literature review
Literature Review Outline
The Evidence on Sex Offender Laws
I. Introduction
A. Importance of the issue
1. The US is home to over 750,000 registered sex offenders (Child Rescue
Network, n.d.).
a) Although these 750,000 sex offenders are being tracked and
monitored, approximately 95% of sex offenders arrested have no
prior sexual criminal history (Vess, Day, Powell, & Graffam,
2014).
b) This implies that sex offender registries do not protect the
community against the vast majority of sexual criminals which
tricks society into feeling a false sense of security.
B. Thesis
1. Sex offender legislation is ineffective at protecting the community because
it is based on multiple flawed assumptions rather than empirical data.
II. Background
A. Creation of major sex offender laws
1. Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender
Registration Act (Bratina, 2013; Duwe & Donnay, 2008; Freeman &
Sandler, 2010; Napier, Dowling, Morgan, & Talbot, 2018; Wagner, 2011;
Zgoba, Jennings, & Salerno; 2018)
2. Megan’s Law (e.g., see Duwe & Donnay, 2008; Wagner, 2011)
3. Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (Bratina, 2013; Freeman &
Sandler, 2010; Napier et al., 2018; Wagner, 2011; Zgoba et al., 2018)
4. Residency Restrictions (Bratina, 2013; Durling, 2006; Huebner et al.,
2014)
5. Jessica’s Law (Offender Watch Initiative, n.d.)
6. Chelsea’s Law (Chelsea’s Light Foundation, n.d.)
B. Goals of sex offender legislation
1. To protect societies most vulnerable members from violent predators
(Huebner et al., 2014; Zgoba et al., 2018).
2. To increase public awareness of offenders living in proximity to them so
they can better protect themselves (Bratina, 2013; Duwe & Donnay,
2008).
3. To deter reoffending by sex offenders being aware that they are under
constant scrutiny from the public and law enforcement (Duwe & Donnay,
2008; Zgoba et al., 2018).
a) Specific and general deterrence (Vess et al., 2014)
4. To increase the distance between offenders and possible victims in order
to decrease crimes of opportunity against children (Bratina, 2014; Durling,
2006; Duwe & Donnay, 2008; Huebner et al., 2014).
5. To reduce recidivism (Bratina, 2013; Duwe & Donnay, 2008; Huebner et
al., 2014; Zgoba et al., 2018).
III. Flawed Assumptions
A. Sex offender targets
1. Sex offenders target family members and acquaintances more than
strangers (Durling, 2006; Duwe & Donnay, 2008; Huebner et al., 2014;
Napier et al., 2018; National Sex Offender Public Website, n.d.; Stupple,
2014; Vess et al., 2014; Wagner, 2011; Zgoba et al., 2018)
a) Strangers commit approximately four percent of sexual abuse cases
against children, compared to the other 96% of child sexual assault
cases committed by family members, friends, and acquaintances
(Stupple, 2014).
b) Approximately 70%-95% of sex offenses are committed by family
members and acquaintances to the victim (Wagner, 2011).
c) In Australia 2015, one third of sexual offenses were committed by
a family member, along with three fourths of sexual offenses
committed by an acquaintance (Napier et al., 2018).
d) In Australia 2015, 83% of children were victimized by someone
they knew (Napier et al., 2018).
e) The vast majority of research has concluded that no more than
10% of sex offenses are perpetrated by a stranger (Liptak, 2017;
Napier et al., 2018; National Sex Offender Public Website, n.d.;
Stupple, 2014; Wagner, 2011)
B. Sex offender recidivism rates
1. Sex offenders have the lowest recidivism rates of all criminals (Bratina,
2013; Durling, 2006; Duwe & Donnay, 2008; Huebner et al., 2014;
Liptak, 2017; Napier et al., 2018; Przybylski, n.d.; Stupple, 2014; Vess et
al., 2014; Wagner, 2011).
a) The U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics found
recidivism rates of sex offenders to be only 5.3% after three years,
in comparison to recidivism rates of 31.9% for larceny and 33.5%
for drug offenses (as cited in Stupple, 2014).
b) A 2003 Department of Justice study asserts that out of all the
prisoners released in the United States in 1994, only 14% of sex
offenders reoffended with a new sexual crime, compared to
68-74% of property criminals and 50-64% of drug offenders (as
cited in Durling, 2006).
c) after following up with offenders after 20 years, the Department of
Justice reported that recidivism rates of sex offenders only climbed
to a peak of 27% (Liptak, 2017).
2. Sex offenders are more likely to recidivate with a non-sexual crime than a
new sexual crime (Durling, 2006; Duwe & Donnay, 2008; Huebner et al.,
2014; Przybylski, n.d.; Vess et al., 2014; Wagner, 2011).
a) Harris and Hanson (2004) reported sex offender recidivism rates
of 13-14% for another sexual crime after five years, whereas sex
offender recidivism rates for any crime were 36-37 % after five
years (as cited in Przybylski, n.d.).
b) A 2003 Department of Justice study reported that sex offender
recidivism rates for any crime climbed only to 39% after 5 years,
much less than the nearly 70% for non-sex offenders (as cited in
Durling, 2006).
3. Sex offenders are more likely to commit a new sex crime than non-sex
offenders (Bratina, 2013; Liptak, 2017; Przybylski, n.d.).
a) Sex offenders are more than four times as likely to commit a new
sex crime than an offender with no previous sexual criminal
history (Przybylski, n.d.).
b) A 2004 Department of Justice Study reported that only 1.3% of
non-sex offenders reoffended with a sex crime after release,
compared to 5.3% of sex offenders committing a new sex crime (as
cited in Liptak, n.d.).
4. Assumptions have influenced legislation (Liptak, 2017; Stupple, 2014).
a) In the 2002 case McKune v. Lile, Supreme Court Justice Anthony
M. Kennedy justified the constitutionality of Kansas’ Sexual
Abuse Treatment Program by claiming that recidivism rates of sex
offenders climb as high as 80% (Liptak, 2017).
b) Lower courts have consistently deferred to the findings of higher
courts, even if they are not empirically based (Liptak, 2017;
Stupple, 2014).
c) Most claims considering ex post facto, double jeopardy, and equal
protection have failed (Stupple, 2014).
C. Crime trends
1. Sex crimes have been declining for the last 15 years (Bratina, 2013;
National Sex Offender Public Website, n.d.).
a) From 1992 to 2010 there was a 56% decline in physical abuse and
a 62% decline in sexual abuse (National Sex Offender Public
Website, n.d.).
b) Sex offense rates have been decreasing since 1985, with the
greatest rate of decline prior to the implementation of Megan’s
Law in 1994 (Vess et al., 2014).
IV. Policy Implications
A. Base legislation off empirical data rather than assumptions and emotion.
B. Expand on existing research of sex offenders.
C. Inform the public of the reality of sex offender recidivism rates, demographics of
victims, demographics of perpetrators, and recent sex crime trends.
1. This will make society better equipped to make logical assessments
regarding legislation.
2. This will work to alleviate the moral panic brought on by the media and
increase the public’s feeling of safety (Stupple, 2014).
V. Conclusion
A. The current study has gathered together a variety of research to inform the public
about the reality of sex offenders
B. Today, society believes that sex offenders are a heinous, uncontrollable group of
criminals which they need to be protected from (Stupple, 2014).
C. Although this is true in part, the extent to which sex offenders need to be feared
has been exaggerated by legislators and the media (Stupple, 2014).
D. Evidence based public policy, rather than assumptions and emotion, is the only
way to protect society from the predators that they so fear.
References
Bratina, M. P. (2013). Sex offender residency requirements: An effective crime prevention strategy or a false sense of security? International Journal of Police Science & Management,
15(3), 200–218. doi: 10.1350/ijps.2013.15.3.312 Chelsea’s Light Foundation. (n.d.). Chelsea’s Law. Retrieved from
https://chelseaslight.org/programs/chelseas-law/ Child Rescue Network. (n.d.). The national sex offender registry. Retrieved from
http://childrescuenetwork.org/know-the-facts/the-national-sex-offender-registry/ Durling, C. (2006). Never going home: Does it make us safer? Does it make sense? Journal of
Criminal Law & Criminology, 97(1), 317–363. Duwe, G., & Donnay, W. (2008). The impact of megan’s law on sex offender recidivism: The minnesota experience. Criminology, 46(2), 411–446. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00114.x Freeman, N. J., & Sandler, J. C. (2010). The Adam Walsh act: A false sense of security or an effective public policy initiative? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21(1), 31–49. Huebner, B. M., Kras, K. R., Rydberg, J., Bynum, T. S., Grommon, E., & Pleggenkuhle, B. (2014). The effect and implications of sex offender residence restrictions. Criminology & Public
Policy, 13(1), 139–168. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12066 Liptak, A. (2017, March 6). Did the Supreme Court base a ruling on a myth? The New York Times. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/politics/supreme-court-repeat-sex-offenders.htm l
Napier, S., Dowling, C., Morgan, A., & Talbot, D. (2018). What impact do public sex offender registries have on community safety? Trends & Issues in Crime & Criminal Justice, (550), 1–20. National Sex Offender Public Website. (n.d.). Raising awareness about sexual abuse: Facts and
statistics. Retrieved from https://www.nsopw.gov/en/education/factsstatistics/ Offender Watch Initiative. (n.d.). Jessica’s Law. Retrieved from
http://offenderwatchinitiative.org/Resources/Jessicas-Law Przybylski, R. (n.d.). Adult sex offender recidivism. Retrieved from the Sex Offender Management Assessment and Planning Initiative website:
https://smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec1/ch5_recidivism.html Stupple, A. (2014). Disgust, dehumanization, and the courts’ response to sex offender legislation.
National Lawyers Guild Review, 71(3), 130-148. Vess, J., Day, A., Powell, M., & Graffam, J. (2014). International sex offender registration laws: Research and evaluation issues based on a review of current scientific literature. Police Practice
& Research, 15(4), 322–335. doi: 10.1080/15614263.2011.646744 Wagner, C. (2011). The good left undone: How to stop sex offender laws from causing unnecessary harm at the expense of effectiveness. American Journal of Criminal Law, 38(2),
263–288. Zgoba, K. M., Jennings, W. G., & Salerno, L. M. (2018). Megan’s Law 20 years later: An empirical analysis and policy review. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 45(7), 1028–1046. doi:
10.1177/0093854818771409