Although ample evidence demonstrates that sex crime policies focused on "stranger danger" types of offenses that occur in public places do little, if anything, to reduce sex crime, we have much less data with which to inform primary prevention strategies. Using archival data collected from the files of 1468 sex offenders, this study provides empirical data on offense location and how it varies by victim-offender relationship. Though 4% of cases occurred in areas normally restricted by residence restrictions or child safety zone legislation, only 0.05% of the offenses were perpetrated by a stranger against a minor victim in a restricted location. By providing narrative descriptions of the types of sex crimes that occur in child-dense locations, this study provides a richer and more contextualized notion of the nature of risk in public-restricted locations. Given the infrequent occurrence of sex crimes in child-dense locations, it is argued that tertiary sex crime prevention efforts ought to focus on where sex crimes most frequently occur (i.e., in the home and by known perpetrators) and that resources be shifted to primary prevention.

Whether a criminal defendant will be released on bail or held in jail pretrial is one of the first decisions made in a criminal prosecution. This study examined whether a certain group of defendants is subject to the setting of higher bonds by virtue of the subjectively perceived nature of the offense with which the defendants are charged. We specifically tested whether, despite lower overall rearrest rates, judges are imposing higher bonds on defendants charged with a sex offense than on defendants charged with a nonsex offense of equal statutory offense level. Results showed a statistically significant difference in the bond rates between sex offenders and nonsex offenders, with the mean sex offense bond being set approximately $30,000 higher than the mean nonsex offense bond, despite controlling for level of offense, sex of the defendant, and judge setting the bond amount. Given the high costs of pretrial detention to both the defendant and the state, the utility of empirically based bond setting is discussed.