Taking stock of 20 years of sex offender laws and research: an examination of whether sex offender legislation has helped or hindered our efforts

Another collateral consequence? : examining homeless shelters policies on sex offenders across four states.

“…All of these factors are necessary to the successful reintegration processes, but more importantly, to reduce the RSOs' potential to recidivate . Despite popular belief that SORN laws and practices are in place to protect the public and reduce recidivism, previous research has consistently shown that SORN policies have little to no effect on sexual recidivism (Ragusa-Salerno & Zgoba, 2012;Tewksbury & Jennings, 2010;Socia, 2014).…”

“…Previous literature has stated that regardless of the buffer zone created by various government agencies to protect children and the public, residency restriction laws are a significant detriment to RSOs' successful reintegration because it severely limits where they can live and work (Barnes, et al, 2009;Burchfield & Mingus, 2008;Huebner et al, 2014;Levenson, 2008;Mercado, et al, 2008;Mustaine, 2014;Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2011;Ragusa-Salerno & Zgoba, 2012;Tewksbury, 2005;Tewksbury & Jennings, 2010;Zandbergen, Levenson & Hart, 2010). Although residency restriction laws create the most difficulties for sex offenders to reintegrate, the false sense of security that it provides to the public may be the most dangerous consequence of them all (Mercado, et al, 2008;Ragusa-Salerno & Zgoba, 2012).…”

“…Ordinances that establish buffer zones, whether it is from local and/or state governments, only impedes an RSO's ability to secure available and reliable housing (Barnes et al, 2009;Chajewski & Mercado, 2009;Levenson & Cotter, 2005a, 2005bMercado et al, 2008;Ragusa-Salerno & Zgoba, 2012;Tewksbury, 2005;Zgoba, Levenson & McKee, 2009). Due to the restrictive nature of these laws, sex offenders may violate registration requirements (Levenson, Letourneau, Armstrong & Zgoba, 2010).…”

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

“…were not explored for their associations based on classification because registration implementation policies are dubious (CSG, 2010;Ragusa-Salerno & Zgoba, 2012;Sperber et al, 2010). It might explain why previous RSO-home sale value research reported mixed results whether a more "dangerous" RSO are associated with greater depressions in home selling prices (Larsen et al, 2003;Navarro & Rabe-Hemp, 2017; 40 The state of Illinois implements a four-tier RSO classification system (sex offender, sexual predator, sexually dangerous person, sexually violent person).…”

“…However, these conclusions have not deterred scholars from exploring the theory's appropriateness to RSOs in rural areas (Huebner et al, 2013;Navarro & Rabe-Hemp, 2017;Sloas et al, 2012;Tewksbury et al, 2007).It is essential to explore rural-and suburban-based RSOs as sex offender policies have constrained RSOs away from urban residential locations, with housing options being much more obtainable (based on residency restriction zones) in suburban areas and even more in less dense, rural areas (Berenson & Appelbaum, 2011;Chajewski & Mercado, 2009;see Socia, 2011see Socia, , 2012aZandbergen & Hart, 2006). The primary culprit of this geographic phenomenon that has displaced RSOs in the outskirts of the main city is residency restrictions (Ragusa-Salerno & Zgoba, 2012). RSOs reported to have become compliant with residency restrictions by simply moving into rural locations, and at the same time,…”