An Examination of Multiple Factors Influencing Support for Sex Offender Policy

• Published date: 01 July 2019
• Date: 01 July 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0887403417715684
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403417715684

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2019, Vol. 30(6) 925 –947

© The Author(s) 2017

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403417715684

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

An Examination of Multiple

Factors Influencing Support

for Sex Offender Policy

Sarah M. Manchak1 and Leah R. Fisher2

Abstract

The general public has an influence on the creation and implementation of criminal

justice policy. There is strong public support for policies targeting sex offenders, in

particular, despite research evidence demonstrating their ineffectiveness. Any change

in current policy will require a change in public perceptions. As such, it is important

to identify the factors that influence one’s support for current sex offender policies.

Using a student sample, this exploratory pilot study employed a survey with an

experimental vignette component to examine the influence of personal demographic

characteristics, knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about sex offenders, and offense

characteristics on support for three current sex offender policies. Results from

the multivariate analyses suggest that support for sex offender policy is complex

and influenced by a number of factors. Greater support for sex offender policy was

associated with more social distancing, higher perceptions of sex offender riskiness,

offender criminal history, and younger victim age.

Keywords

sex offender policy, community notification, sex offender registry, residency

restrictions

Public policy is often and strongly influenced by public opinion (Burstein, 2003).

Although a number of factors influence criminal justice policy, the particular impor-

tance of public opinion in this realm cannot be ignored. In fact, legislators often will

survey the public about their perceptions of crime and criminal justice initiatives to

1University of Cincinnati, OH, USA

2Washington State Statistical Analysis Center, Olympia, WA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Sarah M. Manchak, School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, 660 Dyer Hall, P.O. Box 210389,

Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA.

Email: manchash@uc.edu

715684CJPXXX10.1177/0887403417715684Criminal Justice Policy ReviewManchak and Fisher

research-article2017

926 Criminal Justice Policy Review 30(6)

inform their law-making efforts (Baldassare, Bonner, Petek, & Shrestha, 2014;

Roberts, 1992; Wiggington, 2013). In addition, everyday citizens have the ability to

influence implementation of current criminal justice policy while fulfilling their civic

duties serving on a jury or voting. The public can also influence the creation of new

criminal justice policy through formal petitions, lobbying, and involvement with polit-

ical interest groups, and through the dissemination of research. One area of criminal

justice policy where public influence may be particularly salient is with respect to laws

targeting sex offenders living in the community. Over the last several decades, “public

opinion and policy changes nationwide have shifted to take sexual offending in gen-

eral more seriously” (Leon, 2011).

Factors Influencing the Development and Adoption of

Current Sex Offender Policies

There are likely several historical, theoretical, and social-psychological factors that

together influenced the development of current sex offender policy. Historically and

culturally, anything of a sexual nature has often been considered taboo (Quinn, Forsyth,

& Mullen-Quinn, 2004), and these attitudes among the general public may facilitate

heightened sensitivity to—and vigilance against—sex offenses. In addition, wide-

spread media coverage of such sensationalized crimes as the abduction and murder of

Jacob Wetterling and the murder of Megan Kanka in 1989 and 1994, respectively,

have helped fuel increased public outrage about sex offenders, particularly those who

offend against children (see Kernsmith, Craun, & Foster, 2009). Perhaps more than

any other offender type, sex offenders are viewed and treated with disdain and disgust,

as evidenced by terms often used to reference them: “monsters,” “deviants,” “psycho-

paths,” and “predators” (see Leon, 2011; Quinn et al., 2004).

Perhaps because sex offenses elicit such fearful and visceral responses from the

public, policy targeting this group has been surprisingly punitive in nature (e.g.,

emphasis is on added surveillance and restriction), despite public support for rehabili-

tation more generally (Baker, Metcalfe, Berenblum, Aviv, & Gertz, 2015; Cullen &

Gendreau, 2000; Cullen, Pealer, Fisher, Applegate, & Santana, 2002). Moreover, the

creation of policies such as community notification, national registries, residency

restrictions, electronic monitoring, and civil commitment have, in some ways, further

stigmatized sex offenders (Schultz, 2014), fueling increased fear of sex offenders and

strengthening support for policies that seek to monitor and control this offender sub-

population. Indeed, the “tendency to view the sex offender as a monster and scapegoat

[is] at the intersection of public fears and reactionary policy” (Leon, 2011, p. 7).

Concerns About Existing Sex Offender Policy

Despite their good intentions to enhance public safety, current punitive-oriented poli-

cies targeting sex offenders have been shown to yield null effects on sex offender

recidivism. For instance, one study used a longitudinal matched design to compare