New Rules in Massachusetts Go Softer on Young Adult Sex Offenders

Compared to other states, sex offenders are given more privileges in Massachusetts.

For example, sex offenders have the right to petition to get off the sex offender list. Other states don’t allow this.

Sex offenders also have the right to a hearing to determine their classification level, whether they’re a level 1, 2, or 3.

1 is the lowest level you can be – if you’re a level 1 you won’t even be posted on the internet.

A level 2 is the middle level, and a level 3 means you pose a high degree of dangerousness and risk of reoffense to society.

There is also a 4th, phantom classification called “SDP” which, isn’t really a classification… it’s a legal adjudication that deems you a “sexually dangerous person.” SDPs are usually locked away for life as part of the states civil commitment scheme.

How We Determine What Level A Sex Offender Is

The Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) is the government agency that evaluates what level a sex offender should be classified as. They go by sex offender scores on a long list of “factors.”

For example, the nature of the offense is one factor. The offender’s criminal history is another, and repetitive behavior is also a factor.

So, you can imagine that if the sex offender is a repeat offender, or has a long criminal history, they will likely be classified as a 3.

Whereas, if the nature of the offense was minimal and it was a first offense, the sex offender may be classified as a level 2 or even a 1.

I’ve written about how, technically, you can end up on the sex offender list for public urination (though it’s never happened anywhere in the country.) If you actually got on the list for public urination, going by the factors, you’d probably be classified as a level 1 and nothing more.

My point is, going off the factors theres a broad spectrum between level 1 and 3. A level 1 is like someone who peed in public or purchased a playboy magazine for a pre-teen. A level 3 is reserved for people who have committed very serious assaults.

Recent Changes In The Factors

Recently, the Sex Offender Registry Board rolled out new classification regulations that some argue are too sex offender friendly.

While the structure and section numbering remain largely intact from previous versions, the regulations introduce significant substantive changes. Notably, many risk factors have been revised with updated language and citations to new research. The updated regulations now specifically acknowledge research on juvenile recidivism, stating that juveniles generally have lower rates of sexual reoffending than adult males.

In a major conceptual shift, the Board also introduces the category of “emerging adults”—individuals aged 18–20—who are recognized as having impulse control issues similar to adolescents and a greater capacity for change, though the Board notes that recidivism research specific to this group is still lacking.

Same Playbook, Slightly Different Cover

Back in 2016, the state’s highest court criticized SORB for not paying enough attention to whether its classifications were actually accurate. You’d think that would be a wake-up call.

Fast forward to today: critics argue that SORB’s updated guidelines still don’t use validated science, don’t assign weight to individual risk factors, and leave way too much up to individual judgment. That means two different hearing examiners could give the same person very different classifications.

Women

Female sex offenders have much lower recidivism rates than males (around 1% to 3%). The research is consistent: women almost never reoffend sexually. Yet SORB applies most male risk factors to women without evidence that they actually apply.

Critics argue that it’s discriminatory and that it leads to inflated classifications that don’t reflect reality.

Juveniles

Juveniles also have very low reoffense rates, especially once they reach adulthood. A recent study even found that people with no sexual offense history were more likely to reoffend than juveniles who had been adjudicated for a sex offense.

Still, the guidelines lump in adult risk factors with juvenile cases, often citing outdated or misused studies. Even the author of one heavily used tool, Dr. James Worling, publicly criticized SORB’s reliance on his decades-old work — which he himself stopped using in 2016.

Emerging Adults

This is probably the most significant change in the factors. The Board now recognizes that “’emerging adults’ demonstrate issues with impulse control similar to individuals in late adolescence. For most individuals who engage in criminal behavior as emerging adults, they have a greater capacity to change than older adults”

The Board may be signalling that they will go easier in their classifications on adults aged 18-20.

Science tells us that brain development isn’t done at 18 — not even close. In fact, 18–20-year-olds often behave just like teenagers when it comes to impulse control and risk-taking. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently acknowledged this in a major decision.

Dangerousness ≠ “Bad Behavior”

Another big issue: how SORB evaluates “dangerousness.”

The courts have said it’s not enough to know that someone might reoffend. We also need to know what kind of offense they’re likely to commit. Is it a contact offense that could cause serious harm? Or something non-contact, like public exposure?

The new guidelines often blur that line, treating all repeat behavior as if it’s equally dangerous — which is legally and scientifically wrong. For example:

• A person who exposed themselves multiple times may be classified the same as someone who committed a violent assault.
• Risk factors like “hostility toward women” or “non-compliance with supervision” don’t say anything about what kind of offense might occur next.

Without those distinctions, we’re not assessing danger. It’s a lot of guesswork not entirely based in research.

To the general public, this blog may seem like we’re overthinking it. Who cares -if you’re a sex offender you should be on the list. But the level of classification when there’s such a broad range of offenders and crimes committed, should be more thorough.

IF YOU NEED A LAWYER CONTACT US