Taking the wording of the question to mean mean to be asking about the effect of the registry on future offences…
Yes, but it’s the opposite of the effect it purports to have. The registry increases offense rates. To see why, we need to look at two basic and well known (if popularly ignored) facts.
First, recidivism (re-offense) rates for people convicted of sex offenses as a category are the lowest of any type of crime except homicide (and a few oddballs, like espionage). Rates are naturally low without further action. The contrasts fundamentally with the oft-pushed myth of the “predator”. Now, there are a few people like that - sociopaths and.. weirdos, if you will. But they are rare. The vast majority of offenses are better described as lapses in judgement, accidents (of varying degrees of culpability), and misunderstandings in a society that is hypersensitive about sexuality. The serial rapist is more the subject of t.v. dramas than a common problem. Rates can be further subdivided. Increasingly, things that were once seen as nuisances or that are otherwise non-violent are now classified as sex offenses, and those convicted under these statutes are very unlikely to have another problem. The registries have come hand-in-hand with new misunderstandings and myths about “deviancy” as well. Indeed, in upholding the first incarnation of the registry (a much smaller, non-public thing that is a world away from current implementations), the justice Kennedy quoted a bogus claim about recidivism and dangerousness from a man trying to sell his new “sex offender treatment” program (such behavioral modification programs are now often required, and have become big money). It is easy to see how political convenience and social reluctance to be seen correcting false claims leads to an unchecked system.
Second, we should ask why the registries increase crime. This is best explained in another long and well understood principle that is generally ignored or rejected by political posturing and policy: Punishment only works to a point, and lengthy and extreme punishment that instils fear, hopelessness, and desperation makes people just that. Desperate people - often made homeless and destitute and isolated due to the registries - more often resort to crime to survive. It is well understood that when people are subject to unfair treatment, they will often become resentful. And why shouldn’t they? As a practical matter, it should not be surprising that many would not respect the society and rules responsible for their continued predicament, especially when they are based in falsehoods. It should be noted that when ex-offenders face many additional restrictions that ordinary people do not and when they are charged with a new crime, it is most frequently for a violation of one of these rules, like failing to promptly or properly report travel or having been seen at a movie theater.
We should also recognize that the registries simply cannot prevent crime in any meaningful way. What is it exactly that they should be able to do? “Monitor” people? We don’t (yet) have retina scanners at every traffic light, and it probably wouldn’t matter much if we did. If a person really did want to commit a crime, there’s very little that could be done beforehand to stop them, registry or not. They are not effective at anything other than being political tools for elections and for law enforcement and program budgets.
For data reference on offense rates, see the DoJ’s own (and often considered inflated as it is) data, most recently published a few days ago.