Skip to main content
Log in

Attitudes About Community Notification: A Comparison of Sexual Offenders and the Non-offending Public

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment

Abstract

Public notification laws have been enacted by legislatures to address the risk posed by sex offenders to the public. Little research has been done regarding either the public’s or sex offenders’ knowledge and attitudes about community notification and its impact. This study compared the experiences and perceptions of 125 sex offenders in outpatient treatment to 193 members of the public in Brevard County, Florida. Sex offenders were significantly more likely to believe that community notification laws and society are unfair, to feel that such laws should be applied to fewer sex offenders based on their level of risk or threat, and to view notification as being ineffective at reducing sex crimes. Nearly half of the offenders reported experiencing threats, property damage, or physical assault as a result of public disclosure. In comparison, only 10% of the public was aware of vigilantism against sex offenders. Implications for public policy and future research are discussed.

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

Access this article

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

References

  • Berliner, L. (2003). Victim and citizen perspectives on sexual offender policy. In R. A. Prentky, E. S. Janus, & M. C. Seto (Eds.), Sexually coercive behavior: Understanding and management (Vol. 989, pp. 464–473). New York, New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Brannon, Y. N. (2005). Sexual offenders’ and the public’s attitudes towards community notification in Florida. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL.

  • Bureau of Justice Statistics (1997). Sex offenses and offenders: An analysis of data on rape and sexual assault. (No. NCJ-163392). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortney, T. (2006). Perceptions of sex offenders: Implications for treatment and public policy. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL.

  • Fortney, T., Levenson, J. S., Brannon, Y., & Baker, J. (2007). Myths and facts about sex offenders: Implications for practice and public policy. Sexual Offender Treatment, 2(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman-Longo, R. E. (1996). Prevention or problem? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 8(2), 91–100.

    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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R. K., & Harris, A. J. R. (2001). A structured approach to evaluating change among sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 13(2), 105–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2004). Predictors of sexual recidivism: An updated meta-analysis. Ottawa, CA: Public Works and Government Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(6), 1154–1163.

    Article  PubMed  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(1), 61–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2001). Understanding desistance from crime. Crime and Justice, 28, 1–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, J. S., & Cotter, L. P. (2005). The effect of Megan’s law on sex offender reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 49–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, J. S., & D’Amora, D. A. (2007). Social policies designed to prevent sexual violence: The emperor’s new clothes? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18(2), 168–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, J. S., Brannon, Y., Fortney, T., & Baker, J. (2007a). Public perceptions about sex offenders and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 7(1), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, J. S., D’Amora, D. A., & Hern, A. (2007b). Megan’s law and its impact on community re-entry for sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 587–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotke, E. (1997). Politics and irrelevance: Community notification statutes. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 10(2), 64–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maruna, S., LeBel, T. P., Mitchell, N., & Naples, M. (2004). Pygmalion in the reintegration process: Desistance from crime through the looking glass. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(3), 271–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • News of the world (2005). Young persons poll. Retrieved August 10, 2006, from http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2005/NOTW%20-%20June%202005/notw-poll-Jun05.asp.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. M. (1998). Community notification as viewed by Washington’s citizens. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sample, L. L., & Streveler, A. J. (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 

  • Sherman, L. (1993). Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(4), 445–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tewksbury, R. (2004). Experiences and attitudes of registered female sex offenders. Federal Probation, 68(3), 30–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tewksbury, R. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 67–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. (2006). Consequences of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26(3), 309–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Florida Sexual Predators Act, Florida Statute 775.21 (1997).

  • U.S. Census Bureau (2000). Population Estimates. Retrieved June 17, 2004, from http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/national/tables.

  • Uggen, C., Manza, J., & Behrens, A. (2004). Less than the average citizen: Stigma, role transition, and the civic reintegration of convicted felons. In S. Maruna, & R. Immarigeon (Eds.), After crime and punishment: Pathways to offender reintegration (pp. 261–293). Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uggen, C., Manza, J., & Thompson, M. (2006). Citizenship, democracy, and the civic reintegration of criminal offenders. Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, 605(1), 281–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zevitz, R. G. (2006). Sex offender community notification: Its role in recidivism and offender reintegration. Criminal Justice Studies, 19(2), 193–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zevitz, R. G., & Farkas, M. A. (2000). Sex offender community notification: Managing high risk criminals or exacting further vengeance? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 375–391.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

We thank Chief Charles E. Gowan of the Central Field Operations Division of Driver’s License for giving approval to include samples from the Department of Motor Vehicle offices in Brevard County; to the managers at the Department of Motor Vehicle Driver’s License offices located in Melbourne and N. Melbourne, Florida, the employees for allowing the customers in this study to participate in a supportive environment; those who kindly volunteered to participate in the survey; the following sex offender therapists: Duncan Bowen, Sonya Taylor, Richard McClain, and Dan Decaprio and their clients for their support and completion of the questionnaires; and Katherine Gifford, Amy Gammon, and Ashley Thompson Franklin of Florida Institute of Technology for the help in entering the data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juanita N. Baker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brannon, Y.N., Levenson, J.S., Fortney, T. et al. Attitudes About Community Notification: A Comparison of Sexual Offenders and the Non-offending Public. Sex Abuse 19, 369–379 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11194-007-9055-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11194-007-9055-2

Keywords

Navigation