Abstract
Throughout the United States, sex offender registration laws in many states and the federal government have expanded to include juveniles. Once juveniles are registrants, they can potentially be subjected to required or discretionary public notification (PN). Given the documented detrimental effects of PN on juveniles and the prevalence of sexual offending by juvenile females, this study investigated public opinion on applying PN to juvenile females who were convicted of a sexual offense. Participants were 947 individuals recruited using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk who completed an online survey. Multivariate logistic regression found support for PN increased when the public felt law enforcement was effective in investigating these crimes and there were increased public safety concerns. Support for PN decreased when the public supported plea bargaining and supported the law distinguishing between adults and juveniles who commit sex crimes. Implications of these results are discussed.
In the United States, the 2006 Adam Walsh Act (AWA) changed the legal landscape for juveniles adjudicated for sex offenses. Although the ultimate goal of the AWA (2006), particularly Title I of the AWA, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), was to bring uniformity to the patchwork of state-level sex offender registration and notification laws (SORN), this federal legislation expanded SORN requirements to include juveniles aged 14 or older who were adjudicated delinquent for certain sex offenses. Originally, SORNA not only required certain juveniles to register but also to be subjected to community or public notification (hereafter, PN; Harris & Lobanov-Rostovsky, 2010). As of 2011, states were granted discretion by the Department of Justice as to whether they posted juveniles information on their publicly accessible sex offender registry websites, one form of PN (Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking, n.d.). Contemporarily, at least 41 states require juveniles to register with law enforcement (Lobanov-Rostovsky, 2015b). Thirty of those states either make discretionary or require PN of these juvenile’s registry information (Lobanov-Rostovsky, 2015b). According to Pittman and Nguyen (2011), juveniles convicted in an adult court are most likely subject to PN regardless of their age.
Although the body of literature on public perceptions of the extension of registration and/or PN to juveniles has slowly grown over time (see, for example, Campregher & Jeglic, 2016; Comartin et al., 2013; Harris & Socia, 2016; Kernsmith et al., 2009; Salerno et al., 2010; Stevenson et al., 2009, 2013), investigation into juvenile PN needs to continue due to the serious ramifications of PN itself (e.g., psychological harm, harassment, physical violence; Human Rights Watch, 2013). The public does inform public policy, whether directly or indirectly, which would be particularly pertinent for states operating under a discretionary PN system for juveniles (Enns, 2016).
Second, evidence shows investigating the “generic” juvenile typically enhances public support for SORN (Harris & Socia, 2016; Salerno et al., 2010). Therefore, this research takes a gendered lens and investigates public perceptions of PN in relation to juvenile females who are convicted of committing a sex crime. To date, only one public opinion study has focused on females who commit sex crimes in relation to applying PN, but this research focused on adult females (Cain et al., 2017). Public perceptions of PN for juvenile females matters, because evidence shows the prevalence of sexual offending by juvenile females is greater than that of adult females who sexually offend which potentially puts juvenile females at more risk to come into contact with the criminal justice system (Cortoni et al., 2017; Puzzanchera, 2014; Williams & Bierie, 2015). In addition, because research has found females who commit sex crimes have been treated more leniently in other areas of the criminal justice process, the public may be less likely to support PN of juvenile females (CSOM, 2007; Shields & Cochran, 2019; Socia et al., 2019; Vandiver & Walker, 2002). This may be in part because females who commit sex crimes have been seen as less harmful and less dangerous compared with their male counterparts (CSOM, 2007; Denov, 2001, 2003, 2004). The public may not feel juvenile females who have committed a sex crime require this level of social control.
The Application of PN to Females Convicted of Sex Offenses
Cain et al. (2017) assessed public opinion on PN for adult females convicted of sex crimes using the 2012 Nebraska Annual Social Indicators Survey. Of respondents who answered the following question, “Should communities be notified of convicted female sex offenders living in the community?,” almost 91% of the respondents said yes (Cain et al., 2017, p. 162). Unfortunately, because of the skewness of the data on a binary response choice survey question (yes/no), they could not run further analyses to see which sociodemographic characteristics influenced these PN perceptions. The survey did provide some insight that more than half of their sample disagreed that female sex crimes were less serious than sex crimes committed by men with about 64% disagreeing versus 12% agreeing they were less serious. Other respondents in the sample either did not agree nor disagree or did not know in regard to the seriousness question.
The other public opinion study that included the sex of the alleged perpetrator was conducted by Comartin and colleagues (2013). They defined registration as “a potential sanction given to youth or young adults who sext, in which they are placed on the publicly available, Internet-based list of individuals who have been convicted of a sexual offense” (Comartin et al., 2013, pp. 43–44). In general, there was slightly more support to register and subject the juvenile to internet disclosure if the juvenile was male (33%) versus female (26%). In regard to sexting, the public was significantly more likely to register and subject a male juvenile versus a female juvenile to PN if they received a nude photo. There were no significant gender differences when it came to sending a nude photo. Although this study does provide a gendered perspective on offending and juvenile PN, it conflates registration and notification which, while related, are two separate mechanisms of social control. A juvenile can be required to register with law enforcement but not be subjected to PN. Therefore, in this research, perceptions cannot be distinguished between support for registration versus support for juvenile PN.
Exploring Other Sociolegal Predictors of PN Support
Other sociolegal factors may also influence public support for PN for juveniles. These factors have been explored in separate lines of research but never assessed in relation to public opinion and the applicability of PN to juvenile females. These include the intersection between the public’s perception of law enforcement investigations in relation to sex crimes involving female perpetrators, perceptions of plea bargaining in sexual assault cases involving juveniles, and perceptions of how the law should treat juveniles versus adults who have been convicted of sexual assault.
Law Enforcement Investigations
Law enforcement has been described by the public as not taking allegations of sexual assault seriously (Goldscheid et al., 2015). Moreover, research has found law enforcement to be resistant to recognizing females as perpetrators of sexual assault (Denov, 2001, 2003, 2004). Gender bias could therefore result because of skepticism toward female perpetrators of sex crimes (e.g., they do not fit the preconceived notion of a “stereotypical” sexual assault; Bouffard, 2000; R. Campbell, 1995; Frazier & Haney, 1996; Goldscheid et al., 2015; Jordan, 2002; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994; Rumeny, 2008). For instance, male perpetrators of child sexual abuse versus female perpetrators of child sexual abuse were perceived by law enforcement as more serious and more severe police action was recommended in these cases involving males (Kite & Tyson, 2004). Given these findings, it could be argued that public perceptions in regard to law enforcement effectiveness in investigating sexual assault perpetrated by females may matter in regard to whether the public finds PN an acceptable mechanism of social control—particularly given law enforcement’s continued role in enforcing SORN.
Plea Bargaining and Juvenile Sex Crimes
Although SORN expanded to include juveniles, a separate line of research assessed how SORN intersected with the adjudication of juveniles charged with a sex offense. Two studies in particular speak to the effect of increasing severe penalties for juveniles as a result of registration. When looking at prosecutors’ willingness to proceed with cases involving serious sexual assault charges, prosecutors were found to be less likely to prosecute these cases particularly when they involved juvenile perpetrators (Letourneau et al., 2009). The authors hypothesized that this pattern may have been a result of increased likelihood of plea bargaining that removed the possibility of lifetime juvenile registration (Letourneau et al., 2009). To further test this hypothesis, Letourneau et al. (2013) used data from the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice Management Information System and analyzed cases with a particular focus on patterns of plea bargaining: reducing the severity of the charge or changing the charge. Their research found that SORN increased the likelihood of plea bargaining in sex offense cases involving juveniles (Letourneau et al., 2013). It would be fair to surmise court actors espouse a “protective concern” for juveniles in relation to punitive SORN, which lead to alternatives via plea bargaining in the criminal justice system (Letourneau et al., 2009, 2013). Extending this line of thought, given court actors are also community members themselves, the public may also be less willing to subject juveniles to PN if they also support the courts providing other avenues, like plea bargaining, to avoid registration and PN entirely.
Law and the Treatment of Juveniles Versus Adults
Finally, while research illustrates important differences between adults and juveniles who commit sexual offenses, SORN does not always distinguish between adults and juveniles in its application (Letourneau & Miner, 2005; Lussier & Blokland, 2014). The Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM) conducted a nationally random telephone survey in 2010 (N = 1,005 respondents). Although the explicit aim was not focused on juveniles, they did query respondents on whether or not the law should take into consideration differences between adults and juveniles given that research has shown differences in offending and risk to reoffend. Sixty percent of the respondents felt that law should take into account these differences in sex offense behavior and risk (CSOM, 2010). But, an overwhelming minority (36%) felt that the law should be the same for adults and juveniles regardless of these scientific findings (CSOM, 2010). Given these results, public perceptions on how the law should treat juveniles, particularly in relation to social control mechanism after being found delinquent or adjudicated, may matter in terms of support or non-support for PN.
Current Study
The current study builds on prior work in numerous ways. First, it takes a gendered approach by assessing public perceptions of PN for juvenile females, which is important given the prevalence of juvenile females may increase their risk of contact with the criminal justice system (Cortoni et al., 2017). Second, no research to date has included perceptions of criminal justice processes which may in turn influence public opinion on social control mechanisms used to monitor juvenile females in the community who have been convicted of a sex crime. Therefore, while these variables are exploratory in nature (law enforcement investigation, the role of plea bargaining, the design of law), it can provide further context to complexity of public opinion.
Method
The online Qualtrics survey queried the public’s opinion on juvenile females who sexually offended. Participants were recruited using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk), an online labor market and participant recruitment tool. MTurk has been successfully used in social science research and public opinion studies on crime and crime policy (D. S. Campbell & Newheiser, 2019; Chan & Holosko, 2015; Mason & Suri, 2012). For this study, the researchers limited the survey to participants who were current registered MTurk workers, at least 18 years of age, current residents of the United States, spoke fluent English (the survey was only offered in English), and had a U.S. IP address. The workers were offered a monetary payment ($0.70) to participate in relation to the amount of time to complete the survey (Berinsky et al., 2012). To receive monetary compensation, workers had to enter their unique completion code in the MTurk website post-survey completion. To improve response quality, we limited MTurk workers participation to workers who had at least a 97% approval rating on prior HITs (human intelligence tasks) and to those who had an extensive HIT completion history (Peer et al., 2014). Finally, in keeping with best practices for MTurk research, we embedded an attention check in the survey (Berinsky et al., 2014).
In total, 1,056 participants completed the survey. Of these participants, 33 were rejected because they did not provide a valid survey completion code. Of the 1,023 survey takers in the data set, 62 participants did not pass the attention check (“If you live in the United States, select strongly disagree.”). In addition, another 14 respondents stated “no” to the following question and were therefore dropped from the analysis: Realistically, some MTurk respondents do not pay close attention to the questions they are answering. This affects the quality of the data. Your answer to this question will not affect whether or not you receive payment . . . did you pay attention and answer the survey questions honestly?
This resulted in final analytic sample of 947 participants.
Variables
Dependent variable
The survey asked participants the following question: “How supportive would you be of a law that required a juvenile female aged 14 or older who was convicted of sex crime to have their name and address listed on a publicly available website?” This age point was selected, because it is the age cut-point listed in the AWA. Response categories ranged from “not at all supportive,” “not very supportive,” “somewhat supportive,” to “very supportive” as well as “prefer not to answer.” Because of the small cell size, prefer not to answer was dropped from the analysis (n = 13). In addition, to ensure the analysis tapped into those who supported PN versus those who did not as well as to inform substantive public policy debates, the response categories were transformed into (1) supports PN for juvenile females convicted of a sex crime versus (0) does not support PN for juvenile females convicted of a sex crime. Such transformations of the dependent variable mirror prior research on sex offenses, public policy, and public opinion (e.g., Mancini, 2014).
Independent variables
Three questions captured perceptions of criminal justice processes and law in relation to juveniles. “How effective do you think the police are when investigating sexual assaults committed by juvenile females?” Respondents could choose from “not at all effective,” “not very effective,” “somewhat effective,” “very effective,” or “prefer not to answer.” The second question asked, “How much do you support plea bargaining when a criminal case involves a sexual assault committed by a juvenile female?” Respondents could choose from “not at all supportive,” “not very supportive,” “somewhat supportive,” “very supportive,” or “prefer not to answer.” The third question asked, “Pertaining to juveniles, research shows there are important differences between juveniles and adults who commit sexual offenses, such as their offending behavior and risk to reoffend. How supportive would you be if the law took into account these differences?” Respondents were to select from the same “support” response choices listed above. An additional two independent variables captured public perceptions in relation to public safety (“In relation to public safety, how concerned are you about juvenile females who sexually offend?”; scale: “not at all concerned” to “very concerned,” “prefer not to answer”) and the seriousness of sex crimes committed by juvenile females (“How serious do you think sexual offenses committed by juvenile females are compared with sexual offenses committed by juvenile males?”; scale: “not at all serious” to “very serious,” “prefer not to answer”). To note, because of the small cell sizes in the “prefer not to answer” response choices, these were dropped from the analysis. After testing if these five explanatory ordinal variables could be treated as continuous in the model, the likelihood ratio chi-square test (or Bayesian information criterion [BIC] test) supported the use of these measures as continuous which resulted in a more parsimonious model (data not shown; results available on request).
Control variables
As with prior public opinion research on SORN, the following demographic variables were included in the model and acted as controls. Respondent sex was coded as 1 = male and 0 = female. Age was as a continuous variable (respondents were ≥18 years old). Respondents were asked to identify their race or ethnicity (Caucasian Non-Hispanic, African American, Asian or Pacific Islander, Native American or American Indian, or Hispanic), which was coded dichotomously (1 = White; 0 = non-White) mirroring prior work on sex offense policy and public opinion (e.g., Cain et al., 2017; Mancini & Pickett, 2016). Survey respondents were asked about their current marital status (1 = married, 0 = not married) and in a separate question asked if they were parents (1 = parent, 0 = not a parent). Level of education ranged from some high school to an advanced or professional degree and treated as a continuous variable in the model. Annual household income, ranging from “up to $24,999” to “$100,000 or more,” was also treated as a continuous variable in the model. As with the independent variables, the likelihood ratio chi-square test (or BIC test) supported using education and income as continuous variables in the model.
Because prior history of sexual abuse or sexual assault may influence perceptions of sociolegal responses to those who commit sex crimes, a measure was included in the model to capture whether the respondent was a survivor of sexual abuse or sexual assault (1 = yes, 0 = no). Finally, diagnostics suggested there were no issues with multicollinearity. Variance inflation factors (VIFs) were not above 2.0 for the variables included in the models (mean VIF = 1.26).
Respondent Profile
This sample is similar to a typical MTurk-generated sample in that some groups are overrepresented, and while this is quite common in public opinion studies, MTurk does generate more diverse samples compared with college student samples (Casler et al., 2013; Lavrakas, 1993; Peterson, 2001). For these survey participants, in comparison to the 2010 U.S. Census (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b), there are more female respondents (~59% vs. ~51%) compared with male respondents (~41% vs. ~49%). The sample is similar in age compared with the general population (x̅ = 37.2 vs. x̅ = 36). Approximately 79% of the sample is White (vs. 72%), 7% Black (vs. 13%), 6% “Other” (vs. 6%), and 6% Hispanic (vs. 16%). About 50% of the sample is married and 51% identify themselves as parents. In regard to education level, about 9% of the respondents have either some high school (≤1%) or are a high school graduate (~8%), have some college (~30%) or are a college graduate (~45%), or have a terminal advance degree (~16%). Educational levels are more difficult to compare as our educational categories differ from the U.S. Census Bureau, but in our sample, the average respondent has an educational attainment in between “some college” and “college graduate.” In the general population, 42.5% of citizens report “some college” experience (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a).
Analysis
A descriptive overview is provided for the variables in the model and presented in Table 1. Table 1 also includes the results from the series of bivariate logit comparisons to assess the initial relationships between the explanatory variables in the model in relation to predicting support for PN when juvenile females aged 14 or above are convicted of a sex crime. The last step in the analysis was to run the full model, a multivariate binary logistic regression model to assess (1) public support for PN when juvenile females are convicted of a sex crime versus (0) public non-support for PN when juvenile females are convicted of a sex crime. The results are presented in odds ratios, which is a measure of effect size for nonlinear models and also more intuitive compared to log-odds (Fleiss, 1994; Pampel, 2000), and also converted to percentages for more intuitive interpretation.
Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Comparisons of Public Support for Public Notification (PN) About Juvenile Females Convicted of a Sex Crime (N = 947).
Note. Not all categories may equal 100% due to rounding. The bivariate statistics indicate when a variable of interest or respondent characteristic is positively associated with predicting support for PN when a juvenile female is convicted of a sex crime. Number of imputed data sets = 20.
p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.
Of the variables included in the model, the percent of missing data ranged from less than 1% to approximately 4%. To deal with the missing data, prior to performing the multivariate analyses, we used multiple imputation (MI). MI is a regression-based procedure which generates multiple copies of the data set, each containing different estimates of the missing values (Enders, 2010). Following recommendations, we imputed 20 data sets (Graham et al., 2007). The imputation process involved 14 variables that appeared in the regression analysis in addition to three auxiliary variables (if the respondent had children at home; if the respondent had been sexually assaulted by a male over their lifetime; and if the respondent thought females could rape) which were included to increase auxiliary information during the MI procedure, reduce or eliminate bias, and increase power (Enders, 2010). Following the imputation procedure, Rubin’s Rules (1987) were used to combine the parameter estimates and standard errors into a single set of multivariate logistic regression results 1 (see Table 2). Compared to listwise deletion, MI is a superior “state of the art” missing data strategy because observed data are not deleted, the integrity of the parameter estimates are preserved, and accuracy and power compared to other missing data techniques are improved (Allison, 2002; Enders, 2010; Schafer & Graham, 2002).
Multivariate Logistic Regression Predicting Support for Public Notification When a Juvenile Female Is Convicted of a Sex Crime (N = 947).
Note. Reference groups are female respondents and White respondents. NS = not significant. Number of imputed data sets = 20.
p≤ .05. **p≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.
Results
Bivariate Comparisons
Respondents were more likely to support PN for juvenile females convicted of a sex crime if they thought the police were effective in investigating sexual assaults committed by juvenile females (p ≤ .01), if they had greater concerns about public safety in relation to juvenile females who sexually offended (p ≤ .001), or if they were more likely to think sex offenses committed by juvenile females were as serious in comparison to sex offenses committed by juvenile males (p ≤ .001). When looking at sociodemographic characteristics, compared with those who were not, parents and those who were married were significantly more supportive of PN (p ≤ .01).
Multivariate Logit Results
Predictors increasing support for PN
In the full model, two variables predicted public support for PN when respondents were asked about this law in relation to juvenile females who had been convicted of committing a sex crime. For each unit increase in public perceptions of police effectiveness in investigating sexual assaults committed by juvenile females, the odds of supporting PN increase by 29%, holding all other variables constant (p ≤ .01). For each unit increase in public concern about public safety in relation to juvenile females who commit sex crimes, the odds of supporting PN increase by 37%, holding all other variables constant (p ≤ .001).
Predictors decreasing support for PN
Five variables decreased the odds of supporting PN when respondents were asked about this law in relation to juvenile females who had been convicted of committing a sex crime. For each unit increase in public support for plea bargaining, the odds of supporting PN decreased by 42%, holding all other variables constant (p ≤ .001). For each unit increase in public support in relation to the law taking into account differences between juveniles and adults who commit sexual offenses, the odds of supporting PN decreased by 23%, holding all other variables constant (p ≤ .01). Pertaining to sociodemographic characteristics, our control variables, being male (−28%; p ≤ .05), being White, non-Hispanic (−35%; p ≤ .05), and being a survivor of sexual violence (−41%; p ≤ .01) also decreased the odds of supporting PN.
Discussion
This research set out to explore public opinion on PN in relation to its application to juvenile females aged 14 or older who were convicted of a sexual offense. Although we have learned about registration and PN in reference to adult females (see Cain et al., 2017), so little research has focused on the application of these laws to juvenile females. To bolster what we know about PN in relation to juvenile females convicted of sex crimes, multiple findings emerged from this analysis.
First, respondents were more likely to support PN when they perceived law enforcement to be effective in their investigations of sex crimes allegedly committed by juvenile females. This makes sense in that the public may feel because of the nature of these crimes, law enforcement takes their investigative work very seriously. While research has shown law enforcement does view rape and sexual assault as serious crimes, it also documents some law enforcement officers hold attitudes about this crime type that are driven by rape myths which may skew their investigatory work (Dellinger Page, 2007, 2010; Smith et al., 2016; Venema, 2019). The public may be unaware of rape myth persistence and/or the potential for bias in law enforcement work as it pertains to rape and sexual assault investigations. A future direction here would be to collect additional public opinion data on juvenile female sexual offending by crime type and see if perceptions of law enforcement investigatory effectiveness are related in some way to the perceived seriousness of the sex crime (e.g., forcible rape vs. consensual sexting).
As an alternative explanation for public support of PN in relation to law enforcement’s investigative effectiveness, perhaps this is an expression of the just world belief which essentially argues people get what they deserve (Lerner, 1980). Although we did not directly assess the just world belief theory in this research, respondents may feel that if these juvenile females were investigated effectively by law enforcement, PN is what they deserve given it is one mechanism of social control written into law. This would then be deemed a justifiable outcome stemming from the juvenile’s criminal behavior. In short, one way to uphold just world beliefs is to ensure harsher punishment for those perceived to be “the worst of the worst” (e.g., those who commit sex crimes) who have been investigated effectively by law enforcement (see, for example, Walsh, 1984). Given these competing hypotheses, additional work is needed to uncover the intersection between public perceptions of policing in relation to sex crimes, particularly if perceptions of law enforcement’s work are influencing support/non-support of community management strategies for youth, including PN.
Public concern for public safety was influential in bolstering support for PN. Here, the greater concern for public safety in relation to juvenile females who sexually offend equated to greater support for PN. Prima facie, this makes sense. If community members are concerned about public safety, one way to possibly reduce such concern would be to have someone notify you of individuals, here juvenile females, who have been convicted of such an offense and are now living in the community. By knowing who is living in your community, you can potentially take preventive safety measures. But, research tells us PN can actually cause more fear in community members (Beck & Travis, 2004; Comartin et al., 2009). Moreover, when PN is available, research is mixed on whether individuals take preventive actions to enhance personal safety or actions to bolster the safety of others (Anderson et al., 2009; Boyle et al., 2014; Caputo & Brodsky, 2004). Given these studies have focused on adult offenders, it would behoove researchers to ask the public if they would take any preventive measures in relation to juveniles who have been convicted of a sexual offense (and potentially subject to PN). Moreover, future research should tease out exactly what the public is concerned about when it comes to juvenile females who sexually offend and public safety and what influences such concerns (e.g., recidivism, gender role violations). Qualitative data would help illuminate why PN matters for juvenile females, including the purpose of PN. To the public, is PN about juvenile females something that would make community members action-oriented in terms of safety or solely a symbolic law to further just world beliefs?
In relation to PN support, this research also explored plea bargaining and how the law treats juveniles compared with adults who have sexual offending behavior. Both of these facets of the criminal justice process and the law significantly decreased public support for PN. To illustrate, as support for plea bargaining increased, public support for PN decreased. As noted, evidence suggests increased plea bargaining is more likely to occur after such laws, like SORN, are put into place, particularly with sex crime cases involving juveniles (Letourneau et al., 2009, 2013). Perhaps here too we see segments of the public taking a protective stance with juvenile females in that plea bargaining would decrease the likelihood they will be subjected to forms of social control that lead to very real-life consequences (e.g., harassment, physical violence, psychological harm, stigma, suicidal ideation or suicide; Human Rights Watch, 2013). Moreover, recent research has found that registered juveniles subject to notification were five times more likely compared with nonregistered juveniles to be approached by an adult for sex (Letourneau et al., 2018). Although that research was conducted with registered boys, this same phenomenon could happen with registered female youth. Hence, PN could expose youth convicted of sex crimes to violence they would have most likely not otherwise experienced. Public support of plea bargaining would be one way community members could bolster these protective actions of prosecutors, who are often elected by their constituents.
In terms of the law distinguishing between adults and juveniles who sexually offend, the CSOM (2010) survey, which did not explicitly focus on juveniles, found 60% of their respondents supported differential treatment within the law. With this research which did focus on juveniles, specifically juvenile females, about 77% of respondents reported either being somewhat supportive or very supportive of the law disentangling juveniles and adults allowing the law the flexibility to take into account these differences. In short, the more supportive respondents were about distinguishing these differences in law (adults vs. juveniles), the less likely they were to support PN. This is important on many fronts. First, the juvenile justice system was designed to be rehabilitative. By subjecting juveniles to adult punishments, the state is no longer embracing parens patriae—what is in the best interest of the child. Second, the law in other areas has changed to respond to the science on juvenile development (Brown, 2010). Therefore, given what we know about juveniles who sexually offend, it would once again behoove the law to address the needs of juveniles and young adults given things such as brain development. Moreover, science continuously supports juveniles who commit sex crimes are not “miniature versions” of their adult counterparts (Lobanov-Rostovsky, 2015a; Przybylski, 2015).
Limitations and Future Directions
Although this research provides a baseline and gives insights into public perceptions on PN as it applies to juvenile females aged 14 and older who were convicted of a sex offense, it is not without its limitations. This is an MTurk drawn sample; therefore, while it is more generalizable compared to a college classroom sample, generalizability is still limited in that some respondent groups are overrepresented (e.g., female respondents) while others are underrepresented (e.g., Black respondents). Past work on juvenile SORN has also shown that incident characteristics (e.g., crime type) and victim characteristics (e.g., sex, age) can shape public perceptions of these laws (see, for example, Salerno et al., 2010; Stevenson et al., 2009). To build on and expand this research, vignette studies should be conducted to better gauge the ebb and flow of public opinion on PN depending on such things as crime type (e.g., public exposure vs. rape) and offender and victim characteristics (e.g., juvenile vs. adult offender, age and sex of victim). In addition, while this research does provide a gendered lens by investigating perceptions of juvenile females in relation to PN laws, it is unknown if such opinions extend to juvenile males convicted of a sex offense. Future research should include the juvenile perpetrator’s sex to assess if the juvenile perpetrator’s sex itself influences the public’s (un)willingness to place a juvenile’s information on a publicly accessible website and the correlates of why this might be so (e.g., gender norms, sex offending myths).
In the United States, juvenile sex offender registration laws continue to exist at the state and federal levels with PN as either a requirement of registration or as a discretionary system. One question to assess is whether laws stipulating the release of juveniles’ information to the public when convicted for sex crimes is warranted, particularly if science thus far tells us, at least in reference to adults convicted of sex crimes, such laws are symbolic in nature, do not drastically change the public’s protective behaviors, and cause public fear (Anderson et al., 2009; Beck & Travis, 2004; Boyle et al., 2014; Caputo & Brodsky, 2004; Comartin et al., 2009). Moreover, in regard to public safety, research finds that juveniles sexually reoffend at much lower rates compared with adults who sexually reoffend (Lobanov-Rostovsky, 2015a). Would registry models that omit PN, such as Canada’s model where registration data are only available to law enforcement, be more beneficial in regard to juveniles whose intersection with the criminal justice system should be rehabilitative in nature? Regardless of how PN laws are written (e.g., required vs. discretionary), public opinion should continuously be analyzed in relation to these laws given the role public opinion plays in policy making and the role PN plays in the (un)intended consequences of allowing juveniles’ information to be publicly available (Enns, 2016; Human Rights Watch, 2013). We know public opinion in and of itself is complex and that, at times, it may be misinformed (e.g., believing myths about sex crimes and those who perpetrate sex crimes; Budd & Mancini, 2016; Pickett et al., 2013; Quinn et al., 2004). We also know public opinion can change over time (see, for example, Oliphant, 2018). As researchers, we need to continue to advance science by disentangling juvenile SORN public perceptions, including perceptions of other criminal justice processes which may influence community members views on formal mechanisms of social control applied to youth who commit sexual offenses.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We would like to thank Miami University (Undergraduate Research Award) and the Department of Sociology and Gerontology for their financial support to conduct this research.
