Collateral Punishments and Sentencing Policy

• Author: David A. Singleton,Jill S. Levenson,Ryan T. Shields
• Published date: 01 March 2014
• Date: 01 March 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0887403412462385
• Subject Matter: Articles

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2014, Vol. 25(2) 135 –158

© 2012 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0887403412462385

cjp.sagepub.com

462385CJP25210.1177/0887403412462385C

riminal Justice Policy ReviewLevenson et al.

1Lynn University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

2Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

3Northern Kentucky University Chase College of Law, Highland Heights, KY

4Ohio Justice & Policy Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jill S. Levenson, PhD, LCSW, Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, Lynn University,

3601 N. Military Trail, Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA.

Email: jlevenson@lynn.edu

Collateral Punishments

and Sentencing Policy:

Perceptions of Residence

Restrictions for Sex

Offenders and Drunk Drivers

Jill S. Levenson1, Ryan T. Shields2,

and David A. Singleton3,4

Abstract

Residence restrictions, which prohibit sex offenders from living within close proximity

to places where children congregate, have grown popular. Participants (n = 255) were

asked to participate in a survey rating and comparing their perceptions of residence

restrictions for drunk drivers and sex offenders. Residence restrictions were seen

as more punitive for DUI offenders than for sex offenders, though a majority of

the sample viewed making either offender leave their home as punishment. Those

who believed that most sex offenders would reoffend were significantly less likely

to view these policies as punitive. Older respondents and those who knew someone

convicted of a crime were also less likely to view residence restrictions as punitive.

The results of the current study indicate that although many of the respondents

were not optimistic about the effectiveness of residence restrictions in reducing

victimization , those policies still garnered considerable support.

Keywords

sex offender, residence restrictions, punishment, sentencing

Article

136 Criminal Justice Policy Review 25(2)

Sexual offending remains a substantial social and political problem. There were over

63,000 reports of child sexual abuse made to Child Protective Services in 2010

(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010), and in that same year,

180,380 sexual assaults of individuals over the age of 12 are estimated to have occurred

(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2010a). Sexual violence brings enduring consequences

for victims, their families, and communities. In response, the public has rallied around

punitive sex offender policies with the hope that vigilance and restriction will deter

sex crime (LaFond, 2005; Leon, 2011; Lieb & Nunlist, 2008).

Despite a significant decline in both official and victim reports of sexual assault in

recent years (Finkelhor & Jones, 2006), there has been a considerable movement

toward legislative responses to sex offenders. Scholars argue that much of this politi-

cal action is driven by public condemnation of sex offenders and critique of prior sex

offender policy. Juxtaposed against this public outrage is a substantial increase in the

number of media accounts pertaining to sexual abusers (Leon, 2011; Sample, 2001).

Fears about sex crime and concerns that the justice system historically treated these

offenders too leniently led to calls for harsher punishments.

In addition to tougher sentencing, sanctions that restrict the rights and privileges of

those convicted of crimes have gained popularity (Travis, 2005). These civil sanctions

include denial of welfare benefits, public housing, student loans, certain occupational

licenses, and voting rights. Since civil sanctions exist outside of traditional sentencing

schemes, it is often argued that they are not punitive. However, the consequences of

such sanctions mirror those of usual sentencing practices and are often referred to as

invisible punishments (Travis, 2005).

One example of an increasingly popular civil sanction is the proliferation of resi-

dential restrictions for sex offenders, which prohibit them from living within close

proximity to places where children congregate, such as schools. Proponents assert that

such laws are necessary management tools to protect children and other vulnerable

citizens from recidivistic sexual violence. Opponents of these restrictions argue that

despite the claimed lack of penal intent, the actual effect is extremely punitive, and

such measures do little if anything to protect potential victims because most abused

children are molested within familial or trusted relationships (Leon, 2011; Levenson,

2010; Levenson & D'Amora, 2007; Zgoba, 2004). Despite the prominence of sex

offender policy in the past 20 years, scholars have only recently begun to examine the

public’s view of these laws. The extant research in this area suggests that the public is

quite supportive of “get-tough” approaches to sex offender sentencing and manage-

ment. However, few studies have examined whether members of the community view

these new laws as a form of punishment.

Thus, the current exploratory study will examine two important questions pertain-

ing to public perceptions of residence restrictions. First, does the public view resi-

dence restrictions as punishment? Scholars have argued that a residence restriction

policy is just one type of “invisible sanction” applied to sex offenders. Despite the fact

that the public was a considerable force behind the passage of these laws, public opin-

ion on whether residence restrictions serve a punitive function has not been explored.