Releasing a sex offender from prison or placing the offender on community-based sanctions, only to have the offender commit a new sex crime, is a policy-maker's worst nightmare. Fueled by misperceptions and public fear, sex offender laws have developed piecemeal and without rigorous empirical insight and testing. While policies and practices are well-intended, they are unlikely to resolve the very real social problem of sexual violence and may inadvertently increase victimization. Such is the possibility with residence restrictions. This type of law is among the newest in an ever-growing barrage of legislation designed specifically for sexual criminals yet what little research that exists suggests there is no correlation between residence and sexual recidivism. This article identifies 30 states with statelevel residence restrictions and conducts a content analysis of each state's legislation. Geographical and other assessments are also conducted.

No abstract

No 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.

Using rich narratives provided by youth, this research examines the holistic role of mentors in the lives of young people coming of age in an impoverished and dangerous context (n = 44). Mentees experienced household adversities (e.g. parental separation, substance abuse, familial incarceration) and community violence (e.g. neighborhood shootings, gangs, and assaults). Mentors provided emotional support, educational support, and protection from harm. In addition, youths experienced mentor versatility. Mentors were perceived as effective in aiding the youths’ resilience and at helping them navigate multiple levels of stressors and criminogenic conditions.