Variation in Criminal Justice Policy-Making

Abstract

Variation in Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification (SORCN) policies may suggest differences in public fears of sexual crimes as well as differences in state-level policy-making. This study explored the standardization of SORCN policies across a sample of five midwestern states. A thematic content analysis showed that states varied in how registrants were defined, what information was selected for public notification, and how sex offender laws are maintained. A typology of revisions emerged, which may inform our understanding about policy-making. Ultimately, existing research provides limited explanations for these results, serving as an impetus for future research on context and process of criminal justice policy change.

Contextual Influences on the Sentencing of Individuals Convicted of Sexual Crimes

“…Criminological research has highlighted a relatively harsh and unique criminal justice system response to those convicted of sexual offenses, especially in the previous two decades (Leon, 2011; Wacquant, 2009). This response has manifested in the creation and expansion of sexual offense–specific legislation, such as registration and community notification (Sandler, Freeman, & Socia, 2008; Tewksbury, 2005), residence restrictions (Huebner et al, 2014; Socia, 2011), civil commitment (Ackerman, Sacks, & Greenberg, 2012), and more localized legislation (Lytle, 2015; Zilney & Zilney, 2009). These policies enjoy high public support (Mancini, Shields, Mears, & Beaver, 2010), due in part to their focus on the perceived threat of sexual predators (Sample & Bray, 2003), and public misunderstanding regarding the likelihood of recidivism and treatment success (Cunliffe & Shepherd, 2007; Pickett, Mancini, & Mears, 2013; Quinn, Forsyth, & Mullen-Quinn, 2004).…”

Variations in State Sex Offender Statutes: Implications for U.S. Higher Education

“…As such, all jurisdictions are supposed to have sex offender registration and notification laws with common core features. Even so, researchers have found considerable variation in laws and registry websites (Brewster et al, 2012; Lytle, 2015; Mancini et al, 2011).…”

“…The five states varied in how frequently they amended policies, and 89% of that variation was attributed to within-state factors, such as political ideology and economic structure. Thus, states may vary not just in policy content but also in how often and why they amend statutes (Lytle, 2015).…”

“…The variation uncovered in these studies could be the result of uneven implementation of federal laws (Brewster et al, 2012), ideological differences in how “tough” states should be on sex offenders (Mancini et al, 2011), differences in public fears, or differences in the policymaking process (Lytle, 2015). Regarding the consequences of sex offender policy variation, Lytle (2015) argued, Variation in the methods by which the public identifies and monitors sex offenders may mean that offenders required to register in one state may not be required to register in another. Therefore, as the public travels from one state to another, perceived public safety may be affected by the variation in the types of offenders included in the registry, as well as the methods by which citizens may identify and monitor sex offenders.…”

“…Research has shown that sex offender statutes and registry websites vary widely between states (Brewster, DeLong, & Moloney, 2012; Lytle, 2015; Mancini, Barnes, & Mears, 2011). Some state statutes contain special rules for registered sex offenders (RSOs) enrolled or employed at higher education institutions, and some websites display the college name or address where a registrant is a student or employee.…”