Advertisement

Starting the Conversation: A Shift in Paradigm

  • Elizabeth L. JeglicEmail author
  • Cynthia Calkins
Chapter

Abstract

The past several decades have seen much concern over sexual violence. Current policy narrowly focuses on recidivistic sex crimes and has done little to address the overall problem of sexual violence. Not only have current policy measures had little impact on sexual violence, but in some cases they appear to make the problem worse in that they destabilize offenders and thus inadvertently increase offenders’ risk of recidivism. Furthermore, it is estimated that the large majority of sex crimes are committed by first time sex offenders and thus laws that are focused on recidivistic sex offenders are diverting scarce resources away from much needed prevention initiatives. In this first chapter we will introduce the central thesis of the book—that we need to carefully evaluate the menu of policy and prevention available and weigh the costs and benefits of different options. Underscoring our focus on how we can do better to prevent sexual violence, we then discuss why it is important to shift the dialogue in the field from what does not work to that of what is working and why.

Keywords

Sexual violence Sex offenders Legislation Policy Primary prevention 

References

  1. Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (AWA), Pub. L. No. 109–248, 120 Stat. 587. (2006). (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 16901-62).Google Scholar
  2. Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. (n.d.). Sexual violence prevention fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.atsa.com/sexual-violence-prevention-fact-sheet
  3. Bonnar-Kidd, K. K. (2010). Sexual offender laws and prevention of sexual violence or recidivism. American Journal of Public Health, 100(3), 412–419. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.153254 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Bosman, J. (2015, June 7). States confront wide budget gaps even after years of recovery. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
  5. Brieding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Basile, K. C., Walters, M. L., Chen, J., & Merrick, M. T. (2014). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking and intimate partner violence victimization—National intimate partner and sexual violence survey, United States, 2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 63(SS08), 1–18.Google Scholar
  6. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003). Recidivism of sex offenders released from prison in. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  7. Calkins, C., Jeglic, E., Beattey, R. A., Zeidman, S., & Perillo, A. D. (2014). Sexual violence legislation: A review of case law and empirical research. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 443–462. http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/law0000027
  8. Chajewski, M., & Mercado, C. C. (2009). An evaluation of sex offender residency restriction functioning in town, county, and city-wide jurisdictions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20(1), 44–61. doi: 10.1177/0887403408320845 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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, 369–383. doi: 10.1177/0306624X06296235 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Colombino, N., Mercado, C. C., & Jeglic, E. L. (2009). Situational aspects of sexual offending: Implications for residence restriction laws. Justice Research and Policy, 11(1–2), 27–43. doi: 10.3818/JRP.11.2009.27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Finkelhor, D. (2009). The prevention of childhood sexual abuse. Future of Children, 19(2), 169–194.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Greenfeld, L. (1997). Sex offenses and offenders: An analysis of data on rape and sexual assault. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  13. Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgnon, K. E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(6), 1154–1163. doi:  10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1154
  14. Harris, A. J. R., & Hanson, R. K. (2004). Sex offender recidivism: A simple question. Ottawa, ON: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.Google Scholar
  15. Human Rights Watch. (2007, September 11). Sex offender laws may do more harm than good. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/news/2007/09/11/us-sex-offender-laws-may-do-more-harm-good
  16. Jacob Wetterling Crimes against Children and Sexually Violent Offenders Registration Act, Pub. L. No. 103–322, 108 Stat. 1796. (1994). (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 14071-80).Google Scholar
  17. Kleban, H., & Jeglic, E. L. (2012). Dispelling the myths: Can psychoeducation change public attitudes towards sex offenders? Journal of Sexual Aggression, 18(2), 179–193. doi: 10.1080/13552600.2011.552795 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koon-Magnin, S. (2015). Perceptions of and support for sex offender policies: Testing Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, and Baker’s findings. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(1), 80–88. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2014.12.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levenson, J. S. (2008). Collateral consequences of sex offender residence restrictions. Criminal Justice Studies, 21, 153–166. doi: 10.1080/14786010802159822 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Levenson, J. S., Brannon, Y. N., Fortney, T., & Baker, J. (2007a). Public perceptions about sex offenders and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 7(1), 137–161. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-2415.2007.00119.x Google Scholar
  21. Levenson, J. S., & Cotter, L. P. (2005a). The effect of Megan’s Law on sex offender reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 49–66. doi: 10.1177/1043986204271676 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Levenson, J. S., & Cotter, L. P. (2005b). The impact of sex offender residence restrictions: 1,000 feet from danger or one step from absurd? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 168–178. doi: 10.1177/0306624X04271304 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Levenson, J. S., D’Amora, D. A., & Hern, A. (2007b). Megan’s Law and its impact on community re-entry for sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 587–602. doi: 10.1002/bsl.770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lieb, R., Quinsey, V., & Berliner, L. (1998). Sexual predators and social policy. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice (pp. 43–114). US: The University of Chicago Press Books.Google Scholar
  25. Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22–54.Google Scholar
  26. Meloy, M., Curtis, K., & Boatwright, J. (2013). The sponsors of sex offender bills speak up: Policy Maker’s perceptions of sex offenders, sex crimes, and sex offender legislation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(4), 438–452. doi: 10.1177/0093854812455740 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mercado, C. C., Alvarez, S. A., & Levenson, J. S. (2008). The impact of specialized sex offender legislation on community re-entry. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 20, 188–205. doi: 10.1177/1079063208317540 Google Scholar
  28. National Sexual Violence Resource Center. (2015). Statistics about sexual violence. Retrieved from http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf
  29. NCMEC, Prevent Abuse Now, Criminal Justice Agency. (2014, July 7). Sex offender statistics. Retrieved from http://www.statisticbrain.com/sex-offender-statistics/
  30. Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehension, Regsitering, and Tracking (2014). Global overview of sex offender registration and notification systems. Retrieved from http://www.smart.gov/pdfs/GlobalOverview.pdf
  31. Sandler, J. C., Freeman, N. J., & Socia, K. M. (2008). Does a watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New York State’s sex offender registration and notification law. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 14(4), 284–302. doi: 10.1037/a0013881 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scham, D. D., & Milloy, C. D. (1995). Community notification: A study of offender characteristics and recidivism. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
  33. Socia, K. M., Levenson, J. S., Ackerman, A. R., & Harris, A. J. (2015). “Brothers under the bridge”: Factors influencing the transience of registered sex offenders in Florida. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27(6), 559–86. doi: 10.1177/1079063214521472
  34. Spoo, S., & Jeglic, E. L. (2016, June). Victims’ attitudes toward sex offenders. Paper presented at the Universitat Regensburg 12th Annual Summer Conference: Research in Forensic Psychiatry, Regensburg, Germany.Google Scholar
  35. Stoltenborgh, M., van Ilzendoorn, M. H., Euser, E. M., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2011). A global perspective on child sexual abuse: Meta-analysis of prevalence around the world. Child Maltreatment, 16(2), 79–101. doi: 10.1177/1077559511403920 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Three Strikes Law. (1995). 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c).Google Scholar
  37. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the national violence against women survey. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf
  38. Vasquez, B. E., Maddan, S., & Walker, J. T. (2008). The influence of sex offender registration and notification laws in the United States: A time-series analysis. Crime & Delinquency, 54(2), 175–192. doi: 10.1177/0011128707311641 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ye Hee Lee, M. (2015, July 7). Yes, U.S. locks people up at higher rate than any other country. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/
  40. Yourish, K., & Stanton, L. (2011, February). States in budget crisis. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/
  41. Zevitz, R. G. (2006). Sex offender community notification: Its role in recidivism and offender reintegration. Criminal Justice Studies, 19, 193–208. doi: 10.1080/14786010600764567 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zgoba, K. M, & Bachar, K. (2009). Sex offender registration and notification: Limited effects in New Jersey. In Short: Toward Criminal Justice Solutions. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/225402.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyJohn Jay College of Criminal JusticeNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations