Advertisement

American Journal of Criminal Justice

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 641–667 | Cite as

A Life of Grief: an Exploration of Disenfranchised Grief in Sex Offender Significant Others

  • Danielle J. S. Bailey
Article

Abstract

In criminal justice, researchers have identified disenfranchised grief, or the denial of empathy and social support during the grieving process, in family members who have lost relatives through imprisonment and execution. Although both of these situations involve the physical removal of the offender from the family members’ lives, non-physical losses may also prompt the grieving process. One of these non-physical losses is a psychosocial loss, in which the person the family members knew is now gone. Given the public stigma of the label “sex offender” and the collateral consequences that occur as a result of that label, it is possible that sex offender significant others experience a psychosocial loss. The current research is an exploratory study that used qualitative interviews with 29 spouses and significant others of convicted sex offenders to explore if and how disenfranchised grief impacts sex offender partners. Findings support both the existence of and the detrimental impact of disenfranchised grief on sex offender partners.

Keywords

Sex offenders Collateral consequences Disenfranchised grief Criminal justice policy 

References

  1. Ackerman, A. R., & Furman, R. (2012). Community based management for sex offenders in the US: An evidence based evaluation. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 7(2), 591–604.Google Scholar
  2. Arditti, J. A. (2005). Families and incarceration: An ecological approach. Families in Society, 86(2), 251–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Attig, T. (1991). The importance of conceiving of grief as an active process. Death Studies, 15(4), 385–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Attig, T. (1996). How we grieve: Relearning the world. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bersani, B. E., Laub, J. H., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2009). Marriage and desistance from crime in the Netherlands: Do gender and socio-historical context matter? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blokland, A. A. J., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2005). The effects of life circumstances on longitudinal trajectories of offending. Criminology, 43(4), 1203–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boss, P. (1999). Ambiguous loss: Learning to live with unresolved grief. Cambridge: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  8. Braddock, E., & Renzema, M. (1998). Containing pedophiles: Benefits and concerns of having a polygraph examiner on the team. The Journal of Offender Monitoring, 11(3), 15–20.Google Scholar
  9. Burchfield, K. B., & Mingus, W. (2008). Not in my neighborhood: Assessing registered sex offenders' experiences with local social capital and social control. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(3), 356–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cain, C. M., Sample, L. L., & Anderson, A. L. (2015). Public opinion of the application of sex offender notification laws to female sex offenders: Why it is important to examine. Criminal Justice Policy Review.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403415572253
  11. Cain, K. B. (2008). Managing convicted sex offenders in the community. Washington, DC: NGA Center for Best Practices.Google Scholar
  12. Caldwell, M. F., & Dickinson, C. (2009). Sex offender registration and recidivism risk in juvenile sexual offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 27(6), 941–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
  14. Clear, T. R., Rose, D. R., & Ryder, J. A. (2001). Incarceration and the community: The problem of removing and returning offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 47(3), 335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen, M., & Jeglic, E. L. (2007). Sex offender legislation in the United States: What do we know? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51(4), 369–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Comfort, M. (2008). Doing time together: Love and family in the shadow of the prison. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Daly, R. (2008). Treatment and reentry practices for sex offenders: An overview of states. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  18. Doka, K. J. (1989). Disenfranchised grief: Recognizing hidden sorrow. Lexington: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  19. Doka, K. J., & Aber, R. (1989). Psychosocial loss and grief. In K. J. Doka (Ed.), Disenfranchised grief: Recognizing hidden sorrow. Lexington: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  20. English, K., Jones, L., Pasini-Hill, D., Patrick, D., & Cooley-Towell, S. (2000). The value of polygraph testing in sex offender management. Denver: Department of Public Safety.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Farkas, M. A., & Miller, G. (2007). Reentry and reintegration: Challenges faced by the families of convicted sex offenders. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 20, 88–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Flick, U. (2007). Managing quality in qualitative research. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Galeste, M. A., Fradella, H. F., & Vogel, B. (2012). Sex offender myths in print media: Separating fact from fiction in U.S. newspapers. Western Criminology Review, 13(2), 4–24.Google Scholar
  25. Gibbs, G. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gilbert, K. R., & Horsley, G. C. (2011). Technology and grief support in the twenty-first century: A multimedia platform. In R. Neimeyer, D. Harris, & G. Thornton (Eds.), Grief and bereavement in contemporary society: Bridging research and practice (pp. 365–373). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Horney, J., Osgood, D. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1995). Criminal careers in the short-term: Intra-individual variability in crime and its relation to local life circumstances. American Sociological Review, 60(5), 655–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huebner, B. M., & Bynum, T. S. (2006). An analysis of parole decision making using a sample of sex offenders: A focal concerns perspective. Criminology, 44(4), 961–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones, S. J., & Beck, E. (2006). Disenfranchised grief and nonfinite loss as experienced by the families of death row inmates. OMEGA--Journal of Death and Dying, 54(4), 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kauffman, J. (1989). Intrapsychic dimensions of disenfranchised grief. In K. J. Doka (Ed.), Disenfranchised grief: Recognizing hidden sorrow. Lexington: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  31. Klein, J., Rukus, J., & Zambrana, K. (2012). Do societal reactions lead to increased experiences of shame and strain for registered female sex offenders? Justice Policy Journal, 9(2), 1–35.Google Scholar
  32. Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. London: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc..Google Scholar
  34. Lasher, M. P., & McGrath, R. J. (2012). The impact of community notification on sex offender reintegration: A quantitative review of the research literature. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56(1), 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lenhardt, A. M. C. (1997). Grieving disenfranchised losses: Background and strategies for counselors. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 35(4), 208–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Levenson, J., & Tewksbury, R. (2009). Collateral damage: Family members of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(1–2), 54–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Levenson, J. S., D'Amora, D. A., & Hern, A. L. (2007). Megan's law and its impact on community re-entry for sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25(4), 587–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lytle, R. (2015). Variation in criminal justice policy-making: An exploratory study using sex offender registration and notification Laws. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 26, 211–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lytle, R. (2016). Beyond panic: Variation in the legislative activity for sex offender registration and notification Laws across states over time. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 1–26.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403416678287
  40. Mercado, C. C., Alvarez, S., & Levenson, J. (2008). The impact of specialized sex offender legislation on community reentry. Sexual Abuse, 20(2), 188–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Naser, R. L., & Visher, C. A. (2006). Family members' experiences with incarceration and reentry. Western Criminological Review, 7(2), 20–31.Google Scholar
  42. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (2016). Registered sex offenders in the United States and its territories per 100,000 population. www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/Sex_Offenders_Map.pdf. Accessed 15 December 2016.
  43. Neimeyer, R. A., & Jordan, J. R. (2002). Disenfranchisement as empathic failure: Grief therapy and the co-construction of meaning. In K. J. Doka (Ed.), Disenfranchised grief (pp. 95–117). Champaign: Research Press.Google Scholar
  44. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  45. Petrunik, M., & Deutschmann, L. (2008). The exclusion-inclusion spectrum in state and community response to sex offenders in Anglo-American and European jurisdictions. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52(5), 499–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pratt, J. (2000). Sex crimes and the new punitiveness. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18(2–3), 135–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Prescott, J. J., & Rockoff, J. E. (2011). Do sex offender registration and notification laws affect criminal behavior. Journal of Law and Economics, 54(1), 161–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Proctor, J. L., Badzinski, D. M., & Johnson, M. (2002). The impact of media on knowledge and perceptions of Megan’s law. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 13(4), 356–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Quinn, J. F., Forsyth, C. J., & Mullen-Quinn, C. (2004). Societal reaction to sex offenders: A review of the origins and results of the myths surrounding their crimes and treatment amenability. Deviant Behavior, 25, 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Renzema, M., & Mayo-Wilson, E. (2005). Can electronic monitoring reduce crime for moderate to high-risk offenders? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(2), 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Robbers, M. L. (2009). Lifers on the outside: Sex offenders and disintegrative shaming. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(1), 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sample, L. L., & Bray, T. M. (2003). Are sex offenders dangerous? Criminology and Public Policy, 3(1), 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sample, L. L., & Kadleck, C. (2008). Sex offender laws: Legislators' accounts of the need for policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19(1), 40–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sampson, R., Laub, J. H., & Wimer, C. (2006). Does marriage reduce crime? A counterfactual approach to within-individual causal effects. Criminology, 44(3), 465–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Silver, R. C., Wortman, C. B., & Crofton, C. (1990). The role of coping in support provision: The self-presentational dilemma of victims of life crises. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  56. Strauss, A., & Corbin, M. (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  57. Sudnow, D. (1967). Passing on: The social organization of dying. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  58. ten Bensel, T., & Sample, L. L. (2016). The influence of sex offender registration and notification laws on fostering collective identity among offenders. Journal of Crime and Justice.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X
  59. Terry, K. J., & Ackerman, A. R. (2009). A brief history of major sex offender laws. In R. G. Wright (Ed.), Sex offender laws: Failed policies, new directions. New York: Springer Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  60. Tewksbury, R. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. B. (2006). Perceptions of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26(3), 309–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. B. (2007). Perceptions of punishment: How registered sex offenders view registries. Crime & Delinquency, 53(3), 380–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tewksbury, R., & Levenson, J. (2009). Stress experiences of family members of registered sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 27(4), 611–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tewksbury, R., & Zgoba, K. M. (2010). Perceptions and coping with punishment: How registered sex offenders respond to stress, internet restrictions, and the collateral consequences of registration. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(4), 537–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Travis, J., & Waul, M. (2003). Prisoners once removed: The children and families of prisoners. In J. Travis & M. Waul (Eds.), Prisoners once removed: The impact of incarceration and reentry on children, families, and communities. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  66. Turanovic, J. J., Rodriguez, N., & Pratt, T. C. (2012). The collateral consequences of incarceration revisited: A qualitative analysis of the effects on caregivers of children of incarcerated parents. Criminology, 50(4), 913–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wright, R. G. (2008). Sex offender post-incarceration sanctions: Are there any limits? New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement, 34, 17–50.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Southern Criminal Justice Association 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Texas at Tyler College of Arts and SciencesTylerUSA

Personalised recommendations