Treatment of Sex Offenders

10 Community Control of Sex Offenders
231
& Streveler, 2003 ; Tewksbury, 2004 , 2005 ; Tewksbury & Lees, 2006 ; Zevitz &
Farkas, 2000 ). Psychosocial stressors such as shame, embarrassment, isolation,
depression, and hopelessness were also commonly reported by sex offenders as
byproducts of public registration. A survey of 584 family members of registered sex
offenders across the USA revealed that they too were profoundly impacted by these
laws (Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009 ; Tewksbury & Levenson, 2009 ). Employment
problems experienced by the RSO and resulting financial hardships were identified
as the most pressing issue for family members. Family members living with an RSO
also reported threats and harassment by neighbors, and some children of RSOs
revealed stigmatizing behavior by teachers and classmates.
The US Supreme Court upheld SORN laws in Alaska and Connecticut in 2003, ruling
that the laws were not punitive, but regulatory, and that they did not represent ex
post facto punishment. Over the past 10 years, however, as laws have been enhanced
both at the federal level (Adam Walsh Act) and by states, they have tied to registration
an expanding set of restrictions around employment, travel, and housing and an
increased number of complex requirements for compliance. As well, penalties for registration
violations are severe and can carry a prison term of up to 10 years.
Since the literature points to criminality and self-regulation deficits as robust
predictors of both sexual and nonsexual recidivism (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon,
2005 ), it might seem reasonable for lawmaker to assume that failure to register
(FTR) reflects an antisocial orientation which could increase the threat of subsequent
sexual and nonsexual criminal behavior. It has been pointed out, however, that
most sex offenders arrested for FTR are not willful violators and that they are easily
located and have not absconded (Duwe & Donnay, 2010 ; Harris, Levenson, &
Ackerman, 2012 ; Levenson, Ackerman, & Harris, 2013 ; Levenson, Letourneau,
Armstrong, & Zgoba, 2010 ; Levenson, Sandler, & Freeman, 2012 ; Zgoba &
Levenson, 2012 ). Some sex offenders might indeed be inclined to purposely abscond
to avoid the stigma and collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Most,
however, may carelessly disregard their duty to update registration information or
violate their requirements inadvertently, but remain in their known locations despite
their lapse. The registration process and its rules have become increasingly complex,
and Duwe and Donnay ( 2010 ) noted that lower education was associated with
a greater likelihood of FTR, suggesting that complicated reporting requirements
may be challenging for offenders with limited intellectual resources.
Residential restrictions , which are usually tied to registration status, create particularly
profound barriers to offender reintegration and also create unintended consequences
for communities (Levenson, 2008 ; Levenson, Ackerman, Socia, &
Harris, 2013 ). Surveys revealed that housing restriction laws frequently forced sex
offenders to relocate, that they were unable to return to their homes after incarceration,
that they were not permitted to live with family members, or that they experienced
a landlord refusing to rent to them or to renew a lease (Levenson, 2008 ;
Levenson & Cotter, 2005b ; Levenson & Hern, 2007 ; Mercado et al., 2008 ). Many
indicated that affordable housing is less available due to limits on where they can
live and that they are forced to live farther away from employment, public transportation,
social services, and mental health treatment. Young adults seemed to be