Sex Offenders And Criminal Policy Research Paper

This sample Sex Offenders And Criminal Policy Research Paper is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need help writing your assignment, please use our research paper writing service and buy a paper on any topic at affordable price. Also check our tips on how to write a research paper, see the lists of criminal justice research paper topics, and browse research paper examples.

Over the past several years, individuals convicted of criminal acts have been subjected to increasingly severe sanctions. In particular, efforts have been made to increase the supervision of criminals and decrease offender opportunities to further perpetrate crimes. Without a doubt, many emerging laws and criminal justice policies have targeted sex offenders, especially those convicted of victimizing children. In addition to progressively long incarcerations, sex offenders potentially face civil commitment, registration and community notification, chemical castration, polygraph testing, and residency restrictions. The United States has held a leading position in passing these laws and enacting policies aimed at preventing future sex crimes.

Explanations for the renewed interest in punitive sex offender legislation may be found in the high-profile sexual attacks on children in the 1990s. Child sexual assault victims whose names saturated media headlines and generated castigating policies toward sex offenders included Jacob Wetterling, Megan Kanka, and Adam Walsh. Although not new concepts, the revival of criminal registration and civil commitment for sex offenders reflect growing public and political concerns. Technological innovations may also be responsible for intensified sex offender legislation. Chemical castration laws and polygraph testing, for example, are likely the result of expanding scientific know-how.

Background Description

Civil Commitment Statutes

In response to high-profile sex crimes, the first American sexual psychopath laws were passed in the 1930s. Community protection, as well as treatment and incapacitation of sex offenders, were the explicit goals of these laws. Often calling for the civil commitment of so-called mentally disordered sex offenders to public mental hospitals, these statutes rested on the assumption that mental health professionals were capable of identifying, confining, and treating sexual psychopaths.

Criticism surrounding sexual psychopath laws has always existed. Those offenders determined to be sexual psychopaths were often committed to mental institutions indefinitely with few procedural safeguards. These laws may have also been aimed at sex offenders other than violent recidivists and included exhibitionists, voyeurs, and homosexuals. Moreover, public disenchantment with rehabilitation generally, and lack of confidence in effective treatment methods for sexual psychopaths specifically, eventually dissuaded efforts to utilize these laws. By the late 1960s, many states started to repeal, intentionally disregard, and seldom employ these sexual psychopath laws.

Registration And Community Notification

Registration of individuals charged or convicted of various crimes has been used for decades. In 1994, the Jacob Wetterling Act put into practice the registration of sex offenders in statewide databases. Culpable for transforming sex offender registries into publicly available online domains, Megan’s Law, passed in 1996, requires state law enforcement agencies to make public information about sex offenders. Affording a sense of safety and control to the public, such laws have subsequently also been passed unanimously by many legislatures. Today, all states, as well as the federal government, have enacted and maintain publicly available, Internet-based sex offender registries.

Castration Laws

For many centuries, sex offenders were punished through physical castration. In the United States, castration was first popularly used for slaves suspected of having sex with white women. The eugenics movement (1905–1935) supported castration and sterilization of criminals and the mentally ill. Currently, voluntary chemical castration (combined with therapy) has largely replaced physical castration, as medical doctors believe that similarly effective results can be reached through treatment with medication.

Concerns over body mutilation, intrusiveness, and the lasting results of surgery have rendered physical castration of sex offenders in the United States as largely unacceptable. The widespread availability of medications as an alternative to physical castration may also explain this change in practice. Although some laws concerning sex offenders allow both physical and chemical castration as a substitute or adjunct to punishment, chemical castration seems to be the more socially acceptable solution.

Polygraph Testing

Over the last two decades, polygraph testing has been presented as yet another tool to manage, supervise, and treat sex offenders under community supervision. Numerous states require individuals convicted of two sex offenses to undergo periodic mandatory polygraph supervision. Until recently, Frye v. United States (1923) governed the admissibility of polygraph results in American courts. In this case, the Court of Appeals of District of Columbia ruled that when questions of fact require special knowledge, the opinions of witnesses skilled in the subject to which the questions relate are admissible in evidence.

In 1993, however, the US Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals ruled that the Federal Rules of Evidence should provide the standard for admitting expert scientific testimony. To determine the admissibility of polygraph evidence, trial courts must now consider factors such as whether lie detector testing has been scientifically tested, largely accepted within the scientific community, and exposed to review and publication. As a result, most states currently do not consider polygraph evidence as admissible; however, if both parties stipulate, a few courts may admit polygraph results.

Appellate courts in Himes v. Thompson (2000) and Kansas v. Lumley (1999) have ruled that polygraph evidence is admissible, as well as sufficiently reliable as evidence, at probation and parole revocation hearings. Courts in State v. Flores-Moreno (1994) and State v. Riles (1997) have also held that polygraph testing limited to topics related to crimes perpetrated by sex offenders is permissible as a condition of community supervision. Moreover, the Washington Court of Appeals in State v. Eaton (1996) expressed that polygraph testing as a requirement for probationers and parolees was a necessary and effective way in which to monitor compliance with terms of supervision.

Residency Restrictions

Residency restriction laws have been created as a result of increasing concern about registered sex offenders living in communities. After the murder of Jessica Lunsford in Florida by a previously convicted sex offender, housing restrictions for sex offenders in the United States became more widespread. Despite punishment, treatment, and supervision, many believe that sex offenders continue to pose a serious danger to society. These housing restrictions prevent sex offenders from living near schools, parks, daycare centers, and other designated “child congregation” locations. In this way, these laws seek to limit contact between registered sex offenders and children, and subsequently reduce sex offender recidivism.

State Of The Art

Civil Commitment Statutes

The premise of civil commitment statutes is that many sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated; consequently, such criminals must be incapacitated to the greatest extent possible. Under civil law, sex offenders may be committed to institutions. Modern civil commitment statutes, commonly known as sexually violent predator laws, allow governments to confine particular sex offenders to secure mental health facilities upon their release from prison or a judicial finding of incompetency to stand trial. Upon the decision of a court, sex offenders considered to have mental abnormalities or other psychological disorders that may prompt harmful sexual conduct in the future may be subjected to civil commitment. As of 2009, 20 states and the federal government have civil commitment laws aimed at sex offenders.

Following the placement of committed sex offenders to secure institutions, mental health clinicians and other professionals are assigned the responsibility of evaluating offenders at regular intervals. During periods of civil commitment, medical and psychological assessments of sex offenders are performed to assess improvements in mental status. Examinations and subsequent reports prepared for the court concerning the mental conditions of committed sex offenders are typically completed on an annual basis. After these examinations by medical and mental health officials, sex offenders civilly committed to institutions may petition for release, appear before a judge, and ask the court to determine whether their commitments continue to be necessary to protect the public. In order to be released, psychologists and the court must agree that mental abnormalities or personality disorders once exhibited by sex offenders no longer pose a threat to society.

Whereas earlier sexual psychopath laws may have centered on rehabilitation, current civil commitment laws focus on the social control and incapacitation of sex offenders. Depicting the social control function of civil commitment laws, the US Supreme Court in Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) upheld a sexually violent predator statute, which sent sex offenders determined to be violent predators likely to recidivate to state mental hospitals. Although Hendricks challenged the civil commitment law as a violation of due process and prohibitions against double jeopardy and (ex post facto) laws, the Court found such to be constitutional as the civil commitment statute was not deemed to be punishment. In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled in Kansas v. Crane that mental abnormalities displayed by sex offenders must differentiate committed individuals from ordinary recidivists. Further, besides showing the likelihood that offenders will commit sex crimes upon release, it must be shown that offenders have a serious inability to control their behaviors.

Registration And Community Notification

Sex offenders have consistently faced stringent sentencing laws; moreover, society has consistently looked upon them with disdain. Spotlighting society’s harsh treatment of sex offenders, one of the most recent developments has been the creation of sex offender registries. Sex offender registries are utilized in every jurisdiction in the United States, and these repositories of information provide online access to a wide array of facts about convicted sex offenders and their offenses. Individuals convicted of sex crimes are typically required to provide local law enforcement and corrections authorities with name, photograph, address, birth date, Social Security number, fingerprints, offense history, date of convictions, and other information. Sex offenders must verify the accuracy of this information on a routine basis for the duration of their registration, which may range from 10 years to life.

Most arguments supporting sex offender registries emphasize public safety, particularly the protection of children. Proponents also contend that registration will permit law enforcement officials to quickly and easily ascertain the locations of sex offenders in their communities, facilitating sex crime investigations. Because Internet databases reveal the identification of sex offenders to the community, it is further maintained that sex offender registries reduce opportunities for recidivism. Despite evidence suggesting little or no effect of registration and community notification on recidivism rates, there remains general public approval concerning sex offender registries and a belief that most sex offenders will reoffend.

Community notification typically occurs in neighborhood meetings, door-to-door visits by the police, newspaper advertisements, online notices, and flyers circulated throughout a jurisdiction. Many states that use community notification have a three-tiered system based on the purported dangerousness of sex offenders that determines the degree of notification that will take place. When sex offenders are categorized as the lowest risk to public safety, notification is typically reserved for law enforcement officials only. Schools, daycares, and other neighborhood organizations are notified of the presence of sex offenders posing a medium risk to public safety. Those sex offenders considered the most dangerous, designated at high risk, will generate the most widespread notification, as the general public is notified. Some states use formal assessment tools to classify sex offender risk levels. Other jurisdictions utilize committees of clinicians and other professionals to evaluate offenders and decide upon risk level.

Four major laws are associated with contemporary sex offender registration and notification policies. The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (1994) is the first federal law that mandated statewide registration of sex offenders. This statute requires all states to establish procedures for sex offender registration. If particular jurisdictions fail to comply with the Wetterling Act, they risk the loss of crime prevention funding from the federal government. As a result of the Wetterling Act, each state has a mandatory registration law that obligates sex offenders to provide their information to law enforcement officials.

Despite the fact that Washington enacted the first community notification law in 1990, it was Megan’s Law (New Jersey Stat. Ann. }} 2C: 7-1 to 2C: 7-11, 1996) in New Jersey that created registration and community notification legislation that was ultimately replicated nationwide. Megan Kanka was sexually assaulted and murdered by a twice-convicted sex offender on parole. Amending the Jacob Wetterling Act, Megan’s Law calls for the registration of sex offenders with law enforcement at various time intervals. The frequency of registration is contingent upon assumed risk levels of sex offenders. In many states, Megan’s Law also requires the local police to inform communities of the presence of sex offenders moving into neighborhoods. The jurisdiction in which sex offenders reside, as well as their risk status, will determine the degree of information that is made available to the public.

In 2000, the Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act further amended the Wetterling Act, obligating registered sex offenders studying and working at colleges and universities to provide notice of their status as sex offenders to these institutions of higher learning. College and university officials are required to inform the campus community where information regarding registered sex offenders may be obtained. In fact, many colleges and universities maintain their own distinctive online sex offender registry. At the very least, these registries provide the full names of students and university employees convicted of sex offenses. More often, campus sex offender registries include demographic information, including physical descriptions and dates of birth. Some university registries also contain the offender’s home address, conviction information, description of victims, and special conditions imposed at sentencing. Further, in addition to the academic institutions with campus-based registries, many institutions of higher learning provide online links to the state sex offender registry from the webpages of campus police or the public safety department. This information is also provided to law enforcement agencies in the jurisdiction of the college or university, and it is entered into state registry records.

The abduction of Polly Klaas generated the development of three-strikes laws. Polly’s murder by a repeat sex offender who was not required to register infuriated the public and generated intense media coverage. This resulted in the overwhelming public support for Proposition 184 in California. Passed in 1994, this legislation allowed a third felony conviction to result in a sentence of 25 years to life. Although those championing three-strikes laws contend that such legislation serves as a general deterrent to potential three-time offenders, critics note that there is little evidence that shows reduction in serious crime has resulted from implementation of three-strikes laws.

Accessible to the public through the Internet, a nationwide databank of registered sex offenders was created in 2005. The Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Registry, as it was named in 2006, was designed by the Department of Justice to provide more efficient access to individual state sex offender registries.

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act was signed into law in 2006. This federal law includes the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) and seeks to make the archiving and monitoring of sex offenders more efficient by creating a comprehensive and national system for sex offender registration. The legislation categorizes sex offenders into three tiers of risk. Tier three sex offenders are the most serious and must verify their location with law enforcement every 3 months for the rest of their lives. Individuals defined as tier two offenders must update their whereabouts every 6 months for 25 years, while sex offenders described as tier one lawbreakers must verify their location annually for 15 years.

The Adam Walsh Act includes additional provisions for those convicted of sex crimes. Failing to register and update information with authorities are increased to felony offenses. Failure to adhere to registration guidelines under SORNA is punishable by 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The federal law also eliminates the statute of limitations concerning the prosecution of child abduction and felony child sexual offense cases. It allows victims of child abuse to utilize civil proceedings to seek monetary damages from perpetrators. Further, the Adam Walsh Act sets forth mandatory minimum sentencing for particular sex crimes. For instance, the law dictates a minimum sentence of 30 years for the rape of a child and calls for increasing the minimum prison terms for offenders traveling between states with minors.

All jurisdictions must comply with the Adam Walsh Act and the provisions of SORNA or face reduced federal grant funding. In September 2009, Ohio was the first state to comply with federal sex offender provisions under SORNA. However, as of 2011, 43 states have yet to achieve compliance with the mandates of the Adam Walsh Act.

The constitutionality of sex offender registration and community notification has been challenged in two US Supreme Court cases. Smith v. Doe (2003) considered the Fifth Amendment double-jeopardy clause and whether registration and notification laws amount to further punishment of sex offenders. The Supreme Court found that sex offender registration and notification is regulatory and consequently is not additional punishment. Moreover, the Court ruled that individuals convicted of sex crimes prior to the establishment of registration and notification for sex offenders can still be obligated to comply with these laws. The second Supreme Court case regarding sex offender registration and community notification examined the issue of cruel and unusual punishment. The Court in Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. John Doe (2003) ruled that the posting of sex offender photographs online is constitutional. Registration and notification laws, therefore, are not considered to be obstacles to personal freedom.

Castration Laws

In the last two decades, medication as a means of controlling the behavior of sex offenders has gained renewed interest. Chemical castration consists of injecting Depo-Provera, the synthetic hormone medroxyprogesterone acetate, to reduce the blood serum testosterone levels in males. Taken on a regular basis, Depo-Provera is supposed to reduce sexual impulses, erections, and ejaculations. The potential side effects of Depo-Provera include migraines, nausea, weight gain, insomnia, fatigue, and loss of body hair, although most of these are thought to be rare and reversible.

Presently, many chemical castration laws call for the forced dispensing of medication to control the behavior of recidivist sex offenders. In 1997, California was the first jurisdiction to require chemical castration for repeat sex offenders (with victims under the age of 13). Under California law, repeat sex offenders are obligated to receive chemical injections prior to their release on parole. These injections persist until offenders complete their criminal sentences. Although sex offenders may refuse chemical castration, parole will be immediately denied to those deciding not to participate. Following California’s example, other states including Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Montana, Texas, and Wisconsin have similar sex offender castration laws. However, unlike California, many state statutes allow judicial discretion in regards to implementation of castration.

Chemical castration laws regarding sex offenders generally do not require complete medical or psychiatric assessments prior to the injections of medication. Further, there is no distinction between types of sex offenders most appropriate for chemical castration in the statutes.

Polygraph Testing

Polygraph (or “lie detector”) testing with sex offenders focus on disclosure polygraphs performed after sentencing, denial and specific issues examinations, and maintenance polygraphs administered during sex offender treatment for purposes of reducing offender denial and gauging compliance with conditions of supervision. Following sentencing, the disclosure polygraph involves questions asked of sex offenders about their history of sexual deviance. Polygraph examiners identify offender deception through responses of intensified physiological arousal to relevant questions. If there are discrepancies among crime descriptions, the denial polygraph examination will likely be administered. Also, when sex offenders refuse to accept responsibility for their crimes, probation and parole officials may perform the denial examination. Specific issues polygraph examinations usually center on a specific accusation or suspicion. The maintenance polygraph detects how sex offenders manage inappropriate thoughts and measures compliance with conditions of probation or parole. In total, these applications of polygraph technology serve to manage, supervise, and treat sex offenders living in the community.

Residency Restrictions

Well over one-half of all states and numerous municipalities have sex offender residency restriction laws. Residency restriction laws often feature nebulous language to restrict registered sex offenders from living near locations described as “child congregation” areas. Such places are typically defined to include schools, parks, school playgrounds, daycare centers, bus stops, and recreational facilities. Fluctuating between 500 ft and 2,500 ft, residency restriction laws assert that specific distances must be preserved between a sex offender’s residence and various landmarks in the community.

Restrictive zoning laws prohibiting sex offenders from residing near places frequented by children are often associated with registration statutes and typically involve all registered sex offenders without regard to victims’ ages. However, other residency restriction laws concern only sex offenders under community supervision or those with child victims. For instance, the first state law addressing sex offender residency restrictions, which was passed in 1995, applied only to Florida sex offenders on probation with child victims.

In 2005, after a registered sex offender confessed to sexually assaulting and killing 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford in Florida, sex offender housing restrictions became more intensified nationwide. For example, California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 83 in 2006. Among other initiatives, Proposition 83 prevents sex offenders from living 2,000 ft from child congregation locations. Further, municipal sex offender housing ordinances became more prevalent. Enacted in December 2005, a Dyersville, Iowa, ordinance is among the most extreme of residency restrictions for sex offenders. The law essentially prohibits any sex offender from living anywhere in the city.

Possible Controversies In The Literature

Civil Commitment Statutes

Research highlights many disputes surrounding the civil commitment of sex offenders. Critics assert that in reality sex offenders committed to mental facilities are almost never released. Washington and Minnesota, the two states with the longest contemporary commitment programs, never discharged committed sex offenders. Others oppose civil commitment for sex offenders because such laws apparently punish individuals who have already paid their debt to society. Despite the Supreme Court decision in Kansas v. Hendricks (1997), Friedland (1999) contends that the civil confinement seems to hinge on the desire to continue punishment and incapacitation.

Besides apprehensions relating to sex offenders themselves, civil commitment statutes have also raised issues concerning mental health professionals. Wettstein (1992) argues that civil commitment laws regarding sex offenders inappropriately utilize experts in the mental health field. Although many sex offenders are committed due to their mental deficiencies or personality disorders, he notes that this does not necessarily mean committed sex offenders are genuinely mentally ill.

In addition, the increasing number of sex offenders and the need to commit them may exhaust government money allotted for the entire mental health field (Friedland 1999; Wettstein 1992) and may not be the most effective use of mental health resources already in short supply. If mental health professionals are trusted to confine sex offenders, it is argued that funding for treatment and other mental health services for committed sex offenders and other patients will become even scarcer. When appropriate mental health treatment is absent, some scholars note that it is possible that many mental health patients likely to be responsive to treatment may gravitate toward criminal activities.

Registration And Community Notification

Controversies over sex offender registration and community notification also exist. Those supporting sex offender registration and community notification often contend that these laws are not punishment; instead, any punitive actions resulting from registration and notification are only related to the public protection function (Brooks 1995). Further, as a result of registration and community notification, there is evidence that probation and parole officials and the community are working together to actively monitor sex offenders (Zevitz and Farkas 2000b).

And yet, it has been found that notification laws associated with sex offender registration negatively impacted probation and parole officers (Zevitz and Farkas 2000a). In particular, officers assigned to sex offender caseloads described a loss of staff, time, and financial resources as a result of a new community notification program. In addition, research on sex offender registration has shown unintended outcomes for the general community. Scholars have noted that sex offender registration and notification “can have the effect of leaving neighborhood residents frightened but feeling powerless to do anything about it” (Zevitz and Farkas 2000b, p. 405). Although registration laws were meant to assist the community by providing information about sex criminals, these requirements have also increased a sense of alarm among residents attending community notification meetings.

Registration and community notification may prevent successful reintegration into the community. Mental health professionals have expressed concern that reactions from the community resulting from registration and notification may intensify the anxiety of sex offenders, ultimately generating recidivism through poor choices (Billings and Bulges 2000).

Available literature concerning sex offender registration and community notification shows that registered sex offenders often experience numerous deleterious consequences. Specific offender aftermath associated with registration and community notification includes loss of family contact, destruction of friendships, employment difficulties, hostile confrontations, and threats of violence and personal harm. Another consequence of sex offender registration and community notification is the stigma that is associated with labeling as a registered sex offender (Tewksbury and Lees 2006, 2007). Making reintegration more challenging for sex offenders, powerful and enduring stigmas that result from public disclosure are strong obstacles to employment, education, and community activity (Uggen et al. 2004). Registered sex offenders in numerous studies have reported these marks of disgrace as common experiences Tewksbury (2004, 2005; Tewksbury and Lees 2006). The most commonly reported collateral consequences for registered sex offenders are feelings of vulnerability, stigmatization, and housing difficulties (Tewksbury 2004, 2005; Tewksbury and Lees 2006). Tewksbury and Mustaine (2009) explain that these experiences are mutually influential, as feelings of vulnerability may intensify as registered sex offenders find themselves unable to locate housing.

Castration Laws

Debates continue over the effectiveness of sex offender castration laws. Research has suggested that sex offenders treated with both medication and counseling may have improved control of their sexual behaviors (Melella et al. 1989), and sex offenders under chemical castration and participating in therapy are less likely to recidivate than those individuals discontinuing medication (Meyer et al. 1992). Supporters of castration laws regarding also contend that chemical castration does not violate the fundamental right of individuals to procreate. The effects of Depo-Provera are temporary and completely revocable upon termination of the injections (Melella et al. 1989).

However, despite Depo-Provera’s only temporary obstruction to sexual activity, Spalding (1998) suggests that the ability to procreate is still infringed upon during the period of treatment, which may last for years. Further, some chemical castration laws, such as Florida’s statute, permit the courts to order injections of DepoProvera for the lifetime of the offender. In this way, sex offenders sentenced to lifetime chemical castration may have their right to procreate removed permanently. According to Meyer and Cole (1997), the long-term effects of DepoProvera on sexual functioning are still very much in question.

Some opponents argue that judges may not be the most appropriate individuals to impose sentences of chemical castration and doubt the capabilities of medical doctors working in corrections to make impartial decisions concerning the well-being of offenders. Interestingly, Fitzgerald (1990) suggests that injections of Depo-Provera will not have any meaningful influence on many sex offenders. These sex offenders include those that deny committing the offense or refuse to acknowledge the criminal nature of their actions, those blaming their actions on environmental factors, and violent individuals motivated by nonsexual elements. Moreover, the use of medications for castration purposes is widely considered effective only when employed in combination with psychotherapy specifically designed for sex offenders (Meyer and Cole 1997). Other research warns that the administrative procedures for involuntary medication outlined in Washington v. Harper (1990) may not protect inmates from uninformed and arbitrary decisions by prison psychiatrists. Ryan argues that the objectivity of a committee consisting of correctional employees and the cooperative nature of the hearing afford little protection from ill-advised psychiatric diagnosis.

Polygraph Testing

There are disputes in the literature surrounding sex offender polygraph examinations. Polygraph testing has been reported to improve the management of sex offenders in the community, as it purportedly reduces denial, extracts confessions of sexual offenses, and improves treatment results (Wilcox 2000). On the other hand, Iacono and Lykken (1997) raised questions concerning the possibility of false positives and negatives, in spite of the use of control questions present in polygraph testing. They also reported no evidence for the validity of polygraph results in their review of field studies. Further, the fear of being incorrectly accused causing innocent subjects to have physiological responses that indicate guilt has been considered as a flaw of the polygraph. Proponents of polygraph testing have described accuracy rates beyond 90 %; however, critics (Iacono and Lykken 1997) contend that these studies contain fatal methodological flaws.

Residency Restrictions

Research dedicated to sex offender residency restrictions has only emerged in the past decade. The available research points to controversies in the literature. Finding that nearly half of sex offenders with child victims lived in close proximity to child congregation zones, Walker et al. (2001) studied one Arkansas county and suggested that child sex offenders may be more likely to intentionally reside near schools, parks, and daycares. And yet, when compared with nonrecidivists, research has reported that recidivating child sex offenders under community supervision did not live closer to these congregation zones (Colorado Department of Public Safety 2004). Tewksbury and Mustaine (2006) also showed that only approximately one in five registered sex offenders live in close proximity to such locations. Further, a Minnesota study found that sex offenders were more likely to seek victims in neighborhoods other than their own to avoid detection (Minnesota Department of Corrections 2003).

Research has recognized the problematic nature of residency restrictions aimed at sex offenders. Lawmakers believe that residency in close proximity to potential (child) victims influences recidivism (Sample and Kadleck 2008). However, research generally shows such restrictions have little or no effect on sex offender recidivism. And yet, laws limiting housing opportunities for sex offenders potentially exacerbate the limited choices for home placement already facing many ex-convicts. Studies concerning the limitations of where registered sex offenders may live have been widely shown to impose negative consequences on both offenders (Tewksbury 2007; Tewksbury and Lees 2006; Zandbergen and Hart 2006, 2009) and their families (Farkas and Miller 2007; Tewksbury and Levenson 2009). For instance, research confirms that residency restrictions placed on registered sex offenders significantly decreases housing opportunities perhaps to as little as 2 % of all housing stock (Zandbergen and Hart 2006, 2009). As a result of residency restrictions, registered sex offenders are also likely to be concentrated in very dense, socially disorganized communities or in rural locations with limited employment, treatment, and transportation opportunities (Minnesota Department of Corrections 2003; Tewksbury and Mustaine 2006, 2008; Zandbergen and Hart 2006, 2009).

Conclusion

Clearly there are a number of criminal justice policies that are specific to sex offenders and which establish procedures and practices that are unique for offenders convicted of sexual offenses. What may be most interesting about the ways that policies have developed and been rapidly implemented across the country are both that they tend to be in response to particular, individual cases that have generated significant public (e.g., media) attention and that these policies and their outlined practices are largely untested.

As research has started to address sex offender criminal justice policies what is quickly becoming clear is that these policies are not being shown to be very effective, they are expensive and inefficient and in many cases seem to be overreaching and including many offenders who may not need to be responded to in such ways. The future holds many questions for how and why the types of policies discussed above can and should be continued to not. However, at the present time there is little to suggest that such policies will be scaled back. Rather, it seems that criminal justice policies regarding sex offenders are only continuing to be expanded and made more harsh, despite emerging evidence suggesting that they are not necessary effective and are very inefficient.

Bibliography:

Billings J, Bulges C (2000) Comment: maine’s sex offender registration and notification act. Wise or wicked? Maine Law Rev 52:175–259
Brooks AD (1995) Megan’s law: the legal issues. Crim Justice Ethics 14(2):12–16
Colorado Department of Public Safety (2004) Report on safety issues raised by living arrangements for and location of sex offenders in the community. Sex Offender Management Board, Denver
Farkas MA, Miller G (2007) Reentry and reintegration: challenges faced by the families of convicted sex offenders. Fed Sentencing Rep 20:88–92
Fitzgerald EA (1990) Chemical castration: MPA treatment of the sexual offender. Am J Crim Law 18(1):1–60
Friedland S (1999) On treatment, punishment, and the civil commitment of sex offenders. Uni Colorado Law Rev 70(1):73–154
Iacono WG, Lykken DT (1997) The validity of the liedetector: two surveys of scientific opinion. J Appl Psychol 82:426–433
Melella JT, Travin S, Cullen K (1989) Legal and ethical issues in the use of antiandrogens in treating sex offenders. Bull Am Acad Psychiatr Law 17(3):223–232
Meyer WJ, Cole C (1997) Physical and chemical castration of sex offenders: a review. J Offender Rehabil 25:1–16
Meyer WJ, Cole C, Emory E (1992) Depo-Provera treatment for sex offending behavior: an evaluation of outcome. Bull Am Acad Psychiatr Law 20(3):249–259
Minnesota Department of Corrections (2003) Level three sex offenders’ residential placement issues. Author, St. Paul
Sample LL, Kadleck C (2008) Sex offender laws: legislators’ accounts of the need for policy. Crim Justice Policy Rev 19(1):40–62
Spalding LH (1998) Article: Florida’s 1997 chemical castration law. A return to the dark ages. Fla State Uni Law Rev 25:117–139
Tewksbury R (2004) Experiences and attitudes of registered female sex offenders. Fed Probat 68(3):30–33
Tewksbury R (2005) Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. J Contemp Crim Justice 21(1):67–81
Tewksbury R (2007) Exile at home: the unintended collateral consequences of sex offender residency restrictions. Harv Civ Rights – Civ Lib Law Rev 42:531–540
Tewksbury R, Lees MB (2006) Perceptions of sex offender registration: collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociol Spectr 26:309–334
Tewksbury R, Lees MB (2007) Perceptions of punishment: how registered sex offenders view registries. Crime Delin 53(3):380–407
Tewksbury R, Levenson JS (2009) Stress experiences of family members of registered sex offenders. Behav Sci Law 27:611–626
Tewksbury R, Mustaine EE (2006) Where to find sex offenders: an examination of residential locations and neighborhood conditions. Crim Justice Stud 19:61–75
Tewksbury R, Mustaine EE (2008) Where registered sex offenders live: community characteristics and proximity to possible victims. Vict Offender 3:86–98
Tewksbury R, Mustaine EE (2009) Stress and collateral consequences for registered sex offenders. J Public Manag Soc Policy 15:215–239
Uggen C, Manza J, Behrens A (2004) Less than the average citizen: stigma, role transition and civic reintegration of convicted felons. In: Maruna S, Immarigeon R (eds) After crime and punishment: pathways to offender reintegration. Willan Publishing, Devon
Walker JT, Golden JW, VanHouten AC (2001) The geographic link between sex offenders and potential victims: a routine activities approach. Justice Res Policy 3(2):15–33
Wettstein WM (1992) A psychiatric perspective of Washington’s sexually violent predator statute. Univ Puget Sound Law Rev 15:597–633
Wilcox DT (2000) Application of the clinical polygraph examination to the assessment, treatment, and monitoring of sex offenders. J Sex Aggress 5(2):134–152
Zandbergen PA, Hart TC (2006) Reducing housing options for convicted sex offenders: investigating the impact of residency restrictions laws using GIS. Justice Res Policy 8(2):1–24
Zandbergen PA, Hart TC (2009) Availability and spatial distribution of affordable housing in Miami – Dade County and implications of residency restriction zones for registered sex offenders. American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Miami
Zevitz R, Farkas MA (2000a) The impact of sex-offender community notification on probation/parole in Wisconsin. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 44(1):8–21
Zevitz R, Farkas MA (2000b) Sex offender community notification: managing high-risk criminals or exacting further vengeance? Behav Sci Law 18:375–391