Australia has followed the course taken by other English-speaking countries in recent years of enacting legislation that requires convicted sexual offenders to register personal details with law enforcement agencies. These laws have been enacted to protect the public from the perceived threat posed by sex offenders, but have been written with little apparent reference to the available research literature about the nature and extent of this threat. In addition, there is no empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of legislatively based sex offender registries to either reduce sexual offending or to enable the police to investigate sex crimes and apprehend offenders. This article compares and contrasts the current laws governing sex offender registration enacted by the various states and territories in Australia, and offers a critical analysis of their provisions in light of the research literature on sexual offending.
AbracenJMaillouxDLSerinRCCousineauCMalcolmPBLoomanJ (2004) A model for the assessment of static and dynamic factors in sexual offenders. Journal of Sex Research. 41(4): 321–329.
2.
BinnieK (2009) Missing child sex offenders may have fled interstate. ABC News. 17 July. Available at: (accessed 27 September 2010).
3.
BorumR (1996) Improving the clinical practice of violence risk assessment: Technology, guidelines, and training. American Psychologist. 51(9): 945–956.
4.
CannJFalshawLFriendshipC (2004) Sexual offenders discharged from prison in England and Wales: A 21-year reconviction study. Legal and Criminological Psychology. 9: 1–10.
5.
CraigLABrowneKDStringerI (2004) Comparing sex offender assessment measures on a UK sample. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 48: 7–27.
6.
DorenDM (2004) Stability of the interpretative risk percentages for the RRASOR and Static-99. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. 16: 25–36.
7.
GarfinkleE (2003) Coming of age in America: The misapplication of sex offender registration and community notification laws to juveniles. California Law Review. 91: 163–208.
8.
GreenfeldL (1997) Sex Offenses and Offenders: An Analysis of Data on Rape and Sexual Assault. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
9.
GrissoT (2000) What we know about youths’ capacities as trial defendants. In: SchwartzRG (ed.) Youth on Trial: A Developmental Perspective on Juvenile Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 139–172.
10.
HansonRK (1997) The Development of a Brief Actuarial Risk Scale for Sexual Offense Recidivism (User report 1997-04). Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
11.
HansonRK (1998) What do we know about sex offender risk assessment?Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 4: 50–72.
12.
HansonRKBussièreMT (1998) Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 66: 348–362.
13.
HansonRKHarrisAJR (2001) A structured approach to evaluating change among sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. 13: 105–122.
14.
HansonRKMorton-BourgonKE (2005) The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 73: 1154–1163.
15.
HansonRKMorton-BourgonKE (2009) The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychological Assessment. 21(1): 1–21.
16.
HansonRKThorntonD (2000) Improving risk assessment for sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behaviour. 24: 119–136.
17.
HansonRKMortonKEHarrisJR (2003) Sexual offender recidivism risk: What we know and what we need to know. Annals of the New York Academy of Science. 989: 154–166.
18.
HansonRKSteffyRAGauthierR (1993) Long-term recidivism of child molesters. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 61: 646–652.
19.
HarrisG (2003) Men in his category have a 50% likelihood, but which half is he in? Comments on Berlin, Galbreath, Geary, and McGlone. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment. 15: 389–392.
20.
HarrisGTRiceMEQuinseyVL (1993) Violent recidivism of mentally disordered offenders: The development of a statistical prediction instrument. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 20: 315–335.
21.
HeilbrunK (2001) Principles of Forensic Mental Health Assessment. New York: Plenum.
22.
La FondJQ (2005) The effectiveness of registration and community notification laws. Preventing Sexual Violence: How Society Should Cope with Sex Offenders. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 85–125.
23.
LetourneauEJMinerMH (2005) Juvenile sex offenders: A case against the legal and clinical status quo. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. 17: 293–312.
24.
LetourneauEJBandyopadhyayDSinhaDArmstrongK (2009) Effects of sex offender registration policies on juvenile justice decision making. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. 21: 149–165.
25.
LevensonJLetourneauEArmstrongKZgobaKM (2009) Failure to register as a sex offender: Is it associated with recidivism?Justice Quarterly. 26: 1–27.
26.
MeloyMLSalehYWolffN (2007) Sex offender laws in America: Can panic-driven legislation ever create safer societies?Criminal Justice Studies. 20: 423–443.
27.
MillerHAmentaAEConroyMA (2005) Sexually violent predator evaluations: Empirical evidence, strategies for professionals, and research directions. Law and Human Behavior. 29(1): 29–54.
28.
PetrunikMMurphyLFedoroffJP (2008) American and Canadian approaches to sex offenders: A study of the politics of dangerousness. Federal Sentencing Reporter. 21: 111–123.
29.
PrentkyRALeeAFSKnightRACerceD (1997) Recidivism rates among child molesters and rapists: A methodological analysis. Law and Human Behavior. 21: 635–659.
30.
PrescottJJRockoffJE (2008) Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?. (Report No. 13803). United States. University of Michigan Law and Economics (Olin Working Paper No. 08-006). Third Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies Papers. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1100663 (27 September 2010).
31.
QuinseyVLRiceMEHarrisGT (1995) Actuarial prediction of sexual recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 10: 85–105.
32.
QuinseyVLHarrisGTRiceMECormierCA (1998) Violent Offenders: Appraising and Managing Risk. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
33.
Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service (‘Wood Royal Commission’) (1997) Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service Final Report. Sydney, NSW: New South Wales Government.
34.
SampleLLBrayTM (2003) Are sex offenders dangerous?Criminology and Public Policy. 3: 59–82.
35.
SampleLLBrayTM (2006) Are sex offenders different? An analysis of rearrest patterns. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 17: 83–102.
36.
SampleLLKadleckC (2008) Sex offender laws: Legislators’ accounts of the need for policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 19: 40–62.
37.
SandlerJCFreemanNJSociaKM (2008) Does a watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New York State's sex offender registration and notification law. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 14: 284–302.
38.
SnyderHN (2000) Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics. Washington, DC: National Incident-Based Reporting System, US Department of Justice.
39.
SteinburgLSchwartzRG (2000) Developmental psychology goes to court. In: GrissoTSchwartzGR (eds). Youth on Trial: A Developmental Perspective on Juvenile Justice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 9–32.
40.
ThomasT (2009) The sex offender register: Some observations on the time periods for registration. The Howard Journal. 48: 257–266.
41.
TrivitsLCReppucciND (2002) Application of Megan's Law to juveniles. American Psychologist. 57: 690–704.
42.
VasquezBEMaddanSWalkerJT (2008) The influence of sex offender registration and notification laws in the United States: A time-series analysis. Crime & Delinquency. 54: 175–192.
43.
WoolardJLReppucciND (2000) Researching juveniles’ capacities as defendants. In: GrissoTSchwartzRG (eds). Youth on Trial: A Developmental Perspective on Juvenile Justice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 173–191.
44.
ZimringFE (2000) GrissoTSchwartzRGPenal proportionality for the young offender: Notes on immaturity, capacity, and diminished responsibility. Youth on Trial: A Developmental Perspective on Juvenile Justice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 271–290.
45.
ZimringFE (2004) An American Travesty: Legal Responses to Adolescent Sexual Offending. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
