Written by Libby Larro, L’26
Despite the Supreme Court precedent and overwhelming scientific evidence that tells us that children are fundamentally different from adults, our criminal legal system continues to treat children prosecuted for sexual offenses as adults. This methodology causes immense harm to these children and does little to restore communal relationships and heal victims. One of the most harmful consequences juvenile offenders face is a lifetime on their jurisdiction’s sex offender registry, which subjects them to decreased job opportunities, restrictions on safe housing, and social isolation. In order to better rehabilitate and protect this particularly vulnerable population of court-involved youth, sex offender registration and notification laws should not apply to those who commit offenses as juveniles.
Even though there is plentiful evidence and precedent that shows us children are developmentally and socially different from adults, courts continue to treat children charged with sex offenses the same way they treat their adult counterparts. The Supreme Court has recognized the unique nature of children in cases such as Roper v. Simmons, which outlawed the death penalty for individuals under 18 at the time of their offense, and Miller v. Alabama, which abolished mandatory life without parole for those under 18 at the time of their offense.[1] Children have an underdeveloped sense of responsibility, are more vulnerable to outside pressures, and lack control over their environments.[2] Children’s characters are not as fixed as adults’, and their actions are less likely to be “evidence of irretrievable depravity.”[3] Compared to adults, children are less able to regulate their emotions, control their impulses, and consider the consequences of their actions.[4] Youth are able to make rational decisions in unemotional contexts, but struggle to make rational decisions in emotionally-volatile situations.[5] Even though children are markedly different from adults, sex offender registration laws apply to children and adults indiscriminately.
Sex Offender Registration Laws
Sex offender registration laws are laws that require those convicted of a sex offense in adult court or children ages 14-17 adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court to provide identifying information to the state or federal government so that the government can publish the information in a public registry.[6] In 2006, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act was passed by Congress in response to the tragic abduction and murder of six-year-old Adam Walsh by a serial killer in 1981.[7] Title I of the Act is the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), which provides minimum standards for states to adhere to in crafting sex offender registration and notification laws.[8] Individuals subject to SORNA must, at a minimum, provide their name, Social Security Number, home address, the address of their place of work or school, a description of any vehicle they may operate, and information relating to intended travel outside of the United States.[9]
Juveniles and SORNA
Over 200,000 people are estimated to be on sex offender registries for crimes they committed when they were children.[10] Most individuals subject to SORNA are automatically registered for life, and can only petition to be removed from the registry if their offense falls in a certain category. Youth sex offenders are subject to long-term stigmatization and psychological difficulties; in one study, 84.5% of interviewed youth offenders reported negative mental health impacts such as depression, social isolation, difficulty forming healthy relationships, and suicidal ideation.[11] In the same study, 52% of youth reported experiencing violence or threats of violence.[12] Many young people, overwhelmed with the barriers to employment, higher education, housing, and community building, see ending their lives as the only way to escape.[13]
SORN requirements make it exceedingly difficult for juvenile sex offenders to find housing and employment post-conviction or adjudication. Most municipalities do not allow registered sex offenders to live near areas where children congregate, such as schools, playgrounds, and churches.[14] These broad restrictions often make it so the only residential options for youth sex offenders and their families are in commercial areas or high crime areas.[15]
Sex offender registration laws also negatively impact the families of juvenile sex offenders. While all families struggle when their children are released from juvenile detention or adult prisons, the families of youth sex offenders face unique stresses due to the publicity of their childrens’ criminal history and personal information.[16] Families of juvenile and adult sex offenders have a difficult time finding housing because of residential registry requirements and economic hardships.[17] Registrants must pay fees every time they update their information, and for juveniles, this usually means their families are responsible for several hundred dollars in fees a year.[18] Initial registration fees could be up to $2000.[19]
Very few youth sex offenders ever offend again.[20] In fact, 97% of juvenile sex offenders do not reoffend sexually.[21]
Argument
The immense psychological and social harms faced by juvenile sex offenders would be unacceptable if it was any other population of children. If the Supreme Court has ruled that sentencing children to life without parole is unconstitutional, requiring children to become Registered Sex Offenders should also be unconstitutional.
States and the federal legislature should eliminate sex offender registration requirements for children under 18 at the time of their offense, as those on these registries are effectively sentenced to a life of stigmatization and isolation for actions they took when their brains were still developing. “In an effort to protect children from sexual assault… lawmakers failed to consider that some of the sex offenders they were subjecting to registration were themselves children, in need of policy responses tailored to their specific needs and circumstances.”[22] Community notification, in accordance with sex offender registration laws, puts a child’s future, livelihood, relationships, and safety in “grave jeopardy” for the rest of their lives.[23] Several legal organizations, including the American Bar Association, have called for eliminating juvenile registration or narrowing the class of juvenile sex offenders required to register, especially in the wake of Supreme Court cases like Roper and Miller.[24]
The traditional approach to juvenile sex offense cases does not reduce recidivism, protect victims, or rehabilitate offenders. For youth who commit serious sexual offenses, incarceration and compulsory sex offender registration lead to adverse mental health outcomes and make it nearly impossible for these youth to rejoin their community and lead healthy lives. Eliminating sex offender registration for young people under 18 at the time of their offense will allow youth to find housing, employment, and educational opportunities so that they can become productive members of society.
—
Windzepher, Photograph of a detained child in a holding cell, in Emily Wright & Ryan Spohn, NCJR Studies Restricted Housing for Juveniles, Univ. of Nebraska Omaha (Apr. 5, 2018), https://www.unomaha.edu/college-of-public-affairs-and-community-service/news/2018/04/restricted-housing-for-juveniles.php.
[1] Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569 (2005) (holding that the Eighth Amendment forbids the death penalty for juvenile offenders); Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (ending the sentencing scheme that mandated life without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders, regardless of the charged offense).
[2] Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569 (2005) (change to short form)
[3] Id. at 570.
[4] B.J. Casey, et. al., Making the Sentencing Case: Psychological and Neuroscientific Evidence for Expanding the Age of Youthful Offenders, 5 Ann. Rev. Criminology 321, 323 (2022).
[5] Elizabeth P. Shulman, et. al., The dual systems model: Review, reappraisal, and reaffirmation, 17 Dev. Cognitive Neuroscience 103, 104 (2016).
[6] 34 U.S.C. § 20913 (2018).
[7] Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587; Press Release, U.S. Marshals Service, Adam Walsh Act Fifteenth Anniversary (July 27, 2021) (on file with the author).
[8]SORNA: Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, Off. of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking, https://smart.ojp.gov/sorna (last visited Mar. 7, 2025).
[9] 34 U.S.C. §20914 (2018).
[10] Malik Pickett et. al., Labeled for Life: A Review of Youth Sex Offender Registration Laws 2 (Juv. L. Ctr. 2020).
[11] Human Rights Watch, Raised on the Registry: The Irreparable Harm of Placing Children on Sex Offender Registries in the US 51 (May 2013).
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Nat’l Inst. of Just., Sex Offender Residency Restrictions: How Mapping Can Inform Policy, Off. of Just. Programs (July 24, 2008), https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/sex-offender-residency-restrictions-how-mapping-can-inform-policy#1-0.
[15] Id.
[16] Supra note 11 at 59.
[17] Richard Tewksbury & Jill Levenson, Stress Experiences of Family Members of Registered Sex Offenders, 27 Behav. Sci. & Law 611, 615 (2009).
[18] Supra note 11 at 61.
[19] Id.
[20] Cynthia Godsoe, Symposium: #MeToo and the Myth of the Juvenile Sex Offender, 17 O. St. J. Crim. L. 335, 348 (2020).
[21] Should a juvenile sex offender be locked up indefinitely?, Pub. Broad. Serv. (Jun. 28, 2016, 7:12 PM),https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/should-a-juvenile-sex-offender-be-locked-up-indefinitely%E2%80%8B.
[22] Supra note 11 at 4-5.
[23] E.B. v. Verniero, 119 F.3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997).
[24] See Juvenile Sex Offender Policy, A.B.A.(Nov. 16, 2017), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/child_law/resources/attorneys/juvenile_sex_offenderpolicy/.; see also Maria Blackburn, The Harms of Placing Kids on Sex Offender Registries, Hopkins Bloomberg Pub. Health (Feb. 24, 2022),https://magazine.publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/harms-placing-kids-sex-offender-registries (reporting that the American Law Institute has recommended revising the Model Penal Code so as to virtually eliminate youth registration).