The increase in sex offenders repeating the same sex crimes has pushed lawmakers to ratify laws to increase social controls about these criminals. Enacted laws require released sex offenders to register with law enforcement. They are also required to provide their addresses and any other identifying information to law enforcement. Federal laws also require states to enact laws consistent with the Wetterling Act which forms the basis for sex offenders at the federal level (Matson, 1999). The Wetterling Law requires sex offenders to register with a state agency or law enforcement for at least ten years. Violators are also required to update their address information when they move to a new location, periodically verifying their addresses and releasing registration information as necessary. The law also requires the federal or state agency to acquire offenders' registration information upon their release. In 1996, Megan's Law changed the law requiring the state or any other agency to release all information they have on sex offenders as necessary for public safety. However, the law gives states agency discretion over what information to release. In October 1999, Law Pam Lychner amended the Wetterling Law to require that sex offenders with aggravated sexual offenses or recordable offenses be subject to lifetime registration. A lot of research has been done on federal sex offender policy with the goal of highlighting its weaknesses and offering suggestions on how to improve them. Accordingly, this paper evaluates the federal sex offender registration and notification (SORN) policy, its strengths and weaknesses, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of associated research. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The federal sex offender policy provides a unique registration process. After release from parole or probation, the offender registers with the court or department of corrections. For example, in Oregon, the offender registers with the supervisor of the Oregon Department of Corrections. Then, the community supervisor retains the information until the registration duration ends. Next, law enforcement agencies such as the sheriff's department help update the offender's registration information. Mostly, the information collected includes the offender's name, address, fingerprints, a photograph, and an identification number (Matson, 1999). The registration period lasts ten years while in some states, aggressive offenders register for life. The procedure also requires offenders to duly notify the enforcement authorities of their new addresses in the event of a change of residence. The policy procedure also requires that law enforcement and state officials inform society about sex offenders, forward offender information to other states where the offender may wish to live, and duly provide the F.B.I. the fingerprints of the offender and his photographs. The sex offender registration and notification policy has several strengths. First, by providing the public with information about offenders, in particularabout their location and identity, helps the public avoid putting themselves in situations where they might fall victim. As the community understands that a certain individual in their residence is a convicted sex offender or sex offender, members may avoid staying with them in secluded places and also prevent their children from being near the offenders (Matson, 1999). Therefore, the information will have reduced the prevalence of sex-related crimes. Furthermore, by raising public awareness, any suspicious actions or activities of the offender will be reported to the police who will consequently prevent any crime. Furthermore, since the offender knows, the community is quite aware of it and constantly watches over them, then it may discourage them from repeating the crime thus reducing sexual crimes. Secondly, making the whole society aware of their sex offenders can discourage those who are not registered or those intending to commit a sex crime from committing it as information about them will be made public. Most sex offenders have difficulty finding a place to study and finding work as information about them is available to the public. Even after enrolling in college or any other school, the entire school is informed about their crimes. Likewise, most employers are hesitant to hire people convicted of sex crimes. Consequently, offenders who intend to commit such a crime may refrain from doing so due to the repercussions (Matson, 1999). Finally, the policy is strong in that it makes it easy for states to coordinate their activities in preventing and catching sex offenders with relative ease. Information obtained from sex offender registration is entered into the central registry where it can be easily accessed by law enforcement in all states. Additionally, the offender's fingerprints and DNA samples are preserved and forwarded to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. As a result, an offender who changes residence without notifying law enforcement can easily be tracked down if he or she commits a similar crime in another state. As such, it helps reduce the prevalence of sexual crimes in states. On the other hand, the policy has numerous weaknesses. First, the inability to effectively demonstrate the authenticity of information provided by offenders constitutes the policy's main weakness (Levenson, 2008). In most states, it is difficult to keep track of addresses and identifying information leading to inaccurate information. For example, in the state of Connecticut, the state police reported that half of the registration data were inaccurate or missing (Matson, 1999). Secondly, policy based on law enacted in various states constitutes another of its major weaknesses (Levenson, 2008). Various states have different registerable sex crimes. As such, it makes it difficult to track the offender's movements across different states as his or her acts may not constitute a sexual crime in other states. Finally, the political requirement that information on sexual offenders is its weak point as it could be counterproductive. When the public becomes aware of the offender, the offender may have difficulty reintegrating into society as it becomes difficult to find a place of residence and a job. As a result, offenders may feel isolated and unstable, forcing them to commit the act again. As such, the policy would destroy rather than transform the offender.