Perceptions of Sex Offender Registration: Collateral Consequences and Community Experiences

Abstract

En el estado de Washington en el año 1990 promulgó una ley sobre registro de criminales sexuales y entre los años 1991 y 1994, cinco Estados se sumaron a este modelo jurídico de registro de agresores sexuales. Teniendo en cuenta que el registro y difusión sobre criminales sexuales tiene la finalidad de proteger y velar por la seguridad de los habitantes del territorio nacional y adicional el registro de los autores de crímenes sexuales, violentos y contra la infancia facilita las labores de las autoridades en caso de reincidencia, este ha sido considerado como una herramienta fundamental de la política criminal estadounidense. En razón del incremento de delitos sexuales en contra de menores de edad de acuerdo a la información pública dada por el Instituto de Medicina Legal en el año 2017, se ha contemplado a través de proyectos de ley presentados en el

Judges' perceptions of sex offender registration, community notification, and residency restrictions.

“…In another study by Tewksbury and Lees (2006b), they interviewed 22 registered sex offenders in Kentucky and found that several encountered difficulties in finding employment, maintaining a relationship, harassment, feeling vulnerable, and often felt stigmatized. The same negativity was present in the Zevitz and Farkas (2000b) study, in which they conducted face-to-face interviews with 30 sex offenders.…”

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

“…Residency restrictions have complicated the ability for RSOs to obtain appropriate housing (Barnes et al, 2009;Berenson & Appelbaum, 2011;Burchfield & Mingus, 2008;Chajewski & Mercado, 2009;Huebner et al, 2013;Hughes & Burchfield, 2008;see Tewksbury, 2005; see Tewksbury & Lees, 2006;Socia, 2011Socia, , 2016Socia et al, 2015;Zandbergen & Hart, 2006). Housing options are so limited (even when compared to non-RSO parolees) that RSOs have been forced to return to halfway homes, jail, or prison because they had not secured suitable housing within the given time parameters-colloquially referred to as "violating at the door" (Mills, 2015;Wolfson, 2015;Zevitz & Farkas, 2000b).…”

“…Illinois has continued to be a hotbed of human socioecological explorations by scholars who have explored the effects of RSOs to communities (Burchfield & Mingus, 2008;Hughes & Burchfield, 2008;Navarro & Rabe-Hemp, 2017;Socia & Stamatel, 2012;Suresh et al, 2010). Contiguous to Illinois, Kentucky (and Jefferson County) has been explored quite extensively by Tewksbury and his colleagues Mustaine et al, 2006aMustaine et al, , 2006bTewksbury & Lees, 2006;Tewksbury et al, 2016;Tewksbury et al, 2007;Tewksbury, Mustaine, & Stengel, 2008), among others (Sloas et al, 2012). Several of these sex offender-based studies mentioned above utilized census tracts as their unit of analysis rather than census block groups to represent neighborhood characteristics of Illinois and Kentucky (Burchfield & Mingus, 2008;Hughes & Burchfield, 2008;Mustaine et al, 2006aMustaine et al, , 2006bSuresh et al, 2010;Tewksbury et al, 2007;.…”

“…"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.…”

“…One such sect of stigmatized persons includes criminal offenders given their linkage as being social deviants, especially registered sex offenders (RSOs). 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).…”