Updated 4/23/2026; originally published 2/4/2025 at narsol.org as Sex offender residency restrictions: bad, bad public policy.”

By Sandy . . . Residency restrictions for persons required to register as sexual offenders are often enacted for no reason other than neighboring towns have implemented them. They spread like wildfire, and like that

destructive force, they wreak their own form of havoc, making it more and more difficult for registrants to find decent housing for themselves and their families. This, in turn, makes it more and more difficult for them to create the stability they need to become productive citizens, which, according to research, is what drives down recidivism.

What with adding more people to the registry and in some cases making the laws retroactive, the number of individuals caught up in this maelstrom of flame grows exponentially each year.

The spark that starts the blaze is one we all share, the drive to keep our children safe. Residency restrictions, however, are an inappropriate and contraindicated response to that desire. They are based on three assumptions that are contradicted by evidence:

Residency restrictions assume most child sexual abuse is committed by persons unknown or barely known to their random victims when in reality 93% or higher of cases involves someone well known to the children who have been specifically chosen.

The percentage of situations in which a prior relationship exists between an abuser and a child victim varies dependent on the age of the victim. A study done by the Office of Juvenile Justice found that for very young children, family members and very close acquaintances comprise close to 100% of their offenders while for teens, those categories make up 94.3%. The U.S. Department of Justice, in a mega study, found that overall, 93% of the offenders of children and teens were either family members or trusted acquaintances (p.10).

The policies presume offenders choose victims based on residential proximity, which is not supported by research.

Residency restrictions create zones around schools, daycare facilities, and often parks. These laws and policies, once begun, spread throughout a state with unstoppable ferocity. A two-state study, Michigan and Missouri, did not support the mistaken theory that living close to one of these was a factor in repeat sexual offenses against children. Another study examining several states found “. . . proximity to schools and daycares, with other risk factors being comparable, does not appear to contribute to sexual recidivism. These data do not support the widespread enactment of residential restrictions for sexual offenders” (introduction).

Residency restrictions assume that most sexual abuse is committed by repeat offenders, which research shows to be inaccurate.

On average, a significant majority of registered sex offenders are one-time, first-time-convicted offenders. A study in New York found that “. . . over 95% of all sexual offense arrests were committed by first-time sex offenders, casting doubt on the ability of laws that target repeat offenders to meaningfully reduce sexual offending” (abstract), and a study from the university of Tennessee had very similar findings. They report, “Another factor constraining [sex offender registries’] effectiveness is that past studies have shown that . . .‘94.1% of those arrested for child molestation were first-time sex offenders’ ” (conclusion of major findings).

Restrictions often force offenders away from support systems, treatment, stable housing, and employment opportunities, which are crucial for successful reintegration. These are the elements associated with remaining offense-free. Some areas are so encompassed by residency restrictions that homelessness has escalated, especially in states where residency restrictions are aggressively implemented, states as diverse as Wisconsin,  Florida, North Carolina, Illinois, and many more.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is the state of Kansas, which actually has a page on its DOC website about why residency restrictions do not work; the state passed legislation in 2006 prohibiting its  jurisdictions from implementing them.

What drives down reoffense? Housing and employment

stability, access to evidence-based treatment, amd family and community connectedness. What makes those things difficult, sometimes impossible? Residency restrictions.

Are there individuals for whom restrictions from a specific type of place is appropriate? Almost assuredly, and they should be handled on an individualized basis.

Creating “umbrella” laws that indiscriminately restrict everyone listed on a state’s registry, or everyone of a certain classification or tier, thus creating pockets of homeless registrants and acting as a barrier between registrant and rehabilitation, is more than just inappropriate and contraindicated.

It is unrestrained madness.

The post Sex offender residency restrictions–a harmful response first appeared on NARSOL.

The post NARSOL suit filed in Oklahoma over marked driver’s licenses first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . Residency restrictions for persons required to register as sexual offenders are often enacted for no reason other than neighboring towns have implemented them. They spread like wildfire,

and like that destructive force, they wreak their own form of havoc, making it more and more difficult for registrants to find decent housing for themselves and their families. This, in turn, makes it more and more difficult for them to create the stability they need to become productive citizens, which, in reality, is what drives down recidivism.

The match that starts the blaze is the totally appropriate desire, a desire we all share, to protect children from sexual harm. Residency restrictions, however, are an inappropriate response to that desire. They are based on three assumptions that are contradicted by evidence:

Residency restrictions assume most child sexual abuse is committed by strangers, when in reality 94 % or higher of cases involve someone known to the child.

The percentage of situations in which a prior relationship exists between an abuser and a child victim varies dependent on the age of

the victim. A study done by the Office of Juvenile Justice found that for very young children, family members and close acquaintances comprise close to 100% of their offenders while for teens, those categories make up 94.3%. The U.S. Department of Justice, in a mega study, found that overall, 90% of the offenders of children and teens were either family members or trusted acquaintances (p.10).

The policies presume offenders choose victims based on residential proximity, which is not supported by research.

Residency restrictions create zones around schools, daycare facilities, and often parks. A two-state study, Michigan and Missouri, did not support the mistaken theory that living close to one of these was a factor in repeat sexual offenses against children. Another study examining several states found that, in Florida, “There was no significant relationship between reoffending and proximity to schools or daycares.”

Residency restrictions assume that most sexual abuse is committed by repeat offenders, which research shows to be inaccurate.

On average, a significant majority of registered sex offenders are one-time, first-time-convicted offenders. A study in New York found that “. . . over 95% of all sexual offense arrests were committed by first-time sex offenders, casting doubt on the ability of laws that target repeat offenders to meaningfully reduce sexual offending,” and a study from the university of Tennessee had very similar findings. They report, “Another factor constraining [sex offender registries’] effectiveness is that past studies have shown that … ‘94.1% of those arrested for child molestation were first-time sex offenders.’ ”

Restrictions often force offenders away from support systems, treatment, stable housing, and employment opportunities, which are crucial for successful reintegration. These are the elements associated with remaining offense-free. Some areas are so encompassed by residence restrictions that homelessness has escalated, especially in states where residency restrictions are aggressively implemented, such as Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is the state of Kansas, who

actually has a page on their DOC website about why residency restrictions do not work and who passed legislation in 2006 prohibiting their jurisdictions from implementing them.

What drives down reoffense? Housing and employment stability; family and community connectedness. What makes those things difficult, sometimes impossible? Residency restrictions.

The choice should be easy.

The post Sex offender residency restrictions: bad, bad public policy first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . The Jacob Wetterling Registration Act, which created the sex offender registry; Megan’s Law, which mandates public disclosure; the Adam Walsh Act, which sets new guidelines: Each name

evokes the image of a child and, for those required to register as sexual offenders, specifics about the laws and what they require. The use of children’s names to create these acts and laws was initiated at the national level, and it occurs at the state level as well, such as Jessica’s Law in Florida, which strengthened the registry and added harsher penalties; and Chelsea’s Law in California, which also increased and enhanced penalties and sentencing.

In Texas, in 2024, eleven-year-old Audrii Cunningham was murdered by a man who was a friend of Audrii’s father and was living in a trailer on her grandparents’ property. He had an extensive and varied criminal background, including a conviction for child enticement—in Texas, not a registerable offense.

If media publicity is the measuring rod, Audrii’s Law, Texas House Bill 2000, is the only piece of

legislation that matters in the 2025 legislative session. Compared to the other laws with children’s names attached, it is somewhat mild. It will have no effect on Texans who are already registered. It seeks only to make the charge of child grooming a registerable offense going forward, which adds more names to an already bloated registry, a registry that studies uniformly validate as failing to improve public safety.

However, Audrii’s Law has far more in common than in opposition to the other laws.

•  Each of them was enacted as a response to a specific crime, in all cases the murder of a child or, in one instance, a teenager. In some cases, the perpetrator was a registered sexual offender, in some not.
•  In each case the law or act is named after the child victim, female in all but two instances.
• In all cases there was a great deal of public outrage; often vigils and memorials were held.
• Each act or law extends—or creates—the registry or consequences to persons on it.
• Each of the laws and acts ignores the vast body of evidence-driven data concerning not only the realities of child sexual abuse but also the failure of the sex offender registry to improve public safety.
• None of the laws or acts address the very real tragedy of child sexual assault—although that is how they are publicized. These cases involve isolated situations of murder; in at least one of the situations, a sexual component may not have been present.
• The perpetrator of each crime therefore has virtually nothing in common with the three-quarters of a million plus individuals who are required to register in America today.

Creating laws based on rare, horrific crimes is bad and dangerous public policy. It uses a tragic, one-off situation and applies it to a group of people who have not done nor will do what was done. It creates “umbrellas laws,” punishing entire categories of individuals for the crimes of a scant handful.

The result is a burgeoning prison population equaled by a burgeoning demand on taxpayer funds to support the imprisonment of so many who could adequately, safely, and much less expensively be managed through community supervision.

To be effective, laws must bear a direct relationship to the desired outcome. The desired outcome is to come as close as possible to eliminating child sexual abuse. The perpetrators of child sexual abuse are

almost always individuals who are not on the registry but are, dependent on the age of the child,  between 94 and close to 100% of the time family members and other persons trusted by the family.  A continued emphasis on the registry, which is based on “stranger-danger” and focuses exclusively on those already registered due to a previous conviction, has been ineffective in meeting the objective and will continue to be so.

The protection of children is too important a goal to be sabotaged by laws that do not address the issue and are disconnected from the desired outcome. Proven prevention programs, improved support for victims, and sentencing that allows for accountability with support for rehabilitation should be the building blocks that drive this vital goal. Using rare, tragic cases as the impetus for laws and naming those laws with the names of the child victims pull at the public’s heartstrings, make “heroes” out of legislators who support the laws, but fail miserably at meeting that goal.

The post Legislative bills named after child victims get A+ for emotion, F for effectiveness first appeared on NARSOL.

In advance of the all-advocates vigil to be held in Washington, D.C., March 3-4, this letter will be mailed to the Supreme Court.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (SCOTUS)

Dear Chief Justice Roberts,

We, the undersigned organizations, are writing to respectfully address the Court.

When the Court issued its decision on March 5, 2003, in Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, the lives of millions of American citizens were negatively and significantly impacted, specifically the lives of those required to register as sexual offenders as well as members of their families; and their communities were torn asunder.

To honor and remember the countless lives that have been damaged or destroyed as a result of this decision during the past two decades, advocates from across the nation will gather in Washington, D.C., on March 3 for a commemoration of this decision as well as the significant harm it has caused. On that day, we will gather near the steps of the Supreme Court Building starting at 11 a.m. for a vigil in order to shed light on the significant adverse effects of Smith v. Doe, as well as the now-disproven myth that the re-offense rate for sex-related crimes is “frightening and high” and that registration as a sex offender is “similar to membership in the Price Club.”

What are some of these significant adverse effects?

• Persons required to register are underemployed or unemployed due to their registry status.
• Persons required to register have very limited housing opportunities because state and local jurisdictions have passed laws–and applied them retroactively–that prohibit registrants from living near schools, parks and other locations. This has, in some cases, led to homelessness for both registrants and their families. Persons on the registry, including veterans, are often denied entry into senior care facilities.
• Persons on the registry are often denied entry into  homeless shelters and emergency shelters.
• Some persons required to register who are veterans are denied burial in a military cemetery even though they earned that benefit by serving the nation in military service.

Families of registrants are significantly affected.

• Spouses and partners are criticized for “standing by” a person on the registry.
• Economic and housing difficulties are exacerbated by the registration status of their loved ones—which is what causes the economic and housing difficulties.
• Children of registrants are often harassed and excluded from social occasions and school friendships and groups.

The threat of vigilante activity is part of a registrant’s daily life.

• Persons required to register are harassed, threatened, and assaulted; their cars and homes are damaged. Vigilantes, in fact, have murdered  persons required to register solely because they  are on a sex offender registry.
• The fear of being listed on a registry contributes to individuals taking their lives rather than facing the shame of the registry. One of those individuals was a state court judge in Maryland who chose death rather than endure the consequences of an accusation and the significant harm that would result from being required to register.

 How did it come to this? The words “frightening and high” quoted in Smith v. Doe were used to describe the re-offense rate of persons who have been convicted of

sexual crimes. The fact is those words were taken directly from an article published in a Psychology Today magazine. The article did not reflect any type of research but instead was a marketing statement that was later refuted by its author.

This finding influenced the Court’s reasoning in several key ways:

• The Court used the magazine claim of a high re-offense rate to justify Alaska’s Sex Offender Registration Act (ASORNA) as a necessary public safety measure.
• This claim also influenced the Court’s classification of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) law as regulatory rather than punitive, stripping registrants of their constitutional rights.
• This claim was also used to justify the retroactive application of the registry, denying registrants ex post facto protection.
• The “frightening and high” language has had and continues to have significant influence on later cases, having been cited in numerous federal and state cases to uphold various sex offender laws and restrictions that punish registrants and their families.

Those three horrible words — “frightening and high” — have been discredited over and over during the past 22 years. In fact, not one source can be found upholding their validity, and yet they live on. That is why on March 3, 2025, we will gather near the steps of the Supreme Court Building, and we will grieve. We will grieve for all of those whose deaths are directly linked to the registry. We will also grieve for the men, women, and children on sex offender registries today whose constitutional rights have been denied and continue to be denied. Finally, we will grieve for our nation, burdened with this blight on its history—and on its future.

Respectfully,

1. Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL)
2. Family Safety Foundation
3. National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL)
4. Restorative Action Alliances
5. United Voices for Sex Offense Reform (UV4SOR)
6. Vivante Espero Foundation
7. Women Against Registry (WAR) and the WAR Family Foundation
8. AL: Alabama Voices
9. AK: Alaskans for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (AKRSOL)
10. AR: Arkansas Time After Time
11. AZ: Arizonans for Rational Sex Offense Laws (AZRSOL)
12. DE: Delaware Advocates for RSOL (DARSOL)
13. FL: Florida Action Committee
14. GA: Restore Georgia
15. HI: Hawaiian Voices
16. IA: Iowans Unafraid
17. IN: Indiana Voices
18. KS: Kansas CUAR
19. MA: Massachusetts Advocates for RSOL
20. MO: Missouri Advocates for RSOL
21. MD: Families Advocating Intelligent Registries (FAIR) Maryland
22. MI: Michigan Citizens for Justice
23. MN: Minnesota for our Rights
24. MS: Mississippi Advocates for RSOL
25. MT: Montana Advocates for RSOL
26. NC: North Carolina RSOL
27. NC- NARSOL-NC
28. ND: North Dakota Advocates for RSOL
29. NE: Nebraskans Unafraid
30. NM: Liberty and Justice Coalition New Mexico
31. NY: Restorative Action Alliance New York
32. OH: Ohio RSOL
33. OK: OK VOICES, INC.
34. OK: Oklahoma Reform Sex Offender Laws
35. OR: Oregon Voices
36. PA: Pennsylvania Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (PARSOL)
37. SC: South Carolina for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (SCRSOL)
38. SD: South Dakota Advocates for RSOL
39. TN: Tennessee Advocates for RSOL
40. TX: Texas Voices for Reason and Justice
41. VA: Safer Virginia
42. WV: West Virginia Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (WVRSOL)
43. WI: Wisconsin Advocates for RSOL

The post Does Smith v. Doe really hurt people today? first appeared on NARSOL.