Shame and Justice: Partners of Individuals on Sex Oense Registries Encourage Policy Reform

Sex offense registration and notification (SORN) policies can contribute to stigma and negative consequences for partners of registered individuals. The present study utilized a self-report questionnaire to ask these partners what they would say to policymakers if given the opportunity. A thematic analysis of the responses revealed three themes which highlight the distinct issues related to registries, describe direct consequences experienced by the partners, and propose changes to existing policy. This study provides valuable insight into the experiences of a hard-to-reach population and can help generate critical discussion around the sweeping impacts SORN policies have on individuals they were not intended to reach. Implications for qualitative criminology and policy are discussed.


Introduction
Since the 1990's, the United States has witnessed a proliferation of federal and statelevel sex offender registration and notification (SORN) policies. In brief, these policies aim to reduce sexual offending through incapacitative measures (e.g., residence restrictions) and deterrence measures (e.g., public registration and community notification) (Socia, 2012). SORN policies have developed through public demand for more punitive approaches to address sexual offending following several tragic and highly publicized sexual crimes against children (Kahn et al., 2017;Prescott, 2012;Robbers, 2009;Vasquez et al., 2008;Wright, 2008) and continue to receive tremendous public support (Proctor, et al., 2002). Unfortunately, these policies have been implemented with little evaluative evidence or regard for others who may be unintentionally impacted. This study aims to assess the collateral consequences experienced by partners of registered individuals by bringing their voices into the conversation on policy reform.
Research demonstrates that the negative consequences manifesting from courtesy CrimRxiv Shame and Justice: Partners of Individuals on Sex O ense Registries Encourage Policy Reform 3 stigma are often equivalent in severity to the consequences experienced by the primary stigmatized individual (Kulik et al., 2008;Larson & Lane, 2006).
Partners of registered are uniquely impacted by both SORN policies and consequent courtesy stigma, resulting in reductions of social support (Arditti, 2005;Jones & Beck, 2005), overall well-being (Russell, 2020), and mental health (Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009;Robbers, 2009). Further, SORN policies intended to manage and monitor the registered individual also may directly affect their partners. SORN policies restrict registered individuals in where they can live and travel, what types of events they can attend, and what types of technology/internet access they can have inside their homes -all of which will affect the partner if they wish to cohabitate or travel with the registered individual. Registration also results in a decreased likelihood of accessing educational resources, obtaining and maintaining gainful employment, and achieving financial stability (Levenson & Cotter, 2005;Prescott, 2012;Tewksbury, 2005;Tewksbury & Lees, 2006). Registered individuals also may fear and experience harassment, judgment, and vandalism enacted by members of their community (Farkas & Miller, 2008;Tewksbury & Lees, 2006). Again, all of these consequences also likely affect the lives of their partners.
The ongoing issues outlined here have generated the interest of researchers and advocates and have informed policy reform efforts. Reform efforts, however, have remained unsuccessful due to public and policymakers' strong and stigmatized beliefs surrounding this population.
Policy debates and evidence presented for reform tend to focus on the impact of policies on the registered individuals themselves. Importantly, the negative effects resulting from SORN policies may extend to individuals close to registered individuals, such as their children and partners (Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009). It is important to consider those collaterally impacted yet largely left out of these policy discussions, to have an opportunity to voice their experiences and make suggestions for reform (Marsh et al., 2021). Partners are uniquely positioned to be able to provide support for CrimRxiv Shame and Justice: Partners of Individuals on Sex O ense Registries Encourage Policy Reform 4 registered individuals during their reintegration, a mechanism likely disrupted if they also are negatively impacted by SORN policies (Russell, 2020). Given their closeness to the registered individual and their desire to see them successfully reintegrated, partner perspectives and suggestions for policy reform are especially valuable.

Current Study
The current study sought to address these issues by examining open-ended survey responses of partners of registered individuals regarding their thoughts on current SORN policies. Our goal was to better understand how partners and spouses are affected by existing policies, to know what they would like policymakers to know about their experiences, and to gain insight into their perspectives regarding needed reforms and potential solutions.

Method
Data for this study derive from a larger, national online Qualtrics survey of partners of individuals required to register which focused on courtesy stigma (see Marsh et al., 2021;Russell, 2020). Respondents were recruited through strategic snowball sampling in 2018 and were screened to ensure they were 18 years of age or older, U.S. citizens, and currently or previously in a relationship with someone mandated to register on a public sex offense registry.
The present study examines an open-ended policy question from the larger survey; thus, the findings are based on the 221 respondents that completed this item. The majority of these respondents (204) identified as female and as white/Caucasian (n = 188, 85%). The respondents were an average of 44.49 years old (range = 20-82, SD = 13.40) and heterosexual (n = 191, 86%), though participants also identified as bisexual (6.8%), gay or lesbian (4.5%), or preferred to self-describe their orientation (2.3%).
Current and former partners of registered individuals from forty U.S. states and the District of Columbia responded to the survey. The most represented states for participants who answered the question of interest for this study were Texas, California, and Illinois. Income levels for the participants in this sample were captured categorically, and the distribution was multimodal. Fourteen percent of respondents placed their annual income between $20,001 and $30,000, and an equal number of respondents placed their annual income between $40,001 and $50,000. Table 1 presents the overall demographic characteristics of respondents who completed the questionnaire. A thematic analysis process developed by Braun and Clark (2006) allowed for a flexible approach to identifying, analyzing, and reporting themes present in the current data.
This thematic analysis was conducted using an essentialist method, which aims to report the experiences, meanings, and reality of the respondents rather than a constructivist method which would aim to examine the ways in which those factors are the effect of societal discourse (Braun & Clark, 2006). Further, the analysis was conducted using an inductive approach (Boyatzis, 1998;Braun & Clark, 2006) which allows responses to be coded from a 'bottom up' strategy where codes emerge from the data, rather than trying to code the data based upon preconceived coding schemes.
Following the steps outlined by Braun and Clark (2006), the first author first reviewed responses, making note of topic areas for potential coding. Following this, an initial coding scheme was developed, and coding of all data was completed in a systematic fashion by the first and second authors. Interrater reliability was assessed by randomly assigning both coders to complete a subset of responses (10%). A pooled kappa of 0.71 was observed, suggesting moderate agreement (McHugh, 2012) between the coders.
Inconsistencies were examined which revealed that for most of the cross-coded sections, the coders agreed on the primary codes and the few discrepancies were primarily related to the quantity of subcodes applied. To further ensure all codes were interpreted and coded consistently, the coders discussed and addressed discrepancies in the coding, and reviewed and refined code definitions. Next, the authors searched for and reviewed potential themes. Once it was determined that the themes aligned with the coded extracts and datasets, the themes were further analyzed, and definitions generated. The notable themes identified in this study are detailed below.

Findings
Of the 221 responses, 213 were included in the analysis. Eight responses were dropped and were unable to be coded due to irrelevancy (e.g., "see above," "N/A"). proposed policy changes. Within each, a number of subthemes also were generated.
Each theme is discussed below, followed by their associated subthemes. Quotations from respondents are presented verbatim in an effort to retain the respondents' original intended meaning and thus, may contain grammatical or punctuation errors.

Primary Theme 1: Registry Issues
When asked what they would say to policymakers, 133 (62.4%) of the respondents commented on existing issues related to SORN policies. These individuals referred to the failures of existing registries by highlighting the ways in which they are ineffective or do not produce the intended results. Within this theme, four subthemes were identified; (a) one size does not fit all, (b) ineffectiveness, (c) further punishment, and (d) low re-offense rates (see Figure 1). Each sub-theme is outlined below with definitions and example excerpts from the responses.  being heterogenous and in need of individualized approaches. In this subtheme, many respondents specifically state that this 'one size fits all' approach is not effective and that it is a primary issue with registries. Respondents frequently cited a 'lumping together' of all registered individuals with very diverse criminal offending histories (e.g., teenager adjudicated for a first-time offense with a serial child molester) into a registry and tier-system that does not properly delineate their differing characteristics and risk levels. One respondent talked about how this one size fits all approach is used with this diverse population using examples.

One Size Does Not Fit All
"The registry is a ""one-size-fits-all"" punishment that is applied to a wide array of offenses--from violent sexual attacks to teenage sexting, and is geared for the more gruesome end of the offense spectrum." (Respondent #7) Another alluded to the nature of registries using a one size fits all approach to labeling registered individuals and argued that they should be more carefully considered with an individualized approach based on case-related factors.
"Not all sexual offenders should be judged as quote unquote baby rapers. Due to circumstances each case should be judged on a case by case basis. Some offenders are high school sweethearts Romeo and Juliet laws should be looked at before sticking a person with any registry requirements." (Respondent #106)

Ineffectiveness
Forty-four respondents highlighted the ineffectiveness of registries. In their responses they emphasized how the goals of registries (i.e., increase in public safety, deterrence of sexual crimes) have not been met. Others highlighted issues that make the registries ineffective such as their potential to do more harm to the registered individual and their families, rather than helping with successful reentry. Some respondents underscored that the registries are built upon the misperception of "stranger danger" and sexual crimes, when the majority of sexual offenses are perpetrated by family members or acquaintances.
"The registry and public notification systems have not been found to effect recidivism. The registry is not making anyone safer, nor is it preventing anyone from re-offending. (Respondent #94) Another respondent further elaborated upon the ways in which this ineffective system can be counterproductive to its intended goals. This respondent also makes suggestions for evidence-based approaches to improve effectiveness.
"I would STRONGLY advise them to do away with registration. It does little or nothing to make the public safer and makes it extremely difficult for former sex offenders to re-integrate into society as productive citizens. It isolates and oppresses them to the point that any kind of life success is practically impossible and ultimately contributes to another criminal offense, sexual in nature or otherwise. If registry repeal is not done, at least do away with the Adam Walsh Act and classify offenders under a tier system that is scientifically based so the public can determine who is actually a severe threat from those who are little or no threat." (Respondent #65)

Further Punishment
Twenty-seven respondents discussed the way in which registries are used as another means of punishment, rather than a policy to aid in improving public safety. A number of these respondents specifically refer to the fact that their partners have already served a full prison sentence but that the registry allows for continued, and sometimes a lifetime, punishment. This is a system unique to sexual offenses, and as some respondents point out -is a punitive measure we do not even require of murderers.
One respondent highlighted these issues by describing the ways in which these registries punish the registered individuals and their families through public shaming. Low Re-offense Rates Furthermore, twelve respondents describe and cite low re-offense rate statistics associated with sexual offending. These respondents highlight a clear contradiction that the goal of registries is to reduce offending for a group of individuals who already have very low re-offending rates. As these responses highlight, it is unsurprising that registries have failed to lower re-offense rates. For example, one respondent underscores this contradiction by stating that, "The laws that are created do not prevent an offense from happening since the registration every year grows in numbers and it is time to reevaluate that process since sexual offenses in many cases have the lowest recidivism rate." (Respondent

168)
Another questions the purpose of registries if these individuals are already unlikely to re-offend.

Stigma
Thirty respondents reported experiencing stigma as a direct consequence of their partner's registration status. These respondents discuss the ways in which their partner, themselves, and their children all experience stigmatization due to the registry. Many of these individuals refer to feeling humiliated or embarrassed, publicly shamed, and as having a 'scarlet letter' attached to them. Respondents also mention feeling fearful that they will be judged or experience harassment due to their stigmatized status. One respondent talked about how this punitive approach publicly shames the registered individual and their partner.
"If a person does a crime they should be punished for it but the registry has become a form of public shaming and a public hit list. It feels almost as if your loved one is wearing a form of a modern-day scarlet letter and others believe you condone sex crimes so they shun you as well." (Respondent #182) Additionally, another discussed the ways in which the stigmatizing effects extend beyond the registered individual to also affect the families.
"Please take in consideration of the families and the shame, embarrassment and cruelty people can have towards the very innocent people. We are victims too."

Parent Involvement
Eighteen respondents reported that one of the consequences of sex offenses policies is that the registered individual is unable to be involved as a parent. Oftentimes, this comes in their inability to engage in typical supportive parenting activities such as attending school functions and sport or group events. They emphasize the ways in which this creates a barrier for the registered individual to fulfill their parenting duties and live up to their full parenting potential, as they are barred from coaching their child's teams, traveling or taking vacations with them, and visiting their children in hospitals. Further, they highlight how it is the children who are the victims and most affected by such policies, as they are unable to experience important bonding moments with their parent. One respondent elaborates upon the ways in which sex offense policies create unique challenges for parents on the registry (i.e., not being able to take kids out for trick or treating or Halloween events), of which a consequence is that the child's development may be negatively affected.
"Now they are no longer able to take their children out making the children feel isolated and grow up as dysfunctional. This is creating new issues and new problems that will indeed cost more money to taxpayers. Oh, not to mention a lot of parents take their children to church Halloween parties in which a SO cannot go to church. Two solutions I can think of. Let the SO's rent a ankle monitor for the evening or allow them to have a chaperone for this evening if you still feel they are a threat. Public or family functions and vacations-All of these are things that bring a family together, builds good social skills, ups the self-esteem, teaches children, builds a sense of a strong family unit and community. These are important with everyone but truly important to growing minds (children)."

(Respondent #1)
Another describes the ways in which these restrictions can make it difficult for parents on the registry to establish healthy relationships with their children.

Limit to Law Enforcement
Thirty respondents suggested that the registry should be limited to law enforcement only. Many of these individuals state that there is no need for public access to the registered individual's information and that limiting the information to only those who need it (e.g., police, probation officers), certain consequences such as stigma and harassment could be alleviated. One respondent pointed out a lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of a public registry and suggests that the list should only be accessible by law enforcement professionals who require its use.

Consider Context
Twenty-three respondents suggested that the registration system take context of each individual's situation and crime into consideration when determining who will be registered and for how long. These individuals encourage refraining from applying harsh registration requirements (e.g., lifetime registration) broadly to a diverse population of individuals. For example, one highlights that registration tiers should better distinguish between the contextual factors of the offense (e.g., one time only vs. repeat).
"There needs to be a method of addressing cases on an individual basis, rather than an uncompromising categorization that fails to differentiate between a teenager that commits one offense and a serial rapist when it comes to punishment." (Respondent #70) Many of these respondents, such as the one below, simply state that these situations should be judged on an individualized basis.
"Due to circumstances each case should be judged on a case by case basis." (Respondent #106)

Proposed Removal
Twenty-two respondents recommended that the registry be removed altogether rather than being reformed. Many of the respondents who argue that the registry should be abolished propose using the funds for more effective resources. Others discuss that this removal would make society safer since registered individuals would have a greater chance of rehabilitating and successfully reentering society. One outlined why they believe registries should be removed and suggests that at if this is not possible other steps toward reform must be taken.
"I would STRONGLY advise them to do away with registration. It does little or nothing to make the public safer and makes it extremely difficult for former sex offenders to re-integrate into society as productive citizens. It isolates and oppresses them to the point that any kind of life success is practically impossible and ultimately contributes to another criminal offense, sexual in nature or otherwise. If registry repeal is not done, at least do away with the Adam Walsh Act and classify offenders under a tier system that is scientifically based so the public can determine who is actually a severe threat from those who are little or no threat." (Respondent #65) Another provided examples of ways the money could be reallocated to more effective programs.
"Get rid of the registry and put the money to education, mental health initiatives, police training and other places that would actually make a difference." (Respondent #124)

Length Requirements
Twenty-one respondents mention length requirements as a point of policy reform.
More specifically, these respondents often argue against lengthy and lifetime registration requirements that are not proportionate to the severity or quantity of offending. Moreover, many of these individuals argue for some sort of review system that would allow for registration lengths to be reduced or a way to be removed from the registry altogether should they deserve it (e.g., successfully rehabilitated). For example, one respondent argues that lifetime registration can make the registered individual feel hopeless and removes their motivation to reform.
"Once off probation there should NOT be any registry. Lifetime registry is unrealistic. It is like saying to a kid you are grounded forever! There is nothing to look forward to, no goal, no light at the end of the dark tunnel. You take away all hope of a normal life. Yet you want to reform them, but you give them nothing to gain. "A man who has nothing, loses nothing" I heard this said to me once by a felon. In their eyes it doesn't matter if he offends again because his life isn't worth shit any way. His words not mine!!!!" (Respondent #1) Another highlighted that registries punish registered individuals for lengthy periods of time and that this continued punishment post-incarceration is unique to sexual offending.
"There needs to be clarification on the registry laws. There should be a way that people can get off the registry and not 10 to 20 years later. Most employment back grounds go back 7 years. There needs to be reformation on the state level. My Another suggests policymakers consider research findings rather than allowing emotions to drive policy decisions.
"I ask them to use scientific data to make policy and not to continue on a path where rules and laws are made on irrational emotions." (Respondent #42)

Second Chances
In addition, sixteen respondents encourage policymakers to consider the importance of second chances. More specifically, these respondents refer to the need to allow registered individuals to pay for their crime through incarceration and punishment and then be given the opportunity to be a successful member of society. For example, one respondent describes making a one-time mistake at a young age as a reason for considering second chances.
"People should be given second chances. Especially when they are young and make mistakes. Imagine being young and making a mistake (that didn't hurt anyone) and having to pay for it the rest of your life." (Respondent #116) Another concisely states that registered individuals should have a chance to successfully reintegrate after serving their sentence.

Worst only
Fourteen respondents urged policymakers to consider reserving the use of registration for the worst offenses only. For example, they suggest that registration should be reserved for those who commit repeated heinous or violent sexual crimes. They suggest that those who commit less severe crimes (e.g., statutory rape in a scenario where two teenagers were engaged in a consensual relationship) should not be required to register. One respondent described the need to reserve the registry for the worst offenses only and described issues with the current way the policy is applied.
"That the lifetime registration is overused and needs to be used for the worst crimes an offender can commit. Too many people are on the registry and there is no discernment between truly evil monsters who did absolutely heinous things to someone who made a mistake such as Romeo and Juliet laws. People should also have an opportunity to get off the registry." (Respondent #155) Another suggests that total removal is ideal but, if it is not an option then policymakers should reserve the registry for the highest risk individuals only.
"Remove them. they are not serving any real purpose. If you must have them only have the worst offenders those high risk and the ones most likely to reoffend. They SHOULD NOT be made public." (Respondent #139)

Discussion
Existing data suggest that individuals who have committed sexual offenses have low rates of recidivism (Bureau of Justice Statistics,2002;Sample & Bray, 2006). Given this, in combination with the lack of evidence for the effectiveness of SORN policies, the consequences that they and their partners experience may be substantially disproportionate to the original offense and the risk they pose to the community. No person wants to be judged solely by the worst mistake they ever made. Yet for partners of registered individuals, who are often judged by the worst mistake their partner ever made, the subsequently experienced collateral consequences can be incredibly harmful.
Partners of registered individuals offered insight into how SORN policies have negatively affected themselves personally, as well as how their families have been affected. Participants in this study were especially concerned with the blanket labeling  Current findings have implications for qualitative criminology as well. Criminology scholars are often challenged with accessing, developing rapport with, and getting data from highly stigmatized populations. Given their ability to protect anonymity, online surveys can be an effective tool in accessing hard-to-reach populations.
Further, using open-ended surveys items is an accessible first step for gathering insightful and detailed qualitative data before diving into more in-depth approaches (e.g., in-depth interviewing) that do not provide the respondents anonymity from the researchers (Marsh et al., 2021;Russell, 2020). This allows the researchers to demonstrate their intentions with this line of research, building rapport with respondents, resulting in a network of individuals who indicated their interest in being contacted for participation in more in-depth follow-up studies (Marsh et al., 2021;Russell, 2020). It is also worth noting that embedding the open-ended items within a survey allows for further contextualization of the quantitative responses and theoretical models.

Limitations
The limitations of this study should be considered when interpreting the findings. The current study used a purposive snowball sampling approach to reach participants for a self-report survey. Thus, response rates are unknown, so the representativeness of the

Conclusion
SORN policies and their effect on registered individuals and those associated with them continue to be an important avenue for future research given the high costs to society of maintaining these systems. Understanding the full extent of collateral consequences experienced by registered individuals and their families allows for more comprehensive conversations around policy reform. Further, as yielded in the current study, discussion with those who are affected by existing policies can generate unique and evidence-based ideas for alternative approaches that may be more effective in aiding successful reintegration and increased community safety.