1. Juvenile Sex Offender Update
An Update on JSORN in ohio

2. SB 10 Enacted in 2007 First in the Country Fast Juvi. Provisions
Immediate Scrutiny
14 SCO Decisions
2 Pending
We were the first state to enact AWA/SORNA, with the promise of federal funding (which never came).
MAJOR Bill Provisions
Tiered system
Offense based classifications
Retroactive application to all persons previously classified, currently incarcerated, and prospective.
The juvenile provisions were drafted four hours before passage of the entire bill.
First in time also meant first in challenge – we have had 14 merit decisions from the Supreme Court of Ohio, plus hundreds from lower courts of appeal.

3. Cases
Bodyke (2010): people who were already registering before 2008 could not be classified under the tiering system of SB 10. Williams (2011): people whose offenses occurred before 2008 could not be classified under the tiering system of SB 10. DJS (2012): Williams applies to children too. Bruce S. (2012): Williams also applies to children who were subject to classification between the enacted and the effective dates of SB 10. Gingell (2011): a person who was not lawfully classified under SB 10 cannot be held responsible for violating SB 10.

4. Cases
J.V./Jean-Baptiste/J.B. (2012): limitations on the rights of courts to classify juveniles who were eligible for registration.
If the child is not classified prior to turning 21, the court loses jurisdiction to classify.
If the child is not classified prior to the termination of his case, the court loses jurisdiction to classify.

5. Cases
C.P.: the automatic mandatory lifetime classification of certain juveniles as PRQJORs is unconstitutional.
Juveniles are not subject to automatic/offense-based classification
Juveniles cannot be subject to mandatory lifetime registration
Juvenile registrants cannot have their registration published on eSORN (even after they turn 18)

6. Cases
I.A. (2014): for discretionary registrants (first time and 15-year-old juvenile offenders) classification can occur at disposition or upon release from a secure facility.
D.S. (2015): the extension of a juvenile’s registration duties beyond the age jurisdiction of the juvenile court is not unconstitutional.

7. Cases in Other States Following Ohio’s cases… Nevada and Arkansas
West Virginia
Pennsylvania
Nevada and Arkansas: due process violation found where the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to determine a child’s classification
West Virginia: Found that because children are not adults, the sting of a criminal punishment could not be applied to a juvenile adjudication
Pennsylvania: Broadest decision to this point – ultimately outlawed registration for all juveniles retroactively and prospectively – due process; right to reputation.

8. So, What’s Left?
Post-Litigation Landscape Impact of Registration Research Implications

9. The Post-Litigation Landscape
Who Must Register?
All youth 16 or 17 at time of offense
All youth with a prior adjudication
14-17 year old serious youthful offenders who are found delinquent of one of six enumerated offenses
Who Might Register?
First time 14 and 15 year old offenders
Court must consider factors in R.C (D) prior
Who Will Not Register?
- Youth who were under 14 at time of offense

10. The Post-Litigation Landscape
Importuning
Compelling prostitution
Rape
Unlawful sexual conduct
Pandering obscenity involving a minor
Sexual battery
Voyerism
Pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor
Aggravated murder with sexual motivation
Sexual Imposition
Illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material
Murder with sexual motivation
Gross Sexual Imposition
Unlawful sexual conduct with a minor when offender is four years older than victim
Unlawful death or termination of pregnancy as a result of committing a felony with sexual motivation
Gross sexual imposition with victim under 13
Kidnapping of a minor to engage in sexual activity
Child enticement with sexual motivation
Child endangering
Kidnapping of minor, not parent
Pandering obscenity
Kidnapping with sexual motivation
Gross sexual imposition with (B) specification
Menacing by stalking with sexual motivation
Abduction with sexual motivation
Felonious assault with sexual motivation

11. The Post-Litigation Landscape
Registration Level
Frequency of Registration
Duration of Registration
Tier I
Annually
Ten years
Tier II
Every 180 days
Twenty years
Tier III
Every 90 days
Until death
PRQJOR
Until Death

12. The Post-Litigation Landscape
JUVENILE
ADULT
Tier level is in the court’s discretion
No residency restrictions
Not posted on the web
Community notification only applies to certain Tier III JORs
Only registers in the county where they live
Can petition to have registration modified or removed
Is a “juvenile offender registrant” even after turning 18/21
Tiers are offense based
Residency restrictions apply
Posted on eSORN
Community notification applies to all adult registrants
Registers where they live, work, and attend school
Cannot petition to have registration removed

13. The Post-Litigation Landscape
How public is registration?
No more PRQJOR (no youth should be on eSORN) In re C.P., 2012-Ohio-1446
Tier III: Judicial discretion
Tier I, II, and III: All registrant information is available via public records request R.C

14. The Hearings Discretionary Registrants Mandatory Registrants
End-of-Disposition
Petition for Declassification
R.C (B)
R.C and (A)
R.C
R.C
14-15 Years Old and First Offense
16-17 Year Old
and Repeat Offenders
Required by Statute
Requested by Registrant
At disposition
For repeat offenses, occurs at disposition
Upon discharge from probation or parole
At three- and five-year intervals
Or upon release from secure placement
For first offense, occurs upon release from secure placement
Mandatory registrants can step down to a lower tier
All registrants can come off the registry
Court can decline to hold a hearing
Court must hold a hearing
Discretionary registrants can come off registry
Tier cannot be increased
Court uses discretion for tier determination

15. HYPO
At 12 years old, Julie was charged with gross sexual imposition for allegedly touching her 5 year old sister. She admitted to the offense and was placed on probation. Ten months later she was charged with statutory rape of her nine-year-old cousin. The court imposed a commitment to a community corrections facility; and, after a year, she was released. Upon her release from the CCF, the court held a hearing and imposed a tier II classification on Julie. Is there anything wrong with the court’s order?

16. HYPO
Yes: Julie was not eligible for classification. Her first offense occurred when she was 12. Even though she picked up a subsequent charge, it occurred when she was either 12 or Since children under 14 are not eligible for registration. The juvenile court did not have authority to classify her.

17. HYPO
Evan admitted to three counts of rape and one count of gsi for acts that occurred when he was 13. He was not adjudicated delinquent for those offenses until he was 14. He was committed to DYS. While in DYS, he admitted to three more offenses, involving three other victims. They all occurred prior to the offenses for which he was serving his commitment. Do the new offenses make him eligible to be a registrant?

18. HYPO
No. The code requires classification for repeat offenders if they have a “prior adjudication.” Even though Evan was 14 when he admitted to the other offenses, he is not eligible for classification for two reasons: 1) he was under 14 when his prior offenses occurred; and 2) even though he committed prior offenses, they were simply prior offenses that had not been charged, not prior adjudications. The code envisions mandatory registrants being youth who commit a new offense following an adjudication, not youth who had unreported priors that are discovered during treatment.

19. HYPO
DeMarco was adjudicated delinquent of a sexually oriented offense following a sexting scandal at school. He was 15 at the time. He was placed on probation; and, one year later, when he was 16, he was charged with the forcible rape of a peer. He was sent to DYS without being classified. When he was released, the juvenile court held a classification hearing and found him to be a tier III. Is there anything wrong with the court’s order?

20. HYPO
Yes. Because DeMarco was a repeat offender, his classification should have occurred at disposition for the rape.

21. The Impact of Registration
True or False
Registering juveniles protects public safety.
FALSE

22. The Impact of Registration
“Holding children appropriately accountable for harmful behavior and providing them with evidence- based treatment can reduce their likelihood for future offending. Subjecting them to registration cannot.”
- Elizabeth Letourneau, et. al.

23. The Impact of Registration
Punishment
Impedes reintegration
Interferes with
Employment
Housing
Education

24. The Impact of Registration
National study conducted by Johns Hopkins in found that youth on the registry experienced:
Isolation
Depression
Denial of access to social opportunities
Interference with school
Being removed from their families and friends
Suicidal thoughts/ideations
Threats of physical violence

25. The Impact of Registration
Also, the study reflected the following data about youth, aged who are on sex offender registries:
Worse outcomes on four of five mental health scales
4x as likely to have suicidal thoughts/ideations
2x as likely to experience sexual assault from others as a result of being on the registry

26. Children who commit sex offenses are at a
The Research
True or False
Children who commit sex offenses are at a
high risk to reoffend.
FALSE

27. The Research Research has found that:
Youth who commit sexual offenses are different from adults who commit sex offenses
Youth who commit sex offenses have the lowest recidivism rate of all youthful offenders
An Ohio-based study in 2010 reflected a recidivism rate as low as 4-10% for Ohio youth

28. The Research
A recent meta-analysis of studies found that, regardless of severity, 97% of juvenile offenders never reoffend.
A recent national study found that, after release from incarceration, a juvenile offender who has not reoffended in the first five years has less than a 2.5% chance of reoffending

29. The Research Effectiveness 2016 Caldwell Study Punishment Only
Future oriented
Future Orientation
Multi-System Interventions
Needs-Based and Strength-Based Treatment
Punishment Only

30. Why the Myths?
A lack of understanding about the nature of juvenile sexual offending.
A lack of understanding of the assessments used to evaluate youthful offending risk.

31. ASSESSMENTS ERASOR: Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offenders
J-SORRAT-II: Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool
SAVRY: Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth
J-SOAP-II: Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol

32. J-SOAP-II – the most common
“A checklist to aid in the systemic review of risk factors identified in professional literature as being associated with sexual and criminal offending. It is designed to be used with boys in the age range of 12 to 18 who have been adjudicated for sexual offense, as well as nonadjudicated youths with a history of sexually coercive behavior.” (J-SOAP-II Manual, )

33. How it is scored 23 items, split into 4 scales
Each item is a risk factor scored 0, 1, or 2.
0 = apparent absence of item
1 = presence of some info that suggests presence of the item, but it is “too sketchy” to justify a score of 2
2 = clear presence of item

34. J-SOAP-II Summary Score
Static Score is the majority of the score (32 items vs. 24 items)
Total:
Avg. score= 21, no offending
Avg. score= 30, did reoffend
(J-SOAP-II Manual, 2003)

35. Items from Scales 1 & 2 1 2 Prior legally charged sex offenses
Number of sexual abuse victims
Male child victim
Duration of sexual offense history
Degree of planning in sexual offense(s)
Sexualized aggression
Sexual drive and preoccupation
Sexual victimization history
Caregiver Consistency
Pervasive anger
School behavior problems
History of conduct disorder before age 10
Juvenile antisocial behavior (age 10-17)
Ever charged/arrested before age 16
Multiple types of offenses
Physical assault history and/or exposure to family violence 1 2

36. Resources
Human Rights Watch: Raised on the Registry – available at: children-sex-offender-registries-us
Harris, A.J., Walfield, S., Shields, R.T., & Letourneau, E.J., Collateral Consequences of Juvenile Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Results from a Survey of Treatment Providers, Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 1-22 (2015).
Letourneau, E.J., et. al, Effects of Juvenile Sex Offender Registration on Adolescent Well-Being: An Empirical Examination, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2018, Vol. 24, No. 1, (2018) (first published in 2017).
Caldwell, M.F. (2016, July 18). Quantifying the Decline in Juvenile Sexual Recidivism Rates. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law.
Elizabeth J. Letourneau et al., The Influence of Sex Offender Registration on Juvenile Sexual Recidivism, 20 Crim. Just. Pol’y Rev. 136 (2009).

37. Questions?

38. MORE QUESTIONS?
Also, feel free to contact us at Brooke M. Burns –