Registration, Residency Restrictions, and Community Notification: A Social Capital Perspective on the Isolation of Registered Sex Offenders in Our Communities

Abstract

This article highlights the importance of social capital for registered sex offenders who are reintegrating back into their communities. Although not always identified among community corrections, the sex offender registry creates a punitive atmosphere that diminishes the amount of available social capital for all involved-community members, sex offenders, and the government. Lost social capital contributes to recidivism, reentry problems, and mental health issues among registered sex offenders. We argue that deterrent and protective features of the sex offender registry are overemphasized and the goal of reintegration has been undermined. The loss of social capital exacerbates (1) the minimization of trust, (2) low expectations of rehabilitation and reentry, (3) limited contact and information from role models, (4) increased access to criminal capital, (5) formal sanctioning power of the registry, and (6) loss of sanctioning power from family and communities. Through this in-depth analysis, we argue that the current state of the registry system harms the social capital of all involved when a sex offense occurs -not just the offender-and we assess directions for future practices, as well as policy implications.

Ashamed and Alone

“…In a similar way, excessive shame from being associated with the registry or from having a loved one on the registry can lead to disintegrative shame (Braithwaite, 1989), which hinders offenders’ reintegration into society and increases stress triggers associated with recidivism (Petersilia, 2003; Tewksbury, 2005). Although prior research examines the existence of social isolation and shame as emotional unintended consequences of the sex offender registry (Bailey & Sample, 2017; Edwards & Hensley, 2001; Farkas & Miller, 2007; Tewksbury, 2005; Tewksbury & Lees, 2006; Tolson & Klein, 2015), to date, there have been no systematic examinations in the variation and predictors of these two consequences. The current study attempted to fill that gap by examining variations of social isolation and shame for registered sex offenders and their FMs.…”

“…Sex offender FMs are also potentially affected by these unintended consequences, depending on how closely the FMs are associated with their registrant loved one (Farkas & Miller, 2007). Scholars find that sex offender FMs experience similar unintended consequences of SORN laws including housing and employment difficulties, public harassment, and high levels of stress (Bailey & Sample, 2017; Farkas & Miller, 2007; Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009; Tewksbury & Levenson, 2009; Tolson & Klein, 2015).…”

“…Braithwaite (1989) argued that when offenders are outcast through disintegrative means, they tend to isolate themselves away from those who are the source of the shaming. Scholars find evidence of these self-isolating behaviors; registered sex offenders who feel stigmatized and ostracized may break away from community norms and abandon any available social capital (Burchfield & Mingus, 2008; Tolson & Klein, 2015) and may even socially or physically disappear as a way to mitigate the shame they are experiencing (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004; Marshall, Anderson, & Fernandez, 1999). Public identification and ostracism of registered sex offenders are therefore not conducive with reintegrative shaming efforts.…”

“…Scholars have documented the existence of both shame and social isolation in registrant and FMs samples (Bailey & Sample, 2017; Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009; Tewksbury & Levenson, 2009; Tolson & Klein, 2015), but to date there has been no systematic examination of how shame and social isolation vary within both populations. Although FMs may be experiencing “courtesy stigma” (Edwards & Hensley, 2001) similar to that of their sex offender loved ones, it is reasonable to expect that registrants and FMs have slightly different experiences due to differences in direct and indirect association with the sex offender registry.…”

Punitive Attitudes Toward Sex Offenders: Do Moral Panics Cause Community Members to Be More Punitive?

“…As previously discussed, the legislation of the early 1990s was mandated as a way to control and supervise sex offenders while increasing community member awareness of the whereabouts of sex offenders postconviction. These laws are associated with unintended consequences, and researchers have consistently documented that RSOs have problems with unemployment (Klein, Tolson, & Collins, 2014; Tewksbury, 2004, 2005; Tolson & Klein, 2015); finding permanent, suitable housing (Chajewski & Mercado, 2008; Levenson & D’Amora, 2007; Tewksbury, 2007; Zgoba, Levenson, & McKee, 2009); and experience verbal or physical harassment from community members (Tewksbury & Lees, 2006) as a result of SORN laws. These laws were meant to provide formal and informal social controls over RSOs to reduce recidivism while providing protection for community members, but research has suggested that the opposite has occurred.…”