A Study in “Actuarial Justice”: Sex Offender Classification Practice and Procedure

* Assistant Professor, School of Criminal Justice, State University of New York, Albany. B.A., Wesleyan University; M.A., State University of New York, Albany; J.D., University of Wisconsin. 1. New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 729 (1971) (Stewart, J., concurring). 2. See, e.g., Lawrence Friedman, Crime and Punishment in American Society 335-39 (1993); Nicole Raftner, Eugenics, Class, and the Professionalization of Social Control, in Inequality, Crime and Social Control (G. Bridges & M. Myers eds., 1994); Note, Criminal Registration Laws, 27 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 295 (1936); Note, Criminal Statistics and Identification of Criminals, 19 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 36 (1928). 3. Criminal registration laws trace their origins in the United States back to at least the 1930s. See Note, Criminal Registration Ordinances: Police Control Over Potential Recidivists, 103 U. Pa. L. Rev. 60, 62 (1954). California is believed to have enacted the first exclusively sex offender-oriented registration law in 1947. See Elizabeth A. Pearson, Status and Latest Developments in Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws 45, in National Conference on Sex Offender Registries (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics 1998). The State of Washington, in 1990, became the first U.S. jurisdiction to implement a “notification” provision for sex offenders. Id. For an insightful examination of why sex offenders, in particular, historically have been singled out for special treatment, see Deborah W. Denno, Life Before the Modern Sex Offender Statutes, 92 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1317 (1998). 4. See, e.g., Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-902 (Michie 1999) (“The General