“The Sleeping Army”: Necropolitics and the Collateral Consequences of Being a Sex Offender

Revisiting Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Does Awareness Differ Across Community Type?

“…Even though registry access by residents does not always prompt awareness of RSOs near their homes, SORN does provide a platform to castigate or ostracize RSOs from communities on the basis of popular mythologies where the community believes sexual recidivism to be likely (Alper & Durose, 2019; Letourneau et al, 2010). Acts of discrimination may have adverse effects on RSOs, such as prompting anxiety, stress, despair, or removing potential pro-social circles (Higgins & Rolfe, 2017). Without advocates who can combat misconceptions of sexual reoffending, preexisting public attitudes of RSOs as dangerous predators will continue to prevail (Brown et al, 2008; Hobbs & Trotter, 2018; Levenson, Brannon, et al, 2007).…”

“Here I Sit in this Dismal Crypt”: Insider Interpretations of the Canadian Carceral Necropolis

“…Death here is not symbolic; it is not simply a reference to the systematic dislocation of a population or the stripping of rights and status. Biological death is the logical conclusion to these structural exclusions, as Higgins and Rolfe (2017) argue, "In the most extreme moments of necropolitics, physical bodies are literally disappearing without signification or [a] bereavement ceremony" (977). The number of Indigenous women who have gone missing or been murdered in recent Canadian memory constitutes a national crisis and reflects an imbalance in the application of criminal justice.…”

Toward a Focused Conceptualization of Collateral Consequences Among Individuals Who Sexually Offend: A Systematic Review

“…In its simplest definition, Pinard (2006) described collateral consequences as “indirect sanctions that result from criminal convictions.” Related, collateral consequences have been defined as an “interconnected system of disadvantage that amplifies disparities in economic and social well-being” (Wheelock, 2005; Wheelock & Uggen, 2005). Collateral consequences have also been described as an indefinite civil disenfranchisement, or a “civil death” befalling those with a criminal record (Higgins & Rolfe, 2017). In addition, collateral consequences have more comprehensively been described through identification of socially imposed (rather than court-sanctioned) barriers to social capitol (Burchfield & Mingus, 2008), including employment (Brown et al, 2007), housing (Chajewski & Mercado, 2009; Zgoba et al, 2009), and financial opportunities, inclusive as well of social exclusion, psychological turmoil (Jeglic et al, 2012), isolation, and interpersonal and romantic difficulties (Levenson & Cotter, 2005a; Levenson et al, 2007a).…”

“…Aforementioned definitional inconsistencies, as well as the often-blurred lines between legal and psychological conceptualizations of collateral consequences, have certainly impacted progression toward developing a valid and reliable instrument of collateral consequences. Furthermore, although several qualitative and theoretical articles addressing collateral consequences have emerged in the past two decades (e.g., Higgins & Rolfe, 2017; Tewksbury, 2007, 2012; Tewksbury & Lees, 2006a, 2007; Wakefield, 2006), empirical research demonstrating the impact of collateral consequences has somewhat lagged in comparison. Yet beyond the spectrum of theoretical descriptions of collateral consequences, most important are the ways in which these consequences have thus far been defined in the extant empirical research.…”