Punitive Attitudes Toward Sex Offenders: Do Moral Panics Cause Community Members to Be More Punitive?
| DOI | 10.1177/0887403418767251 |
| Date | 01 July 2019 |
| Author | Jennifer L. Klein,Danielle Tolson Cooper |
| Published date | 01 July 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2019
Article
Criminal Justice Policy Review
2019, Vol. 30(6) 948 –968
Punitive Attitudes Toward
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
Sex Offenders: Do Moral
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403418767251
DOI: 10.1177/0887403418767251
journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp
Panics Cause Community
Members to Be More
Punitive?
Jennifer L. Klein1 and Danielle Tolson Cooper2
Abstract
Researchers interested in registered sex offenders (RSOs) and sex offender
registration and community notification laws (SORN) legislation have noted that
there is a perpetual moral panic associated with the topic. Community members
frequently call for increased crime control policies to monitor RSOs, despite the
research suggesting these laws do not effectively reduce recidivism levels for this
offender group. The current study seeks to predict participant support for punitive
change to the registry and SORN legislation, based on the idea that a perpetual
moral panic continuously exists concerning RSOs. Using a stepwise ordinary least
squares (OLS) regression analytical approach, the findings suggest that the theoretical
elements of a moral panic are strongly predictive of punitive support and mediate
other predictor variables normally associated with punitive attitudes toward sex
offenders and the sex offender registry.
Keywords
moral panics, sex offender, punitive attitudes, community members, sex offender
notification
1University of Texas at Tyler, TX, USA
2University of New Haven, West Haven, CT, USA
Corresponding Author:
Jennifer L. Klein, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice, Department of Social Sciences, Division of
Criminal Justice, University of Texas at Tyler, 3900 University Blvd., Tyler, TX 75799, USA.
Email: jenniferklein@uttyler.edu
Klein and Cooper
949
Introduction
The supervision of sexual offenders has been a constant topic of debate and concern
for community members and legislators alike. Since the early 1990s, a slew of legisla-
tive reforms have been passed at the state and federal level to supervise sex offenders
postconviction, and to notify community members about where these sex offenders
reside. Beginning with the Jacob Wetterling Act of 1994, federal mandates required
states to establish a state sex offender registry. Two years later, Megan’s Law (1996)
required states to comply with federal legislation mandating community notification
of registered sex offender’s (RSO) demographic and residence information postcon-
viction. More commonly known as sex offender registration and community notifica-
tion laws (SORN), these separate legislative efforts have continued to expand and
have subsequently created a more restrictive environment for RSOs to reside while
living under different aspects of sex offender laws as applied to the registry system
(Burchfield, Sample, & Lytle, 2014).
Many of these policy expansions are thought to be the result of the public’s fear of
RSOs and the myths surrounding this offender group. Researchers have suggested that
many community members believe sex offenders to be chronic recidivists who cannot
be rehabilitated (Dowler, 2006), and who are likely to rape and abduct children
(Sample & Kadleck, 2008). However, the community often believes what it ingests;
the role of the media is a strong influential factor in promoting and perpetuating these
myths about RSOs (Galeste, Fradella, & Vogel, 2012; Klein, 2016). The strong con-
cern or anxiety associated with sex offenders and the consequential calls for increased
punitive or restrictive legislation are often classified as being part of a moral panic
(Cohen, 1972, 2002).
Moral panics, as originally theorized by Cohen (1972) and later expanded by
Goode and Ben-Yehuda (1994), suggest that communities fear a specific group—the
“folk devil”—and react accordingly to the level of fear and anger associated with the
threat. However, typically moral panics flare and fade away rather quickly. When
discussing the moral panic associated with sex offenders, the panic has not faded as
originally theorized (Burchfield et al., 2014). This article examines the theory that a
perpetual panic is occurring, and because of its continuous nature, community mem-
bers are likely to be more punitive toward sex offenders as a way to control the
perceived threat that they pose. Using a sample of 877 community members, this
study examines the factors that influence support for increased punitive behaviors
and legal changes to the sex offender registry in general. The results are viewed from
the theoretical lens of a moral panic to evaluate how the elements proposed by
Cohen (1972) will have an impact on community members’ support for punitive
change in legislation.
Background
As previously discussed, the legislation of the early 1990s was mandated as a way to
control and supervise sex offenders while increasing community member awareness
950
Criminal Justice Policy Review 30(6)
of the whereabouts of sex offenders postconviction. These laws are associated with
unintended consequences, and researchers have consistently documented that RSOs
have problems with unemployment (Klein, Tolson, & Collins, 2014; Tewksbury, 2004,
2005; Tolson & Klein, 2015); finding permanent, suitable housing (Chajewski &
Mercado, 2008; Levenson & D’Amora, 2007; Tewksbury, 2007; Zgoba, Levenson, &
McKee, 2009); and experience verbal or physical harassment from community mem-
bers (Tewksbury & Lees, 2006) as a result of SORN laws. These laws were meant to
provide formal and informal social controls over RSOs to reduce recidivism while
providing protection for community members, but research has suggested that the
opposite has occurred. RSOs have reported feeling socially isolated from their com-
munities and have experienced a breakdown in personal relationships postconviction,
which is associated with recidivism (Bailey & Sample, 2017; Levenson & Cotter,
2005; Tolson & Klein, 2015). Although research suggests that there is a correlation
between SORN laws and the aforementioned unintended consequences, community
members could still learn about an individual’s registered status through other means
besides accessing the registry. Informal notification structures, such as news being
passed via word of mouth, can contribute to social isolation. Others may have prob-
lems finding employment due to background checks and felony reporting laws.
However, SORN legislation is still the primary mechanism through which these unin-
tended consequences occur.
The majority of research suggests that these laws have had no effect in reducing
recidivism, which was one of the original goals of SORN legislation (Levenson &
Cotter, 2005; Levenson, D’Amora, & Hern, 2007; Sample & Kadleck, 2008;
Tewksbury & Lees, 2006). In one of the few studies that does suggest a reduction in
recidivism, Vasquez, Maddan, and Walker (2008) report a statistically significant
reduction in rape recidivism in Hawaii, Idaho, and Ohio. However, when those three
states are studied, in the aggregate of the 10 states examined in the study that reduc-
tion in recidivism disappears. Vasquez et al. (2008) conclude that, “taken collectively,
the findings reported here indicate that sex offender registration and notification laws
have had little general deterrent effects on the incidence of rape offenses analyzed”
(p. 188).
Often SORN laws are described as inefficient and emotionally driven laws that
serve a memorial purpose after high-profile crimes occurred, specifically when the
crimes were against children (Surette, 2011). Although ineffective in reducing RSO
recidivism levels, these laws have served their emotional and symbolic purpose for
community members in identifying the perceived threat (Sutherland, 1950). As the
basis of supporting a moral panic, the opportune moment to pass this type of legis-
lation is when fear is high and when blame can be attributed to a specific occur-
rence, such as the sexually based homicides of Jacob Wetterling, Megan Kanka, or
Adam Walsh (Valier, 2005). Moral panics are often present when a specific group
is feared, and when there is a large call for the target group to be contained, often
with a punitive response, such as with SORN laws (Cohen, 1972, 2002; Goode &
Ben-Yehuda, 1994).
Klein and Cooper
951
The Development of a Moral Panic
For a moral panic to occur, Cohen suggests that a “folk devil” must be identified
(1972); in this case, RSOs are the targeted group. The folk devil group is used as a
moral scapegoat for communities, allowing individuals to use the deviant group as an
example of what behaviors are wrong and that contradict societal norms (Klein, 2014).
In addition, moral panics are said to be comprised of five elements: concern, hostility,
consensus, volatility, and disproportionality (Goode & Ben-Yehuda, 1994). Concern
suggests that individuals are aware of the threat that the RSOs pose, and are worried
that they might be directly or indirectly targeted by this folk devil group. However,
concern cannot be equated with fear, as fear suggests the threat from RSOs is immi-
nent (Best, 1990). Prior to the legislation of the 1990s, the issue of sexual offenders
may have been one best described as “out of sight, out of mind.” Yet, as all states were
mandated to create sex offender registries, and later make them available online, the
public has had the opportunity...
To continue reading
Request your trial