Lee Andrew Macon, 49, and Jerome Jackson, 51, used to be next-door neighbors on a quiet street in Lauderdale Lakes, Florida.  They lived in modest pastel-shaded homes with well-groomed lawns out front.  Of course, like many neighbors, they had ongoing squabbles.  Macon and Jackson were known to often argue over the property lines on their adjoining lawn.  On the morning of February 7, 2008, Macon’s lawn service worker arrived to cut the grass.  Noticing the activity, Jackson came out of his house to argue over the contentious matter of property lines.  The argument got out of hand, and Macon pulled out a gun and shot at Jackson.  A brief skirmish ensued before Macon shot and killed his neighbor.

Had Jackson known his neighbor was dangerously unstable, he perhaps would have avoided their habitual heated arguments over the lawn.  Maybe Jackson saw hints of unreasonableness and instability in Macon, but clearly nothing that was sufficiently alarming to avoid their final fight.  It is unnerving to imagine that the people who live around us could be dangerous.  These are the same people who witness our daily actions:  when we pick up our morning paper, when we drive our children to school, when we come home from work each night.  We would like to imagine that the seemingly kind man next-door who waves when we head out for a walk is a mentally-sound person.  We hope that the parents of our children’s friends who live down the street are good people.  The hard and simple truth, unfortunately, is that we cannot know.  One neighbor could suddenly become violently angry over news of infidelity; another might become unstable over the loss of her job.   We just don’t know.

There is one piece of information, however, that we can know.  In 1994, the federal Jacob Wetterling Act mandated that states establish sex offender registries for law-enforcement use.  Two years later, Megan’s Law, a federal mandate, was passed to ensure that states provide public notification of local sex offenders to residents or “at risk” individuals.  Today, notification of sex offenders to local residents is available almost everywhere in the United States.  In addition, many states provide publicly accessible websites with information on each registered offender’s age, physical description, address, description of crime, and conviction date.

There has been much public debate over the effectiveness of notification of registered sex offenders.  Proponents of Megan’s Law argue that residents have a right to protect themselves and their children from dangerous neighbors.  Opponents counter that notification does little to help prevent crime; instead, it creates unnecessary anxiety and erects barriers between society and registered sex offenders who should be allowed back into the community.  According to some opponents, the isolation and harassment that some registered sex offenders experience increases the likelihood of repeat offenses.

Minimal empirical analysis has been conducted to test whether public notification helps prevent repeat offenses by registered offenders, or recidivism.  The available empirical analysis, however, suggests that the notification laws has no effect on preventing recidivism (Zevitz, 2006b; Welchans, 2005; Walker, Maddan, Vasquez, VanHouten, & Ervin-McLarty, 2005; Adkins, Huff, & Stageberg, 2000).  All these papers make a significant assumption that may be considered rather questionable:  The authors assume that accessibility of information is the same as information usage.  While pondering this point, ask yourself, “When was the last time I checked my local registry?”

The work by Tewksbury (2005) on registered sex offenders in Kentucky supports the criticism that variable information usage may be a problem.  He states, “The data here suggest that the registry may not be fulfilling its goal, as registrants with child victims are less likely to report most people in their lives knowing about their offenses and registration. Only 39.2% of registrants with child victims report that 90% or more of others in their lives know of their registration/offenses, compared with 59.6% of registrants without child victims…Evidently, registrants who have victimized children are more successful than other registered sexual offenders at hiding their status…” (Tewksbury 2005, p. 75).  If the information is publicly available on the Internet in Kentucky (http://kspsor.state.ky.us/), how do registered sex offenders who had child victims hide their status?  It would appear that residents may not be checking the registry.

From an economics standpoint, it is incumbent upon residents to review publicly available information on registered sex offenders in their area.  Given that the information on them is readily available, those registered sex offenders who are your neighborhood expect you to check.  They are aware of how easy it is to search their name in the online registry or to ask at the police station.  It is rational of registered sex offenders to interpret your behavior – friendliness, invitations over to your house, requests for babysitting – within the context of you knowing about their past.  Therefore, we must check.

Levenson, D’Amora, and Hern (2007) surveyed 239 registered sex offenders in Connecticut and Indiana to measure the impact of Megan’s Law on their lives.  One result stands out as rather shocking:  Only 20% of those surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that “I have less access to potential victims because neighbors keep children or others away.”  Perhaps, it is because we are not checking who are our neighbors.