Vulnerable Victims, Monstrous Offenders, and Unmanageable Risk: Explaining Public Opinion on the Social Control of Sex Crime

Abstract

With the possible exception of terrorists, sex offenders in the UnitedStates experience a greater degree of punishment and restriction than any other offender group, nonviolent or violent. Members of the public overwhelmingly support "get tough" sex crime policies and display an intense hostility toward persons labeled "sex criminals." The theoretical literature has identified three models potentially explaining public opinion on the social control of sex crime: the victim-oriented concerns model, the sex offender stereotypes model, and the risk-management concerns model. However, empirical work that directly tests these models is absent.

Young Adults’ Exposure to Alcohol- and Marijuana-Related Content on Twitter

“…We administered an online survey to participants from SurveyMonkey Audience, a proprietary panel of respondents from the diverse population of more than 30 million people who complete its surveys (Blodorn & O'Brien, 2013;Coleman, 2014;Hughes et al, 2014;Kavanaugh et al, 2013;Pickett et al, 2013;Schoettle & Sivak, 2014;Wiebe et al, 2013). SurveyMonkey regularly conducts benchmarking surveys to ensure Audience members are representative of the U.S. population.…”

News Media, Victims and Crime

“…They present an idealised personification of innocence and loss. At the same time, they serve indirectly to highlight the monstrosity of the offender and the extent to which that monstrosity should inform a retributive justice process (Pickett et al, 2013). In Western culture so attuned to the visual (Carrabine, 2012;Young, 2014), photographs simultaneously humanise and memorialise crime victims, creating affective connections between image and spectator, victim and viewer, with potential to evoke a more visceral and emotionally charged reaction than might be produced by words alone.…”

Examining the Correlates of Sex Offender Residence Restriction Violation Rates

“…However, despite wide political and popular support (Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, and Baker, 2007;Pickett, Mancini and Mears, 2013) recent research suggests that SORR are largely unsuccessful in reducing recidivism. Studies indicate that residential proximity to areas where children congregate explains little variation in reoffending among sexual offenders (Colorado Department of Public Safety, 2004; Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2003; Zandbergen, Levenson, and Hart, 2010).…”

“…This is accomplished by enacting buffer zones of varying sizes (e.g., 500 to 2,500 feet) around varying protected locations (e.g., schools, day care centers, parks, and bus stops), within which registered sex offenders are barred from holding an official residence (Meloy et al, 2008;Pacheco and Barnes, 2013;Socia, 2011). Implicitly drawing on the distance decay hypothesis (Brantingham and Brantingham, 1984), SORR are built on the assumption that sex offenders choose to locate their residences close to potential victim pools for offending purposes (Walker, Golden, and Van Houten, 2001).However, despite wide political and popular support (Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, and Baker, 2007;Pickett, Mancini and Mears, 2013) recent research suggests that SORR are largely unsuccessful in reducing recidivism. Studies indicate that residential proximity to areas where children congregate explains little variation in reoffending among sexual offenders (Colorado Department of Public Safety, 2004; Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2003; Zandbergen, Levenson, and Hart, 2010).…”