Sexually violent predator (SVP) statutes define some sex offenders as dangerous enough to be segregated from society, but then require their release into local communities. This article examines how decision makers and community members interpret and respond to this inherent contradiction during disputes over SVP placements. The article departs from traditional moral panic explanations of reactions to sex offenders by linking literature on local siting conflicts to insights from legal mobilization studies in order to understand the origins and features of community opposition to sex offenders. Data from three case studies of SVP placements in California suggest that interpretations of what I call legal signals, or implicit messages embedded in state laws, produced these conflicts. The findings shed new light on the role of law in siting conflicts and collective action by explaining how state laws facilitate communities' exclusion from siting decisions, encourage local opposition, and disempower already marginalized communities.

No abstract

No abstract

Sex offender residence restrictions are largely symbolic laws that address constituent demands to do something about sex crimes without actually reducing sex offenses. While the majority of US states have implemented such restrictions, this exploratory study examines three states that have resisted the allure of these symbolic laws. Using data from state government archives, we analyze expressive and instrumental rationales for rejecting residence restrictions to explore what facilitates the failure of a symbolic law. We find that while supporters and opponents both made largely instrumental arguments, opponents framed their instrumental arguments in expressive terms. Legislators’ policy positions, reliance on empirical evidence, and testimony from bureaucrats also contributed to the failure of residence restrictions in these states. Our findings help explain why empirically ineffective sex offender laws appeal to the public and politicians, how these laws might be scaled back, and how symbolic laws may lose their power in some contexts.