Treatment of Sex Offenders

10 Community Control of Sex Offenders
235
ment rather than primary prevention. There is a compelling research literature
indicating that children who experience early adversity are at increased risk for
polyvictimization and subsequently for more pervasive trauma symptoms (Finkelhor,
Turner, Hamby, & Ormrod, 2011 ). As well, children who experience chronic maltreatment
and family dysfunction are more likely than non-abused youngsters to
become the addicts and criminal offenders of the future (DeHart, 2009 ; DeHart,
Lynch, Belknap, Dass-Brailsford, & Green, in press ; Harlow, 1999 ; Mersky,
Topitzes, & Reynolds, 2012 ; Topitzes, Mersky, & Reynolds, 2012 ; Widom &
Maxfield, 2001 ). There is little resistance to funding criminal justice initiatives, yet
prevention programs and social services are generally among the first to be cut from
American legislative budgets. However, it is crucial for victims of child maltreatment
to receive therapy and counseling, for abusive parents to receive intervention
services, and for the criminal justice community to recognize that sexual and general
self-regulation problems in adulthood are often symptomatic of childhood
adversity (Baglivio et al., 2014 ; Levenson, Willis, & Prescott, 2014 ). Investing in a
comprehensive array of prevention and early intervention services for abused children
and at-risk families is an important step in halting the cycle of interpersonal
violence in our communities (Anda, Butchart, Felitti, & Brown, 2010 ; Baglivio
et al., 2014 ; Levenson et al., 2014 ).
Sociologist Robert Merton ( 1936 ) cautioned that social policies, even when well
intentioned, can sometimes lead to paradoxical results to which he referred as the
“law of unintended consequences.” Merton observed that when communities overreact
to a perceived threat and seek to curtail that threat by drastically altering the
social order, unexpected outcomes can inevitably result. As they endeavor to achieve
desired goals, advocates of social change may fail to anticipate the potential negative
consequences of a law. Collective values also play a role in social movements,
which are often motivated by popular concepts of good and evil that can obscure the
more detrimental effects of change (Merton, 1936 ). For all of these reasons, the
unintended consequences facilitated by sex offender policies are likely to be ignored
by lawmakers and citizens hoping to prevent repeat sexual violence. Those who
point out counterproductive effects, especially as they relate to the reintegration of
sex offenders, are often dismissed as offender advocates who are unconcerned about
the safety of children.
Some scholars have opined that sex offender policies are designed to accomplish
both instrumental and symbolic objectives and that understanding both is essential
in the continuing dialogue about SORN laws and prevention of sexual violence
(Sample, Evans, & Anderson, 2011 ). While most empirical investigations have not
detected instrumental effects such as reduced reoffending (Ackerman, Sacks &
Greenberg, 2012 ; Agan, 2011 ; Letourneau et al., 2010 ; Sandler, Freeman, & Socia,
2008 ; Vasquez et al., 2008 ; Zgoba, Witt et al., 2009 ) or increased community protection
behaviors (Anderson & Sample, 2008 ; Kernsmith et al., 2009 ), SORN policies
do accomplish important symbolic goals. Policy enactment can serve to inspire
and reinforce social solidarity by uniting against a common enemy (Roots, 2004 ).
These laws send a clear message that sexual victimization will not be tolerated and
that politicians are willing to address public safety concerns (Sample et al., 2011 ;