Individuals who have committed sex crimes differ in many ways.

They are different ages, genders, sexual orientations, and races. The nature of their crimes vary as do their risk of reoffending.

The Registry Has Expanded Far Beyond Its Original Scope

The first state registries were created in the 1940s as a tool to track homosexual men. Beginning in the 1990s federal and state laws were passed in response to growing fears about crimes against children committed by strangers. Today, large numbers of people appear on registries for offenses that vary widely in seriousness. Many registries include individuals who were never assessed as high risk, as well as people who committed noncontact or juvenile offenses.

People convicted of sex offenses have a very low recidivism rate.

A 2017 Oregon study found that just 1.8% of people who leave prison with a sex crime conviction were convicted of a new sex crime in 3 years. A 2019 Bureau of Justice study found that 7.7% of people with a sex crime were re-arrested for a new sex crime in 9 years.

Oregon’s registry sorts people based on risk.

Most people on the registry are level 1, the lowest risk of re-offending. Level 2 is for moderate risk, and level 3 is the highest risk. But the assessment tools used by Oregon are flawed and fail to take into account recent research that risk decreases dramatically over time.

The vast majority of sex crimes are committed by people who are not on the registry and are known to the victim.

A study showed that about 95% of sex crimes are committed by individuals who are not on the registry and have no previous record of a sex crime.  Another study show that 93% of child sexual abuse is committed by persons known to the victim. Effective strategies for preventing sexual offending often go underfunded because so many resources are directed toward registry enforcement.

What This Means for Oregon

Oregon is moving toward a more research informed system, including risk-based levels and opportunities for relief. These reforms acknowledge what the evidence has shown for decades. Not everyone poses the same level of risk and not everyone should remain on a registry for life.

A registry that reflects real risk is better for public safety, better for families, and better for communities.

Communities are safer when people are allowed to rebuild their lives, maintain stability, and engage in pro-social responsibilities. Restrictions that push individuals into homelessness or poverty do not make the public safer.