Redemption or Condemnation? A Long-Term Follow-up of the Desistance Patterns of Sex Offenders

Desistance is one of most important topics in criminology. Why some offenders stop offending and why others continue has been long been a question with far-reaching theoretical and empirical implications. Despite the extensive literature on desistance, most of the research examines offenders as a single group, an approach which might overlook differences between individuals by offense type. One offender group that has not been investigated in depth is sex offenders. Sex offenders are an important group to study because they present concerns to public safety and are the subject of much legislation and criminal justice policy. A substantial amount of research has been devoted to understanding why sex offenders commit the crimes they do and recidivism. However, fewer studies have examined about how and why they might desist from offending. There are reasons to expect that the desistance process may operate differently for sex offenders as compared to other types of offenders. The public considers sex offenders to be among the most dangerous offenders, who reoffend at very high rates, which has resulted in legislation that increases surveillance and restrictions intended to prevent future offending. Despite a widespread belief that sex offenders are not amenable to rehabilitation, most states require sex offenders to participate in treatment that addresses sexual deviance using cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). The differences between sex offenders and other types of offenders suggests that the path to desistance for sex offenders might also occur differently than for other types of offenders who are not subject to the same public scrutiny, legal restrictions, and therapeutic interventions. To examine the nature of the desistance process for sex offenders, this dissertation uses a longitudinal qualitative analysis of current and former sex offenders at two points in time: release from prison (Phase 1) and a three-year follow-up (Phase 2). Findings show that patterns of desistance are more complex than the desister-persister dichotomy suggests. This study explores the relationship of cognitive scripts to these categories, discusses the influence of treatment on desistance, and presents additional cognitive scripts specific to the reentry experience of sex offenders. Implications of this research are also discussed

An Evaluation of Sex Offender Residency Restrictions in Michigan and Missouri

In Michigan, sex offenders are prohibited from living within 1,000 feet of school property and 500 feet from any licensed daycare center. Missouri prohibits sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a public or private school up to the 12th grade or childcare facility which existed at the time the offender established his/her residency. In addition, sex offenders are prohibited from working or loitering within 500 feet of a school, childcare facility, or public park with playground equipment or a public swimming pool. Residency restriction policies in both States are universally applied to all registered sex offenders. The current study had three primary goals. First, document the residency locations of sex offenders and non-sex offenders before and after the implementation of the residency restriction laws. Second, examine the change in recidivism patterns before and after the implementation of residency restrictions. Third, describe the collateral consequences of residency restrictions. The study found a decline in the number of registered sex offenders living in restricted areas, including near schools or daycare centers, but the differences were not statistically significant. The study also determined that sex offenders, especially child molesters, moved more often relative to comparable non-sex offenders after the implementation of residency restrictions; those living at addresses within the boundary zones surrounding schools and daycare centers tended to live in more disadvantaged areas. Regarding the impact of residency restrictions on recidivism, the relationship was small. The study recommends reconsidering the universal application of sex offender residency restrictions, an increase in housing services for sex offenders, and the development of reentry programming specific to sex offender populations. 22 tables and 139 reference

An Evaluation of Sex Offender Residency Restrictions in Michigan and Missouri

In Michigan, sex offenders are prohibited from living within 1,000 feet of school property and 500 feet from any licensed daycare center. Missouri prohibits sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a public or private school up to the 12th grade or childcare facility which existed at the time the offender established his/her residency. In addition, sex offenders are prohibited from working or loitering within 500 feet of a school, childcare facility, or public park with playground equipment or a public swimming pool. Residency restriction policies in both States are universally applied to all registered sex offenders. The current study had three primary goals. First, document the residency locations of sex offenders and non-sex offenders before and after the implementation of the residency restriction laws. Second, examine the change in recidivism patterns before and after the implementation of residency restrictions. Third, describe the collateral consequences of residency restrictions. The study found a decline in the number of registered sex offenders living in restricted areas, including near schools or daycare centers, but the differences were not statistically significant. The study also determined that sex offenders, especially child molesters, moved more often relative to comparable non-sex offenders after the implementation of residency restrictions; those living at addresses within the boundary zones surrounding schools and daycare centers tended to live in more disadvantaged areas. Regarding the impact of residency restrictions on recidivism, the relationship was small. The study recommends reconsidering the universal application of sex offender residency restrictions, an increase in housing services for sex offenders, and the development of reentry programming specific to sex offender populations. 22 tables and 139 reference