Sex Offender Registration Influenced by Racial Bias, Ohio Study Claims

Print More
prison

Illustration by Natasha Mayers via Flickr

The classification of sex offenders based on the risks they pose to the community following their release from prison is subject to racial bias, according to a study published in the Criminal Justice Policy Review.

African-American sex offenders were found to be two-and a half times likelier to be inaccurately designated as high-risk than their Caucasian counterparts by a state-sponsored risk-assessment instrument, said the study, which was based on a sample of 673 sex offenders in the state of Ohio who were convicted of a sex crime and released between 2009 and 2011.

Risk assessments that were overly weighted towards prior criminal records led to the skewed assessments, argued the authors, Bobbie Ticknor of Valdosta State University, and Jessica J. Warner of Miami University Regionals.

“Approximately 85 percent of the individuals classified in the highest tier, who theoretically posed the greatest danger, did not have a conviction for a new sex offense after the five-year follow up period,” the study found, adding that 15 percent of “Tier 1” offenders were under-classified, meaning their threat-level was underestimated.

The sample was limited to offenders who had received a classification under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) system established by the 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.

The law established guidelines aimed at protecing communities from convicted sex offenders who might pose continued threats to their community following release. SORNA is an offense-based classification system where offenders are assigned to one of three tiers according to “dangerousness.” Tier designation is determined by prior offenses and the severity of the charge and conviction.

The classification is used to determine the level of supervision convicted sex offenders will be subject to following release, ranging from regular monitoring by local law enforcement to restrictions on where they can live. Some version of these federally mandated laws now exist in every state.

The authors said their study results should “generate several concerns from policymakers.”

“There is a small group of sex offenders who are more dangerous than their tier designation would lead society to believe,” they wrote. “In addition there is a much larger portion of therse individuals who may not be as dangerous as previously thought.”

The reason why racial bias may influence the accuracy of SORNA designations lies in the fact that SORNA relies heavily on the criminal history of an individual, said the authors.

The study cites prior research which produced evidence that “black defendants are less likely to accept a plea deal due to mistrust in the system…”

Going to trial increases the chances of being found guilty of more severe charges and receiving lengthier sentences, especially for minority defendants, according to the authors.

Over-classification may lead to measures, such as residency restrictions, which could induce a chain-reaction of negative outcomes increasing the chances of recidivism. A potential solution, suggest the authors, would be a state by state re-evaluation of the law, and a move to incorporate considerations of background information, criminogenic needs, and protective factors into risk-assessment instruments.

See also: How Pseudoscience Turns Sex Offenders into Permanent Outlaws

And: Did California Authorities Suppress Research on Sexually Violent Predators?

The full  Ohio study can be found here:

This summary was prepared by TCR news intern John Ramsey. Readers’ comments are welcome.

3 thoughts on “Sex Offender Registration Influenced by Racial Bias, Ohio Study Claims

  1. Why is not every criminal risk assessed – with the corresponding consequences and restrictions, like public notification to restrictions where they can live. All this, mind you, in the interest of public safety. Given that it is now common knowledge that those convicted of seks crimes reoffend far less frequently than other criminals.

    Am I to understand that my government is not interested in protecting me and my children from all crime? Now that would be shocking, shocking I say.

  2. The $ORs are not needed AT ALL. The $ORs are not significantly beneficial. If ANY person is actually serious about protecting him/herself and/or his/her family, then they simply MUST treat ALL people as if they have committed a $EX crime in the past and might in the future. ALL people. Everyone. That is the ONLY way to actually protect anyone. If that is done, then they don’t have any need in the slightest for any very, very, very completely incomplete list from NBG of people who did something bad years and decades ago.

    The $ORs are not REALLY for public safety, protecting children, or any of those other constant lies. If that were not the case, the Registry Supporters/Terrorists would’ve created 100+ other national, public, lifetime Registries well over a decade ago. How is it even conceivable that we do not have a national Gun Offender Registry?! Shocking and amazing. The Registry Terrorists (RTs) expect people to believe their lies that it is “dangerous” for a person listed on their $OR hit list to live near schools but it is just fine for people who have SHOT CHILDREN WITH GUNS!! They even want shooters IN schools!!

    [this comment has been condensed for space]

  3. Are you not following your Nanny Big Government’s propaganda and lies? A crime is not dangerous unless it involves $EX. A person does not need “therapy” if he/she merely shoots someone with a gun but that same person does need “therapy” if he/she looks at the wrong pictures. The “$EX offender” witch hunt is simple really.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

X

You have Free articles left this month.

Want access to all our reporting? Subscribe for unlimited access or login.

SUBSCRIBE LOGIN