States’ SORNA Implementation Journeys

IF 0.4 Q2 Social Sciences New Criminal Law Review Pub Date : 2020-07-27 DOI:10.1525/nclr.2020.23.3.315
A. Harris, Kimberly R. Kras, Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky, Qurat Ann
{"title":"States’ SORNA Implementation Journeys","authors":"A. Harris, Kimberly R. Kras, Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky, Qurat Ann","doi":"10.1525/nclr.2020.23.3.315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Public policies requiring individuals convicted of sex offenses to register with law enforcement authorities, and in some cases granting public access to certain registry information, have been adopted by dozens of nations and provincial governments across the globe. Within the United States, sex offender registration and notification (SORN) policies are primarily established at the state level, but have come under increasing federal purview since the 1990s. Arising from a perceived need for improved interjurisdictional consistency and coordination, the 2006 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) significantly broadened the scope and range of federal requirements for SORN systems operating within the states. Yet fourteen years following the law’s passage, a significant majority of states have yet to meet SORNA implementation thresholds, amidst an array of legal, political, fiscal, and practical challenges. Prior research has offered aggregate-level insights concerning the barriers to SORNA implementation, but has not captured the “back stories” of state policy experiences. Addressing this knowledge gap, the current study offers an in-depth examination of state experiences in aligning their policies with federal mandates. Drawing on data gathered from a diverse sample of ten states, the analysis reveals significant variation in the breadth and extent of required system changes and in the legal, political, and organizational dynamics surrounding state responses to federal oversight. Ultimately, the study offers insights and perspectives that can inform the continued refinement of federal and state policies, and improve the public safety effectiveness of the nation’s SORN systems.","PeriodicalId":44796,"journal":{"name":"New Criminal Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Criminal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2020.23.3.315","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Public policies requiring individuals convicted of sex offenses to register with law enforcement authorities, and in some cases granting public access to certain registry information, have been adopted by dozens of nations and provincial governments across the globe. Within the United States, sex offender registration and notification (SORN) policies are primarily established at the state level, but have come under increasing federal purview since the 1990s. Arising from a perceived need for improved interjurisdictional consistency and coordination, the 2006 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) significantly broadened the scope and range of federal requirements for SORN systems operating within the states. Yet fourteen years following the law’s passage, a significant majority of states have yet to meet SORNA implementation thresholds, amidst an array of legal, political, fiscal, and practical challenges. Prior research has offered aggregate-level insights concerning the barriers to SORNA implementation, but has not captured the “back stories” of state policy experiences. Addressing this knowledge gap, the current study offers an in-depth examination of state experiences in aligning their policies with federal mandates. Drawing on data gathered from a diverse sample of ten states, the analysis reveals significant variation in the breadth and extent of required system changes and in the legal, political, and organizational dynamics surrounding state responses to federal oversight. Ultimately, the study offers insights and perspectives that can inform the continued refinement of federal and state policies, and improve the public safety effectiveness of the nation’s SORN systems.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
各国SORNA实施之旅
全球数十个国家和省政府都采取了公共政策,要求性犯罪者向执法部门登记,并在某些情况下允许公众查阅某些登记信息。在美国,性犯罪者登记和通知(SORN)政策主要是在州一级建立的,但自20世纪90年代以来,联邦政府的职权范围越来越大。2006年的《性犯罪者登记和通知法》(SORNA)基于对改善跨司法管辖区一致性和协调性的认识,大大扩大了联邦对在各州内运行的性犯罪者登记和通知系统的要求的范围和范围。然而,在该法案通过14年后,在一系列法律、政治、财政和实际挑战中,绝大多数州仍未达到SORNA实施的门槛。先前的研究提供了关于SORNA实施障碍的总体层面的见解,但没有捕捉到国家政策经验的“背景故事”。为了解决这一知识差距,目前的研究对各州在使其政策与联邦授权保持一致方面的经验进行了深入的考察。根据从10个州的不同样本收集的数据,分析揭示了所需系统变革的广度和程度,以及各州对联邦监督的反应在法律、政治和组织动态方面的显著差异。最终,该研究提供了见解和观点,可以为联邦和州政策的持续改进提供信息,并提高国家SORN系统的公共安全有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Focused on examinations of crime and punishment in domestic, transnational, and international contexts, New Criminal Law Review provides timely, innovative commentary and in-depth scholarly analyses on a wide range of criminal law topics. The journal encourages a variety of methodological and theoretical approaches and is a crucial resource for criminal law professionals in both academia and the criminal justice system. The journal publishes thematic forum sections and special issues, full-length peer-reviewed articles, book reviews, and occasional correspondence.
期刊最新文献
Algorithmic Decision-Making When Humans Disagree on Ends Editor’s Introduction The Limits of Retributivism Bringing People Down The Conventional Problem with Corporate Sentencing (and One Unconventional Solution)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1