“Anything that can be a danger to the public”: Desire to extend registries beyond sex offenses

Purpose: Since Megan's Law was passed, sex offender registration has become part of the criminal justice landscape with wide public support. Some jurisdictions are now considering registration for other offenses, such as registries for gun crimes, methamphetamine offenders, and dangerous dogs. To date, no empirical work has examined what percentage of the general population wants additional registries and, if the desire is present, which types of registries are desired. The goal of this empirical work is to answer three main research questions: (1) what percentages of people support the idea of expanding offender registration to encompass other types of crimes?, (2) what predicts support for additional registries?, and (3) of those who want additional registries, what types of registries are desired?

Methods: Telephone interviews were used to survey 728 respondents throughout Michigan (44% response rate). Respondents were asked: “Would you like to be able to access registries for offenders who have committed other types of crimes?” (Yes/No/Don't know). When the respondents answered yes, they were asked the follow-up, open-ended question “what other types of criminal registries would you like to see?'. Examples of respondents' answers included “anything that can be a danger to the public”, “homicides”, “burglaries” and “hate crimes”. Open ended responses were coded by the authors into four categories – crimes against people (Cohen's kappa=.74), crimes against property (kappa=.66), miscellaneous crimes (kappa=.77), and substance use-related crimes (kappa=.78). Independent variables, such as use of the registry, having children, age, gender, and race, were used as predictors in a logistic regression model (Yes vs. No/Unsure).

Results: Almost 53 percent of participants said they did want additional registries, while nearly 43% reported they did not want additional registries. The logistic regression found support that actually viewing the local sex offender registry, along with being younger, and being African-American, were positively related to desire for additional public registries for crime (p < .01). Respondents who had been convicted of a crime were less likely to support additional registries (p = .04).

Eighty-four percent of those who desired additional registries provided an answer that was categorized as support for registries for crimes against people. The support decreased from there with 58.1% supporting registries for crimes against property (58.1%), 27.8% for substance use related crimes and 41.9% for other miscellaneous crimes.

Implications: This research indicates that support for the expansion of registration to other crimes is split. As 90% of respondents supported registration requirements for those who had sexually abused a child, it seems that sexual abusers are viewed differently than other types of criminals. Of those supporting expanded registries, the widest support was expressed for crimes against people, possibly due to a greater level of fear of violent crime. Given the split support for expanded registration, possible consequences of being on a registry, and the costs to the government to maintain an up-to-date listing for valid public use, further work is needed to examine policy options for those who live in society after being labeled a criminal.