Treatment of Sex Offenders

230
J.S. Levenson
were well acquainted with their victims, such as parents, caretakers, paramours,
babysitters, or friends of the family. The repeat offender was a neighbor of the victim
in only about 4 % of the cases. Predatory assaults that occurred within a mile of
the offender’s residence typically involved adult victims, and none of the crimes
took place in or near a school, daycare center, or park.
Other scholars concurred that the majority (67 %) of New Jersey offenders met
victims in private locations while relatively few (4.4 %) met victims in the types of
locations normally identified as off-limits by residential restriction laws (Colombino,
Mercado, Levenson, & Jeglic, 2011 ). Not surprisingly, sex offenders rarely encountered
their victims in public locations where children congregate, and the authors
pointed out that policies emphasizing residential proximity to schools and parks
ignore the empirical reality of sexual abuse patterns. It was found, however, that
offenders who had met their index victim in a restricted or child-oriented venue
were more likely to commit a repeat sex crime. In other words, those who met their
victims at bus stops, parks, camps, carnivals, boardwalks, and hospitals were significantly
more likely to sexually reoffend (although only eight offenders recidivated)
and seemed more prone to engage in predatory patterns designed to seek out
children with whom they were not previously acquainted. Since residence restrictions
regulate only where an offender sleeps at night, alternative policies such as
loitering laws might be especially helpful for such offenders. Restricting their ability
to visit places where vulnerable victims may be present would be a more useful
strategy than restricting their residential proximity to such venues, which fails to
address their ability to travel to an offense location (Colombino et al., 2011 ).
In summary, the research literature provides no support for the assumption that
sexual reoffending can be prevented by prohibiting sex offenders from residing near
places where children commonly congregate. For the minority of sex offenders who
display predatory patterns of seeking out minor victims in public settings, laws or
case management strategies that forbid such offenders to visit such locations might
be more effective than laws designating where they can live. Sex offenders do not
abuse children because they live near schools, but rather they take advantage of
opportunities to cultivate trusting relationships with children and their families to
create opportunities for sexual abuse to take place.
Unintended Consequences of Sex Offender Management
Policies
The challenges encountered by criminal offenders when they reenter communities
after incarceration are even more pronounced for registered sex offenders. The
unique stigma of SORN and the ways these laws can obstruct community reintegration
and adjustment are well documented. Sex offenders in many different states
report employment obstacles, housing disruption, relationship loss, threats and
harassment, physical assault, and property damage (Levenson & Cotter, 2005a ;
Levenson, D’Amora, & Hern, 2007 ; Mercado, Alvarez, & Levenson, 2008 ; Sample