in each jurisdiction where the offender resides, is an employee, or is a student, by appearing in-person at least once a year. Certain fees and costs related to registration can be assessed at each appearance. States often impose additional costs on registrants, some of which are imposed on all persons convicted of offenses of a particular severity (such as all felons) in the state. For example, New York state imposes a mandatory surcharge of $300 on persons convicted of felonies, a crime victim assistance fee of $25, a DNA databank fee of $50, a sex offender registration fee of $50, as well as (for certain crimes, including incest) a supplemental sex offender victim fee of $1,000.[289] Given the challenges many registrants face in finding employment, registration fees and associated costs can be extremely difficult or impossible to pay.

A youth sex offender in Texas said, “The fees are impossible to pay. The first year I received a bill to pay $461 for court costs, $2,500 fine, $50 crimestoppers. That’s $3,000! If you don’t pay it you go back to jail for failure to register.”[290]

In Louisiana, attorney Ethan Ashley explained the serious economic hurdles his clients face in paying registration fees and associated costs, which can total more than $1,000 (see text box “James,” below): “The fees associated with registering as a sex offender in Louisiana are absurd. It would be hard for an individual who works a full-time job to be able to manage these types of fees and the demands of registering in general.”[291] 

James O.

James O. was sentenced at age 15 to life without the possibility of parole for aggravated rape in 1979. He spent 27 years and 8 months in prison, primarily at Angola State Penitentiary. He was released from prison at the age of 44, after the Supreme Court ruled in Graham v. Florida that the sentence of life without parole was unconstitutional for juveniles convicted of non-homicide offenses. James was required to register as a sex offender within three days of release from prison. He was also required to:

  • Obtain a valid driver’s license and state identification card, printed with the words “sex offender.” Each document cost him $20.
  • Pay fees associated with community notification within 21 days of registration. During that time, registrants’ living arrangements and addresses are verified. Notifications are broken down into two categories:
    • Postcard notification—Registrants must send a postcard with their photograph, address, offense, and personal information to every address within a 0.3 mile radius of their residence, if living within the city of New Orleans. It cost James, who was living in New Orleans, $744 to send out postcards. Attorney Ethan Ashley noted, “You can do [postcard notifications] on your own for less money. Doing postcard notification on your own means that you have to pay for printing cost and mailing, that’s going to run you between $200 and $400. It’s less money but here’s the kicker—if you do postcard notification on your own in the State of Louisiana and you miss one house, you violate. If you violate you go back to jail.”[292]
    • And 2) Newspaper Notification— Registrants must let the public know where they will be residing by placing two newspaper advertisements. Newspaper notifications cost $193 per advertisement.

James’ attorney, Ethan Ashley, added up the fees that James was required to pay, and said,

We are now at $1,050 or so in sex offender registration fees for James. Now mind you, James was released from prison after 27 years with a $10 check and an identification card—a card that is not even a valid state ID—it’s a prison identification card. That $10 won’t even get you a proper ID and remember you only have 21 days to get this done.

Most jobs would not pay you within two weeks of starting the job. It would be difficult for an individual who was on the outside with a decent job to scrape together these fees.

Another thing to note is that if the registrant moves, he has to re-start this process and pay all these initial fees again—even if the landlord sells the house or the registrant has to move through no fault of his own, he has to pay again. These fees are associated with the registrant wherever he goes for the rest of his life. They are forever a tax on his life.[293]

Oklahoma’s Public Health Approach to Juvenile Sex Offenders

Oklahoma takes a public health approach to sex offenders in the juvenile justice system that could serve as a model for other states considering alternative approaches to youth sex offender registration. While Oklahoma does not currently take the same approach to youth offenders sentenced in the criminal court system, there is no reason in principle why it could not do so.

Most youth sex offenders in Oklahoma are treated differently than adults. The system includes the following features:

Public Notification—The adult registry in Oklahoma is public and fully accessible online. The juvenile registry is confidential and only accessible by law enforcement officials.

Offenses—Children registering based on a criminal conviction in adult court are subject to the same automatic offense-based registration system that applies to adults. Children adjudicated delinquent of a sex offense, however, can be placed on the registry only after an individualized assessment of the risk they may pose.

Expiration—Juvenile registration expires at age 21. A child can be rolled over to the adult registry, but this requires a separate petition, hearing, and judicial determination.

In Oklahoma, before a child found guilty in the juvenile system of a registerable sex offense is placed on the registry, his or her case must be evaluated using a three-step process.

First, the local prosecutor must make a determination that the child in question, even after completing treatment, still poses a significant risk of reoffending sexually. If so, the prosecutor files an application to have the court require the child to register as a sex offender upon release from custody. The filing of this application triggers phase two of the process, in which the child must undergo evaluation by a panel of two mental health professionals who prepare a report for the court recommending for or against registration. The third phase is handled by the presiding juvenile court judge, who must decide after reviewing the panel recommendation whether to accept or deny the prosecutor’s application to register the child.

Over the first 10 years that the sex offender registry existed in Oklahoma, only 10 youth offenders adjudicated delinquent were required to register, according to the Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs.[294] In 2011, the most recent year studied, just one adjudicated youth was on the registry.[295]

Dr. Marc Chaffin, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma’s Health Sciences Center and a national expert on child sexual offending behavior, told us that the specialized scheme in Oklahoma makes sense because “[children] are not simply younger versions of adult sex offenders, nor do most of them age into becoming adult sex offenders.”[296]Dr. Chaffin also explained,

Oklahoma youth who do appear to present a high risk typically receive residential services provided by the state. Under the Oklahoma process any juvenile sex offender registration and notification determination is then deferred until they are eligible for release [and thus are no longer high-risk, and no longer subject to registration]. This creates the main reason why so few youth are registered…. Those in the community who could be registered don’t have enough risk, and those with enough risk aren’t in the community. In short, the treatment system and how it works eliminates the point of registration—i.e. notifying the public about high risk juveniles in the community. Obviously, the cornerstone of this is an individual risk-based system rather than the offense based system that the Adam Walsh Act requires.[297]

Federal law mandates that any state that does not meet the requirements of the Adam Walsh Act will receive up to a 10 percent reduction in federal grant money. Based on past funding, that might amount to a loss of about $200,000 for Oklahoma.[298] Some judges and law enforcement officials believe Oklahoma should retain its current approach even if it means losing the federal funds.

[173]Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 84 (2003) Brief for Office of the Public Defender for the State of New Jersey et al. as Amici Curiae 7-21; Citing E.B. v. Verniero, 119 F.3d 1077 (3d Cir.1997).

[174] M. Chaffin and B. Bonner, “Don’t shoot, we’re your children: Have we gone too far in our response to adolescent sexual abusers and children with sexual behavior problems?” Child Maltreatment, vol. 3, no. 4 (1998), pp. 314–316.

[175]See Franklin E. Zimring and et al., “Sexual Delinquency in Racine: Does Early Sex Offending Predict Later Sex Offending in Youth and Young Adulthood?” Criminology and Public Policy, vol. 6, no.3 (2007), pp. 507-534.

[176] See note, “Shame, Stigma, and Crime: Evaluating the Efficacy of Shaming Sanctions in Criminal Law,” Harvard Law Review, vol. 116, no. 7 (May 2003), pp. 2186-2207.

[177] Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Christian W., June 2, 2012.

[178] Human Rights Watch interview with Jocelyn K., Dover, Delaware, June 3, 2012.

[179] Human Rights Watch interview with mother of Chase V., Florida, May 27, 2012.

[180] Human Rights Watch interview with Joshua Gravens, Dallas, Texas, April 29, 2012.

[181] Human Rights Watch interview with Elijah B., Houston, Texas, April 28, 2012.

[182] Human Rights Watch interview with Austin S., Denham Springs, Louisiana, March 2012.

[183]Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 84 (2003) Brief for Office of the Public Defender for the State of New Jersey et al. as Amici Curiae 7-21; citing Otte, 259 F.3d at 987.

[184] Human Rights Watch interviews with Grace N., grandmother of Dominic G., San Antonio, Texas, November 23, 2012; and with Dominic G., San Antonio, Texas, November 23, 2012.

[185] Human Rights Watch interview with Elijah B, April 28, 2012.

[186] See Mark W. Fraser, “Aggressive Behavior in Childhood and Early Adolescence: an Ecological-Developmental Perspective on Youth Violence,” Social Work, vol. 347 (July 1, 1996).

[187] See Abigail Goldman, “Young, But ‘Predators’ for Life: New Sex Offender Laws, Meant to Protect, May Instead Ruin Lives and Increase Risks,” The Las Vegas Sun, January 6, 2008, http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/06/young-but-predators-for-life/ (accessed April 22, 2013).

[188] Human Rights Watch interview with Reginald W., Mount Pleasant, New Jersey, February 2, 2012.

[189]Human Rights Watch interview with Jayden C., Baton Rouge, Louisiana, February 25, 2012.

[190]Human Rights Watch interview with Gavin R., Grand Rapids, Michigan, April 3, 2012.

[191] Human Rights Watch interview with Elizabeth M., mother of Noah M., Flint, Michigan, April 1, 2012.

[192] Human Rights Watch interview with Julia L., mother of Nathan L. (who is deceased), Grand Rapids, MI, March 3, 2012.

[193] Human Rights Watch interview with Patricia E., mother of Carson E. (who is deceased), Lacey, Washington, April 26, 2012.

[194] Human Rights Watch interviews with Grace N., grandmother of Dominic G., San Antonio, Texas, November 23, 2012; and with Dominic G., San Antonio, Texas, November 23, 2012.

[195] Human Rights Watch interview with Dominic G., November 23, 2012.

[196] The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure permits a judge to impose any reasonable condition that is designed to protect or restore the community, protect or restore the victim, or punish, rehabilitate, or reform an offender. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.12 § 11(a) (Supp. 2008).

[197] Human Rights Watch Interview with Grace N., grandmother of Dominic G., January 31, 2013.

[198] Ibid.

[199] Ibid.

[200] Ibid.

[201]Human Rights Watch interview with Isaac E., Spokane, Washington, August 27, 2012. Human Rights Watch visited the Washington State Sex Offender Registry in December 2011 to verify the difficulty in determining how old a registrant was at the time of conviction or adjudication. Similar difficulty was experienced on other state registries, such as the Ohio State Sex Offender Registry, available at: http://www.drc.state.oh.us/OffenderSearch/Search.aspx (accessed April 23, 2013).

[202]Human Rights Watch interview with Isaac E., August 27, 2012.

[203] Human Rights Watch interview with Bruce W., Texas, May 1, 2012.

[204] Human Rights Watch Interview with Camilo F., Florida, June 2012.

[205] Ibid.

[206] Human Rights Watch Interview with Patricia E., mother of Carson E. (who is deceased), April 2012.

[207] Human Rights Watch interview with the mother of Zachary S., Dallas, Texas, April 28, 2012.

[208] Human Rights Watch interview with Terrance W., Missouri, July 2012.

[209] Human Rights Watch interview with Molly K., Dover, Delaware, August 2012.

[210] Human Rights Watch interview with Joshua Gravens and his wife, Dallas, Texas, April 27, 2012

[211] Mary A. Farkas and Gale Miller, “Reentry and Reintegration: Challenges Faced by the Families of Convicted Sex Offenders,” Federal Sentencing Reporter, vol. 20, no. 2 (December 2007), pp.88-92; Jill Levenson and Richard Tewksbury, “Collateral damage: Family members of registered sex offenders,” American Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 34 (June 2009), pp. 54-68; Richard Tewksbury and Jill S. Levenson, “Stress Experiences of Family Members of Registered Sex Offenders,” Behavioral Sciences and the Law, vol. 27, no. 4 (2009), pp. 611-626. Researchers Levenson and Tewskbury found several common themes, including: 86 percent of family members reported that registration has caused stress in their lives; 77 percent often felt a sense of isolation; 49 percent often felt afraid for their own safety due to public disclosure of the sex offender’s status; 50 percent reported a loss of friend or a close relationship as a result of community notification; 66 percent said that shame and embarrassment often kept them from engaging in community activities. Levenson and Tewskbury, “Collateral Damage: Family members of registered sex offenders,” American Journal of Criminal Justice.

[212] Ashley Nellis and Richard Hooks Wayman, The Sentencing Project, “Back on Track: Supporting Youth Reentry From Out-of-Home Placement to the Community,” 2009, http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/CC_youthreentryfall09report.pdf (accessed March 21, 2013).

[213] Ibid.

[214] See Emanuella Grinberg, “Mothers of sex offenders share responsibility, burden of label,” CNN, May 12, 2012 (“‘Moms often feel terrible that they didn’t recognize the signs sooner or weren’t able to provide a better environment for their kids to prevent whatever offense occurred,’ said Prescott, former president of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers and current clinical director of the Becket Programs of Maine, which provide treatment for troubled youth in Maine and New Hampshire.”).

[215] Email communication from Luna L. to Human Rights Watch, September 29, 2012.

[216] Human Rights Watch interview with Ignacio P., brother of Fernando P., Grand Rapids, Michigan, April 1, 2012.

[218] Human Rights Watch interview with Sebastian S., Laredo, Texas, February 13, 2012; email correspondence and telephone conversation with Sebastian S., June 12, 2012.

[219] Human Rights Watch interview with Phillip R., New Castle, Delaware, February 12, 2012.

[220] Human Rights Watch interview with Karen S., Everett, Washington, February 26, 2012.

[221] Human rights Watch interview with Jackson D., Garland, Texas, May 2, 2012.

[222] J.S. Levenson and R. Tewskbury, “Collateral Damage: Family members of registered sex offenders,” American Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 34 (June 2009), pp. 54-68.

[223] Richard Tewskbury and Travis Humkey, “Prohibiting Registered Sex Offenders from Being at School: Assessing the Collateral Consequences of a Public Policy,” Justice Policy Journal, vol. 7, no. 2 (Fall 2010). The study examined the effects of a Kentucky law (KRS 17.545.2) requiring a registered sex offender parent to obtain written permission in order to be on their child’s school grounds for any event. Events requiring permission include but are not limited to: attending a parent/teacher conference, attending a play or concert in which the student is involved, attending a graduation ceremony, attending a sporting event in which the student is participating, and attending a “bring your parent to school day.”

[224]Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (U.S. 2003), Amicus Brief of the Office of the Public Defender for the State of New Jersey, the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey, and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey; DOC 178.pg.23 (a teenage girl in Texas shot herself to death after her father’s photo appeared on Internet registry, embarrassing her at school); (Amici have lodged with the Court a number of affidavits, newspaper articles, and other materials that shed light on the experiences of the offenders subject to these laws and other issues relevant to this case. The materials lodged under seal are designated as “PD __”; those not under seal are cited “DOC __.”)

[225] Human Rights Watch interview with Hunter E., Delran, New Jersey, July 30, 2012.

[226] Human Rights Watch interview with Mark O. and his family, Grand Rapids, Michigan, March 2012.

[227] Ibid.

[228] Human Rights Watch interview with Cindy D., St. Louis, Missouri, July 18, 2012.

[229] Human Rights Watch interview with Jerry M., Wilmington, Delaware, July 28, 2012.

[230] Ibid.

[231]Human Rights Watch correspondence with Sophie L. on the life of a child of a registered sex offender, July 26, 2012.

[232] Richard Tewskbury and Travis Humkey, “Prohibiting Registered Sex Offenders from Being at School: Assessing the Collateral Consequences of a Public Policy.”

[233]Paul A. Zandbergen and Timothy C. Hart, “Reducing housing options for convicted sex offenders: Investigating the impact of residency restriction laws using GIS,” Justice Research and Policy, vol. 8, no. 2 (2006), pp. 1-24.

[234] Paul A. Zandbergen and Timothy C. Hart, “Geocoding accuracy considerations in determining residency restrictions for sex offenders,” Criminal Justice Policy Review, vol. 20, no. 1 (March 2009), pp. 62‐90.

[235] Richard Tewksbury, “Exile at home: The unintended collateral consequences of sex offender residency restrictions,” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, vol. 42 (2007), pp. 531-541.

[236]Richard G. Zevitz and Mary Ann Farkas, “The impact of sex offender community notification on probation and parole in Wisconsin,” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, vol. 44, no. 1 (2000), pp. 8-21.

[237] J. C. Barnes, T. Dukes, R. Tewksbury, and T. De Troye, “Predicting the Impact of a Statewide Residence Restriction Law on South Carolina Sex Offenders,” Criminal Justice Policy Review, July 8, 2008.

[238] Abigail Goldman, “Young, But ‘Predators’ for Life: New Sex Offender Laws, Meant to Protect, May Instead Ruin Lives and Increase Risks,” Las Vegas Sun.

[239]Human Rights Watch interview with Aaron I., Palm Beach, Florida, June 1, 2012.

[240] Human Rights Watch interview with Kyle W., San Antonio, Texas, July 5, 2012.

[241] Human Rights Watch interview with Audrey R., Lake County, Florida, May 26, 2012.

[242]Human Rights Watch interview with Luna L., Duval County, Florida, May 25, 2012.

[243] Human Rights Watch interview with David H., Grand Rapids, Michigan, March 30, 2012.

[244] Ibid.

[245] University of North Carolina Center for Civil Rights, “Juvenile Delinquency Adjudication, Collateral consequences, and Expungement of Juvenile Records: A Survey of Law and Policy in Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida,” 2011, http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/civilrights/centerforcivilrightsexpungementreport.pdf (accessed March 21, 2013). See also Human Rights Watch, No Second Chance: People with Criminal Records Denied Access to Public Housing, November 18, 2004, https://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/11/17/no-second-chance-0.

[246]Human Rights Watch interview with Lucas W., Bartlett, Texas, April 29, 2012.

[247] Human Rights Watch interview with Emma J., wife of Lucas W., Bartlett, Texas, April 29, 2012.

[248] Human Rights Watch email correspondence with Isabella D., former teacher of Lewis A., October 22, 2012.

[249] Ibid.

[250] Human Rights Watch telephone interview and email correspondence with Isabella D., former teacher of Lewis A., in October 2012 and January 2013.

[251] Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Isabella D., former teacher of Lewis A., January 11, 2013.

[252] Ibid.

[253] Ibid.

[254] Human Rights Watch interviews with Blake G., Gainesville, Florida, March 2012 and May 2012.

[255] Connecticut § 53a-70 (a)(2); § 53a-71 (a)(1). Sexual intercourse with a person under age 13 if the actor is more than two years older is categorized as first-degree sexual assault.

[256] Local ordinance 09-019 in Lee County, Florida.

[257] Ibid.

[258]Zandbergen and Hart, “Reducing housing options for convicted sex offenders: Investigating the impact of residency restriction laws using GIS,” Justice Research and Policy, pp. 1-24.

[259] Human Rights Watch interview with Elijah B., Houston, Texas, April 28, 2012.

[260] Joanna S. Markman, “Community Notification and the Perils of Mandatory Juvenile Sex Offender Registration: The Dangers Faced by Children and their Families,” Seton Hall Legislative Journal, vol. 32 (2007), pp. 261, 285,http://works.bepress.com/joanna_markman/1 (accessed March 21, 2013) (citing Ala. Code § 15-20-21(4)(m) & -23(b)(3) (LexisNexis 1995 & Supp. 2007)).

[261]Alabama Sex Offender Act, sec. 1, 15-20-214(4)(m) and (b)(3); see Joanna S. Markman, “Community Notification and the Perils of Mandatory Juvenile Sex Offender Registration: The Dangers Faced by Children and their Families”; Michele L. Earl Hubbard, “The Child Sex Offender Registration Laws: The Punishment, Liberty Deprivation, and Unintended Results Associated with the Scarlet Letter Laws of the 1990’s,” 90 NW, U.L Rev. 788 (1996), p. 791 (Time limits vary as to when an offender must register when he moves to a different state, as well as the length of time an offender must remain in the registry).

[262] University of North Carolina Center for Civil Rights, “Juvenile Delinquency Adjudication, Collateral Consequences, and Expungement of Juvenile Records: A Survey of law and Policy in Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida”; “Convicted Sex Offender Expelled from Montana High School,” Associated Press, October 31, 2007, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306976,00.html#ixzz2O2cMtbt9 (accessed March 21, 2013).

[263]VA. CODE ANN.§22.1-277.2:1; Va. CODE ANN.§16.1-260(G). Under Virginia law, a student can be placed in an alternative education program if the student is found guilty or not innocent of an offense not related to homicide, weapons or firearms possession, felonious assault, criminal sexual assault, possession of controlled substances, arson, burglary, robbery, criminal street gang activity or recruitment, consumption of alcohol, or any crime that resulted in or could have resulted in injury to another.

[264]University of North Carolina Center for Civil Rights, “Juvenile Delinquency Adjudication, Collateral Consequences, and Expungement of Juvenile Records: A Survey of Law and Policy in Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida”; “Convicted Sex Offender Expelled From Montana High School,” Associated Press, October 31, 2007; see also American Bar Association, Juvenile Collateral Consequences Project, “Think before you plead: Juvenile collateral consequences in the United States, ” undated,http://www.beforeyouplea.com/ (accessed April 19, 2013); certain charges brought against a child can result in the school district placing the student in an alternative education program even without an adjudication of delinquency in states such as California (Cal. Educ. Code §§ 48915(d), 48915.01 (2010)), Tennessee (Tennessee State Board of Education, Alternative School Program Standards, http://www.state.tn.us/sbe/aternativeschool.htm), and Virginia (VA. CODE ANN. §22.1-277.2:1).

[265] University of North Carolina Center for Civil Rights, “Juvenile Delinquency Adjudication, Collateral Consequences, and Expungement of Juvenile Records,” p. 6.

[266] Ibid.

[267] Human Rights Watch interview with Liam L., Fulton, Missouri, March 25, 2012.

[268] Human Rights Watch interview with Jackson D., Garland, Texas, May 2, 2012.

[269] University of North Carolina Center for Civil Rights, “Juvenile Delinquency Adjudication, Collateral Consequences, and Expungement of Juvenile Records.”

[270]J.S. Levenson and R. Tewskbury, “Collateral Damage: Family members of registered sex offenders,” American Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 34 (June 2009), pp. 54-68.

[271] University of North Carolina Center for Civil Rights, “Juvenile Delinquency Adjudication, Collateral Consequences, and Expungement of Juvenile Records.”

[272]Council of State Governments (CSG), “Legislating Sex Offender Management: Trends in State Legislation 2007 and 2008,” 2010, http://www.csg.org/policy/documents/SOMLegislativeReport-FINAL.pdf (accessed April 22, 2013). Most state bills introduced in the 2007 and 2008 sessions dealt with jobs that would bring the offender into contact with children. Recent legislation also sought to prevent sex offenders from being able to obtain or retain certain professional licenses. According to a 2010 survey conducted by the Council for State Governments (CSG), in at least four states—Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Utah—legislators acted to require the revocation or suspension of teaching credentials upon a conviction of certain sexual offenses. California passed a law (CA Senate Bill 252) to deny or revoke dental licenses and massage therapy licenses to convicted sex offenders. Massachusetts now prohibits certain sex offenders from obtaining licenses to drive buses (MA House Bill 4396), while New York targeted real estate licenses (NY Senate Bill 1531).

[273] Council of State Governments (CSG), “Legislating Sex Offender Management: Trends in State Legislation 2007 and 2008,” 2010.

[274] Human Rights Watch interview with Maya R., Howell, Michigan, February 2, 2012.

[275] Ibid.

[276] Human Rights Watch interview with Maya R., Howell, Michigan, March 18, 2013.

[277] Ibid.

[278] Public Acts 17-19 of 2011 amended Michigan’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), effective July 1, 2011.Individuals who were under the age of 14 at the time of their adjudication are not required to register. Anyone currently on the registry must petition the court for removal if not automatically removed.

[279] Human Rights Watch interview with Maya R., March 18, 2013.

[280] Ibid.

[281] Human Rights Watch interview with Elijah B., Houston, Texas, April 28, 2012.

[282] Human Rights Watch interview with Jackson D., Garland, Texas, May 2, 2012

[283] Human Rights Watch interview with Joshua Gravens and his wife, Dallas, Texas, April 27, 2012

[284] Colorado Criminal Code, Section 18-21-103.

[285] California Criminal Code, Chapter 337, Section 18.

[286] New York Penal Law, Article 60, Section 60.35.

[287] Jessica McMaster, “State Sen. Rick Jones Wants Sex Offenders To Pay Annual Fee,” Fox17 News, http://fox17online.com/2013/02/05/state-sen-rick-jones-wants-sex-offenders-to-pay-annual-fee/#ixzz2Qq1qcUUA (accessed April 22, 2013).

[288] Illinois Child Sex Offender Registration Law. 730 ILCS 150/3; Public Act 094-0994 (2007); Frank Main, “Sex offenders file suit to get $100 registration fee waived,” Chicago Sun Times, November 7, 2012, http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/16220825-418/sex-offenders-file-suit-to-get-100-registration-fee-waived.html (accessed March 21, 2013).

[289] New York Penal Law, Article 60, Section 60.35.

[290] Human Rights Watch interview with Lydia B., Killeen, Texas, April 27, 2012.

[291] Human Rights Watch interview with Ethan Ashley, Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 29, 2012.

[292] Human Rights Watch interview with Ethan Ashley, Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 29, 2012.

[293] Ibid.

[294] Alex Cameron, “Risky Business: Registering Juvenile Sex Offenders in Oklahoma,” NewsOn6, Tulsa, Oklahoma, July 12, 2011, http://www.newson6.com/story/15070600/risky-business-registering-juvenile-sex-offenders-in-oklahoma (accessed April 22, 2013).

[295] Ibid.

[296] Ibid. (quoting Dr. Marc Chaffin).

[297] Human Rights Watch email correspondence with Dr. Marc Chaffin, October 12, 2012.

[298] Steve Berg, “Sex offender non-compliance costs Oklahoma federal funds,”KRMG.com, http://www.krmg.com/news/news/local/sex-offender-Oklahoma/nSYZP/ (accessed April 22, 2013).