The Sponsors of Sex Offender Bills Speak Up

Abstract

In the first investigation of its kind, a national U.S. sample of state-level policy makers (N = 61) were interviewed about their perceptions of the sexual offenders in their state, their state’s sex offender laws, and collateral consequences of these laws, among other efficacy questions. Respondents were selected nonrandomly, as policy makers who sponsored sex offender bills were deliberately targeted for inclusion in the study. It was presumed these respondents would be more knowledgeable about sex offenders and sex offender laws. Results indicated that most respondents were familiar with the sex offender legislation in their state, that most of the laws were drafted with hopes of increasing public safety, and that policy makers believed their laws were functioning as intended, although empirical data are lacking to support these latter claims. Despite a strong conviction that sex offender laws are necessary to control sexual recidivism, policy makers discussed numerous complications and potentially deleterious effects of their own laws.

Keywords

policy makers sex offender legislation public safety victims community notification residence restrictions

Sex offenders are among today’s most hated and feared criminals. The contemporary response to this has resulted in specialized laws, referred to as “sex offender legislation.” Although legislation targeting sex offenders is not new to the United States, or elsewhere, the policy makers involved in today’s “third wave” of sex offender laws (Terry, 2005) are the focus of this current investigation. This wave of U.S. sex offender laws is based on numerous misperceptions about sex offenders and sex offender risk factors, public fear, and the pressure for policy makers to “do something” about this social problem. Thus, this research attempts to reconcile the facts of sex offender science against the views of lawmakers. Is there a disconnect between empiricism and policy maker perceptions? Do the views and opinions of lawmakers affect how they legislate responses to sex crimes? These questions, and more, are addressed in this study.

Risk Factors for Sex Crimes

Which victim–offender relationship is the most common? For many reasons, a lot of attention and resources are geared toward protecting the children and women against the stranger assailant (i.e., stranger danger). Yet the empirical evidence suggests that children, especially young children, are far more likely to be victimized by a family member, friend, or acquaintance than by a stranger (Greenfeld, 1997; Snyder, 2000). This victim–offender relationship is replicated with older victims as well. Feminist scholars Mary Koss (1988) and Diana Russell (1984) were among the first to highlight that perpetrators who have current or prior relationships with their victims commit most sexual assaults.

How often do sex offenders reoffend? Unfortunately, the science is unclear. Recidivism outcomes vary based on the population (prisoners vs. probationers), types of sex offenders (rapists, child molesters, hands-off offenders), and types of sex crimes (date rape vs. stranger rape), as well as the methodological design and rigor of the study.¹ Furthermore, relying on arrest data, reconviction data, and even victimization surveys to document the prevalence and incidence of sex crimes inevitably fails to capture the true extent of sexual violence. Sex crimes are uniquely plagued by “dark-figure” estimates, as victims are often reluctant to report for a myriad of reasons. Finally, sex offenders are known to deny and minimize their sexual criminal histories (Meloy, 2006).

Notwithstanding these cautions and limitations, evidence suggests all, or even most, convicted sex offenders will not commit another sex crime (Greenfeld, 1997; Hanson & Bussière, 1998; Quinsey, Rice, & Harris, 1995). Furthermore, according to U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, within a 3-year follow-up period convicted rapists and other sex offenders were rearrested less often their non-sex-offender counterparts (Greenfeld, 1997).

Does sex offender therapy help reduce recidivism? The answers have been mixed, although meta-analyses have demonstrated that offenders who successfully complete cognitive-behavioral or relapse prevention modification treatment protocols tend to fail (recidivate) less often and fail (recidivate) less quickly than their nontreated counterparts (Alexander, 1999; Aos, Phipps, Barnoski, & Lieb, 2001; G. Hall, 1995; Hanson et al., 2002; Lösel & Schmucker, 2005; Mandeville-Norden & Beech, 2004). This does not mean, however, that the efficacy of sex offender treatment is a foregone conclusion (Rice & Harris, 2003; Seto et al., 2008). Serious methodological problems persist in most of the studies that are used to demonstrate the benefits of sex offender therapy (Rice & Harris, 2003; Seto et al., 2008).

How dangerous are sex offenders? There is little argument that some sex offenders pose a serious risk of harm to their own family members and/or society at large. For example, if the accusations against former Penn State football defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky are accurate, he has sexually victimized at least 10 young boys and there were 48 criminal charges filed against him. In June 2012, Sandusky was convicted of 45 different charges associated with sexually assaulting these victims. Furthermore, stranger assailants (vs. familial or known offenders) and people diagnosed with pedophilia per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders often assault many victims before being caught, and they have higher failure rates than other types of sex offenders (R. Hall & Hall, 2007). To summarize the above discussion on sex offender risk and recidivism, first, victims are more likely to be sexually assaulted by someone they know than they are to be sexually attacked by a stranger. Second, some sex offenders pose a serious public safety risk. Third, successful completion of cognitive-behavioral therapy is likely to delay and/or reduce the amount of sexual deviance committed by known sex offenders. Next, we review the science related to sex offender laws.

Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification

Sex offender registration and community notification laws come in various forms (and at the federal and state levels), but their commonality is the requirement that those convicted of certain sex-related charges must register with local law enforcement agencies for a fixed period of time. The sex offender registration list is publicly available. In some states authorities proactively notify community members that a sex offender resides (or plans to reside) at a specific address. To date, the handful of existing outcome studies on these laws indicate that there is little, if any, decrease in sexual recidivism attributed to sex offender registration and community notification practices (Adkins, Huff, & Stageberg, 2000; Schram & Milloy, 1995; Tewksbury & Jennings, 2010; Zgoba, Witt, Dalessandro, & Veysey, 2008).

Residence Restrictions and Sexual Offending

Concerns about easy access for sex offenders to spaces where children live, play, and learn are at the heart of residence restriction laws that limit housing, employment, and “hang-out” locations for sex offenders. In practice, residence restrictions or secondary restrictions (Meloy, Miller, & Curtis, 2008) limit where sex offenders can reside, work, or be present by placing zones of various sizes (e.g., 750 feet to 2,500 feet) around schools, playgrounds, day care centers, and the like. There is some evidence that the proximity of a sex offender’s residence to places where children congregate is positively correlated with sexual reoffending (Langan & Levin, 2002; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2006; Walker et al., 2007). However, for the most part, studies indicate that the proximity of a sex offender’s residence to places frequented by minors does not increase the likelihood of reoffending (Barnes, Dukes, Tewksbury, & DeTroye, 2009; Duwe, Donnay, & Tewksbury, 2008; Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2007).

Antitherapeutic Jurisprudence?

Studies on the potential antitherapeutic consequences associated with sex offender laws suggest they may be doing more harm to offenders than they do good for society (Levenson, 2006; Levenson & Cotter, 2005; Levenson & Hern, 2007; Meloy et al., 2008; Mercado, Alvarez, & Levenson, 2008; Zandbergen & Hart, 2006). In brief, contemporary sex offender laws are believed to adversely affect many of the factors typically associated with the successful community reentry of offenders (Durling, 2006; Levenson & Cotter, 2005; Levenson & Hern, 2007; Sample & Streveler, 2003; Tewksbury & Lees, 2006; Zandbergen & Hart, 2006). Some of these factors include stable housing, stable employment, strong informal social networks, and community reintegration (see Braithwaite, 1989; Hanson & Harris, 2000; Kruttschnitt, Uggen, & Shelton, 2000; Laub, Nagin, & Sampson, 1998; Laub & Sampson, 2001; Mercado et al., 2008; Zgoba, Levenson, & McKee, 2009). The community reentry data on sex offenders and nonsexual offenders argues that deleterious outcomes on these influential factors are likely to increase reoffending and decrease offender success (see Braithwaite, 1989; Hanson & Harris, 2000; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005; Kruttschnitt et al., 2000; Petersilia, 2003; Willis & Grace, 2009). The bottom line is this: “Community protection legislation might be increasing the possibility of subsequent reoffending, a risk it is supposed to deter” (Willis, Levenson, & Ward, 2010, p. 546).

Thus, as this introduction has demonstrated, there are numerous challenges, complications, and unanswered questions surrounding sexual criminals and the legal responses directed toward them. In this study, we interviewed the men and women who created many of the laws in today’s “third wave” of sex offender legislation. The investigators wanted to better understand the views politicians have about these criminals and determine their knowledge of sex offender science. We also sought to answer how policy makers’ perceptions affect how they legislate issues related to sexual violence.

Method

Because it was important to know how state senators’ and state representatives’ perceptions on sex offending affect public policy, a national sample of legislative members was interviewed. This representative sample of policy makers comprised at least one respondent from each of the 50 states in the United States. Respondents were interviewed using a semistructured interview guide (Wengraf, 2004).² Given that this is the first known attempt to study a national sample of policy makers’ perceptions of sex offenders and sex offender laws, the research embraced several components of grounded theory (Stern, 1995; Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

In total, 61 state senators and representatives participated voluntarily in this institutional review board–approved study. A deliberately nonrandom sample was used. Policy makers who sponsored a state-level sex offender bill were targeted for inclusion. The data collection phase lasted 12 months and often required numerous attempts to reach a policy maker before a final answer on participation was given and/or an interview was completed. In 55 of the 61 interviews, the respondent participated via a recorded phone conversation. Previous research has substantiated the efficacy of this mode of data collection in qualitative research (Sturges & Hanrahan, 2004). In the remaining instances, when requested by the respondent and when time and distance permitted, a member of the research team conducted an in-person interview. Overall, these interviews almost always occurred in the policy maker’s office. The interviews were primarily 30 to 45 minutes in duration, with a significant number of interviews lasting an hour or more.

All respondents were guaranteed anonymity, and identifying information was redacted from individual responses. All of the interviews were transcribed verbatim. Additional interviews were completed until saturation was reached (Seidman, 2006). In other words, interviews continued until each state was represented in the sample and until evaluation of the transcripts indicated that no additional new information was emerging (Bowen, 2008). Reliability and validity concerns meant that at least two members of the research team independently conceptualized emerging themes and coded each transcript (Morse et al., 2002; Nahid, 2003). In the event of a disagreement between findings, an additional team researcher was to be consulted. However, there were no coding disagreements in this investigation. In addition, intracoding reliability was enhanced by having each researcher code these data at two different points in time (Morse et al., 2002; Nahid, 2003).

Participants

Of the participants (N = 61), 65% were male and 35% were female; 88% were Caucasian, 8% were African American, and 4% self-identified as non-White or non-Black. Nearly three-quarters of the participants were married and between the ages of 40 and 69 years old, and almost 90% of the sample had children. Of the respondents, 55% identified as Republicans and 45% labeled themselves as Democrats. Nearly 1 in 4 of the senators and representatives was Catholic, and the vast majority (67%) fit the description of non-Catholic Christians.

Results

Respondents were asked a series of questions via semistructured interviews (see the appendix). Results indicate the following: (a) that lawmakers were familiar with the sex offender laws in their state, (b) that victims played a central role in the creation of sex offender laws, (c) that policy makers crafted laws with specific goals and purposes in mind, (d) that lawmakers believed their laws were functioning as intended, (e) that negative outcomes were a common problem with sex offender laws, and (f) that policy makers were more optimistic that sex offender legislation can stop crimes than they were about adult sex offender therapy reducing recidivism. These findings are now discussed in greater detail.

Familiarity with State’s Sex Offender Laws

Initially, the respondents were asked noninvasive questions about their state’s sex offender laws. This was intentional in that it allowed the interviewer to develop a rapport with the respondent as well as provide information as to the depth and comprehensiveness of the policy makers’ knowledge regarding the overall sex offender legal landscape in their state. To clarify, to meet the inclusion criteria for the study, respondents had sponsored at least one sex offender law in their state. However, states often have many types of sex offender laws (e.g., registration and notification, residency restrictions, GPS monitoring, civil commitment, etc.), and research participants were asked about all of the sex offender laws in their state to assess the respondents’ overall knowledge of these issues. Findings revealed that the vast majority (78.5%) of the policy makers in the sample were familiar or very familiar with their state’s sex offender laws. Respondents who were rated as familiar or very familiar with the sex offender laws answered questions correctly at least three quarters of the time. Moreover, respondents rated as familiar or very familiar with their state’s sex offender laws were generally able to speak at length regarding the parameters of these laws as well as their background and implementation history. Beyond “familiarly” with sex offender laws, another significant finding from these data was the instrumental role that victims played in the creation of sex offender laws.

Victims as Catalyst for State Legislation

Of state senators and state representatives, 65% linked their state’s need for sex offender laws to a specific victimization. Some interesting patterns emerged regarding these victim related cases. First, most of the “influential” cases noted by respondents involved White, female, child victims. Second, most of the examples were high-profile national-level victimizations (i.e., Amber Hagerman, Megan Kanka, Jessica Lunsford, Sarah Lunde, Polly Klaas, and Samantha Runnion) rather than crimes that occurred in the politicians’ own state.

The following excerpts exemplify the most common types of responses when the interviewees were asked to discuss the influential factors that led to the creation of sex offender laws in their state.

There is almost always some kind of catalyst that is rooted in the victimization of an individual. Laws rarely come just by virtue of a general thought that it should happen. (Policy maker from a western state)

Laws tend to happen because there is a high-profile crime that occurs, either with a child or an adult, that gets a lot of news and then there is resulting legal action or resulting statutory production. You make a law based on what happened to a high-profile person or to a kid. We do have occasion where something happens in another state and therefore we then try to prevent it. (Policy maker from a Midwestern state)

The Megan Kanka case triggered a national focus on sex crimes involving minors. There is no doubt that this case explains a lot of the sex offender laws you see today. Everywhere. (Policy maker from a northeastern state)

Most of these laws are in place because these types of crimes [sex offenses against children] do [emphasis original] originate from a victim’s case. It’s because of these unfortunate and terrible crimes that we have these laws. The loopholes are bright to light and there’s a dire need for tightening up laws, to protect kids. Some examples are the Jessica Lunsford Act, the Amber Alert System and Adam Walsh Act. (Policy maker from a southeastern state)

Here in [northeastern state] it was the case in Florida. The girl in Florida, Jessica [Lunsford] was in the news a lot here and the people here, where the judges have been tapping these people [sex offenders] on the knee and saying “be a nice boy now and don’t do this again,” demanded we do something about these guys [sex offenders]. So that is what perpetrated tougher laws on sex offenders in our state. (Policy maker from a northeastern state)

Clearly, policy makers are affected by the horrible acts committed against young victims, especially those covered in the national news media. The policy makers were able to speak with great specificity about the details associated with these victimizations. It is interesting that the crimes the policy makers referenced, in response to a general question regarding how the legislative process works in their state, were often not related to sex crimes in their own jurisdiction or even in their own state.

Purpose of the Laws

The next finding from these data pertains to the goals and objectives of the state sex offender laws, as perceived by policy makers. The most frequent response for the purpose of these laws was to increase public safety (67% of respondents stated this was the number one goal of the laws), followed by a desire to mandate that sex offenders seek treatment (21%), and finally to aid in the tracking of known sex offenders (8%). Below are excerpts that illustrated each of these categories.

I personally passed three of the strongest sex offender laws in the state. We need these laws to protect children from sexual predators, especially recidivism. There’s nothing worse than seeing someone that molested a child or killed a child had a previous history of sexual assault on children and was not incarcerated. Or worse yet, you find out that “yes, the person was sentenced five years ago to a 20-year sentence yet they are out today and they just sexually assaulted a child or hurt a child.” The laws are needed to protect the citizens. (Policy maker from a southern state)

The goal is public safety. We are trying to achieve appropriate punishment for these offenders and to do more with the treatment for sex offenders. We want to require treatment options with our laws. Our correctional folks have pushed hard for that. We have a huge outcry to require more treatment of sex offenders in our laws but with budget crunches it is hard. (Policy maker from a Midwestern state)

One of the main goals for us—in our laws—is to be singularly focused on trying to make our citizens aware of who is a potential threat and to make sure that the law enforcement know who the offenders are and how to find them and be able to keep an eye on them. (Policy maker from a western state)

The finding that the primary purpose of sex offender laws is to enhance public safety will surprise few. After all, these respondents are lawmakers, so creating and passing legislation is how they respond to social ills and public pressures. Later in the article it will be revealed that policy makers are less optimistic treatment will “fix” offenders than they are about the ability of sex offender laws to stop sex crimes. Yet mandating treatment was the second most common response when asking about the goals of today’s sex offender laws. Is this an example of a “throw everything in the law but the kitchen sink” mentality to sex offender management? Could it be an example of “feel-good” policy making? Is this the influence of some other forces in the lawmaking process (i.e., prosecuting attorneys, law enforcement, sex offender therapists, etc.) or something else entirely? Without additional information, we can only speculate. More research in this area could help flush out these issues.

Are the Laws Working?

A slight majority of respondents (55%) believed that the sex offender laws in their state were working as lawmakers intended. However, 2 in 10 policy makers stated that the goals of the sex offender legislation in their state was not meeting its objectives. An almost equal percentage of the senators and representatives in this sample stated that the efficacy of their sex offender laws was simply unknown (19.7%). Here are representative examples of each response type in the order they are listed above:

Yes, I do believe the goals and objectives of our sex offender laws are being met. I don’t have any evidence to say otherwise. Yes, I sure do. This has been the hallmark of my legislative career, to pass sex offender legislation in my state. The folks that are out there and our police, the people that are out there on the front line—my job is to give them the best tools possible to succeed. Here’s one example. We had a high-profile case last summer involving a small child. It was going to be the first case where videotaped evidence was going to be used, well that sex offender pleaded guilty so we didn’t have to use it. When the defense attorney looked at his client he said “Look, you’re charged with rape of a child and they got this videotape of this three-year old explaining in great detail what you did to him, you better plead guilty.” And [the sex offender], go on and plead guilty see because we’ve got them. There’s no getting around [the incriminating evidence] now, like they have for years. (Policy maker from a southern state)

When you have repeat sex offenders in your state I don’t think the laws are working. I read in the newspaper we had a repeat sex offense and then just this morning in the X paper said a sex offender they don’t know where the hell he’s at; so, evidently not. No, I don’t think they are working. (Policy maker from a western state)

I don’t know if the laws are meeting their goals or not but I don’t think there has been any degradation in public safety. However, I do think that it has come at a high cost, if there has been any enhancement to public safety. I also believe it is highly dependent on what area you live in. If you live in the city of X [large urban area], the law enforcement is better trained on sex offender laws and crisis intervention and so forth. And the mores of the more rural areas of the state are quite different. They see sex offenders as predators and so forth and they are afraid. They have less training too; all of these affect how sex offender laws work in our state. (Policy maker from a northwestern state)

To review, the majority of lawmakers believed their sex offender laws were working. Still, nearly 4 out of 10 respondents held differing opinions. What is consistent across the categories, however, is the fact that almost all of the responses relied on anecdotal examples rather than empirical evidence to ground their positions. When “evidence” was offered to support a policy maker’s opinion, he or she typically referred to legislative testimony offered by state-level criminal justice practitioners (e.g., police chiefs, district attorneys, administrators with departments of corrections or probation and parole, etc.) or state agency reports from these same departments. Often, policy makers were aware of this shortcoming and suggested that it be rectified, although they were unable to suggest remedies. Effective dissemination of existing and new studies can begin to rectify this disconnection of information between the ivory tower and a real-world audience. Furthermore, nationally or state-funded research (i.e., an undoubtedly difficult proposition in tough economic times) directed at answering efficacy questions on sex offender laws and policies could go a long way toward resolving these important public policy issues.

Negative Outcomes of Sex Offender Laws

State senators and representatives were asked about any unexpected outcomes associated with the sex offender laws they sponsored. Only 7 of the 61 policy makers interviewed (11.5%) believed there were no negative outcomes from sex offender laws, with nearly 89% of respondents indicating at least one serious negative consequence. Half of the “unexpected outcomes” group mentioned multiple problems (up to three) with their state’s sex offender laws. The most common criticism of these laws, according to the policy makers, is that they are overly broad (44%).

You have sex abductors who rape, and they are very serious and then you have teenagers who are only a few years apart in age and you can have an 18-year-old getting a class two felony for having sex with a 14-year-old and he is treated the same as if he went out and raped someone. This does not make sense in today’s world. But the public perception is out there that they are the same. (Policy maker from a southwestern state)

The next most common negative outcome that was noted by respondents was associated with residence restrictions. Nearly 2 in 10 respondents described something negative regarding this form of sex offender law (i.e., limits and restrictions on where sex offenders can live, work, or be physically present).

Certainly the unanticipated consequence of our safe zones is that we are driving sex assaulters, who have been on the registry, underground. In part this is because in communities in X state, it’s a little bit impossible to find a place to live that isn’t near a playground or too near a school, so [sex offenders] end up relocating to rural areas. Getting off the grid, so to speak, and we lose track of them. This was an unintended consequence. (Policy maker from a western state)

The other most prevalent categories of negative consequences were (a) problems tracking sex offenders (10.0%) (i.e., sex offenders moving from one state to another and failing to re-register), (b) difficulties associated with the unfunded mandates of the laws (5.0%), (c) the creation of a false sense of security (3.3%), (d) antitherapeutic nature of the laws (3.3%), and (e) vigilantism against sex offenders (3.3%). The case of vigilantism that was mentioned by one policy maker was the retributive murder of a registered sex offender. He was shot and killed as he answered his front door. The shooter obtained the name and residence information of this sex offender from the state’s registry.

In sum, the majority of policy makers identified at least one significant negative outcome associated with sex offender laws that they helped to write and get passed in their state legislature. In addition, one out of every two respondents who spoke about unanticipated consequences actually mentioned up to three problem areas (see the list above). These findings can be interrupted as a sign of the candor and forthrightness of the respondents, adding to the validity of these research findings.

Legislative Response or Sex Offender Treatment?

Respondents were asked to assess whether they believed their state’s sex offender laws were necessary to keep sex offenders from reoffending. More than 65% of the sample agreed or strongly agreed that sex offender laws played a critical role in deterring future sex crimes. Here is one policy maker’s response to the statement “all or most adult sex offenders will continue to reoffend unless these laws are in place.”

Policy maker:

I agree with this statement.

Interviewer:

Can you explain to me why you feel this way?

Policy maker:

I am basing this just on the evidence that we’ve been presented with in our committee meetings. It’s been told to us that the propensity of sex offenders to reoffend at some point is high without receiving appropriate supervision. Our laws accomplish this. (Policy maker from a Midwestern state)

Still, nearly 2 of 10 sponsoring politicians now disagreed with the belief that their state’s sex offender laws were necessary to keep sex offenders from committing another sex crime. Here’s an example of why one policy maker disagreed with the statement that “all or most adult sex offenders will continue to reoffend unless these laws are in place.”

Policy maker:

I disagree that sex offenders will continue to offend without these laws.

Interviewer:

Can you explain why?

Policy maker:

I don’t think the evidence has shown us that.

Interviewer:

Do you mean empirical evidence?

Policy maker:

Yes. There’s a lot of excellent scientific studies on the topic. I know most about the ones on residence restrictions. They simply don’t work, there is no efficacy there. (Policy maker for a northeastern state)

Finally, 10% of the respondents were neutral on this issue. In other words, only 1 in 10 of the policy makers who were interviewed failed to have a positive or negative position on the efficacy of sex offender laws. However, here is an excerpt from a policy maker who did take a neutral position on this issue:

Policy maker:

You know, I guess I would be neutral on that.

Interviewer:

OK, and can I ask you to elaborate as to why?

Policy maker:

Well, the reason I would be neutral on that is because first and foremost each individual is different and each individual case is different and I think that there are certain individuals that are going to be engaged in this behavior no matter what. But there are others, you know I don’t think that they would ever repeat their crimes. I think the reason I am neutral on this is because you have to look at each case individually, and our laws don’t do that. To be quite honest with you, you know, we do these laws for the comfort of society. Society wants their legislatures to be tough on crime and tough on this and tough on that, but they especially want you to be tough on taboo things, so you know, part of it is on the books simply because society wants it there. I sure, I hope to God you are telling me right that this is confidential because I would never say this out loud to anyone or anywhere.

Interviewer:

I absolutely assure you that your responses are confidential and that your name is not going forward with your comments and will not be tied to you individually in any way. (Policy maker from a southwestern state)

In sum, although there were variations in the responses regarding the significance and efficacy of sex offender laws, the majority of lawmakers voiced support for sex offender laws.

Next, respondents were asked to discuss their views on the effectiveness of sex offender therapy. Half of the respondents (49.5%) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “sex offender treatment for adult offenders is an effective method to prevent or reduce sexual violence.” Here is an example of one policy maker who advocates for the use of sex offender treatment:

I agree that sex offender treatment can deter sexual offenders. We have an extraordinary program currently going on in our prison system and the reports tell us that a fairly small number of the people who have been through that program in our facility have reoffended after release. (Policy maker from a northeastern state)

Next, roughly 25% of the state senators and representatives disagreed or strongly disagreed with the ability of sex offender treatment to increase public safety from sex offenders. Here is how one of these policy makers responded to the statement “sex offender treatment for adult offenders is an effective method to prevent or reduce sexual violence”:

Policy maker:

I have two words for that, if you can handle my response.

Interviewer:

OK.

Policy maker:

“Bull shit.”

Interviewer:

I am going to interpret that to mean you strongly disagree with the statement.

Policy maker:

Yes I do. A sex offender is harming women and children, mostly children. The only way that you can stop these offenders that harm children is to take them off the street. (Policy maker from a northeastern state)

Finally, nearly one in four respondents were neutral on the issue of whether sex offender therapy is an effective means to curbing sexual recidivism. What is particularly interesting is that 25% of the policy makers had no opinion about the efficacy of sex offender treatment, and only 10% of respondents had no opinion on the efficacy of sex offender laws. See how one “neutral” policy maker discusses her position on sex offender treatment:

Policy maker:

I am neutral on this one.

Interviewer:

And can I ask you to elaborate as to why?

Policy maker:

Because I am not convinced that the individual, once they’ve gone this far, to commit a sex crime, can ever be fixed. No one has ever been able to convince me that this stuff [treatment for sex offenders] really works. (Policy maker from a southeastern state)

To conclude, although there is variability in the views that policy makers from across the country hold on whether legal responses or therapeutic interventions can curb sexual violence, the overall pattern indicates that these policy makers prefer legal remedies. Perhaps this is to be expected given that policy makers—by definition—are empowered to deal with social problems through legislative means. And rather than being substantive experts in a singular area, they are generalists on many issues. As such, a sample of clinicians or other applied personnel working in the field of sex offender management may perceive these issues differently. We are currently conducting research in hopes of addressing this issue. To be more precise, this research team is interviewing a nationally representative sample of criminal justice practitioners who specialize in the community supervision of released sex offenders. The goal with this newer research is to learn how this group of respondents views sex offenders and sex offender laws. Research questions such as “What do prosecuting attorneys, parole and probation agents, and law enforcement officers view as the most—and least—effective sex offender policies?” guide this work. Also, we are investigating if policy makers and practitioners agree on the best practices for successful sex offender management.

Discussion

This investigation is the first to study the perceptions that policy makers from across the country have on adult sex offenders and state-level U.S. sex offender laws. Policy makers with a history of sex offender bill sponsorship were sought out for this study under the pretense that they would have a deeper understanding of the sex offender laws in their state and a greater command of the science pertaining to sexual violence. These interviews (N = 61) revealed that, on average, policy makers were familiar with the sex offender laws in their state and that the laws were created with a specific purpose and goal. Respondents further indicated that sex offender laws were created in response to a high-profile victimization. Moreover, it was confirmed that the primary goals of sex offender laws are public safety and treatment mandates. Respondents believed the laws were generally achieving this objective. Respondents also tended to agree that the laws were needed to keep sex offenders from reoffending and that sex offender therapy was probably less effective at reducing recidivism than targeted sex offender laws.

It was not all “hip, hip, hooray” for sex offender laws, however. Politicians were aware of many shortcomings and pitfalls often associated with sex offender legislation. Moreover, many of the policy makers demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the laws’ real-life problems. For instance, respondents noted that offenders often attempt to avoid registration mandates by “going underground” and hiding from authorities. Policy makers also noted that many of their own sex offender laws are overly broad so that they apply to nonserious offenders more often than they should. The tracking of offenders, unfunded mandates, and the dilemma of sex offender laws creating a false sense of security were serious concerns for some policy makers. Finally, vigilantism was a recorded problem in at least one state.

Influential elected officials have a host of ideas and perceptions about this type of crime and offender, but these views are often not based on science. Research such as this could help transform “shoot-from-the-hip” policy making into “informed policy making” by integrating scientific outcomes into legal responses. Stated slightly differently, policy makers and the public should be more educated on the science of sexual violence and sexual offending. For instance, one seldom-disputed fact is that most sex crimes—especially against children—occur between individuals who know one another, reside together, or are related to one another. Yet policy makers and the public tend to view strangers as posing the greatest risk of sexual violence. Clearly, the latter victim–offender relationship is a more difficult situation to rectify through legislative means. Is this why it is missing from the public discourse?

It is also important that the scientific outcomes associated with sex offender laws, many of which were sponsored by these same policy makers, be made available so that their creators can adjust their legal responses, if necessary. Academics, applied professionals, and news media need to do more to rectify the gap between “feel-good” polices and “do-good” policies (e.g., scientifically based outcome studies). For instance, scholars and academic institutions could prioritize and become more savvy at “marketing” their scientific outcomes. In other words, researchers need to disseminate findings beyond the relatively small and isolated academic community that is the typical consumer (i.e., “preaching to the choir” phenomenon). And we need to make this information understandable, interesting, and relevant to society much the same way that new health information, published in scholarly medical journals, is currently considered “newsworthy” and thus covered in mainstream media forums and news outlets. Stated another way, we academics need to translate our work in a way that has meaning and importance to the public and its policy makers. Developing best practices for sex offender management must be guided by solid scientific results, not just grounded in retribution, or there will be no winners. More solid research, preferably experimental or quasi-experimental, is desperately needed in this arena to aid in the formulation of these best practices for sex offender management.

In closing, it is necessary to acknowledge the limitations of this study. For instance, the reliability and validity of the findings discussed here are related to temporal factors. More specifically, because interviews were conducted over a 12-month period, it is impossible to know if the opinions and perceptions of any interviewees changed over time and, if so, as the result of which factors. Furthermore, it is difficult to accurately estimate to what extent responses may have been affected by the politically sensitive nature (or perceived consequences) of the question areas or to what extent, if at all, the respondents answered in the way they believed the interviewers or the public would want them to answer. Finally, because of the relatively small sample size and grounded theory nature of the study, we cannot be certain to what extent the findings are generalizable to the overall population of legislators.

Footnotes

Appendix

Authors’ Note:

The authors extend a heart-felt thank-you to all of the policy makers who participated in this study. You made this research possible. We also deeply appreciate the guidance and suggestions from the anonymous reviewers. This article is a better product because of you.

Notes

Michelle Meloy is an associate professor and graduate program director in the Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Criminal Justice, Rutgers University–Camden. Her research and publication interests include gender and crime, sexual violence and victimization, and criminal justice policy.

Kristin Curtis obtained her bachelor’s and master’s degrees in criminal justice from Rutgers University–Camden. She is a senior project coordinator at the Walter Rand Institute for Public Policy at Rutgers University–Camden. Her research and publication interests include offender reentry, juvenile delinquency, sexual offenders, sex crimes, and victim’s issues.

Jessica Boatwright obtained her bachelor’s and master’s degrees in criminal justice from Rutgers University–Camden. She is a graduate researcher with the Walter Rand Institute in Public Policy at Rutgers University–Camden and a PhD student in the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at the University of Delaware. Her research and publication interests include gender, race and crime, and both quantitative and qualitative methods.

References

Alexander

M. A.

(1999). Sexual offender treatment efficacy revisited. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 11, 101-116.

Aos

Phipps

Barnoski

Lieb

(2001). The comparative costs and benefits of programs to reduce crime. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved from http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/costbenefit.pdf

Barnes

J. C.

Dukes

Tewksbury

DeTroye

(2009). Analyzing the impact of a statewide residence restriction law on South Carolina sex offenders. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20, 21-43.

Bowen

(2008). Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept. Qualitative Research, 8, 137-152.

Braithwaite

(1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Durling

(2006). Never going home: Does it make us safer? Does it make sense? Sex offenders, residency restrictions, and reforming risk management law. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 97, 317-380.

Duwe

Donnay

Tewksbury

(2008). Does residential proximity matter? A spatial analysis of sex offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 484-504.

Greenfeld

(1997). Sex offenses and offenders: An analysis of data on rape and sexual assault (NCJ-163392). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs.

Hall

(1995). Sex offender recidivism revisited: A meta-analysis of recent treatment studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 802-809.

10.

Hall

(2007). A profile of pedophilia: Definition, characteristics of offenders, recidivism, treatment outcomes, and forensic issues. Mayo Clinical Proceedings, 82, 457-471.

11.

Hanson

R. K.

Bourgon

Helmus

Hodgson

(2009). The principles of effective correctional treatment also apply to sexual offenders: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 865-891.

12.

Hanson

R. K.

Bussière

M. T.

(1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348-362.

13.

Hanson

R. K.

Gordon

Harris

A. J. R.

Marques

J. K.

Murphy

Quinsey

V. L.

Seto

M. C.

(2002). First report of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of psychological treatments for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 169-194.

14.

Hanson

R. K.

Harris

A. J. R.

(2000). Where should we intervene? Dynamic predictors of sexual assault recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 348-362.

15.

Hanson

R. K.

Harris

A. J. R.

Scott

T. L.

Helmus

(2007). Assessing the risk of sexual offenders on community supervision: The dynamic supervision project. Ottawa: Public Safety Canada.

16.

Hanson

R. K.

Morton-Bourgon

K. E.

(2005). The characteristics of persistent sex offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1154-1163.

17.

Koss

(1988). Hidden rape: Sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of students in higher education. In Burgess

(Ed.), Rape and sexual assault (pp. 51-70), New York, NY: Garland.

18.

Kruttschnitt

Uggen

Shelton

(2000). Predictors of desistance among sex offenders: The interaction of formal and informal social controls. Justice Quarterly, 17, 62-87.

19.

Langan

P. A.

Levin

D. J.

(2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

20.

Laub

Nagin

Sampson

(1998). Trajectories of change in criminal offending: Good marriages and the desistance process. American Sociological Review, 63, 225-238.

21.

Laub

Sampson

(2001). Understanding desistance from crime. In Tonry

(Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 28, pp. 1-69). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

22.

Levenson

(2006). Sex offender residence restrictions. Sex Offender Law Report, 7, 46-47.

23.

Levenson

Cotter

(2005). The impact of sex offender residence restrictions: 1,000 feet from danger or one step from absurd? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 168-178.

24.

Levenson

Hern

(2007). Sex offender residence restrictions: Unintended consequences and community reentry. Justice Research and Policy, 9, 59-73.

25.

Lösel

Schmucker

(2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 117-146.

26.

Mandeville-Norden

Beech

(2004). Community-based treatment of sex offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 10, 193-214.

27.

Meloy

M. L.

(2006). Sex offenses and the men who commit them. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

28.

Meloy

M. L.

Miller

S. L.

Curtis

K. M.

(2008). Making sense out of nonsense: The deconstruction of state-level sex offender residence restrictions. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 209-222.

29.

Mercado

Alvarez

Levenson

(2008). The impact of specialized sex offender legislation on community reentry. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 20, 188-205.

30.

Minnesota Department of Corrections. (2007). Residential proximity & sex offense recidivism in Minnesota. St. Paul: Author.

31.

Morse

Barrett

Mayan

Olson

Spiers

Hon

(2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. Journal of Qualitative Research, 1, 1-19.

32.

Nahid

(2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Report, 18, 597-607.

33.

Petersilia

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

34.

Quinsey

Rice

Harris

(1995). Actuarial prediction of sexual recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10(1) 85-105.

35.

Rice

Harris

(2003). The size and sign of treatment effects in sex offender therapy. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 428-440.

36.

Russell

(1984). Sexual exploitation: Rape, child sexual abuse, and workplace harassment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

37.

Sample

Streveler

(2003). Latent consequences of community notification laws. In Decker

S. H.

Alaird

L. F.

Katz

C. M.

(Eds.), Controversies in criminal justice (pp. 353-362). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

38.

Schram

D. D.

Milloy

C. D.

(1995). Community notification: A study of offender characteristics and recidivism (Report prepared for the Washington State Institute for Public Policy). Seattle, WA: Urban Policy Research.

39.

Seidman

(2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

40.

Seto

Marques

Harris

Chaffin

Lalumière

Miner

. . .Quinsey

(2008). Good science and progress in sex offender treatment are intertwined. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 20, 247-255.

41.

Snyder

(2000). Sexual assault of young children as reported to law enforcement: Victim, incident, and offender characteristics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

42.

Stern

P. N.

(1995). Grounded theory methodology: Its uses and processes. Image, 12, 20-23.

43.

Strauss

Corbin

(1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

44.

Sturges

Hanrahan

(2004). Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: A research note. Qualitative Research, 4, 117-118.

45.

Terry

(2005). Sexual offenses and offenders: Theory, practice, and policy. New York, NY: Wadsworth.

46.

Tewksbury

Lees

(2006). Consequences of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26, 309-334.

47.

Tewksbury

Jennings

(2010). Assessing the impact of sex offender registration and community notification on sex offending trajectories. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 570-582.

48.

Tewksbury

Mustaine

(2006). Where to find sex offenders: An examination of residential locations and neighborhood conditions. Criminal Justice Studies, 19, 61-75.

49.

Walker

(2007). Eliminate residence restrictions for sex offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 6, 863-870.

50.

Wengraf

(2004). Qualitative research interviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

51.

Willis

Grace

(2009). Assessment of community reintegration planning for sex offenders. Poor planning predicts recidivism. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 36, 494-512

52.

Willis

G. M.

Levenson

Ward

(2010). Desistance and attitudes towards sex offenders: Facilitation or hindrance? Journal of Family Violence, 25, 545-556.

53.

Zandbergen

Hart

(2006). Reducing housing options for convicted sex offenders: Investigating the impact of residency restriction laws using GIS. Justice Research and Policy, 8, 1-24.

54.

Zgoba

Levenson

McKee

(2009). Examining the impact of sex offender residence restrictions on housing availability. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20, 91-110.

55.

Zgoba

Witt

Dalessandro

Veysey

(2008). Megan’s law: Assessing the practical and monetary efficacy (Report on Grant Award 2006-IJ-CX-0018). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.