Internal Security for Communities: A Spatial Analysis of the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Laws

  • Douglas F. Wunneburger
  • Miriam Olivares
  • Praveen Maghelal
Chapter
Part of the The GeoJournal Library book series (GEJL, volume 94)

Abstract

Among the many internal national security issues facing society today, significant focus has been placed on means to protect our nation’s children from sexual predators. A number of laws have been passed, typically named after the tragic child victims of sexual attacks. Individually, these laws mandate creation and maintenance of registries for convicted offenders, establish safety zones from which known offenders are restricted, and require notification to neighbors of the presence of registered offenders in neighborhoods.

Almost all of these laws have spatial impacts. Registries identify sex offenders’ home addresses. Safety zones are formed by buffers of varying distances around places where children typically gather. Notification laws require that neighbors within specific distances of an offender’s home must be notified of their presence. All of these laws specifically apply to offenders who are known, convicted, and registered.

In each case, these laws impose economic and societal costs for implementation and enforcement. Considering their inherent spatial nature, little is understood regarding spatial justification for implementing these laws or impact from their enforcement. This chapter describes the use of spatial analysis to examine the effectiveness of sex offender laws in Brazos County, Texas.

Keywords

Child safety zone (CSZ) geographic information system (GIS) geospatial technology registered sex offender (RSO) 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ATSA (2005a). Facts about adult sex offenders. The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. [Electronic version]. Retrieved July 6, 2007, from http://www.atsa.com/ppOffenderFacts.html.
  2. ATSA (2005b). The registration and community notification of adult sexual offenders. The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. [Electronic version]. Retrieved July 6, 2007, from http://www.atsa.com/ppnotify.html.
  3. Beck, V. S. & Travis III, L. F. (2004). Sex offender notification and fear of victimization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 455–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Doe v. Miller & White (2004). U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.Google Scholar
  5. Engeler, A. (2005). Is your child a target? The sex offender next door. Good Housekeeping, 240(5), 192–197.Google Scholar
  6. Finkelhor, D. (1994). Current information on the scope and nature of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 4, 31–53.Google Scholar
  7. Greenfield, L. (1997). Sex offenses and offenders: An analysis of data on rape and sexual assault. (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics).Google Scholar
  8. Grubesic, T.H., Mack, E. & Murray, A.T. (2007). Geographic exclusion: Spatial analysis for evaluating the implications of Megan’s Law. Social Science Computer Review, 25(2) 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hanson, R.K., Gordon, A., Harris, A.J.R., Marques, J.K., Murphy, W., Quensey, V.L. & Seto, M.C. (2002). First report of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of treatment for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14(2), 169–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jaffe, Ina. (2006). Calif. follows trend with sex-offender crackdown. Morning Edition. Radio Program November 2, 2006. National Public Radio. [Online transcript]. Retrieved on January 7, 2007, from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId = 6418295.
  11. Lane Council of Governments (Lane COG) (2003). Managing sex offenders in the community: A national overview. (Eugene, OR: Report funded by U.S. Department of Justice).Google Scholar
  12. Levenson, J.S. & Cotter, L.P. (2005). The impact of sex offender residence restrictions: 1000 feet from danger or one step from absurd? International Journal of Offender Therapy and comparative Criminology, 49(2), 168–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Levenson, J.S. (2007a). Residence restrictions and their impact on sex offender reintegration, rehabilitation, and recidivism. ATSA Forum, XVIII(2).Google Scholar
  14. Levenson, J.S., Brannon, Y.N., Fortney, T. & Baker, J. (2007b). Public perceptions about sex offenders and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 7(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
  15. Maghelal, P. & Olivares, M. (2005). Critical risk zones: Violators of Megan’s Law. 25th ESRI International User Conference, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  16. Maghelal, P., Olivares, M., Wunneburger, D. & Roman, G. (Final Review). Where are they? A spatial inquiry of sex offenders in Brazos County. Urban and Regional Science Information System. [Electronic preprint version]. Retrieved on September 25, 2006 from http://207.145.30.84/pm_anonymous.
  17. Olivares, M. & Maghelal, P. (2005). Sex offenders and critical risk zones. National Institute of Justice’s MAPS 8th Annual Crime Mapping Research Conference, Savannah, GA.Google Scholar
  18. Robertson, L.S. (2000). Assessment of the proximity of registered sex offenders to schools and day cares: St. Louis City, Missouri. Thesis, Department of Administration of Justice, Center for the Study of Crime, Delinquency, and Corrections. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Missouri.Google Scholar
  19. Stromberg, M. (2007). Locked up, then locked out: Experts say residency restrictions for sex offenders may create more problems than they solve. Planning, 73(1), 20–25.Google Scholar
  20. Thomas, T. (2003). Sex offender community notification: Experiences from America. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(3), 217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the national violence against women survey. (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice).Google Scholar
  22. Zandbergen, P.A. & Hart, T.C. (2006). Reducing housing options for convicted sex offenders: Investigating the impact of residency restriction laws using GIS. Justice Research and Policy, 8(2), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Douglas F. Wunneburger
    • 1
  • Miriam Olivares
    • 1
  • Praveen Maghelal
    • 2
  1. 1.Texas A&M UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Florida Atlantic UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations