Public notifications allow community members to take preventative measures and protective behaviours. On the other hand, notifications interfere with the social, physical and psychological integration of sex offenders back into society. After interviews 30 released sex offenders in the surrounding areas of the state of Wisconsin in the United States, Zevitz, Crim & Farkas (2000) concluded that more than 75% of sex offenders reported being harassed physically or verbally since their release. However, less than 5% of the offenders have endured a vigilante attack. Many of the offenders argued that they have been singled out amongst the population. Although, one of the main reasons for a public sex offender registry was to reduce recidivism, the respondents reported that if someone will reoffend, their public appearance on news outlets and websites would not prevent them from recommitting (Zevitz, Crim, & Farkas, 2000). Advocates of the public sex offender registry defend how the registry has provided individuals the ability to adopt safety measures prior to the arrival of the sex offender within their community (Anderson & Sample, 2008). In addition, they are given the ability to protect themselves and their families from …show more content…
The case explores two released sex offenders who have committed and served their sentence prior to the Alaska Sex offender Registration Act in 1994, who argue that the retroactivity of the act violates Post Facto Clause. Under the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act, all sex offenders incarcerated must register with the Department of corrections 30 days prior to their release. Depending on the frequency and intensity of crime, the offenders are required to provide and renew their information for 15 years up to life. Some of the data provided such as fingerprints and drivers license are kept confidential. While on the other hand, the offender’s name, address, photograph and crime are available for public viewing. Both the Act's registration and notification requirements are