Search Results

This chapter examines sex offender registration, notification, and restriction laws. It begins by looking at the historical roots of these laws—now long-defunct efforts by a number of states to monitor the whereabouts of convicted sex offenders. It also traces the legislative and judicial history of these laws from 1990 to the present, and examines this body of law in light of empirical data regarding sex offender recidivism and the deterrent efficacy of sex offender registration, public notification, and restrictions on where convicted sex offenders may live, work, or travel. Finally, the chapter details and then weighs the economic and other costs and benefits of these laws.

This chapter deals with sexually violent predator (SVP) laws. It begins by looking at the historical roots of these laws, which lie in what were once known as “sexual psychopath” laws—long-abandoned statutes that similarly attempted to reduce sex offending by a special commitment and treatment process aimed at certain sex offenders. It then reviews the various SVP statutes and the major court decisions that have upheld these laws; presents and analyzes statistics on the implementation of these laws; explores the significant controversy these laws have engendered among psychologists and other mental health experts, especially with regard to the concept of “mental abnormality” and the ability of mental health experts to predict sexual recidivism; reviews the data regarding the efficacy of psychological and other treatment modalities that are critical to the constitutionality of SVP laws; and weighs the economic and other costs and benefits of the nation's current SVP statutes.

The primary focus of this chapter is the relationship between group interests and the legislative policy process in Pennsylvania. In striking similarity to the situation in Congress, criminal justice agencies and a few prolific groups representing professional and single-issue citizen interests generally dominate. The citizen groups that appear are ones that specialize in the crime issue du jour—guns, sex offenses, crimes against children, or the death penalty. The share of hearings that includes citizen groups has increased, but a closer examination reveals that this is due to a dramatic increase in single-issue groups and a decline in groups with more diffuse interests. This picture of legislative crime hearings is confirmed by extensive interviews with state legislators, whose contact with citizen organizations is limited to a handful of high-profile, single-issue, and civil liberties groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and several statewide women's organizations. The ubiquity of prosecutors, law enforcement, and single-issue groups focused on women, children, and civil liberties leaves a glaring hole in policy debates about crime: the omission of the interests of the poor and urban minorities, many of whom face serious crime on a regular basis. This chapter also discusses the limitations of the American Civil Liberties Union as a group representing the broad interests of citizens at risk of crime and violence.

This chapter presents some concluding thoughts. Over the past two decades or so, federal, state, and local governments have waged a so-called “war on sex offenders.” Legislators and policymakers have developed a variety of new or recycled laws aimed at reducing the threat these offenders pose to the public. While these legal initiatives have enjoyed great popular and political support, there is little evidence that any of them have had a significant effect, if any effect, in reducing sex crimes. It is argued that America needs sex offender laws and policies that are evidence-based and cost-effective, that respect the nation's historic and fundamental commitment to civil liberties, and that do not threaten to make a mockery of psychology, psychiatry, and other mental health professions.

This chapter examines sex offender registration and community notification (SORCN) laws. It explores how local legal cultures and pre-existing prosecutorial attitudes toward sex crimes influence the implementation of sex offender laws, recognizing the fluidity of practices in different communities. It begins with an analysis of New Jersey's system for categorizing sex offenders. The New Jersey law shows how political arguments about the nature and harm of sexual violence are deployed through official practices—in this case, an actuarial risk assessment tool developed by state experts and interpreted by state judges. These discursive practices have real and substantial effects: despite differences in state laws, rape care advocates report that the understandings advanced by SORCN laws produce consistent, adverse effects on sex crimes prosecutions. Drawing on interviews from Kansas, the chapter shows how, when prosecutors are generally uninterested in pursuing sex offenses, SORCN laws provide a way to substitute sex offender registration for a sex offense conviction. It concludes with a study from Washington, where advocates brought into the process of sex offender classification and reintegration face conflicts over how to define, retain, and advance their mission to reduce sexual violence while collaborating with law enforcement agencies.

This chapter examines sex offender registration and community notification (SORCN) laws. It explores how local legal cultures and pre-existing prosecutorial attitudes toward sex crimes influence the implementation of sex offender laws, recognizing the fluidity of practices in different communities. It begins with an analysis of New Jersey's system for categorizing sex offenders. The New Jersey law shows how political arguments about the nature and harm of sexual violence are deployed through official practices—in this case, an actuarial risk assessment tool developed by state experts and interpreted by state judges. These discursive practices have real and substantial effects: despite differences in state laws, rape care advocates report that the understandings advanced by SORCN laws produce consistent, adverse effects on sex crimes prosecutions. Drawing on interviews from Kansas, the chapter shows how, when prosecutors are generally uninterested in pursuing sex offenses, SORCN laws provide a way to substitute sex offender registration for a sex offense conviction. It concludes with a study from Washington, where advocates brought into the process of sex offender classification and reintegration face conflicts over how to define, retain, and advance their mission to reduce sexual violence while collaborating with law enforcement agencies.

This introductory chapter begins with a review of data on sex offenses and sex offenders in the United States over the past twenty years and a discussion of the “emerging criminal war on sex offenders.” It then sets out the purpose of the book, which is to examine laws aimed at reducing the incidence of sexual offending from three perspectives: psychology, law, and public policy. An overview of the subsequent chapters is also presented.

To examine the unique experiences of reentry for those with a sex offender label, this chapter presents an in-depth case study of “Tony,” who pled guilty to statutory sexual assault at age nineteen. It follows his twelve-year path through the system, highlighting its key features, most notably that the state parole agency did not distinguish between registered and non-registered parolees. Tony was effectively labeled a child molester and subject to draconian restrictions upon where he could live and work; who he could associate with; and what technology he could possess. This has led to a cycle of parole revocations and reincarcerations that may have embedded him permanently in the system. His experiences with parole conditions including compulsory treatment, housing, employment, and social support are reviewed. Implications for the overbroad application of sex offender restrictions are discussed.

Many jurisdictions have laws that allow convicted sex offenders to be given antiandrogens as a component of sentencing. In other jurisdictions legislation facilitates the voluntary use of antilibidinal drugs in this population on the assumption that these compounds will decrease the rate of recidivism in sex offenders. This chapter begins with an overview of the current legal situation in various jurisdictions and provides examples of the assumptions of efficacy often made by academics and the judiciary. It then examines the theoretical basis of any hoped-for efficacy of antiandrogens in reducing recidivism before a critical examination of the actual empirical evidence for this, including a best-case scenario estimation of the how many offenders would need to take antiandrogens to prevent one from reoffending. The chapter also reviews the harms associated with the use of antiandrogen drugs (to the extent that these are known) before returning to the ethical question that forms the chapter’s title and concluding that the state should not authorize the compulsory or coerced used of antiandrogens, primarily because of the lack of evidence of efficacy of these substances.