Sex Offender Residence Restrictions

Pacheco, Daniel; Barnes, J. C.

doi:10.1002/9781118314876.ch25

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The counterevidence suggesting that sex offender laws are ineffective at reducing sex offender recidivism came from multiple authentic empirical studies (Colorado Department of Public Safety, 2004; Hipp et al, 2010; Langan, Schmitt, & Durose, 2003; Lasher & McGrath, 2012; Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009; Pacheco & Barnes, 2013; Tewksbury & Zgoba, 2010; Zandbergen, Levenson, & Hart, 2010). The counterevidence highlighted the failure of sex offender laws to deter first-time and repeat offenders, the fact that these laws are considered by many to be overly punitive and overly broad in the types of crimes they apply to, and the unforeseen negative consequences (e.g., increases in homelessness and unemployment) that these laws have brought about.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Must the show go on? The (in)ability of counterevidence to change attitudes toward crime control theater policies.

Campbell¹,

Newheiser²

2019

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Crime control theater refers to intuitively appealing laws that appear to address crime while lacking any evidence that they actually do so (e.g., sex offender registration and residence restriction laws, which do not reduce recidivism). Despite their ineffectiveness, public support for such laws tends to be high. Hypotheses: We predicted that making people aware of these laws' failure to reduce crime would lower support for them. Method: Participants (recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk; Study 1: N ϭ 298, mean age ϭ 35.60, 47.7% self-identified as women and 75.8% as White; Study 2: N ϭ 147, mean age ϭ 35.03, 40.1% self-identified as women and 85.0% as White; Study 3: N ϭ 552, mean age ϭ 35.86, 42.9% self-identified as women and 76.4% as White) read about sex offender registration and residence restriction policies and rated their support for these laws, confidence in their opinions about them, and perceptions of their efficacy before and after reading counterevidence highlighting these laws' failure to reduce sex crimes. Results: Although exposure to counterevidence somewhat lowered support (average within-subjects d ϭ Ϫ0.69), general attitudes remained positive even at the postcounterevidence phase (average d ϭ 0.46 against the scale midpoint). This pattern held when manipulating the criminal population being targeted (sex offenders vs. white-collar offenders; Study 1), when tailoring counterevidence to people's self-stated justifications for supporting these laws (Studies 2-3), and despite favorable ratings of the counterevidence's strength and credibility. Conclusion: Support for crime control theater policies persists despite explicit knowledge that they do not reduce crime, highlighting the need for alternative methods of dissuading people from their support for these ineffective laws. Public Significance StatementDespite their popularity, sex offender registration and residence restriction laws have failed to reduce crime and carry a number of negative consequences for offenders and the general public. We found that, even directly after learning about these facts, people continued to hold positive attitudes toward sex offender laws. Thus, people's support for some laws relies on factors beyond whether these laws actually achieve their intended crime control goals.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Must the show go on? The (in)ability of counterevidence to change attitudes toward crime control theater policies.

Campbell¹,

Newheiser²

2019

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, the laws assume youth are at especially heightened risk while at parks and playgrounds in part because they are particularly likely to use parks and playgrounds and also because of their age and naivety (for a review, see Pacheco & Barnes, 2013). Relatedly, parks and playgrounds are presumed to have less direct and/or diminished guardianship over young patrons.…”

Section: Logical Underpinnings Of Geographic Restrictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parks, Playgrounds, and Incidents of Sexual Assault

Budd

Mancini

Bierie³

2018

Sex Abuse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the United States, certain laws restrict those convicted of sexually offending from accessing social spaces where youth congregate such as parks and playgrounds. However, empirical work to date has rarely described sexual assaults in these locations or tested the assumptions of these laws explicitly. To address these gaps in the literature, we drew on the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) to analyze offender, victim, and crime characteristics of sexual assaults that occurred at parks and playgrounds over a 5-year period (2010-2015). Estimated via multivariate logistic regression, results showed support for these law’s assumptions when analyzing this particular location. However, stranger perpetrators were significantly more likely to sexually assault adult victims versus youth victims. Several other offense features distinguished youth versus adult victim sexual assault incidents at parks and playgrounds, such as the offender age, the use of force, and the injuries sustained by the victim. Collectively, these findings both support and challenge these types of social space restriction laws.

show abstract

“…However, despite strong public backing, the laws do not seem to reduce sexual victimization against children. In a review of evaluation studies, Pacheco and Barnes (2013) concluded that residence restriction laws have not had a discernible effect on reoffending. Put differently, as the researchers observed in their comprehensive study, “there is no evidence, to date, that suggests that sex offender residence restrictions have a favorable impact on recidivism” (2013, p. 436).…”

Section: Residence Restrictions and Crime Control Theater (Cct)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Still, caveats to this body of scholarship demonstrating less than favorable effects are notable. As the authors of one of the only published reviews of the laws contend (Pacheco & Barnes, 2013), few outcome evaluations examining the restrictions exist and most have come from select areas of the U.S. (e.g., the Midwest or Eastern states, such as Florida and New Jersey).…”

Section: Residence Restrictions and Crime Control Theater (Cct)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Crime control theater: Public (mis)perceptions of the effectiveness of sex offender residence restrictions.

Budd

Mancini

2016

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some crime control policies are ineffective, yet still draw substantial public support. Such laws, labeled "crime control theater" (CCT), derive their unquestioned public support from moral panics involving mythic narratives, yet little research has actually linked these criteria to support for a theater law. This study draws on the concept of CCT to better understand public perceptions of sex offender residence restrictions. Specifically, it evaluates what community member beliefs and or characteristics increase the likelihood that residence restrictions will be perceived as an effective law to decrease sex crime recidivism. Drawing on data from a national random sample of Americans, logistic regression is used to analyze the factors associated with this CCT law. Results indicate that if community members are Catholic, are a parent of a minor child, and believe in stranger danger, they are more likely to believe that residence restrictions are effective in reducing sex crime recidivism. Results are discussed in relation to residence restrictions as a CCT law, including the deleterious effects of residence restrictions and possible pathways to prevent the persistence of this law.

show abstract

Sex Offender Residence Restrictions

Cited by 6 publications

References 57 publications

Must the show go on? The (in)ability of counterevidence to change attitudes toward crime control theater policies.

Must the show go on? The (in)ability of counterevidence to change attitudes toward crime control theater policies.

Parks, Playgrounds, and Incidents of Sexual Assault

Crime control theater: Public (mis)perceptions of the effectiveness of sex offender residence restrictions.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About