Skip to main content
Book cover

Encyclopedia of Law and Economics pp 1–15Cite as

Sex Offenses

Abstract

Sex offenses today may be generally defined as acts of a sexual nature to which a victim has not given legal consent. This broad definition covers many different types of behaviors, but almost all individuals in the U.S. (and in a few other jurisdictions) who are convicted of committing any crime in this category are subject to unique postrelease regulations such as registration, public notification, and residency restrictions. In this entry, we briefly examine the scope of sexual offending in the U.S., the utility of the economic model of crime in understanding sex offender behavior, and the rise of sex offender postrelease regulations. With respect to postrelease regulations, we discuss potential reasons why sex offenses are treated differently and review the literature on the theoretical and empirical effects of these policies for crime rates and recidivism as well as their collateral consequences.

Keywords

  • Child Pornography
  • National Crime Victimization Survey
  • Potential Offender
  • Residency Restriction
  • Community Notification

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Agan AY (2011) Sex offender registries: fear without function? J Law Econ 54(1):207–239

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Agan AY, Prescott JJ (2014) Sex offender law and the geography of victimization. J Empir Leg Stud 11(4):786–828

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson AL, Sample LL (2008) Public awareness and action resulting from sex offender community notification laws. Criminal Justice Policy Rev 19(4):371–396

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Associated Press (2005) Sex offenders kept from Storm Shelters. New York Times, August 8. Available http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/national/08florida.html. Accessed 23 Mar 2015

  • Bandy R (2011) Measuring the impact of sex offender notification on community adoption of protective behaviors. Criminol Public Policy 10(2):237–263

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Beck VS, Travis LF (2004) Sex offender notification and fear of victimization. J Criminal Justice 32(5):455–463

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly A (2014) Public sex offender registry coming soon, says Peter MacKay. CBC News, February 28. Available http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/public-sex-offender-registry-coming-soon-says-peter-mackay-1.2556080. Accessed 23 Mar 2015

  • Duwe G, Donnay W, Tewksbury R (2008) Does residential proximity matter? A geographic analysis of sex offense recidivism. Criminal Justice Behav 35(4):484–504

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Evans WN, Owens EG (2007) COPS and crime. J Public Econ 91(1):181–201

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Huebner BM, Kras KR, Rydberg J, Bynum TS, Grommon E, Pleggenkuhle B (2014) The effect and implications of sex offender residence restrictions. Criminol Public Policy 13(1):139–168

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson R, Raphael S (2012) How much crime reduction does the marginal prisoner buy? J Law Econ 55(2):275–310

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kang S (2012) The consequences of sex offender residency restriction: evidence from North Carolina. Unpublished manuscript, Duke University Department of Economics, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  • Langan PA, Levin DJ (2002) Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Fed Sentencing Report 15(1):58–65

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Langan PA, Schmitt EL, Durose MR (2003) Recidivism of sex offenders released from prison in 1994. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Levenson JS, Cotter LP (2005a) The effect of Megan’s Law on sex offender reintegration. J Contemp Criminal Justice 21(1):49–66

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Levenson JS, Cotter LP (2005b) The impact of sex offender residence restrictions: 1,000 feet from danger or one step from absurd? Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 49(2):168–178

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Levenson JS, D’Amora DA, Hern AL (2007) Megan’s law and its impact on community re-entry for sex offenders. Behav Sci Law 25(4):587–602

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt SD (1997) Using electoral cycles in police hiring to estimate the effect of police on crime. Am Econ Rev 87(3):270–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt SD (1998) Why do increased arrest rates appear to reduce crime: deterrence, incapacitation, or measurement error? Econ Inq 36(3):353–372

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Linden L, Rockoff JE (2008) Estimates of the impact of crime risk on property values from Megan’s laws. Am Econ Rev 98(3):1103–1127

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pope JC (2008) Fear of crime and housing prices: household reactions to sex offender registries. J Urban Econ 64(3):601–614

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Prentky RA (1996) Community notification and constructive risk reduction. J Interpers Violence 11(2):295–298

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Prescott JJ, Rockoff JE (2011) Do sex offender registration and notification laws affect criminal behavior? J Law Econ 54(1):161–206

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler JC, Freeman NJ, Socia KM (2008) Does a watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New York State’s sex offender registration and notification law. Psychol Public Policy Law 14(4):284

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Smith NJ (2011) Protecting the children of the world: a proposal for tracking convicted sex offenders internationally. San Diego Int Law J 13:623

    Google Scholar 

  • Soothill K (2010) Sex offender recidivism. Crime Justice 39(1):145–211

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Stinson JD, Becker JV, Sales BD (2008) Self-regulation and the etiology of sexual deviance: evaluating causal theory. Violence Vict 23(1):35–51

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Teichman D (2005) The market for criminal justice: federalism, crime control, and jurisdictional competition. Mich Law Rev 103:1831–1876

    Google Scholar 

  • Tewksbury R, Jennings WG (2010) Assessing the impact of sex offender registration and community notification on sex-offending trajectories. Criminal Justice Behav 37(5):570–582

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tewksbury R, Mustaine EE (2008) Where registered sex offenders live: community characteristics and proximity to possible victims. Vict Offenders 3(1):86–98

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tewksbury R, Mustaine EE, Stengel KM (2008) Examining rates of sexual offenses from a routine activities perspective. Vict Offenders 3(1):75–85

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tewksbury R, Jennings WG, Zgoba KM (2012) A longitudinal examination of sex offender recidivism prior to and following the implementation of SORN. Behav Sci Law 30(3):308–328

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas T (2011) The registration and monitoring of sex offenders: a comparative study. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Truman JL, Langton L, Planty M (2013) Criminal victimization, 2012. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker G (1803) Blackstone’s commentaries. William Young Birch & Abraham Small, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (2014) Crime in the United States, 2013. Available http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013. Accessed 23 Nov 2014

  • White A (1999) Victims’ rights, rule of law, and the threat to liberal jurisprudence. Ky Law J 87(2):357–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitting L, Day A, Powell M (2014) The impact of community notification on the management of sex offenders in the community: an Australian perspective. Aust N Z J Criminol 47(2):240–258

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Zandbergen PA, Hart TC (2006) Reducing housing options for convicted sex offenders: investigating the impact of residency restriction laws using GIS. Justice Res Policy 8(2):1–24

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Zevitz RG (2004) Sex offender placement and neighborhood social integration: the making of a scarlet letter community. Criminal Justice Stud 17(2):203–222

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA

    Amanda Agan

  2. Law School, University of Michigan, 701 South State Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

    J.J. Prescott

Authors
  1. Amanda Agan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J.J. Prescott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amanda Agan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Lehrst. Finanzwissenschaft/ Finanzsoziologie, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Thüringen, Germany

    Jürgen Backhaus

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this entry

Cite this entry

Agan, A., Prescott, J. (2015). Sex Offenses. In: Backhaus, J. (eds) Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_579-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_579-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-7883-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Economics and FinanceReference Module Humanities and Social Sciences