Treatment of Sex Offenders

10 Community Control of Sex Offenders
229
USA was passed in Miami Beach in June 2005, modeled after zoning laws that
prohibit adult establishments (e.g., strip clubs and adult bookstores) from operating
within a certain distance from schools. Similar ordinances can be found in most
states, even those without statewide laws, and often expand restricted areas to
2500 ft (almost a half mile) surrounding places frequented by children. When one
municipality enacts such a law, a domino effect often follows, with surrounding
towns and counties passing similar ordinances to avert exiled sex offenders from
migrating to their communities.
Sex offender residence restrictions (SORR) are based on the ostensibly logical
hypothesis that by requiring child molesters to live far from places where children
congregate, the probability of repeat sex crimes can be lowered. The extant research,
however, finds no support for the proposition that sex offenders who live close to childoriented
settings are more likely to reoffend. In fact, research indicates that where sex
offenders live is not a significant contributing factor to reoffending behavior.
Residential proximity to schools and daycares is not empirically associated
with recidivism. Zandbergen, Levenson, and Hart ( 2010 ) mapped the locations
of recidivists and non-recidivists ( N = 330) relative to schools and daycares in
Florida. Those who lived closer to schools or daycare centers did not reoffend
more frequently than those who lived farther away. There was no significant correlation
between sexual recidivism and the number of feet the offender lived
from school. The recidivists and non-recidivists were matched on relevant risk
factors (prior arrests, age, marital status, predator status), and after controlling
for risk, proximity variables were not significant predictors of recidivism
(Zandbergen et al., 2010 ). Similarly, in Colorado, the addresses of sex offense
recidivists and non-recidivists were found to be randomly distributed within the
geographical area with no evidence that recidivists lived closer to schools or
daycare centers (Colorado Department of Public Safety, 2004 ).
In Jacksonville, Florida, researchers investigated the effects of a 2500 ft SORR
law on sex crime rates and sex offense recidivism (Nobles, Levenson, & Youstin,
2012 ). Using a quasi-experimental design, recidivism rates were compared before
and after the SORR law was passed, and no significant differences were found. As
well, a trend analysis revealed no significant changes in sex crime arrest patterns over
time. The authors concluded that the city’s residence restriction ordinance had no
meaningful effect on sex crime rates or sex offender recidivism and that these laws
did not appear to be a successful strategy for preventing repeat sexual violence.
The Iowa Department of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning studied the
effect of Iowa’s 2000 ft residence restriction law that went into effect in August of
2005 (Blood, Watson, & Stageberg, 2008 ). The researchers did not observe a downward
trend in the number of sex offenses following the passage of the law and
concluded that Iowa’s residence law “does not seem to have led to fewer charges or
convictions, indicating that there probably have not been fewer child victims”
(Blood et al., 2008 , p. 10). Notably, an analysis of 224 recidivistic sex offenses in
Minnesota led researchers to conclude that residential restriction laws would not
have prevented even one reoffense (Duwe, Donnay, & Tewksbury, 2008 ). Most of
the cases involving minors were committed not by strangers but by individuals who