Situational Aspects of Sexual Offending: Implications for Residence Restriction Laws

• Author: Elizabeth L. Jeglic,Nicole Colombino,Cynthia Calkins Mercado
• Published date: 01 December 2009
• Date: 01 December 2009
• DOI: 10.3818/JRP.11.2009.27
• Subject Matter: Article

SITUATIONAL ASPECTS OF SEXUAL OFFENDING • 27

*



SituationalAspectsofSexualOffending:

 ImplicationsforResidenceRestrictionLaws

Nicole Colombino

Cynthia Calkins Mercado

Elizabeth L. Jeglic

John Jay College of Criminal Justice

* Abstract

Residence restriction laws, which aim to restrict known sex offenders from residing

near child-dense community structures, appear, in part, to be based on the assumption

that sex offenders are likely to seek out their victims in public places where children

congregate. The current study examined the locations where offenders f‌irst came into

contact with their victims and the locations where offenders perpetrated offenses.

Archival case f‌iles (N = 405) of adult male sex offenders were analyzed to determine

the frequency with which sex offenders met their victims and offended in public, semi-

public, or private locations. Descriptive analyses revealed that 76.5% of the sex offenders

in this sample met their victims in private locations, while 7.7% met their victims in

semi-public settings, and 15.8% met their victims in public settings. Similarly, 82.2%

of index offenses took place in private locations, while 10.9% and 6.9% occurred in

semi-public and public locations, respectively. Given that a minority of offenses occur

in public settings, sex offender-specif‌ic legislation that restricts offender access to child-

dense places may be most effective if tailored narrowly to offender subtypes most likely

to seek out victims in public places.

This research was supported by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ 2007-IJ-CX-0037).

The authors wish to thank the New Jersey Department of Corrections for its support in

providing access to offender records. The views expressed herein are not necessarily those of

the New Jersey Department of Corrections or the National Institute of Justice.

JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY, Vol. 11, 2009

© 2009 Justice Research and Statistics Association

28 • JUSTICE RESEARCh AND POLICy

Growing concern about the management of known sex offenders in the community

has led to a number of sex offender-specif‌ic policy measures, including legislation

that aims to keep sex offenders a prescribed distance away from areas frequented

by children. Residence restriction laws, which restrict where sex offenders may

live, have increasingly been implemented on state and local levels (Nieto & Jung,

2006). Despite the proliferation of residence restriction statutes, there is a lack of

research examining whether these policies are effective in preventing or reducing

recidivism (Levenson & D’Amora, 2007), though numerous studies have examined

the collateral consequences of these laws (Levenson & Cotter, 2005; Levenson &

Hern, 2007; Mercado, Alvarez, & Levenson, 2008; Tewksbury, 2005, 2007). No

study has yet examined, however, the frequency with which sexual offenses occur

in the particular locations that are statutorily def‌ined as off limits for sex offenders

under residence restriction policies.

* Residence Restrictions

Currently more than 30 states, as well as many local municipalities, have imple-

mented residence restriction laws that prohibit individuals convicted of certain

statuto

rily def‌ined sex crimes (e.g., child molestation, rape, exhibitionism) from re-

siding within a specif‌ied distance from places where children congregate (e.g., day

cares, schools, parks, bus stops) (Durling, 2006; Meloy, Miller, & Curtis, 2008;

Nieto & Jung, 2006). Despite these restrictions, some research suggests that resi-

dence location may have little, if any, role in sex offender recidivism. The Colorado

Department of Public Safety (2004), who examined the proximity of sex offender

residences to schools and day care centers, concluded that sexual offenders who

had recidivated appeared to be “randomly located” throughout the area studied

rather than being clustered near child-dense facilities (p.30). Similarly, the Minne-

sota Department of Corrections (2003) found that residential proximity to places

where children congregate did not appear to play a part in sexual reoffense, suggest-

ing that residential proximity may not be a salient risk factor for sexual recidivism.

In addition, there appears to be unintended collateral consequences associ-

ated with residence restrictions that could serve to increase, rather than decrease,

likelihood of recidivism. For instance, many sex offenders who are subject to

residence restriction laws report diff‌iculty in f‌inding housing (Levenson & Cotter,

2005; Levenson & Hern, 2007; Mercado et al., 2008; Tewksbury, 2005, 2007).

Studies that have used geospatial analyses to examine the impact that residence

restrictions have on housing availability substantiate these offender self-reports.

For example, Chajewski and Mercado (2008) found that only 7% of land space

would remain available for sex offenders were a 2,500-foot ordinance passed in

Newark, New Jersey. Similarly, Zandbergen and Hart (2006) found 95% of resi-

dential dwellings to be located within 1,000 feet of commonly def‌ined exclusion

zones, and Zgoba, Levenson, and McKee (2009) found that 88% of sex offenders