Research has concluded that offense drive classification tiers used by Wyoming and other states does a poor job of classifying sex offenders according to their risk of reoffending.

Prior to 2007, Wyoming had a risk-based system in which District Courts would have hearings to determine how a sex offender should be classified on the registry. This model uses specific information regarding the offender, his or her crime, their history and information from treatment providers to determine the appropriate classification level. This is how determining risk should be done.

Unfortunately, the Wyoming Sex Offender Registration Act was amended in 2007. Sex offenders would not be strictly classified not on their risk to society or to reoffend, but only on the type of offense they committed. This system is ineffective and does not work. It is incredibly harsh on people who pose little to no risk to reoffend and can also incorrectly classify individuals who commit lesser crimes but are a high-risk to reoffend.

After the change in 2007, the number of Wyomingites on the sex offender registry immediately jumped from 125 to 1450.

A study in Florida determined the classification tiers recommended by the Adam Walsh Act (AWA) did a “poor job of classifying offenders into relative and hierarchical risk categories.” The Static-99R risk assessment tool did a much better job of indicating who was more likely to reoffend.

Currently, there are many individuals on the Wyoming Sex Offender Registry who do not belong there. The list of offenses used to determine classification is also a mess. Offenses are missing and others are wrongly classified.

There are several problems with this method:

• Individuals who enjoy and possess child porn are typically considered pedophiles. They are considered a low risk to reoffend. However, a man who solicits a prostitute and may have no clinical psycho-sexual disorders that would put him at any risk to be a danger or reoffend is classified as a medium risk.

• Under the 2nd Degree Sexual Assault statute, a contracted janitor who had consensual sex with a person on probation would be classified as high-risk.

• Placing minors on the sex offender registry is extremely controversial and troubling when a young person has the ability to grow up, learn from their mistakes, and become a law-abiding citizen.

The more effective way to classify an offender’s risk is to use a risk assessment tool such as the Static 99. This tool considers several factors, including offense history, offender’s interest in children, variety of sex offenses committed, age of onset for offending behavior, etc.

Ideally, a judge could make the decision at the time of sentencing for new offenders. This would prevent the need for additional hearings. A psychosexual evaluation is required on all offenders to help determine risk and treatment needs. The probation officer preparing the pre-sentence investigation is additionally capable of using a risk reassessment tool and making a risk level recommendation to the court. Obviously, a mechanism would have to be put in place to determine the risk of previously sentenced offenders already present on the registry.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/smart/306898.pdf‘

Determination of offender risk must be based upon the individual characteristics of the offender and not solely on the offense for which the offender was convicted, and there must be reasonable opportunities to seek relief from registration. Restrictions and collateral consequences on sex offenders are too often the result of knee-jerk politics rather than careful consideration of the efficacy, appropriate scope and potential negative consequences. Because of the severe penalties and other life-altering consequences, sex offenses should be narrowly tailored and contain meaningful intent requirements.”

-National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

REFORM THE REGISTRY