So You Want to Find a Transitional House for Sexually Violent Persons

• Author: Mary Ann Farkas,Stan Stojkovic
• Published date: 01 November 2014
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403413511633
• Date: 01 November 2014
• Subject Matter: Articles

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2014, Vol. 25(6) 659 –682

© 2013 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0887403413511633

cjp.sagepub.com

Article

So You Want to Find a

Transitional House for

Sexually Violent Persons: An

Account of Political Failure

Stan Stojkovic1 and Mary Ann Farkas2

Abstract

Many states passed legislation in the 1990s to address the problem of violent sex

offenders. While academic inquiries into the nature and extent of sexual offending have

revealed some interesting findings, very little is known regarding how communities

address the issue of managing violent sex offenders. This account documents how the

state of Wisconsin attempted to manage violent sex offenders once released from

prison and civilly committed under a sexually violent person statute. It chronicles the

experience of a committee charged with locating possible sites for a facility for sexual

predators under supervised release to the community. In addition, this account shows

the problematic nature of implementing a state statute in a large county and identifies

barriers inherent to this process. The concept of political failure is introduced to

describe why sex offender legislation is difficult to implement.

Keywords

sex offenders, sex offender residency, sex offender supervision

Introduction

Few other criminals ignite the anger, fear, and condemnation of the public as sex

offenders. Viewed as qualitatively different from other types of offenders, they are

believed to be a homogeneous group specializing in sex crimes exclusively (Palermo

& Farkas, 2001). Research findings, however, demonstrate that like other offenders,

1University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, USA

2Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, USA

Corresponding Author:

Stan Stojkovic, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, 1099 Enderis Hall, 2400 E. Hartford Avenue,

Milwaukee, WI 53211, USA.

Email: stojkovi@uwm.edu

511633CJPXXX10.1177/0887403413511633Stojkovic and FarkasCriminal Justice Policy Review

research-article2013

660 Criminal Justice Policy Review 25(6)

sex offenders tend to be more versatile in their criminal behavior (Harris, Smallbone,

Dennison, & Knight, 2009; Simon, 2000). According to Simon (2000), researchers

who measure the versatility of offending are in agreement that sex offenses are single

or infrequent crimes that often are embedded in an extensive criminal history of prop-

erty and violent crime.

Sex offenders are also presumed to be more dangerous offenders highly likely to

repeat their crimes and more likely to recidivate than other types of criminal offenders,

even though there is no supporting empirical evidence (Palermo & Farkas, 2001). The

reality is that recidivism rates for sex offenders are relatively low. Sample and Bray

(2003) contend that sex offenders have one of the lowest re-arrest rates for any crime

and for the same original crime than do most other offenders. A comprehensive meta-

analysis of 61 studies with a combined sample of 28,972 sex offenders found an over-

all sex offense recidivism rate of 13.4% in an average follow-up period of 4 to 5 years

(Hanson & Bussiere, 1998). A later meta-analysis of sex offender recidivism also con-

firmed a lower recidivism rate of 12% among the 9,454 sex offenders in the 43 studies

in the sample (Hanson et al., 2002).

Based on public assumptions, convicted sex offenders are subjected to intensive

measures of legal and social controls (Miethe, Olson, & Mitchell, 2006). Numerous sex

offender laws and policies have been enacted that apply to all sex offenders as a distinct

group regardless of the type of sex crime and their likelihood to reoffend. Universal and

selective crime policies and initiatives targeting convicted sex offenders have been

instituted with little opposition or challenges from individuals and groups including

legislators, political figures, criminal justice officials, and the general public.

In terms of criminal justice strategies, legislation at the county, state, and federal

levels represents a broad spectrum of alternatives and options in limiting the move-

ments and actions of sex offenders. This has taken the most notable form under the

rubric of sex offender registration and community notification laws, such as the Jacob

Wetterling Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in 1994 and then amended in 1996 and

known as “Megan’s Law.” Under these pieces of legislation, states are required to post

information regarding sex offenders on public websites and notify the public about sex

offenders in their communities. The Adam Walsh Act, passed in 2006 (Adam Walsh

Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, 2006) offered guidelines for states to

follow in the registration of sex offenders, and in some states, residency restrictions

are intended to constrain where convicted sex offenders can live and sometimes work.

The fervor with which political bodies have advocated even more restrictive laws

is unparalleled (Palermo & Farkas, 2001). As a unique response to this fear of sex

offenders, 20 states have passed Sexually Violent Persons (SVP) laws that allow for

the commitment postincarceration of a class of sex offenders to a specialized mental

health facility for an indeterminate period (Deming, 2008). The laws require a periodic

evaluation as to whether the sex offenders committed as SVPs are now safe to be

released to a lesser level of restriction (Lacoursiere, 2003). The SVP law has raised

interesting questions regarding the political processes in place to create legislation to

address the incapacitation of sex offenders and how the public’s attitude may influence

the application of laws.