A False Sense of Security: Moral Panic Driven Sex Offender Legislation

Abstract

Data collected from correctional files of sex offenders managed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation were analyzed to explore the degree to which sex offender behavior meets the assumptions of the legislation intended to regulate their behavior. The study asked where offenders commit their sex crimes and the likelihood of choosing a known vs. a stranger victim. The concept of moral panic is used as a framework to discuss possible motivations for current sex offender legislation.

A cross-sectional exploration of household financial reactions and homebuyer awareness of registered sex offenders in a rural, suburban, and urban county.

“…Second, the evidence does not support that (sexual) contacts/offenses are associated with residency restrictions, and/or conducted between an offender and the victim at the proscribed venues like parks or schools (Colombino et al, 2011;Maguire & Singer, 2011;Meloy et al, 2008). For instance, less than five percent (4.4%) of RSOs encountered their victims at these prohibited locations (Colombino et al, 2011).…”

“…Sex offender legislation is regarded as one of the most far-reaching pieces of law that have been enforced onto a subset of criminal offenders, designed to protect vulnerable populations from (potential) sex offenders (Letourneau, Levenson, Bandyopadhyay, Sinha, & Armstrong, 2010;Maguire & Singer, 2011;Meloy, Miller, & Curtis, 2008;Nobles, Levenson, & Youstin, 2012). However, the supposed claims of sex offender registration and community notification are incongruous with the scholarly literature, which has suggested that the efficacies of these legislative procedures are questionable (Agan & Prescott, 2014;Letourneau et al, 2010;Prescott & Rockoff, 2011;Sperber, Lowenkamp, Carter, & Allman, 2010;Tewksbury & Jennings, 2010;Zevitz, 2006 (Chajewski & Mercado, 2009;Colombino, Mercado, Levenson, & Jeglic, 2011;Maguire & Singer, 2011;Nobles et al, 2012;Prescott & Rockoff, 2011;Socia, 2012b;Sperber et al, 2010). These legal provisions mandated upon RSOs have not achieved their purported claims, and discriminatory acts against RSOs reinforced by sex offender policies have encouraged their relocations into disadvantaged, vulnerable, and/or rural communities (Chajewski & Mercado, 2009;Clark & Duwe, 2015;Hipp et al, 2010;Mustaine et al, 2006aMustaine et al, , 2006bSloas et al, 2012;Socia, 2012a;Tewksbury et al, 2016).…”

“…Sex offender policies were enacted without much evidence to support their purported effectiveness, and have failed to live up to their stated premises because they are misguided and counterproductive (Barnes et al, 2009;Berenson & Appelbaum, 2011;Burchfield & Mingus, 2008Colombino et al, 2011;CSG, 2010;Letourneau et al, 2010;Maguire & Singer, 2011;Meloy et al, 2008;Nobles et al, 2012;Socia, 2011Socia, , 2012aSocia, , 2012bSperber et al, 2010;Tewksbury & Jennings, 2010;Zevitz, 2006). Regardless of the unintended repercussions that arise from the passage of these sex offender laws, policymakers and public officials agreed that they had successfully addressed and satisfied the public's demand for action against the prevention of future sex offenses (Sample & Kadleck, 2008).…”

“…Residency restrictions are cited as illusions of safety (Nobles et al, 2012) (Maguire & Singer, 2011). Creating buffer zones of varying distances around the properties of RSOs to assess for fluctuating home selling prices due to "community fear"…”

“…Community members are unable to engage effectively in protective behaviors because they have not adequately informed themselves about nearby RSOs (Levenson et al, 2007a;Levenson & Cotter, 2005). Though, members of the community should be more concerned about the potential sexual victimization conducted by family members as opposed to strangers (Colombino et al, 2011;Maguire & Singer, 2011).…”