Not in My Neighborhood

Abstract

Community registration laws requiring sex offenders to register with local law enforcement have become increasingly popular and increasingly restrictive in recent years. Although these laws were passed under the auspices of protecting communities from dangerous and violent sexual predators, little research has addressed their efficacy or their consequences. Building on a social capital framework that emphasizes the resources provided by local ties to family, friends, and the community, data from semistructured interviews with 23 sex offenders were analyzed to explore their experiences with local social capital while being registered and on and off of parole. Sex offenders discuss problems accessing and participating in networks of local social capital, incidents of community residential mobilization against them, and their experiences with formal barriers to social capital, including parole restrictions.

Restoring identity: The use of religion as a mechanism to transition between an identity of sexual offending to a non-offending identity

“…Rebuked by family members who also fear the consequences of association (Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009), people with sexual convictions often choose to withdraw themselves from potential situations where relationships might develop (Burchfield & Mingus, 2008). For those few who do have family or friends, registration or notification requirements can impede opportunities for relationships to be maintained (Levenson & Cotter, 2005).…”

A cross-sectional exploration of household financial reactions and homebuyer awareness of registered sex offenders in a rural, suburban, and urban county.

“…"Normals" (or the public, assuming that they are without a sexual conviction history) hold a greater negative attitude toward RSOs than ex-offenders without sexual convictions (Rade et al, 2016). Correspondently, RSOs have reported feelings of inferiority and ostracism when among the general populace (Burchfield & Mingus, 2008;Evans & Cubellis, 2015;Levenson & Cotter, 2005;Levenson, D'Amora, & Hern, 2007b;Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2011a; see Tewksbury, 2012;Tewksbury & Lees, 2006;Zevitz & Farkas, 2000b). Feelings of contempt against RSOs by the public parallel with Goffman's (1963) thesis of the reactions expressed by "normals" to the presence of stigmatized persons.…”

“…In support of this argument, offenders who have committed sex crimes experience stigma that is above and beyond those without the sex offender label (Hipp, Turner, & Jannetta, 2010;Rade, Desmarais, & Mitchell, 2016;see Tewksbury, 2012;Tewksbury & Lees, 2006). Some registered sex offenders have self-imposed an isolated lifestyle that is then exacerbated by the stigma associated with their sex offender status (Burchfield & Mingus, 2008).…”

“…These legal acts of discrimination prompted a variety of adverse effects (better known as collateral consequences) for RSOs. Primary among the collateral consequences faced by convicted sex offenders is their relegation into socially disadvantaged communities (Burchfield & Mingus, 2008;Clark & Duwe, 2015;Craun, 2010;Gordon, 2013;Hipp et al, 2010;Huebner et al, 2013;Hughes & Burchfield, 2008;Hughes & Kadleck, 2008;Mustaine, Tewksbury, & Stengel, 2006b;Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2011b; see also Yeh, 2015;Sloas, Steele, & Hare, 2012;Socia, 2011Socia, , 2012aSocia, , 2016Socia, Levenson, Ackerman, & Harris, 2015;Socia & Stamatel, 2012;Suresh, Mustaine, Tewksbury, & Higgins, 2010;Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2006Tewksbury, Mustaine, & Rolfe, 2016). Another act of discrimination included banishment into the outskirts of the main metropolitan cities (Berenson & Appelbaum, 2011;Chajewski & Mercado, 2009;see Huebner et al, 2013; see also Socia, 2011Socia, , 2012aZandbergen & Hart, 2006).…”

“…Another act of discrimination included banishment into the outskirts of the main metropolitan cities (Berenson & Appelbaum, 2011;Chajewski & Mercado, 2009;see Huebner et al, 2013; see also Socia, 2011Socia, , 2012aZandbergen & Hart, 2006). As a consequence of legal discrimination like residency restrictions housing options for RSOs are severely limited (Barnes, Dukes, Tewksbury, & De Troye, 2009;Berenson & Appelbaum, 2011;Burchfield & Mingus, 2008;Chajewski & Mercado, 2009;Clark & Duwe, 2015;Duwe, Donnay, & Tewksbury, 2008;Huebner et al, 2013;Socia, 2011Socia, , 2012aSocia, , 2016Socia et al, 2015;Zandbergen & Hart, 2006;Zevitz & Farkas, 2000b). Given these acts of discrimination, it is apparent that mainstream society rejects…”