Skip to main content

Community Restrictions on Sex Offender Behavior

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Social Control of Sex Offenders
  • 719 Accesses

Abstract

All ex-prisoners face a considerable array of barriers to reentry and reintegration to society. These apply to general criminal offenders as well as sex offenders. Travis (2005, p. 66) has referred to these barriers as “invisible punishments.” The barriers are invisible, he says, because they do not appear in supervision orders governing offender behavior in the community. Travis (2005, p. 73) further states:

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA). (2014). Practice guidelines for the assessment, treatment, and management of male adult sexual abusers. Beaverton, OR: Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers.

    Google Scholar 

  • California Coalition on Sexual Offending (CCSO). (2001). Effective management of sex offenders residing in open communities. North Highlands, CA: California Coalition on Sexual Offending.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chajewski, M., & Mercado, C. C. (2009). An evaluation of sex offender residency restrictions functioning in town, country, and city-wide jurisdictions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20, 44–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colorado Sex Offender Management Board. (2014). Lifetime supervision of sex offenders. Annual report. Retrieved from http://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/somb/RRP/REPORTS/2014_Lifetime_Supervision_Report_Final1.pdf

  • Craun, S. W., & Theriot, M. T. (2009). Misperceptions of sex offender perpetration: Considering the impact of sex offender registration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 2057–2072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delson, N., Kokish, R., & Abbott, B. (2008). Position paper on sex offender residency restrictions. North Highlands, CA: California Coalition on Sex Offending.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • English, K. (2009). The containment approach to managing sex offenders. In R. G. Wright (Ed.), Sex offender laws: Failed policies, new directions (pp. 427–448). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • English, K., Pullen, S., & Jones, L. (1997). Managing adult sex offenders in the community: A containment approach. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heubner, R. M., Kras, K. R., Rydberg, J., Bynum, T. S., Grommon, E., & Pleggenkuhle, B. (2014). The effect and implications of sex offender residence restrictions: Evidence from a two-state evaluation. Criminology & Public Policy, 13, 139–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laws, D. R. (2009, April). The recovery of the asylum: Observations on the mismanagement of sex offenders. Keynote presentation at the Tools to Take Home conference, Lucy Faithfull Foundation, Birmingham, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laws, D. R., & Ward, T. (2011). Desistance from sex offending. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, J. S. (2009). Sex offender residence restrictions. In R. G. Wright (Ed.), Sex offender laws: Failed policies, new directions (pp. 267–290). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucken, K., & Ponte, L. M. (2008). A just measure of forgiveness: Reforming occupational licensing regulations for ex-offenders using BJOQ analysis. Law and Policy, 30, 46–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meloy, M. L., Miller, S. L., & Curtis, K. M. (2008). Making sense out of nonsense: The deconstruction of state-level sex offender residency restrictions. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 3, 209–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustaine, E. E. (2014). Sex offender residency restrictions: Successful integration or exclusion? Criminology & Public Policy, 13, 169–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Socia, K. M. (2014). Residence restrictions are ineffective, inefficient, and inadequate: So now what? Criminology & Public Policy, 13, 179–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Sentencing Project. (2014). Annual report. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Travis, J. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zandbergen, D., & 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, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Laws, D.R. (2016). Community Restrictions on Sex Offender Behavior. In: Social Control of Sex Offenders. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-39126-1_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-39126-1_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-39125-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-39126-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics