Evidence of Ineffectiveness: Advancing the Argument Against Sex Offender Residence Restrictions
Richard Tewksbury – Professor of Justice Administration, University of Louisville
Managing and responding to sex offenses and offenders has been a front and center issue in criminal justice discussions and debates for the last decade. Fears have abounded, hyperbole has dominated public and media discourse, and ever-increasing sanctions and restrictions have been quickly loaded on by policy makers. Sex offenders stand as today’s boogey-man, feared and misunderstood by nearly all, and responded to with disgust, distrust, and distain. Efforts to control sex offenses have taken numerous forms, resulting in both formal and informal sanctions. Standing as one of the most onerous of the restrictions imposed on sex offenders are residence restrictions—laws prohibiting sex offenders from living within specified distances of “child congregation locations.”
The logic of such restrictions is built on public safety—if sex offenders do not reside within sight or easy walking distance of places children gather, then those children will be spared sexual victimization. The logic falls apart, however, for sex offenders who do not target children, sex offenders who (as most do) target victims they know and with whom they interact, and for those who victimize in ways other than luring nearby children into their homes. There is an established and still growing body of literature demonstrating the fallacies of sex offender registration, notification (Jennings, Zgoba, and Tewksbury, 2012;
Sandler, Freeman, and Socia, 2008; Tewksbury, Jennings, and Zgoba, 2012), and residency restrictions (Duwe, Donnay, and Tewksbury, 2008; Kang, 2012; Nobles, Levenson, and Youstin, 2012; Socia, 2012). Unfortunately, this is a realm where neither public policy nor public support is founded on the evidence. Laws continue to proliferate, and the public continues to support and favor such laws (Kernsmith, Craun, and Foster, 2009; Mancini, Shields, Mears, and Beaver, 2010; Schiavone and Jeglic, 2009). Interestingly, criminal justice system representatives, those with the most contact and responsibility for enforcing such restrictions, are far less likely to express support (Tewksbury and Mustaine, 2012; Tewksbury, Mustaine, and Payne, 2012)
Read the entire article at http://criminology.fsu.edu/
