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

  • Michelle L. Meloy
  • Susan L. Miller
  • Kristin M. Curtis
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

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.

Keywords

Proximity restrictions Recidivism Residence restrictions Sex offenders 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alexander, M. A. (1999). Sexual offender treatment efficacy revisited. Sexual abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 11, 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Belknap, J. (2007). The invisible woman: Gender, crime and justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  5. Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Davey, M. (2006, March 15). Iowa’s residency rules drive sex offenders underground. New York: Times.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Fisher, P., & Pratt, T. (2006). Political culture and the death penalty. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17, 48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Hall, G. (1995). Sex offender recidivism revisited: A meta-analysis of recent treatment studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 802–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanson, R., & Harris, A. (1998). Dynamic predictors of sexual recidivism. Ottawa, Canada: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.
  19. Jacobs, D., & Carmichael, J. (2004). Ideology, social threat, and the death sentence. Social Forces, 83, 249–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Karmen, A. (2007). Crime victims: An introduction to victimology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Levenson, J. (2006). Sex offender residence restrictions. Sex Offender Law Report, 7(33), 46–47.Google Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Levenson, J., & Hern, A. (2007). Sex offender residence restrictions: Unintended consequences and community reentry. Justice Research & Policy, 9, 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lösel, F., & Schmucker, M. (2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 117–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mann vs. Georgia Department of Corrections et al., 282 Ga. 754 (2007). Retrieved March 23 2008 from http://www.gasupreme.us/pdf/s07a1043.pdf.
  33. Meloy, M. L. (2006). Sex offenses and the men who commit them. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  34. 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.Google Scholar
  35. Miller, S. L. (2005). Victims as offenders: The paradox of women’s violence in relationships. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Minnesota Department of Corrections. (2003). Level three sex offenders residential placement issues. St. Paul, Minnesota.Google Scholar
  37. Minnesota Department of Corrections. (2007). Residential Proximity & Sex Offense Recidivism in Minnesota. St. Paul, Minnesota.Google Scholar
  38. Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Russell, D. (1984). Sexual exploitation: Rape, child sexual abuse, and workplace harassment. Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. (2006). Consequences of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26, 309–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zevitz, R. (2006). Sex offender community notification: Its role in recidivism and offender reintegration. Criminal Justice Studies, 19, 193–208.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michelle L. Meloy
    • 1
  • Susan L. Miller
    • 2
  • Kristin M. Curtis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and CriminologyRutgers UniversityCamdenUSA
  2. 2.University of DelawareNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations