Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Making Sense out of Nonsense: The Deconstruction of State-Level Sex Offender Residence Restrictions

  • Published:
American Journal of Criminal Justice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Releasing a sex offender from prison or placing the offender on community-based sanctions, only to have the offender commit a new sex crime, is a policy-maker’s worst nightmare. Fueled by misperceptions and public fear, sex offender laws have developed piecemeal and without rigorous empirical insight and testing. While policies and practices are well-intended, they are unlikely to resolve the very real social problem of sexual violence and may inadvertently increase victimization. Such is the possibility with residence restrictions. This type of law is among the newest in an ever-growing barrage of legislation designed specifically for sexual criminals yet what little research that exists suggests there is no correlation between residence and sexual recidivism. This article identifies 30 states with state-level residence restrictions and conducts a content analysis of each state’s legislation. Geographical and other assessments are also conducted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Analysis of the state-level residence restrictions revealed that several states had secondary conditions such as mobility, employment, and treatment restrictions. These findings are beyond the scope of this research. However, the authors can be contacted directly for additional information.

  2. The State of Kansas (see §22–4913) legislatively banned state-level residence restrictions or the implementation of local residence restriction ordinances.

  3. Relying on arrest data, reconviction data, and even victimization surveys to document the prevalence and incidence of sex crimes inevitably fails to capture the true extent of sexual violence (see Karmen 2007). Sex crimes are uniquely plagued by ‘dark-figure’ estimates as victims are often reluctant to report for a myriad of reasons (see Belknap 2007). Furthermore, sex offenders are known to deny and minimize their sexual criminal histories (Meloy 2006).

  4. Minnesota’s sex offender residence restriction law applies only to offenders on supervised release (see Table 1). The State of Colorado does not have a state-level sex offender restriction law. They do, however, authorize their probation and parole officers to implement residence restrictions when deemed necessary (Personal Correspondence with Kim English October 31, 2007).

  5. The State of New Jersey has 113 local residence restriction ordinances in place and state-level restrictions are currently under consideration in the legislature.

  6. A representative from North Dakota’s Department of Corrections indicated that officers are authorized to determine the appropriateness of a sex offender’s residence. Massachusetts’ representatives told us their judges often impose residence restrictions on sex offenders at sentencing. Colorado’s Division of Probation and Parole and the Attorney General’s Office reported that residence restrictions have been enforced for sex offenders on community-based supervision for over a decade.

  7. The 1994 rape and murder of Megan Kanka, by her paroled sex offender neighbor, who at the time of the murder was residing across the street from her with at least one other convicted sex offender highlights the rationale of “trouble loves company.”

  8. In November 2007, the Georgia State Supreme Court ruled the state’s residence restriction law was in violation of the 5th amendment and was thus unconstitutional stating "It is apparent that there is no place in Georgia where a registered sex offender can live without continually being at risk of being ejected" (Mann vs. Georgia Department of Corrections et al. 2007, p. 3).

  9. However, the States of Maine and New York have already passed mobility-only sex offender restrictions.

References

  • Alexander, M. A. (1999). Sexual offender treatment efficacy revisited. Sexual abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 11, 101–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aos, S., Phipps, O., Barnoski, R., & Lieb, R. (2001). The comparative costs and benefits of programs to reduce crime. Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Olympia, WA. Retrieved June 1, 2006 from http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/costbenefit.pdf.

  • Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA). (2007). Facts about sex offenders. Retrieved at http://www.atsa.com/ppOffenderFacts.html. Last viewed on November 11, 2007.

  • Belknap, J. (2007). The invisible woman: Gender, crime and justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colorado Department of Public Safety (2004). Report on safety issues raised by living arraignments for and location of sex offenders in the community. Denver, CO: Sex Offender Management Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davey, M. (2006, March 15). Iowa’s residency rules drive sex offenders underground. New York: Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duwe, G., Donnay, W., & Tewksbury, R. (2008). Does residential proximity matter? A geographic analysis of sex offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 484–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durling, C. (2006). Never going home: Does it make us safer? Does it make sense? Sex offenders, residency restrictions, and reforming risk management law. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 97, 317–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, P., & Pratt, T. (2006). Political culture and the death penalty. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17, 48–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenfeld, L. (1997). Sex offenses and offenders: An analysis of data on rape and sexual assault. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, G. (1995). Sex offender recidivism revisited: A meta-analysis of recent treatment studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 802–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R. K., & Bussiere, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R. K., Gordon, A., Harris, A. J. R., Marques, J. K., Murphy, W., Quinsey, V. L., et al. (2002). First report of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of psychological treatments for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 169–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R., & Harris, A. (1998). Dynamic predictors of sexual recidivism. Ottawa, Canada: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A. J. R., & Hanson, R. K. (2004). Sex offender recidivism: A simple question (No. 2004 –03). Ottawa: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hepburn, J., & Griffin, M. (2004). The effect of social bonds on successful adjustment to probation: An event history analysis. Criminal Justice Review, 29, 46–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iowa County Attorneys Association. (2006). Statement on sex offender residency restrictions in Iowa. Des Moines, IA. Retrieved on October 10, 2007 from http://www.iowaicaa.com/ICAA%20STATEMENTS/Sex%20Offender%20Residency%20Statement%20Dec%2011%2006.pdf.

  • Jacobs, D., & Carmichael, J. (2004). Ideology, social threat, and the death sentence. Social Forces, 83, 249–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karmen, A. (2007). Crime victims: An introduction to victimology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koss, M. (1988). Hidden rape: Sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of students in higher education. In A. Burgess (Ed.), Rape and Sexual Assault II (pp. 3–25). New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruttschnitt, C., Uggen, C., & Shelton, K. (2000). Predictors of desistance among sex offenders: The interaction of formal and informal social controls. Justice Quarterly, 17, 62–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langan, P. A., Schmitt, E. L., & DuRose, M. R. (2003). Recidivism of sex offenders released from prison in 1994. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laub, J., Nagin, D., & Sampson, R. (1998). Trajectories of change in criminal offending: Good marriages and the desistance process. American Sociological Review, 63, 225–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laub, J., & Sampson, R. (2001). Understanding desistance from crime. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and Justice A Review of Research, Vol. 28 (pp. 1–69). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, J. (2006). Sex offender residence restrictions. Sex Offender Law Report, 7(33), 46–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, J., & Cotter, L. (2005). The impact of sex offender residence restrictions: 1,000 feet from danger or one step from absurd? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 168–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, J., & D’Amora, D. (2007). Social policies designed to prevent sexual violence. The emperor’s new clothes? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18, 168–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, J., & Hern, A. (2007). Sex offender residence restrictions: Unintended consequences and community reentry. Justice Research & Policy, 9, 59–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lösel, F., & Schmucker, M. (2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 117–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann vs. Georgia Department of Corrections et al., 282 Ga. 754 (2007). Retrieved March 23 2008 from http://www.gasupreme.us/pdf/s07a1043.pdf.

  • Meloy, M. L. (2006). Sex offenses and the men who commit them. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meloy, M. L., Wolff, N., Saleh, Y., & Shi, J. (2006). The criminal desistance and persistence of sex offenders re-entering society: How to encourage law conforming behavior. Unpublished manuscript, presented at Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, March, 2006.

  • Miller, S. L. (2005). Victims as offenders: The paradox of women’s violence in relationships. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minnesota Department of Corrections. (2003). Level three sex offenders residential placement issues. St. Paul, Minnesota.

  • Minnesota Department of Corrections. (2007). Residential Proximity & Sex Offense Recidivism in Minnesota. St. Paul, Minnesota.

  • Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prentky, R. A., Lee, A. F., Knight, R. A., & Cerce, D. (1997). Recidivism rates among child molesters and rapists: A methodological analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 635–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, D. (1984). Sexual exploitation: Rape, child sexual abuse, and workplace harassment. Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sample, L., & Streveler, A. (2003). Latent consequences of community notification laws. In S. H. Decker, L. F. Alaird, & C. M. Katz (Eds.), Controversies in Criminal Justice (pp. 353–362). Los Angeles: Roxbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, H. (2000). Sexual assault of young children as reported to law enforcement: Victim, incident, and offender characteristics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. (2006). Consequences of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26, 309–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. (2006). Where to find sex offenders: An examination of residential locations and neighborhood conditions. Criminal Justice Studies, 19, 61–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, J. T., Golden, J. W., & VanHouten, A. (2001). The geographical link between sex offenders and potential victims: A routine activities approach. Justice Research & Policy, 3, 15–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zandbergen, P., & Hart, T. (2006). Reducing housing options for convicted sex offenders: Investigating the impact of residency restriction laws using GIS. Justice Research and Policy, 8, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zevitz, R. (2006). Sex offender community notification: Its role in recidivism and offender reintegration. Criminal Justice Studies, 19, 193–208.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminology, Rutgers University, 405–407 Cooper Street, Camden, NJ, 08102, USA

    Michelle L. Meloy & Kristin M. Curtis

  2. University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

    Susan L. Miller

Authors
  1. Michelle L. Meloy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan L. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kristin M. Curtis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michelle L. Meloy.

Additional information

The authors thank the numerous anonymous reviewers who commented on this paper as their recommendations significantly improved its quality. We further acknowledge the contributions of the following individuals: Adam Bermudez, Julie Cobian, Melinda Cobian, Tammy Jones, Jason Ronka, Sylvia Wyche, and especially Georgia D. Scott. Without their tremendous research efforts and dedication to social justice issues this project would not have been possible. We also extend our deepest appreciation to the individuals in all 50 states whom we contacted, sometimes on numerous occasions, for their assistance. Their patience and willingness in answering our many queries was extraordinary and furthermore ensured the accuracy in their state’s information.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meloy, M.L., Miller, S.L. & Curtis, K.M. Making Sense out of Nonsense: The Deconstruction of State-Level Sex Offender Residence Restrictions. Am J Crim Just 33, 209–222 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-008-9042-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-008-9042-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation