|
Title An Investigation in to State and Local Practices |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Author
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Abstract
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Introduction
California, beginning in 1946, was the first
state that required prior sex offenders to register with local law
enforcement agencies. With the
passage of the Jacob-Wetterling Registration Act in 1994, every state was
finally required to establish a sex offender registration and tracking system
by 1997. Failure to do so would
result in a state losing up to 10% of their Byrne Memorial State and Local
Law Enforcement Assistance funding. In 1996, the Jacob-Wetterling Act was
amended to include implementation of the Megan’s Law community notification
statute. Despite California being the first state to
require sex offender registration, the accuracy of the registration program,
the usefulness to law enforcement agencies and the general public, and the
accessibility to the public are all near dead last among the 50 states. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Background
Implementation of
community notification laws vary state by state and each state differs as to
the methods used and information available to the public. Some states
proactively inform the community of the presence of offenders and other
states merely make information available to citizens upon request. At one extreme, states (like Florida)
provide detailed information, maps, or photographs on websites accessible to
the general public, and other states (like California) require the public to
go to a law enforcement agency to see a more limited amount of data. The difference reflects the fact that
there is no national standard to guide the practice of community
notification. Intended Benefits Community notification laws have been
enacted in response to public demand. There is, as yet, little empirical
evidence of their impact. Accordingly, most benefits of community
notification are more accurately described as expectations. Proponents of
community notification suggest the following benefits: The Right to
Know. Community residents,
and parents in particular, have the right to know if a potentially dangerous
person is living in their neighborhood. Public Safety. With knowledge that a person with a history
of sexually abusive behavior lives nearby, citizens can better protect
themselves, their children, and their neighbors’ children. Supervision
and Prevention. Community
notification alerts prior offenders that the larger community, not just law
enforcement, is monitoring them to prevent further offenses. Community
Involvement. Community
notification offers the opportunity for residents to increase collaborative
efforts to promote public safety through the sharing of information and
education. How Community Notification Works Federal law has allowed wide latitude in
fashioning notification processes. Some states centralize the establishment
of guidelines and reporting at the state level with review boards to assess
and classify each offender, the method and extent of notification being on a
case-by-case basis. In some states,
notification is only for high-risk offenders or offenders who have committed
crimes against children. In others, no distinction is made between the types
of sex offenders and all are subject to notification. And some states allow
local jurisdictions to assess offenders and determine the method and extent
of notification; California being in this category. Typically, the information provided includes
an offenders’ name, photograph, age, crime description, and the age(s) of
their victims. More detailed information, such as home or work address, is up
to a local jurisdiction. In Louisiana, the law mandates that sex offenders
themselves must notify the communities they live in of their presence by
sending a card to community members within a three block (in urban areas) to
one-mile (in rural areas) radius, and by placing advertisements in two local
newspapers that inform the community of their presence. Depending on
jurisdiction, residents can receive notification that sex offenders are in
the neighborhood through letters, posters, public meetings, or
radio/television press. Depending upon the state in which they live, citizens
can also obtain information by contacting local law enforcement agencies by
mail, telephone, or the Internet. Two-thirds of notification states,
including California, have guidelines and procedures written into state law. Almost every state has established a
multi-tier “risk” system to identify the most predatory, dangerous offenders.
While there is no perfect risk assessment for all offenders, an assessment
assists to identify offenders with violent tendencies, target resources to
monitor prior offenders who are more likely to re-offend, and determine the
level and nature of community notification. California uses the following 3 categories: High-Risk – The highest risk offenders who have
previously been convicted of at least one violent offense or a combination of
other offenses. Serious – Rape, sodomy or oral copulation with a minor, sodomy or oral copulation by force, sexual abuse or molestation of a child, felony sexual battery, enticement or abduction of a child for purposes of prostitution, or assault with intent to commit sex offenses. Other – Pornography, incest, indecent exposure,
misdemeanor sexual battery, spousal rape, or juvenile offense adjudicated in
juvenile court. In California “High-Risk” and “Serious”
offenders are subject to public disclosure under Megan’s Law and “Other”
offenders are not. Previous offenders are monitored by
probation and parole officers until they have satisfied the terms of their
sentences, and then are most often not monitored thereafter. Registration
laws vary from state to state and may require that previous offenders notify
the police if they relocate for several years after release to the rest of
there life. In the case of
California, registration is a lifetime requirement. Balancing Competing Interests Prior offenders have to live somewhere and the
community they live in has a right to safety. How can these interests be
addressed in a balanced way? The public often has little understanding of sex offenders, sexual offending, and treatment interventions for these offenders. Some of the most proactive communities have used notification as an opportunity to educate their communities by providing information to address concerns, counter misinformation, quell fears, discourage vigilantism, and offer tools for citizens to enhance public safety. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Results 40 states and the District of Columbia
maintain state-sponsored websites with detailed prior offender data. 5 states (Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nevada,
Rhode Island, and Vermont) have no state or local websites with any prior
offender data. 5 states (California,
Missouri, Oregon, South Dakota, and Washington) have limited or local
city/county websites with prior offender data. Refer to the “State Website Links” section, below,
for a complete list of links.
Of the almost 425,000 registered offenders tracked nationwide, approximately 85,000, or 20%, are in California, approximately 175,000 (40%) are in the next 9 largest registration states, and approximately 175,000 (40%) are in the other 40 states and District of Columbia.
According to the California State Dept. of Justice (DOJ), of the 100,000+ registrants tracked by California, 82,000 are categorized “Serious,” 1,800 are categorized “High-Risk,” and 16,500 are categorized “Other.”
Of the 100,000+ registrants tracked by California, 68,000 are in the community, 17,000 are incarcerated, 12,500 are out of state, and 3,000 were deported. However, this information is incorrect or inaccurate for over 30% of the registrants, according to a 2003 Associated Press audit.
A survey found 18 states were unable to track how many sex offenders were failing to register, or simply did not know. The survey found that up-to-date addresses for more than 77,000 sex offenders are missing from the databases of 32 states, despite the federal law requirement that the addresses of convicted sex offenders are to be verified at least once a year. All states responded to the group's survey, but only 32 were able to provide failure rates. Many of these said they have never audited their sex offender registries and could provide only rough estimates of their accuracy. Of equally great concern was the lack of federal assistance in tracking inter-state movement of prior offenders, let alone a concerted program for sharing or coordinating state data on a national level. Community notification laws have been based
on an assumption that by giving the public knowledge of nearby prior
offenders, it will help prevent further sexual assault. It may be impossible
to gauge the number of crimes prevented by notification laws. There is no
empirical information to support the contention that greater public access
and notification directly results in better prevention, better adherence by
prior offenders to registration, or a better sense of security by the general
public. There is anecdotal evidence,
though, that public interest and pressure on legislative and law enforcement
entities increases the priority placed on enforcement activities by the
responsible state and local departments to maintain current and correct information
on prior offenders. To contrast two state programs -- the
Florida and California enforcement programs. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Florida
In Florida, the state funds and staffs a
coordinated state level program. The
state provides a state-maintained Internet website of prior offenders with
detailed information and photographs.
During 2002 the website received over 5 million hits. With over 27,500
prior offenders required to register with the state, only 4.7% of those are not
in compliance (less than 1,250). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Florida state website allows the general
public to search on a wide-range of criteria and filter the search on over 20
criteria. And the Florida website
doesn’t just keep track of offenders in Florida, it also keeps track of
offenders convicted in Florida who have moved out of state. A search using the criteria of
“Sacramento, CA” resulted in three records of offenders matching! Florida's Department
of Law Enforcement sends letters out each year and has a full-time staff of
11 to keep close track of those that come back. Offenders who don't respond
often get a visit from police.
Several state agencies, including the department that issues driver's
licenses and state identification cards, which sex offenders in Florida are
required to keep, have access to the database and cooperate with law
enforcement efforts to keep the data current. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
California
By contrast, in
California, a weakly coordinated state enforcement program defers enforcement
and reporting activities to local jurisdictions. While the state maintains a comprehensive database of names,
ages, photographs, convictions, and last locations of registered offenders,
it is only accessible through a statewide “900” toll -line or by individual
viewing in police and sheriff stations in larger communities. During 2002, the state-wide “900” Line received 7,468 inquiries by telephone and 1,040 inquiries by mail, which generated a total of 65,974 searches of the VCIN database, and 56,076 members of the public viewed Megan’s Law information at law enforcement facilities, community events sponsored by law enforcement agencies, and at community events sponsored by the DOJ. At the DOJ-sponsored events, 1,980 viewers (over 11 percent) indicated they recognized sex offenders as friends, neighbors, employers, relatives, and in a few instances, people in positions of authority or responsibility over children. Also in 2002, California's Justice Department touted its sex offender database as being a valuable tool for the public -- announcing that information was updated daily and was available in 13 languages. In February 2003 the Associated Press performed an unofficial audit of the California State Sex Offender Registry, the first audit ever done by anyone, and found that the state had lost track of more than 33,000 sex offenders, representing 44% of the then 76,350 who registered at least once since the state required registration in 1946. That does not count the offenders who never registered as required. California is not unique. Even the biggest supporters of Megan's Law say the system
is fundamentally flawed across the nation, since almost all states rely on
convicted sex offenders to check in with law enforcement, and few agencies
provide the resources to follow up.
On average, the non-compliance rate for registration is approximately
24% nation-wide. The difference between the success of Florida and the lack of success in other states appears to be the a state-driven program, legislative support, and technological support that helps the Law Enforcement staff in Florida keep track of required registrants. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Local
Responses in California Despite the lack of a statewide program, 9 counties and
20 cities in California maintain on-line offender locator maps, photo
listings, or other form of location listings for offenders. Refer to the “California
City and County Website Links” section, below, for a complete list of
links.
San Diego San Diego has one of the longest existing pin-map websites. The pin-map gives street-level detail with schools, parks, and generalized locations of offenders that maintains statutory required ambiguity. Search features allow users to see the general area where offenders reside and gauge the number of offenders within a relative area. While the maps on the website provide no offender-specific data beyond generalized locations and whether a High-Risk or Serious offender, and while most San Diego zip code areas have over 6,000 residents, making pinpointing of offenders impossible, it provides a way for an initial inquiry by the public that is easily accessible.
Placer County Placer County has a countywide pin-map with
less detail than San Diego. While it cannot be zoomed and searched like the
San Diego pin-map, it doesn’t need such features given the large size of the
county, relatively lower population density, and fewer number of
registrants. The Placer County
pin-map is an excellent example of a simple, yet very informative picture of
sex offender locations. This is in
contrast to the other 45 counties in the state that have no on-line
information other than a few references to the viewable data available at
their local law enforcement agency.
San Jose In December 2003, the San Jose Mercury News decided to publish the photographs, addresses, and other information on 54 “high-risk” sex offenders then registered in the San Jose region – the first time such information was made public in California on any large scale. The fallout from the
article was that three of the previous offenders were identified to have lied
on employment applications that placed them in situations in violation of
their parole. Two previous offenders with multiple previous rape convictions
were living in households with teenage and older females who were unaware of
their past convictions. And one
offender assaulted a woman and was apprehended because of the identification
in the paper. San Jose spends
$600,000 a year on five officers, a sergeant and a civilian analyst who work full-time
knocking on doors, searching the Web and otherwise keeping tabs on their
2,700 rapists and child molesters. In San Jose, police can instantly identify
every known molester living in an area as soon as they learn of a missing
child. In 2002, when a 7-year-old
girl was raped, the department ran a list of every prior offender who fit the
suspect's description and who lived or worked within one mile of the
attack. Every one of them was in
compliance because of the city’s record-keeping system and monthly
audits. When San Jose Police have to
pull a list of suspects, it's accurate. In the wake of the Mercury News article, and in spite of having an already exemplary program, the San Jose Police Department posted a more comprehensive offender web site with names, locations, and photographs of the most serious prior offenders. In 2003, when Megan’s Law information was only available for viewing at police stations, the database was only viewed 360 times in San Jose. In the 3 months since the San Jose Police placed the information on-line, the website has been visited 22,000 times. To date, only one study, performed in the state of Washington, has been completed regarding the impact of community notification on offender recidivism. Research shown for a matched sample of 90 offenders subject to community notification and 90 offenders not subject to community notification (comparable in all other aspects), recidivism in the community notification group were re-arrested sooner than recidivists in the non-notification group. However, the level of recidivism after 4.5 years for both groups was the same, with no statistically significant difference in re-offending between the two groups. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
County
Median Income Trend Per capita offenders populations range from 8 per 10,000 in Mono County to almost 80 per 10,000 (or 10 times as high) in Del Norte County. Regardless of population density, local public access of offender data, and whether or not the local police are more or less vigilant, there was nothing immediately apparent to explain the variance in offenders from county to county. But a comparative analysis
based upon county median income data from the 2000 census provided the
following trend results regarding median income vs. prior offender
population. The results show higher
median income counties tend to have a lower per capita offender population
and a lower median income counties tend to have a higher per capita offender
population.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Challenges to a GIS Solutions
There
are several challenges to providing a GIS solution for Community
Notification. The first relates to privacy issues. Laws in at least five states prevent public access and/or certain information from being released o the public. In California there are the two impediments of the access to the information is restricted to viewing in a law enforcement agency office or controlled setting and the information contains no specific address information on the offenders. This creates a challenge for local jurisdictions that decide to create offender “pin-maps” for public display, requiring the true location of offenders be ambiguously generalized as a large “point” feature. And because of legal restrictions, no information beyond whether the point is for a “Serious” or “High-Risk” offender can be displayed. A second challenge is how to use GIS to provide the offender information. Few jurisdictions have detailed geospatial data, let alone GIS systems in place that can be used. Cost factors involved in acquiring GIS software, creating street-level data layers, and providing search features to find and present offender information in a geospatial presentation is beyond the capabilities of most city and county law enforcement agencies. A third challenge is the accuracy of the offender data and ongoing maintenance. Given that the state of California cannot validate the accuracy of the state data, and the non-compliance rate of registrations, the accuracy and maintenance of the offender data is beyond the scope of most law enforcement agencies. The city of San Jose spends $600,000 per year on their compliance program and estimates for an equivalent state response runs as high as $20 million. And a final challenge is the education required of the public. GIS can provide information to the community, but cannot control how that information is used or prevent its misuse. The challenge is to use information wisely and to advise the public about what they can expect from notification, which does not in and of itself guarantee community safety. The way criminal justice officials carry out public education around these laws and their implementation is likely to contribute significantly to their success or failure of a GIS solution. Legal Challenges
Constitutionality. Community notification has been challenged
in the courts on: ex-post-facto application, issues of privacy, unwarranted
search and seizure, excessive punishment, double jeopardy, and inappropriate
conditions of parole. Notification and information access has been partially
blocked in several states -- California, Massachusetts, and Hawaii for
example. While notification laws have passed legal tests in almost every
jurisdiction, final resolution may ultimately come through a U.S. Supreme
Court decision. The primary debate in this area is whether notification is
viewed as punitive (and therefore subjects the offender to punishment beyond
the original sentence) or regulatory (which is generally considered to be a
permissible action of the state). Vigilantism. Opponents of community notification are
concerned that individuals (and communities) will react aggressively towards
prior offenders. Although such incidents have been rare, vehicles have been
vandalized, offenders and their families have been beaten and verbally
assaulted, and a single incident of a house burning has been documented.
There have been cases where persons that were believed to be prior offenders
have been harassed, only to discover mistaken identification. Law enforcement
agencies have worked to prevent such vigilantism, but individual acts of
violence are always possible. Legal authorities reiterate and enforce
provisions that such action by citizens will not be tolerated. Careful
implementation of notification laws and comprehensive community education
efforts are perhaps the best ways to prevent such acts. Unintended Consequences. Anecdotal evidence suggests that community notification practices have had some unintended consequences. These include a decrease in offender reporting compliance with registration requirements, an increase in plea-bargaining, and a decrease by some child protective agencies in charging juveniles with sexual abuse to avoid subjecting children and adolescents to the scrutiny of public notification laws. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Conclusions From data analysis
- Higher Median Income in a county in California generally equates to a lower
percentage of prior offenders in that county compared to other counties. Community notification has swept across the
nation with strong political and public support. Notification legislation is
a beginning, but it raises many questions still unanswered about how to
achieve community safety. Because
little research has been conducted on community notification issues, limited
empirical evidence is available to support or contradict the presumed
benefits or risks of community notification. Neither community notification laws,
publicly available Internet information, nor GIS are in and of themselves
solutions to this complex problem.
Rather, they are tools in the effort.
Whether or not a GIS solution exists at state or local levels is not
going to solve the problem. However,
the presence of a GIS solution can be indicative of the overall priority that
legislative and judicial entities are placing on the problem of keeping track
of potentially dangerous prior offenders. Community notification laws affirm the
public’s desire for protection from sexual assault and predatory behavior.
However, they do not suggest what communities should do once they are
notified that sex offenders live in their midst. Conflict over privacy and
access is inevitable. For every
person or group that lobbies to restrict dissemination of information,
another lobbies to gain access. Effective implementation must include education
on how community members can protect themselves and their families, protect
prior offenders from potential vigilante behavior, and ensure that
notification practices do not impede the equally desirable goal of moving
offenders into law-abiding lifestyles in the community. There are GIS software solutions for
government entities to make internet-based offender maps available to the
public, while still maintaining a level of location ambiguity to maintain
privacy. ESRI, Digital Map, and
Intergraph produce GIS packages tailored for Megan’s Law that allow law
enforcement agencies to control the amount of data, level of detail, and
ambiguity levels of the map presentations to comply with varying legal
statutes and requirements. Notification laws may provide useful
information to community members but the challenge is to use that information
wisely and to advise the public about what they can expect from notification,
which does not in and of itself guarantee community safety. The way criminal
justice officials carry out public education around these laws and their
implementation is likely to contribute significantly to their success or
failure. After the 2003 AP report, the California
Attorney General pledged to work more closely with local police to update the
database. A year later, in 2004,
improved record keeping determined that more than 12,000 of the
unaccounted-for sex offenders had died, been deported, were back behind bars,
or had moved out of state. But that
still left over 22,000 missing rapists and child molesters, or 33 percent of
the total, all of who are committing a felony by failing to register. Few police agencies in the state can spend
the time and money to provide resources to follow up on missing offenders. While several local jurisdictions in California have taken steps to improve keeping track of prior offenders, finding unregistered offenders, and providing more information to the general public, the accuracy, availability, and accessibility of information still falls far short of information readily available to residents of other states. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
State Website Links
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
California City
and County Website Links |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Methods of Analysis Megan’s Law and issues surrounding public notification have been in the news more and more in the last 6 months, especially because of the expiration of the extant Megan’s law provision in the state of California late in 2003 and because several recent sensationalized child molestations and sex offender releases. I initially expected to find that it would be a foregone conclusion that GIS is an logical, ideal, and powerful tool for educating and informing the public in compliance with Megan’s Law requirements. It is. However, what I was not prepared for the amount of legislative and legal restrictions regarding access to and dissemination of offender data in California in contrast to other states. As I originally started to explore the feasibility of creating a generalized local mapping of prior offenders for Sacramento County, my initial investigation entailed finding out what data was available from the county law enforcement agencies and the California Justice Department. My first inquiries appeared promising. Information from the Office of the State Attorney General and Sacramento County Sheriff website indicated I could visit my local Sheriff substation to view the statewide offender data. My visit began with a verification of my Identification to ensure I was not a listed offender. I was given a form to read and sign that indicated “Any person who copies, distributes, discloses, or receives this record or information from it, except as authorized by law, was guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed six months or by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or both.” My initial anxiety aside, I was able to examine the information available to the public. I encountered a set of detailed information on prior offenders including: name, aliases, zip code of last residence, rap sheet, age, birth-date, height, weight, eye color, hair color, tattoos, and photograph. But what was missing was any useful address information beyond zip code and county. I don’t know about most people, but I really don’t know what the boundaries of my zip code encompass. So I entered my zip code and up popped 90 total offenders – 2 High-Risk and 88 Serious. Then I entered a search fir Sacramento county, resulting in over 2,700 total offenders!!! So I regrouped, thinking I could do analysis and statistics based upon zip code numbers from the state database. After all, the state system allowed searching by zip code, so I expected the state would have data by zip code available. I could hardly have been more wrong. Upon contacting the State Justice Department program manager, I learned that such data was not readily available or accessible. So I regrouped again and continued Internet research. I started finding local, state, and national data related to numbers of offenders on websites like KlassKids.org and CriminalWatch.com, to name a few. I found information on differing state programs for notification and I found a wealth of opinion material related to privacy of prior offenders contrasted to the public’s right to know. From the data and initial analysis, I was not seeing anything immediately apparent to explain the variance in offenders from county to county. Then I noticed that counties with lower percentages of per capita offenders included Marin, Orange, San Mateo, and San Francisco counties. All high cost of living areas. So I retrieved median income data for every county from the 2000 census and made comparison, resulting in the correlation between median income and offender populations noted in this report. Also from the information available I decided to provide a
comparison of the relatively successful Florida system versus a failing
California system and the efforts of some local jurisdictions within
California to overcome a vacuum caused by the lack of a coherent statewide
program. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
References Associated Press, Tracking Missing Sex Offenders Could Cost State $20M, San Diego, January 9, 2003 Associated
Press, Money Still
Lacking to Improve California's Megan Law. San Francisco, February 6, 2004. Associated Press, Year later, Megan's database no better, San Francisco, February 6, 2004. California Attorney General. California Sex Offender Information, Violent Crime Information Center, California Attorney General. 2001. (pps. 1-26) California Attorney General. 2002 Report to the California Legislature. California Sex Offender Information. Megan’s Law. Violent Crime Information Center, California Attorney General. 2002. (pps. 1-33) California Attorney General. California Sex Offender Statistics, as of January 20, 2004. California Attorney General, California Dept. if Justice. January 20, 2004. Carter, Madeline M., et al. An
Overview of Sex Offender Community Notification Practices: Policy
Implications and Promising Approaches. November 1997, Center for Sex Offender Management. Digital Map Products . CommunityView™ for Megan’s Law. Online mapping of registered sex offender
information. Digital Map
Products, Costa Mesa, CA. www.digitalmapcentral.com ESRI Inc., ArcIMS Provides Unique Analysis for Sex Offender Locators,
Riverside and Los Angeles Counties, California, Help Their Citizens
Protect Themselves With Megan's Law Web Sites. ESRI Inc., Redlands, CA. www.esri.com Freeman-Longo, Robert E., MRC, LPC. Revisiting
Megan's Law and Sex Offender Registration: Prevention or Problem. 2001. Getis, Arthu, Et al. Geographic Information Science and Crime Analysis. URISA journal, Vol 12, No.2. Spring 2000. Harries, Keith, Ph.D., Mapping Crime: Principle and Practice. National Criminal Justice Reference Service, December 1999. Rose, S. Mariah. Mapping Takes a Bite out of Crime. Business Geographics, June 1998. US Dept. of Justice Publications, Summary
of State Sex Offender Registries, February, 2001. U.S. Dept. of Justice . Summary of State Sex offender Registry Dissemination Procedures, Update 1999. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of justice Programs. August 1999, NCJ 177620. (pps. 1-8) Webby, Sean. Public Glare. San Jose Mercury News, April 4, 2004. (pps 1A, 25A). Webby, Sean. Where Sex Offenders Live and Why you Don’t Know; Et al. San Jose Mercury News, December 14, 2003. (pps 1A, 18A-21A). KlaasKids Foundation. Megan’s Law by State, Victims’ Rights by State. February, 2004. State Sex Offender Directories. www.criminalwatch.com California Penal Code Section 290. Sex Offender Registration and Notification. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
