Recently, several states have enacted legislation that restricts sex offenders from living in close proximity to certain areas in an effort to counter recidivism and alleviate community safety concerns. The South Carolina Legislature is currently debating two pieces of legislation that would prohibit registered sex offenders from living in close proximity to schools, daycare centers, child recreational facilities, parks, playgrounds, bus stops, and other areas where children are known to congregate. Given the recent emergence of residence restriction statutes, insufficient research has examined their impact on offenders, communities, and the criminal justice system. Using spatial analysis, four of the six South Carolina counties with the highest number of registered sex offenders are examined in relation to the effects of the two proposed statewide residence restriction laws. Implications concerning offender access to housing and treatment opportunities are discussed along with potential effects to local communities and the criminal justice system.
Adkins, G.A., Huff, D., & Stageberg, P. (2000). The Iowa sex offender registry and recidivism . Des Moines: Iowa Department of Human Rights, Division of Criminal Juvenile Justice Planning and Statistical Analysis Center.
2.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003). Recidivism of sex offenders released from prison in 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
3.
Cohen, L.E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608.
4.
Collins, J.J., Cox, B.G., & Langan, P.A. (1987). Job activities and personal crime victimization: Implications for theory. Social Science Research, 16, 345-360.
5.
Colorado Department of Public Safety. (2004 ). Report on safety issues raised by living arrangements for and location of sex offenders in the community. Denver, CO: Sex Offender Management Board.
6.
Council of State Governments. (2007). Out of bounds: States reconsider sex offender management through residency restrictions. Retrieved May 9, 2008, from http://www.csg.org/policy/pubsafety/pubs.aspx.
7.
Cromwell, P.F., Dunham, R., Akers, R., & Lanza- Kaduce, L. (1995). Routine activities and social control in the aftermath of a natural catastrophe. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 3(3), 56-69.
8.
Edwards, W., & Hensley, C. (2001). Contextualizing sex offender management legislation and policy: Evaluating the problem of latent consequences in community notification laws. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45, 83-101.
9.
Freeman-Longo, R.E. (1996). Prevention or problem?Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 8, 91-100.
10.
Gibson, C.L., Zhao, J., Lovrich, N.P., & Gaffney, M.J. (2002). Social integration, individual perceptions of collective efficacy, and fear of crime in three cities. Justice Quarterly, 19, 537-564.
11.
Grubesic, T.H., Mack, E., & Murray, T. (2007). Geographic exclusion: Spatial analysis for evaluating the implications of Megan's law. Social Science Computer Review , 25, 143-162.
12.
Hanson, R.K., Gordon, A., Harris, A.J.R., Marques, J.K., Murphy, W., Quinsey, V.L., et al. (2002). First report of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of treatment for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 169-194.
13.
Hanson, R.K., & Harris, A.J.R. (1998). Dynamic predictors of sexual recidivism. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
14.
Hanson, R.K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2004). Predictors of sexual recidivism: An updated meta-analysis. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Public Works and Government Services.
15.
Kennedy, L.W., & Forde, D.R. (1990). Routine activities and crime: An analysis of victimization in Canada. Criminology, 28, 137-152.
16.
Kennedy, L.W., & Forde, D.R. (1999). When push comes to shove: A routine conflict approach to violence. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
17.
Kennedy, L.W., & Sacco, V.F. (1998). Crime victims in context. Los Angeles: Roxbury.
18.
Kruttschnitt, C., Uggen, C., & Shelton, K. (2000). Predictors of desistance among sex offenders: The interaction of formal and informal social controls. Justice Quarterly, 17, 61-87.
19.
Lasley, J.R. (1989). Drinking routines/lifestyles and predatory victimization: A causal analysis. Justice Quarterly, 6, 529-542.
20.
Levenson, J.S. (in press). Sex offender residence restrictions. Sex Offender Law Report . Civil Research Institute.
21.
Levenson, J.S., & Cotter, L.P. (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.
22.
Levenson, J.S., & Hern, A. (2006). Sex offender residence restrictions: Unintended consequences and community re-entry. Justice Research and Policy, 9(2), 59-73.
23.
Linden, L., & Rockoff, J. (2006). There goes the neighborhood? Estimates of the impact of crime risk on property values from Megan's law (working paper 12253) . Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
24.
Losel, F., & Schmucker, M. (2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology , 1, 117-146.
25.
Marques, J.K., Miederanders, M., Day, D.M., Nelson, C., & van Ommeren, A. (2005). Effects of a relapse prevention program on sexual recidivism: Final results from California's sex offender treatment and evaluation project (SOTEP). Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 79-107.
26.
Matson, S., & Lieb, R. (1996). Sex offender registration: A review of state laws . Olympia : Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Evergreen College.
27.
Minnesota Department of Corrections. (2003 ). Level three sex offenders residential placement issues. St. Paul: Author.
28.
Minnesota Department of Corrections. (2007 ). Residential proximity and sex offense recidivism in Minnesota . St. Paul: Author.
29.
Mustaine, E.E., & Tewksbury, R. (1998a). Specifying the role of alcohol in predatory victimization . Deviant Behavior, 19, 173-199.
30.
Mustaine, E.E., & Tewksbury, R. (1998b). Victimization risks at leisure: A gender-specific analysis. Violence and Victims, 13, 231-249.
31.
Mustaine, E.E., & Tewksbury, R. (1999). A routine activity theory explanation for women's stalking victimizations. Violence Against Women, 5, 43-62.
32.
Mustaine, E.E., Tewksbury, R., & Stengel, K.M. (2006). Residential location and mobility of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice30(2), 177-192.
33.
Nieto, M., & Jung, D. (2006). The impact of residence restrictions on sex offenders and correctional management practices: A literature review. Sacramento: California Research Bureau.
34.
Sampson, R.J. (1987). Neighborhood and crime: The structural determinants of personal victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 7-40.
35.
Shaw, C., & McKay, H. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36.
South Carolina House of Representatives Bill 3094, Session 117. (2007).
37.
South Carolina House of Representatives Bill 3790, Session 117. (2007).
38.
Tewksbury, R. (2007). Exile at home: The unintended collateral consequences of sex offender residency restrictions. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 42, 531-540.
39.
Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E.E. (2006). Where to find sex offenders: An examination of residential locations and neighborhood conditions. Criminal Justice Studies, 19(1), 61-75.
40.
Tewksbury, R. & Mustaine, E.E. (in press-a). Collateral consequences and community re-entry for registered sex offenders with child victims: Are the challenges even greater?Journal of Offender Rehabilitation.
41.
Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E.E. (in press-b). Where registered sex offenders live: Community characteristics and proximity to possible victims. Victims & Offenders.
42.
Tewksbury, R., Mustaine, E.E., & Stengel, K.M. (2007). Residential concentrations of rural registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(2), 49-63.
43.
Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission. ( 2001). Assessing risk among sex offenders in Virginia. Richmond, VA: Author.
44.
Walker, J.T., Golden, J.W., & VanHouten, A.C. (2001). The geographic link between sex offenders and potential victims: A routine activities approach. Justice Research and Policy, 3(2), 15-33.
45.
Welchans, S. (2005). Megan's law: Evaluations of sexual offender registries . Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16, 123-140.
46.
Zandbergen, P.A., & Hart, T.C. (2006). Reducing housing options for convicted sex offenders: Investigating the impact of residency restriction laws using GIS. Justice Research and Policy, 8(2), 1-24.
47.
Zevitz, R.G. (2004). Sex offender placement and neighborhood social integration: The making of a scarlet letter community. Criminal Justice Studies, 17, 203-222.
