Looking for a portal to a wealth of information about sex offending and sex offender management? Then this website is a must. It is home to the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART). "The SMART Office was authorized in the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which was signed into law on July 27, 2006. The responsibilities of the SMART Office include providing jurisdictions with guidance regarding the implementation of the Adam Walsh Act, and providing technical assistance to the states, territories, Indian tribes, local governments, and to public and private organizations. The SMART Office also tracks important legislative and legal developments related to sex offenders and administers grant programs related to the registration, notification, and management of sex offenders." Access is provided to: about SMART; SORNA (Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act); Indian Country; legislative history; case law updates; funding opportunities; National Symposium; tools and resources—SORNA tools, education and prevention, newsletters and publications, press releases, and links; newsroom; and the National Sex Offender Public Website (NSOPW).
Recent court cases (2013) concerning the restricted use of the Internet by sex offenders are reviewed. These cases are: Doe v. Nebraska; Doe v. Prosecutor, Marion County, Indiana; and Bykov v. Rosen. “Restricting Internet access has always been seen primarily as a risk management condition … Internet conditions/restrictions on community corrections cases (probation, parole, supervised release), properly crafted have been repeatedly upheld. The Bykov case signifies that separate and apart from managing cyber-risk, an Internet restriction can be punishment that deters future Internet misconduct” (p. 2).
Results are presented from "a national survey of stakeholders invested in the successful reentry of adults convicted of sexual offenses … The survey findings reveal variability regarding the extent to which respondents’ beliefs about various sex offender-related matters align with current research." Findings are provided for: applied reentry strategies; understanding relevant research about recidivism, risk factors, principles of effective correctional intervention, sex offender-specific risk assessment tools, longer sentences, community supervision, violations of post-release conditions, community supports, sex offense-specific treatment, residence restrictions, GPS or electronic monitoring, and registration and notification; reported barriers to reentry; and reported priority needs for additional training or technical assistance.
The author looks at recent empirical evidence for clinical adjustments to actuarial-based risk prediction for sexually violent predators (SVPs). Based upon “five research studies directly comparing pure-actuarial to adjusted-actuarial risk assessment for sexual recidivism … the evidence does not show that adjusting or overriding the results of an actuarial instrument increases the accuracy of risk assessment. On the contrary, there is evidence that adjustments or overrides often decrease accuracy … [Therefore] because extant research shows that clinical adjustments do not increase, and often reduce, accuracy of risk assessments, SVP evaluators should generally refrain from using clinical adjustments or overrides in our risk assessments” (p. 23-24).