\nDespite these well-established facts, all 50 states and D.C. still have public registries for sex-based convictions, 2<\/a><\/sup> and over the past 20 or so years, many have doubled down on this model, creating registries for various other <\/i>convictions, from white collar crime to DWIs<\/b>. The expansion of registries beyond sex-based crimes is more common than you might think: we found other active registries<\/a> in nearly half of all states and D.C., as well as legislation in many states proposing new ones. Most of these registries are publicly accessible, while others are maintained for law enforcement purposes only. And while they may not be as widespread nor as technically burdensome for people on them as registries for sex-based convictions, advocates should oppose this ill-conceived trend before public registries spread further — and policymakers should scrap those already in place.\n<\/p>\n \nBuilding off of previous<\/a>, but seldom-discussed <\/a>work<\/a>, we searched for active conviction-based registries in each state, beyond those required for sex-based offenses. Our search, while thorough, was not necessarily exhaustive, but it confirmed that these registries are relatively common, and that new types of registries tend to spread from state to state. 3<\/a><\/sup>\n<\/p>\n Importantly, we distinguish between publicly accessible <\/i>registries and law enforcement-only<\/i> registries. Some research shows that conviction-based databases used only for law enforcement purposes may yield limited benefits in terms of preventing crime. But registration usually comes with associated fees, restrictions, and requirements, all of which raise the odds of further arrests, whether for “failure to register” or other technical violations (that is, acts that would not be crimes for people who aren’t required to register). The community notification<\/i> aspect of public registries causes further harm by exposing individuals to stigmatization, discrimination, and vigilantism. In these ways, public registries are not worth the trade-off; they may increase the likelihood of recidivism enough to cancel out any deterrent effect registration may have, while also putting at risk the safety of people who have to register. Despite these differences, we include both types of registries in our analysis, since even restricted-use registries are just one legislative session away from being made public.\n<\/p>\n \nWe find that:\n<\/p>\n \nSome states uniquely single out other kinds of convictions<\/b>: Utah’s “white collar crime” registry targets people convicted of financial crimes; California maintains a “gang registry;”8<\/a><\/sup> Ohio tracks people with multiple DWI convictions; Florida created a now-defunct registry specifically for “soliciting for prostitution;” Tennessee and Delaware have the only statewide “animal abuse<\/a>” registries; 9<\/a><\/sup> and Virginia even has a “dangerous dog” registry that publicly displays owner information. And although we concentrated on statewide registries, it’s worth noting that many cities and counties have created their own, such as gun or weapon-related conviction registries<\/a> in Baltimore, Chicago, D.C., and New York City, and animal abuse registries in many New York counties.\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\nAt least 22 states and D.C. maintain registries for people with criminal convictions beyond <\/i>those required by federal law <\/h2>\n
\n
Additional convictions and criminal histories tracked by state registries or databases<\/h3>\n
![\"Bar](\"\/\/static.prisonpolicy.org\/images\/rearrest_similar_offense.webp)
\n<\/picture> <\/p>\n