Taking the High Road: Reconciling the Good Intentions of Sex Offense Legislation with the Realities of Its Consequences

Full text

Running head: TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
1
Taking the High Road:
Reconciling the Good Intentions of Sex Offense Legislation
with the Realities of Its Consequences
Andrea L. Saelios
Department of Sociology, Arizona State University
SOC 588: Capstone Project
Professor Puruhito
April 21, 2021

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
2
Abstract
Through a historical review of the impetus of sex offender legislation spurred on by rare but
highly publicized and sensate depictions of child abductions, rapes, and murders throughout the
1980s, 90s, and 2000s, a deep examination of costs and benefits reveals that not only are these
laws not resolving sex crime rates, but these laws have also contributed to an acrimonious
environment in which sex offenders are more likely to commit another offense. While sex crime
rates are lower than those of non-sex crimes, sexual offenders are also less likely than non-sexual
offenders to commit another general offense and even less likely to commit another sex offense.
Every study evaluated in this review conceded that sex offenders are not a hopeless population
destined to be voracious predators out to violate innocent youths. Many registered offenders
want nothing more than to be accepted by their communities so that they can be active, positive,
and contributing members alongside their neighbors. Public registries and community
notification severely inhibit an offender’s chances of social survival. Extreme stigma looms over
every sex offender regardless of how old they were at the time of their offense, the age of their
victim, any mental health issues the offender may have, or whether their offense was even
sexual. Even kidnapping and false imprisonment are crimes deemed worthy of sex offender
registration. Early childhood adversity and trauma can lead to sexual offending as an adult,
perpetuating the cycle of abuse; it is crucial to evaluate sex offender legislation for efficacy to
make informed suggestions for its reform with a focus on helping offenders reintegrate
successfully.

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
3
Taking the High Road:
Reconciling the Good Intentions of Sex Offense Legislation
with the Realities of Its Consequences
It is hard to imagine our world today without sex offender legislation. Although what we
consider to be criminal sexual acts in our postmodern society have occurred throughout human
history, the evolution of human rights has propagated an onslaught of movements for body
autonomy and safe communities. The 1980s and 90s were rife with retellings of terrifying stories
augmented into national causes for justice for missing children and those murdered by strangers.
The names of Jacob Wetterling and Adam Walsh will forever be emblazoned upon American
history, not for having grown up to achieve great things with their lives – or even terrible things.
These young boys were murdered and unfathomably discarded by men they did not know, with
Jacob Wetterling missing for 27 years before he was confirmed dead. The consternation
following Wetterling’s abduction and Walsh’s murder began a nationwide panic later
exacerbated by the rapes and murders of Megan Kanka in 1994 and Jessica Lunsford in 2005.
The outrage of parents everywhere has come to a boiling point over the stolen safety of their
children (Wright, 2008).
The Wetterling Act was introduced in 1993 in response to Jacob Wetterling’s abduction
supposedly by a registered sex offender and implemented the requirement for states to create
registries of offenders against children and sexual offenders (Wright, 2008; Wright, 2015b).
Because these registries did little to prevent further crimes – including sexual crimes – against
children, Americans sought justice – and vengeance – against a growing population of sex
offenders. There is mounting evidence that the retaliatory but well-intentioned legislation
cultivated to appease constituents’ fears of further victimizations and murders has verily
exacerbated the systemic problems facilitating these crimes.

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
4
While plenty of rhetoric plays out in the American media regarding “stranger danger,”
how “nothing works” to resolve recidivism, and being “tough on crime” in general, the punitive
state of the United States languishes in the past with its retributive justice system. There has been
a great deal of oversight in the rehabilitation of sexual offenders. Mental health issues are indeed
not an excuse for bad behavior, but publicly castigating perpetrators as “evil” (McKim, 2013, as
cited in Wright, 2015b, p. 1). The lack of appropriate psychological treatment in prison saturates
the offender’s ability to cope with unresolved trauma of their own, instigating the cycle of re-
offense (Callahan & Buckley, 2018). However, most registered sex offenders are not predatorial,
are not strangers to their victims, and have low levels of recidivism compared to non-sexual
offenders. The registry’s vastness is mainly due to differences in what is categorized as a sex
crime from state to state and the varying ages of consent nationwide, resulting in an extensive net
for establishing what qualifies for registration as a sex offender. The federal laws further
complicate these issues by establishing a very vague guideline for states to utilize in the
development of their own —sometimes much more restrictive than federal — statutes against
sex crimes.
Lamenting that “nothing works” has done little to address what could work. There is
scant evidence that registration and notification laws have increased the safety of communities.
Nevertheless, more legislation continues to pass in a sort of fashion show between states
showing how they each respond in kind to rapes and murders of children, no state to be outdone
by precedent in their responses to these heinous crimes (Mancini, Barnes, & Mears, 2011).
Although it is both logical and necessary to sanction someone who has committed any crime, it
is even more so vital that we enact laws that work to solve the problem rather than superficially
treating it and making it worse.

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
5
Evaluating the opinions of the public, policymakers, correctional professionals,
offenders, the media, and most importantly, the survivors and their families will help to
illuminate why these laws have evolved as they have. Further, offenders’ lived experiences from
childhood through their criminogenic stage and into reentry into society will reveal how the
sanctions against them, the lack of rehabilitation, the stigma of the sex offender label, and the
latent consequences of that stigma work together to create a breeding ground for recidivism.
Although the latent consequences of sexual victimization are essential to the conversation about
sex offender legislation, these issues are far too vast for the scope of this paper. Instead, this
evaluation focuses on what it means to be a registered sex offender in the United States and how
publicly labeling a growing number of the American population as such has far-reaching
consequences for the future and safety of our country (Costigliacci, 2008).
The History of Sex Offender Legislation
Crimes against children and sexual crimes have been an ongoing part of the United
States’ sordid history. The 1928 murder of Grace Budd, gruesomely recounted to her mother in a
confessional letter detailing Grace’s murder and the cannibalism of her body by Albert Fish,
reveals the horrible truth that these types of crimes are not by any means a recent phenomenon
(Newton, 2006; Terry & Ackerman, 2015; Wright, 2008). With the advanced availability of
network television in the 1980s and 90s and, eventually, the internet and cellular phones, the
sexualization of American culture has proliferated programming and web content that normalizes
adult sexuality to adolescents and provides a more accessible commission of predatorial
activities from adults toward naïve minors (Wright, 2015a). Because of the increased
vulnerability of children engaging in unsupervised activities, many high-profile cases elevate to
national causes, with state and federal “memorial” laws passed in the names of victims and
survivors of sexual assault. Usually, these names are those of children who were violently raped

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
6
and murdered and whose legal cases have negatively affected the jurisdictions handling the
cases.
Wright (2015b, p. 2) states that through the vulnerabilities experienced by persons in
sexually intimate situations and the need for humans to protect themselves and their children,
American society personally reacts to sexual victimization. Fervently and swiftly, emotionally
backed policies are implemented with little regard to evidence-based research. These policies
disregard the sensitive recovery processes of survivors. Over-arching legislation dehumanizes
persons falling under the “sex offender” label and creates hype about rare cases leading to media
sensationalism. Because no lawmaker wants to be viewed as a pedophile apologizer, many of
these policies pass with little consideration of how the consequences of the laws will affect
survivors and their families, offenders, the institutions upholding these laws, or society at large
(Wright, 2015a).
The Genesis of Sex Offender Policy
Early definitions of sexual normalcy and deviancy were pursued and created by
psychologists, not legislators. The medicalization of sexual deviancy spurred the first laws
against what were - at that time - deemed sexually immoral behaviors. Until the United States
Supreme Court (USSC) declared the practice unconstitutional in 1942, many states incorporated
eugenics into their policies, allowing for the sterilization of those criminals who were determined
to be too ill-adapted to procreate. The criminalization of homosexual acts increased sex crime
rates in the 1930s despite the decline in other sexual crimes. Michigan created the mentally
disordered sex offender (MDSO) legislation in 1937, which allowed sex offenders to be civilly
committed until cured of their psychopathy. The ability to determine sexual psychopathy was
largely subjective, and an individual’s dangerousness was challenging to define through

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
7
changing social mores. The World Health Organization (WHO) finally removed homosexuality
from the catalog of diseases in 1992 (Terry & Ackerman, 2015).
The 1960s saw an upswing in victim advocacy from feminist groups intent on eliminating
the stigma associated with sexual victimization and the general perception that victims are
primarily or partly responsible for the crimes committed against them. Pathways opened in the
1970s and 80s for conversations about intrafamilial sexual abuse, revealing that sexual crimes
committed by strangers were less prominent than previously thought. Using questionable
methods, therapists in the 1980s began culling repressed memories of sexual victimization from
their clients. Because of the recall delay of repressed memories, and despite the lack of validity
of those memories or the practices used to access them, extensions of statutes of limitations for
the report of sexual abuse were established in many states (Terry & Ackerman, 2015).
The Community Protection Act of 1990
Washington implemented the Community Protection Act in 1990. This law responded to
the deaths of three boys who were molested and tortured by Westley Alan Dodd before he
murdered them and to Earl Shriner kidnapping and sexually victimizing a 7-year-old boy whose
penis Shriner cut off before leaving the boy to die in the woods. While Dodd was executed, the
state wanted to monitor offenders such as Shriner, whose finite sentence would one day expire,
leaving him free to commit sexual assault once again. This legislation provided the state with the
means to manage sexual offenders and notify the community of a returning offender’s release –
the first notification statute in the US (Terry & Ackerman, 2015).
The Wetterling Act
In 1989, Jacob Wetterling was 11 years old. While in the company of his brother and a
friend on their way home from a convenience store, he was abducted by an armed, masked
stranger who threatened to shoot the other boys if they did not run away (Dudley, 2016; Wright,

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
8
2015a). Jacob remained missing for 27 years until his skeletal remains were discovered and
identified through dental records in 2016 (Dudley, 2016). Although his death had remained
unconfirmed for nearly three decades, in 1994 – just a few years after his disappearance, the
United States federal government enacted as part of the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender
Act (Wright, 2008; Wright, 2015a). This federally enacted policy mandated each state to
establish a registry to catalog individuals who commit criminal sexual acts or criminal offenses
against children (Terry & Ackerman, 2015).
Megan’s Law
The enactment of the Wetterling Act came four months on the heels of the murder of 7-
year-old Megan Kanka in July 1994. Her neighbor lured her into his home, where Megan was
raped and then murdered (Corrigan, 2006). This event was horrible enough as it was. However,
the man responsible for this child’s death, Jesse Timmendequas, was not simply a neighbor – he
was a twice-convicted sexual offender living with two other offenders. No one in the community
was aware of their registered status, though. Megan’s mother, Maureen Kanka, ardently pursued
reprisal against sex offenders, damning the Wetterling Act for its insufficiency in protecting
communities through registration alone. Less than three months after Megan’s death, “Megan’s
Law” was implemented in New Jersey. In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed into law a federal
version of Megan’s Law as an amendment to and subsection of The Wetterling Act, thus
requiring states to maintain a registry of sexual offenders and notify communities of offenders’
presences there. States that do not comply risk losing federal funding for law enforcement at
state and local levels. Before Megan’s death, there were five states in compliance with the
registration requisites of the Wetterling Act, but by August 1996, all 50 states had implemented
their variations of Megan’s Law (Terry & Ackerman, 2015).

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
9
Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996
Pam Lychner was a real estate agent in Texas who was assaulted at a real estate property
she was going to show to a potential buyer. Her husband arrived in time to save her life. Ms.
Lychner later advocated for victims’ rights and more stringent sentencing for sexual and violent
crimes. After she died in 1996 in the TWA Flight 800 explosion, Congress named another
amendment to the Wetterling Act after Pam Lychner, enacting the Pam Lychner Sexual Offender
Tracking and Identification Act (Terry & Ackerman, 2015).
Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act of 2000
Another amendment to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the
Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act of 2000 was enacted by the United States Congress (USC)
to require registered sex offenders to report to law enforcement their attendance or employment
at higher learning institutions. This information is available to schools upon request (Terry &
Ackerman, 2015).
Jessica’s Law
In Florida in 2005, when Jessica Lunsford was nine years old, she was raped and
murdered in a similar situation as that of Megan Kanka – by a convicted sex offender - her
neighbor. Florida enacted “Jessica’s Law” to implement monitoring of parolees electronically.
Swiftly following, a group of seven states established their versions of “Jessica’s Law” to require
lifetime electronic monitoring of sex offenders (Dyck & Hagley, 2012; Harper & Harris, 2017).
The Jessica Lunsford Act proposed even more restrictive supervision of sex offenders at the
federal level but was ultimately deemed too restrictive by the 109th Congress and failed to pass
legislation (Lamade, Gabriel, & Prentky, 2011).
Adam Walsh Act

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
10
Twenty-five years after the kidnapping and murder of six-year-old Adam Walsh, 17 years
after the disappearance of Jacob Wetterling, and in response to the deaths and sexual assaults of
17 people, President George W. Bush enacted the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
(AWA) in July 2006. Title I: Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), Subtitle
A of the AWA, obsoleted the Wetterling Act. It mandates the expansion and standardization of
state sex offender registries to include conviction-based categorization of sex offenders into three
tiers (Freeman & Sandler, 2010; Wright, 2008). Tier I offenders are required to register and
update their photos and information annually with local law enforcement. In contrast, Tier II
offenders must register annually for 25 years and update their photos and information
semiannually. Wright (2008, p. 124) states:
A Tier I sex offender is “a sex offender other than a Tier II or Tier III sex offender... Tier
II sex offenders are offenders convicted of committing (or conspiring to commit) certain
crimes against a minor, including sex trafficking, coercion, and crimes of enticement,
transportation with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, abusive sexual
contact, use of a minor in a sexual performance, solicitation of a minor to practice
prostitution, or production or distribution of child pornography.
SORNA dictates that those high-risk offenders convicted of predatory and aggravated
sexual crimes, sexual abuse of a minor under the age of 13, or kidnapping a child of whom they
are not a parent must register as Tier III offenders. These offenders must register annually with
local law enforcement for the rest of their lives, reporting every 90 days to update their photos
and information (Freeman & Sandler, 2010; Terry & Ackerman, 2015; Wright, 2008).
SORNA also makes failure to register a felony which could result in a 10-year prison
sentence. This legislation demands that state registry websites list all sex offenders inclusively,
regardless of tier. Every registered offender’s DNA is required to be on file as a provision of

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
11
SORNA. Furthermore, SORNA mandates the registration of all juvenile sex offenders, with
those adolescents 14 years and older at the time of committing aggravated sexual abuse or a
similar offense required to submit to community notification. All these provisions are the
minimal requirements imposed upon the states (Terry & Ackerman, 2015). States were given
three years to comply with the guidelines of SORNA along with the ability to petition for two
one-year extensions; otherwise, for each year a state is non-compliant with SORNA
requirements, it will forfeit ten percent of their Byrne Grant funding provided by the federal
government to help with crime reduction through the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 (Costigliacci, 2008; Wright, 2008).
2006 California Proposition 83
Just months after the passage of the Adam Walsh Act, California enacted its version of
Jessica’s Law in response to the wave of state legislation vindicating the murder of Jessica
Lunsford. This legislation was approved by 70 percent of California voters to extend the original
residence restrictions of sex offenders from 1,320 feet to 2,000 feet from schools and parks. The
law also created more severe prison sentences for offenders and required some offenders to
submit to lifetime electronic monitoring (Dyck & Hagley, 2012).
The True Danger of Sex Offenders: Comparing Recidivism Rates
It has often been contended that sex offenders have much higher recidivism rates than
other criminals. Kolata (1996 as cited in Pallone, 2003, p. 85) of the New York Times quotes
prior sitting-governor of California, Pete Wilson: “child molesters will repeat this crime again at
least 90 percent of the time.” To fully understand sexual offenders, the breadth, consistency, and
frequency of their crimes and risk factors must measure against those same attributes of non-
sexual offenders (Di Tella & Schargrodsky, 2013). There is no way to compare registered sexual
offenders with the general populace because no other members of our society are so thoroughly

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
12
labeled and demonized as registered sex offenders. Moreover, while intrafamilial and
extrafamilial sexual abuse is touted to be much more prevalent than records would indicate, it is
unfathomable that anyone currently committing criminal sexual acts undetected would be willing
to admit to such even in an anonymous survey to create a comparison group for registered sex
offenders within the unregistered population. It is essential to compare convicted sex offenders to
convicted non-sexual offenders to understand sexual crimes.
It is no secret that the United States houses more prisoners per capita than any other
country (Di Tella & Schargrodsky, 2013). Although mass incarceration is a highly politicized
and contested issue, it allows for a wide range of data collection regarding first-time offenders
and recidivism rates and demographic information and trauma histories. Contrasting and
comparing sexual offenders with non-sexual offenders affords a perspective about offenders’
potential future offense patterns and dangerousness. Williams (2015) cites a 2002 study by the
Bureau of Justice Statistics of 272,111 former prisoners across 15 states. Of this sample, there
was a 67.5 percent recidivism rate, predominantly of severe misdemeanors and felonies. Rapists
constituted 1.2 percent of recidivists. Rapists had one of the lowest reoffending rates at 46
percent, and offenders convicted of sexual assault had a reoffending rate of 41.4 percent. These
rates starkly contrast those of burglars at 74 percent, arms dealers at 70.2 percent, and
automobile thieves at 78 percent. Of those rapists released from prison, within three years, only
2.5 percent of them were arrested for committing another rape (Williams, 2015).
Sexual Offenders Within the Corrections System
According to Zgoba and Levenson (2012), in 2003, the US Department of Justice found
the recidivism rate for arrests for new sex crimes over a 3-year period to be 5.3 percent. A study
of over 20,000 sex offenders from both North America and England reported that over 4 to 6
years, there was a mean rearrest rate of approximately 14 percent, which increased to 24 percent

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
13
over 15 years. Although sex offenders are more prone than generalist offenders to be rearrested
for new sexual offenses, recidivist sex offenders are predominantly arrested for non-sexual
crimes. Despite the greater odds of a sex offender reoffending sexually, most sex offenses are
committed by unregistered offenders. In fact, of registered offenders in New York State, 95
percent were initial offenders (Zgoba & Levenson, 2012).
As the prevention of sexual crimes and protection of vulnerable populations – namely,
children – are the scaffolding for the AWA and its components, it is reasonable to compare
recidivism rates between non-sexual and sexual offenders and between sexual offenders required
to register and comply and those who do not. One might expect those sex offenders who fail to
register to pose a higher risk of future sexual offenses against the general public. One concern
about public notification is the alleged propensity of offenders to abscond or simply not register
due to registration requirements and the stigma associated with the sex offender label. This
assumption has led to further worry that unregistered offenders will commit other criminally
sexual acts and is the foundational reasoning for the AWA’s categorization of failing to register
as a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
In a study of 1,125 New Jersey offenders released between 1980 and 2008, Zgoba and
Levenson (2012) researched the effects of non-registration on sexual recidivism. They found that
during the follow-up period, which averaged less than 12 years, the total sexual recidivism rate
was 15 percent. For those offenders who were required to register but failed to do so, the sexual
recidivism rate was 18 percent – a negligible disparity. Furthermore, research shows that the
more time an offender spends in the community, the more likely they are to refrain from
recidivism (Zgoba & Levenson, 2012). Treatment for sex offenders can further reduce recidivism
rates to varying but significant degrees. One study of offender treatment revealed a 10 percent
reduction in recidivism rates, while another reported a reduction of 22 percent. Juvenile sex

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
14
offenders tend to have better outcomes from treatment than adult sex offenders (Kim, Benekos,
& Merlo, 2016).
Juvenile Sexual Offenders
Juveniles comprise 15 to 20 percent of those offenders arrested for sexual crimes, a
disproportionate representation of this age group compared to other age groups (Caldwell, 2016).
SORNA requires the mandatory registration of all juvenile sex offenders over the age of 14.
SORNA also allows states to civilly commit offenders upon sentence completion if the offender
is deemed violent or a predatory liability to the community and expected to not improve with
treatment within the community. Because of these policies and the general misperception that
youth are more likely to reoffend as adults, juvenile sex offenders are at substantial risk of
getting absorbed by the void of the ever-expanding penal system.
Younger age at first arrest is one of several risk factors for recidivism, so,
understandably, the public would be concerned about young sexual offenders’ potential future
crimes. Legislators respond to public fear with harsh sanctions that remove these youth from
society until they age to be less likely to exacerbate other risk factors. Over the last few decades,
general offense rates have decreased by 13 percent, though this was not a significant finding.
However, general sexual recidivism rates have plummeted by 73 percent and are estimated to be
below 3 percent. Over approximately five years, adjudicated youth sex offenders were found to
have a very low sexual recidivism weighted base rate of 4.97 percent and 39.40 percent for
general recidivism. Imposing longer sentences on juvenile offenders and requiring them to
submit to registration and community notification has not significantly affected the reduction of
sexual recidivism (Caldwell, 2016).
The Case for Sex Offender Registration and Notification

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
15
For over a century, the registration of various types of criminals has been a tool utilized
by law enforcement (Tewksbury, Mustaine, & Payne, 2011). The growing body of research
relating to sex offense legislation is limited to only specific perspectives of outcomes, and many
of the resources are outdated at this point. One of the most prevalent hazards for this type of
research is the stigma that comes with advocating for registered sex offenders in any way.
Rallying for human rights is one thing, but when the human rallied for is portrayed as
unredeemable and evil (Mancini & Mears, 2016), anyone who seeks to lobby for fair treatment
of such a monster is seen as an apologist who can expect to be slandered by the “courtesy
stigma” that comes with advocating for sex offenders (Bailey & Klein, 2018; Dum, 2016;
Edwards & Hensley, 2001). All sides of this conversation should be heard in any case. While
there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that begs for better solutions than those offered by
the Wetterling Act and AWA, there are some notable benefits to sex offender registration and
notification (SORN). There is no doubt that sex offenders need to be held accountable for their
crimes. Arguably, a national database of registered offenders is also necessary to prevent
predatory behaviors from re-occurring and allow law enforcement to rule out sex offenders and
redirect their attention elsewhere. However, it is necessary to look objectively at the success of
SORNA legislation compared to its failures to determine where legislation can be improved.
SORNA Successes
The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) is Title I of the Adam
Walsh Act. It repeals the Wetterling Act and dramatically expands the legislation to include
longer minimum sentences and more rigorous registration requirements for sexual offenders.
Maurelli and Ronan (2013) used Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) to evaluate crime data from
more than 17,000 law enforcement agencies across the US in a time-series analysis to determine
the effect of registry interventions in the 1990s on forcible rape rates nationwide. They found a

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
16
significant decline in rapes reported to law enforcement in 17 states after implementing sex
offender laws, which aligns with the decline in general and sexual crime rates noted by Caldwell
(2016; Maurelli & Ronan, 2013). Community notification with liberal dissemination of offender
information was used in eight of these states (Lasher & McGrath, 2012).
SORNA Issues
Despite the benefits of SORNA, many issues have resulted from its implementation
(Bailey & Klein, 2018; Dum, 2016; Lasher & McGrath, 2012; Mohseni, 2012; ten Bensel &
Sample, 2017; Tewksbury, 2012). The study by Maurelli and Ronan (2013) revealed that, while
17 states saw a reduction in rape reports after implementing sex offender regulations, 32 states
experienced no significant decrease in reported rapes at all, and a few states experienced an
increase in rape reports. There has been little statistically significant evidence produced to
indicate that SORNA requisites have impacted sexual recidivism or initial crimes and have been
more so evidenced to augment these rates. Public perception portrayed by the media – or
witnessed on practically any social media website or comments section – gives the impression
that sex offenders deserve the consequences of their registration status and that the offender may
even deserve to die for their offense(s). However, this blanketed, one-dimensional perception of
“sex offender” as a master status is not a one-size-fits-all determination and creates severe issues
not only for the labeled offender but also for their families, their communities, and even their
victims (Edwards, & Hensley, 2001).
Latent Consequences
Indeed, when one hears “sexual offender,” they are likely to mentally default to the label
of “pedophile” as these two terms have become practically synonymous (Dum, 2016).
Undeniably, being subjected to a general perception of being pedophiles, sex offenders thus have
difficulty with the reentry process (Mohseni, 2012). Stigmatization resulting from the “sex

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
17
offender” label is palpable through the latent consequences experienced in the lives of offenders
and their families, friends, and even their victims. These consequences limit successful
reintegration into communities and increase recidivism risks.
Registered offenders are subject to public notification, which may include mailing
notifications to community members living within a certain radius of the offender. This
notification alerts the public to the offender’s appearance and address as well as their registration
status. Though this notification is intended to enhance public awareness and, therefore,
community safety, public knowledge of an offender’s registration status often spurs maltreatment
of the offender during the highly vulnerable reintegration period. Nearly one-third of offenders
lose their jobs when their employers discover that they are sex offenders (Lasher & McGrath,
2012). Offenders who are lucky enough to find stable, gainful employment are then slated with
the task of finding a landlord that will overlook the proverbial scarlet letter branded upon every
sex offender regardless of their crimes or victims (Callahan, 2016; Edwards & Hensley, 2001).
Twelve percent of sex offenders in the eight studies reviewed by Lasher and McGrath (2012)
reported being forced out of their homes when their landlord found out about their registration
status; this amount increased to 19 percent when asked if they lost their housing for any reason.
Further constraining the chore of finding suitable and affordable housing are residence
restrictions that limit an offender’s ability to live within 500 to 2500 feet from points of interest
where children may congregate, such as parks, schools, playgrounds, or even churches in some
states. Mississippi has the most restrictive residence restriction of 3,000 feet. In some areas, there
is almost nowhere within a community to find housing, pushing sex offenders not only to the
fringes of society but to the perimeters of jurisdictions, leaving many homeless, exiled to other
communities, living in vehicles, or forced into living at residential motels that sometimes violate
hundreds of health codes and are falling apart (Dum, 2016). Neighboring communities often

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
18
institute stringent residency restrictions to block overflow into their communities by preventing
potentially dangerous offenders from moving into their towns. Some offenders take up residence
in rural areas, thereby removing themselves from urban loci with easily accessible treatment and
isolating themselves from prosocial opportunities. Residency restrictions do not necessarily
prevent an offender from visiting nearby communities that do not know the offender through
public notification. Suppose an offender is at higher risk of recidivism. In that case, the
anonymity proffered by stranger communities could lead to an upswell in stranger-based sex
crimes, which are more dangerous to victims and are generally harder to solve (Edwards &
Hensley, 2001).
Many people do not consider that sex offenders are not the only ones negatively affected
by their designations (Mohseni, 2012). Because of the many avenues of community notification
– newspaper advertisements, news spotlights on television, mailed notifications, door-to-door in-
person notifications, community meetings, email alerts, and publicly accessible websites – it is
probable that an offender’s registration status will become known within the community quickly.
Relatives and friends of the offender are likely to be questioned about their loved one’s
conviction, and those who retain support for the offender often experience “courtesy stigma,”
which is broad stigmatization of not only members of a group but also anyone that associates
with them (Bailey & Klein, 2018; Dum, 2016; Edwards & Hensley, 2001). People associated
with an offender experience harassment, shame, job loss, friend loss, and stress that often
damage intimate relationships (Meloy, Curtis, & Boatwright, 2013). Many individuals end their
associations with sex offenders to avoid the shame society places on such a connection
(Brewster, DeLong, & Moloney, 2012).
The disintegrative shame experienced by sex offenders (Agan, 2011), their relatives, and
their associates can also prove detrimental to victims. The presence of an offender on a public

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
19
registry for incestuous acts with a minor means that while the minor may remain anonymous in
court documents, their identity as a victim of incest may become public knowledge simply by the
deduction of information available to the public about the offender. For this reason, some victims
and their families may choose not to report sexual assaults. Some parents may even deny their
child’s accusations and refuse to report the incident to avoid their public association with a sex
offender. As a result, untold cases of sexual assault go unreported, leaving victims in abusive
situations and fueling misperceptions of the stranger-danger myth. Victims may also suffer
extended periods of unresolved trauma when the accused pleads not guilty, attempting to avoid
the mandatory sentencing and requisite registration upon release (Edwards & Hensley, 2001).
The social isolation registered sex offenders experience as a result of and in addition to
this incredibly shameful stigma is evidenced to increase recidivism in this population through the
reduction of informal social controls of family and friends that help to mitigate criminogenic
behaviors while promoting prosocial engagement (Bailey & Klein, 2018). This type of isolation
is most prevalent amongst lifetime registrants and their family members. However, offender
demographics, offense type, and victim type had no effect on the degree of isolation experienced
(Bailey & Klein, 2018). Approximately 40 to 60 percent of offenders in the Lasher and McGrath
(2012) study indicated that they experienced various detrimental psychological effects beyond
isolation and shame, including hopelessness and loss of friends. More intrusive methods of
community notification appear to exacerbate these issues, which may be evident in the varying
levels of negative consequences between jurisdictions. Significantly lower levels of negative
consequences were exhibited in Connecticut, Indiana, and Vermont and elevated in Kentucky,
New Jersey, and Wisconsin (Lasher & McGrath, 2012).
Collateral Damage

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
20
The term “sex offender” applies to an ever-growing population of people who commit
crimes from aggravated rape to public urination to kidnapping and false imprisonment. Only one
of these crimes has a sexual component or motivation. Nevertheless, a grandmother intent on
protecting her grandchildren from an abusive home situation by taking them without their
parents’ permission will not only receive a kidnapping conviction but she will also be required to
register as a sex offender for life as kidnapping is a Tier III offense under SORNA. Listing non-
sexual offenders as high-risk sexual offenders trivializes the term “sex offender” and burdens
law enforcement with the maintenance of data that bungles the accuracy of sexual recidivism
statistical analyses by bloating the registry with needless information that is costly to maintain.
Requiring community notification of these offenders also distorts communities’ perceptions of
safety and danger.
Terry and Ackerman (2015) found no empirical evidence of a positive correlation
between increased proximity to points of interest and victimization. However, there is ample
evidence that restricting a sex offender’s access to occupational opportunities, support systems,
and numerous services significantly inhibits an offender’s ability to reintegrate successfully into
society. Technical violations of probation and parole lead to distorted recidivism figures as there
is a lack of consensus between studies of what constitutes recidivism. Residency restrictions may
also result in vagrancy if the offender’s anticipated residence upon release lies within an
exclusion zone. If the offender intends to live with family in this situation, they not only suffer
the loss of shelter but also of a significant prosocial support structure (Terry & Ackerman, 2015).
Beyond individual actors, sex crimes also negatively impact society in toto. Syndicated
media relies on exciting news to bolster ratings. Shocking sex crimes, especially those involving
murder or children – or both - are fashioned into sound bites and blurbs commemorated across
time immemorial (Mancini & Mears, 2016), and tragically personal details about innocence and

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
21
lives lost forever haunt a global audience with little regard to the feelings of the survivors
involved. Favor for registration and notification laws intended to protect children from death and
sexual victimization by strangers is reinforced repeatedly in breaking news segments nationwide.
However, the media’s overselling of the stranger-offender-as-future-perpetrator notion diverts
attention from more common incidences of sexual victimization by family members and
acquaintances. The public is forced into ignorance about a sexual pandemic occurring in
presumably safe environments between individuals who know each other (Levenson & Cotter,
2005). Close to 75 percent of victims know their abuser (Mancini & Budd, 2016). Because of the
deleterious effects incest and molestation have on children, it is urgent to intervene expediently.
However, because medical and mental health professionals are mandated to report domestic and
sexual abuse to authorities, a great deal of intrafamilial sexual victimization may go unreported
and unresolved because families want to avoid the well-known sex offender stigma (Edwards &
Hensley, 2001).
Promoting fear through emotionally charged stories inevitably awakens primal instincts
to protect ourselves and those we love and the communities we care about. Social media sites
allow for the quick transmission of catchy headlines and memes touting misinformation and
statistics of questionable validity about domestic and sexual violence, which perpetuates the
stigma associated with the sex offender label. Some citizens have engaged in vigilantism upon
learning a registered sex offender’s address through public notification. A Canadian man,
Stephen Marshall, drove to Maine specifically to murder two registered offenders in their homes.
The presence of sex offenders in a neighborhood drives down home values, if not for the
offender’s presence, perhaps because of the perceived increased likelihood of violence in the
neighborhood. This perception again is due to sensationalized news stories about murders
committed by sex offenders. (Agan, 2011).

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
22
Perceptions
Despite the relatively low occurrence of initial and recidivistic sex crimes in the US and
the trending decline in overall crime rates, including sexual crimes, highly publicized cases
involving young children have tipped the scales on public perceptions of sex offenses, or so that
is the impression also portrayed by the media (Mancini & Mears, 2016). Research shows that
these policies are merely symbolic gestures to appease a distressed constituency (Meloy, Curtis,
& Boatwright, 2013). Distinct groups affected by these laws have starkly different opinions from
each other regarding the outcomes and efficacy of sex offender laws and common perceptions of
this legislation (Socia, & Harris, 2016).
Legislators
In a nonrandom study by Meloy and colleagues (2013), state representatives and senators
slated with the task of enacting sex offender legislation in their states shared their opinions of the
laws they helped to pass. Many legislators felt that SORNA statutes would be effective in their
attempts to reduce sex crimes and keep communities safe - or at least would be effective in
securing an incumbent legislator’s reelection. Close to 90 percent of the legislators interviewed
by Meloy and colleagues (2013) indicated that sex offender legislation is overly broad and
delegitimizes itself through its net-widening effects. Because of the non-violent and consensual
crimes included in SORNA – including “mooning,” as noted by one policymaker and teenage
sexting was mentioned by another legislator – an abundance of non-violent and low-risk
individuals are lumped in with high-risk, violent, and predatory criminals. Legislators feel that
the registry needs to be more focused on preventing its dilution and wasting valuable resources.
Many legislators base their decisions on personal beliefs, many of which form from
watching news programs instead of reading peer-reviewed studies. Three-fourths of these
legislators value sex offender policies as necessary for public safety and to reduce sex crimes but

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
23
also for the explicit purpose of promoting their political careers. Sixty-five percent of the
respondents attribute the necessity for sex offender policy in their states to highly publicized and
sensationalized cases of child victimizations without empirical evidence to support the policies.
The sensationalization of these cases has led to a sort of snowball effect with sex offender laws
implemented across the US. (Meloy et al., 2013). With each new law enacted, implemented, and
experienced, loopholes in the legislation surface, and, consequently, statutes are revised,
amended, and repealed to span the revealed gaps. This type of reactionary legislation is carried
out swiftly despite the lack of empirical evidence when the focus is on children.
Corrections Professionals
The opinions of corrections professionals regarding sex offenders are highly salient
because of their effect on the self-stigmatization of offenders, which plays an essential role in the
rehabilitation process for offenders. Tewksbury and peers (2011) distributed a 43-item survey.
They received responses from 716 community corrections professionals affiliated with the
American Probation and Parole Association about their perceptions of registration, notification,
and sex offenders themselves. They determined 85 percent of respondents to believe notification
requisites implemented in their communities to be fair, 56 percent to believe the community
notification laws to reduce sexual crimes, 50 percent to believe residency restrictions to
minimize sexual victimization, and 59 percent to believe SORN laws in toto to prevent sexual
victimization. The results are self-contradictory. While 42 percent of these professionals support
SORN legislation and the majority feel that the policies are effective, 89 percent do not think that
the laws deter registered or unknown sexual offenders. However, this sample believes that
SORN policies are more effective than treatment to prevent sexual recidivism.
In another study by Tewksbury and Mustaine (2011), 254 parole board members from 48
states (those with parole boards) responded to another 43-item survey. Of this sample, 22.7

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
24
percent found SORN legislation unfair to some degree, and 54.2 percent believe that sex
offender policies do not significantly affect the reduction of sexual crimes. Further, 55.6 percent
of this sample believe that only high-risk offenders should be required to register and submit to
community notification. When the board members stated which residence restrictions they
support, schools and daycares were the two locations deemed appropriate by more than half the
board members for excluding sex offenders. Public pools and parks, fast food restaurants, school
bus stops, libraries, public restrooms, and athletic fields were not widely supported to exclude
sex offenders (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2011). Interestingly, the locations with the most
supervision of children are the locations of most concern regarding predatory offenders.
Sex Offenders
The perceptions of sex offenders about their lives post-release vary across the life of an
offender. Initially, for incarcerated offenders, their projections regarding life after prison are
most often very skewed from the realities that they face upon reentry. Of the 84 still-incarcerated
sex offenders interviewed by Winters, Jeglic, Calkins, and Blasko (2017) within the three months
before their release, 36 percent did not know or did not believe that they would be required to
register as a sex offender nor submit to the other caveats of SORN policies even though the
legislation requires a minimum of 15 years of registration for all sex offenders. Most (80 percent)
of the sample felt adequately prepared to rejoin society regardless of their actual levels of
preparedness. One-fifth of the sample anticipated adversity in finding employment, though 67
percent of the sample had yet to secure a source of post-release income, and most had no plans
for employment. Fewer still expected to have housing or relationship difficulties. However, one-
third of the offenders had yet to obtain an address to report to upon release, even though the
prison requires this as part of each offender’s post-release plan. Thirteen percent believed they
would have no obstacles during their reintegration. The disparity between perception and reality

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
25
for these offenders leads to a very vulnerable transition from custody to living within society
again. Most participants were unaware that they would be required to attend sex offender
treatment, although it is required as part of the sanctions (Winters et al., 2017).
With a snowball sample of 63 male Nebraska registrants living in the community for an
average of 9.4 years, Sample, Cooley, ten Bensel, Hyter, and Hurley (2021) conducted life
history interviews from 2012 to 2020 to study how the “sex offender” label is internalized and
affects registrants. Sixty-one of these men did not view themselves as sex offenders before their
convictions, with some offenders stating their crimes were unintentional due to their lack of
knowledge about the victim’s age. These men felt that they were not truly sex offenders because
their crimes were often consensual, relatively non-violent, and did not intend to break any laws.
Most of these men consider themselves to be average men.
At the beginning of the study in 2012, the offenders exhibited an elevated amount of
anger regarding the ex post facto qualities of SORN legislation. However, as the social distance
narrowed over time between the offenders and the registration deputies, the deputies became
more inclined to develop positive rapport with offenders. Many offenders found this sort of
prosocial interaction regarding their nonoffender qualities to help mitigate the internalization of
the sex offender label. One-fourth of the sample revealed that the experiences involved with
registration compliance checks created a role conflict for them in their prosocial identities by
publicly dredging their sex offender status. Overall, the sample identified with other sex
offenders based merely on their registration status and not due to behaviors. Therefore, the
externally applied label of “sex offender” was internalized only situationally (Sample et al.,
2021).
Although many sex offenders avoid internalizing their label, they recognize how the
public views them as devalued, undesirable monsters, leading to an offender’s stigmatization.

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
26
This negative labeling begins in prison, as even hardened criminals judge sex offenders harshly.
Some inmates are not only ostracized but physically victimized in prison for being sex offenders.
Once released, offenders feel like less than citizens who have no chance to succeed. A review of
eight studies by Lasher and McGrath (2012) revealed that 8 percent of participants experienced
physical assault, and 14 percent had their property damaged by vigilante retaliation. Registered
offenders experience fear, hopelessness, shame, social isolation, and depression in response to
the demonization of sex offenders (Bailey & Klein, 2018; Tewksbury, 2012). While many
supporters of SORN would deem these feelings to be not only understandable, appropriate, and
even deserved, the stigmatization of these offenders leads to their inability to secure
employment, housing, basic needs, and prosocial connections, which all aid in desistance. Sex
offenders may resent those who engage the stigma against them, thereby perpetuating the
onerous conditions of surviving life as a sex offender (Tewksbury, 2012).
Families
Many families and friends of sex offenders aim to be supportive when their loved one
returns home from prison. However, Bailey and Klein (2018) found that, while sex offenders’
family members reported lower levels of shame than the offenders, the family members
experienced similar levels of social isolation. The amount of isolation experienced by an
offender or their family member is likely to increase with required lifetime registration. Social
ostracization increases the likelihood that a family member will cease associating with the sex
offender to regain their social value.
The Public
The general public of the US believes most registered sex offenders to be highly
recidivistic, predatorial pedophiles with stranger victims who are likely to commit future crimes.
These perceptions are higher amongst those study participants who had never utilized the

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
27
registry. The community members who hold these views are not easily dissuaded by research
and believe that the registry deserves more funding (Socia & Harris, 2016). Mancini and Budd
(2016) cite a study conducted by Payne et al. in 2010 of 746 Virginians in which 52 percent of
the sample believed that sex offenders were impossible to rehabilitate while 12 percent remained
unsure as to whether sex offender treatment is effective. In their study, Mancini and Budd (2016)
found that nearly 75 percent of their sample support sex offender treatment. Seventeen percent of
the sample stated that they do not believe research supporting the efficacy of sex offender
treatment, and 8 percent stated that the research does not affect their opposition to sex offender
treatment. Ninety-four percent of people who participated in a national telephone survey
conducted by Gallop approved the registration of child molesters, although only 38 percent knew
that their state maintained a sex offender registry (Lasher & McGrath, 2012).
Victims and Survivors
It is easy to assume that survivors of sexual crimes readily seek retribution against their
abusers, but many tell a very different story. (Spoo, Kaylor, Schaaf, Rosselli, Laake, Johnson, &
Jeglic, 2018). The online survey conducted by Spoo and fellows (2018) garnered responses from
1,173 undergraduate students, of which 74 percent were female, and 48 percent were Hispanic.
Survivors of previous sexual abuse and those participants with more knowledge about sex
offenders exhibited much more positivity than the general populace toward sex offenders.
Victims are not the only survivors affected by the misdeeds of sexual offenders. Jacob’s
mother, Patty Wetterling, was the first mother in recent history to publicly deal with the
heartache of losing her child as she searched relentlessly for her missing son for nearly three
decades. She created a foundation in his name, served on the Board of Directors of the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and ran (and narrowly lost) twice for Congress.
Despite the tragedy suffered by her family, Ms. Wetterling remains an avid opponent of many of

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
28
the sex offender laws that currently stand while still supporting the usefulness of registration
with law enforcement. Ms. Wetterling disagrees with the one-size-fits-all treatment of sex
offenders and the inclusion of juveniles on the public registry. She expresses concern about the
use of residency restrictions which only help to obscure typical sexual offenses between people
who know each other and not the stereotypical stranger (Wright, 2015a).
Although Ms. Wetterling lost her son to the violent whims of a stranger, she still does not
believe that children should be taught to fear strangers and instead should learn how to engage
respectfully with others. By considering her son’s murderer’s possible childhood traumas, Ms.
Wetterling can sympathize with what terrors an offender might have suffered that would propel
their criminogenic behaviors. Nevertheless, despite her ability to consider such atrocities with
such compassion, Ms. Wetterling still believes that civil commitment needs readdressing to
prevent some high-risk offenders from returning to their communities (Wright, 2015a).
Why Do People Commit Sexual Crimes?
When considering how to respond to sexual crimes, it is essential to consider what
prompted an offender to commit their crime. This consideration requires the reader to consider
the immediate circumstances surrounding sex crimes and which traumas an offender may have
suffered throughout life leading up to their time of criminogenic behaviors. By resolving these
factors, the public can begin to view sex offenders as multi-dimensional persons with
complicated life histories. Levenson and Grady (2016) note that poor parenting and inadequate
supervision, in addition to harsh punishments and a lack of positive parental interactions,
increase the probability of an individual developing behavioral issues by way of hyperarousal
resulting from early exposure to toxic stress, which increases the production of hormones
responsible for the fight-or-flight response and deficiencies with self-regulation. Both genders of
sex offenders have elevated reports of adverse childhood experiences (ACE) than the general

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
29
population. In a study of 740 sex offenders, eighteen percent of male sex offenders reported
childhood neglect, two-thirds reported childhood physical abuse, and 26 percent reported sexual
abuse occurring during childhood. Female sex offenders were likely to have experienced
emotional abuse as children with neglect and domestic violence being predictors for female
victimization (Levenson & Grady, 2016).
Levenson, Willis, and Prescott (2015; 2016) investigated the prevalence of ACE
separately for female and male sex offenders, respectively. The data used for the studies were
retrieved from a study conducted by Felitti and peers (1998, as cited in Levenson et al., 2015;
Levenson et al., 2016) in which 17,337 US health insurance program members gave their
responses to a 10-item inventory called the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) scale. ACE
scores reflect a total number of possible traumatic experiences categorized by household
dysfunction, neglect, and abuse. For women, elevated scores positively correlated to adulthood
issues ranging from substance abuse; obesity; heart, liver, and pulmonary disease; sexually
transmitted diseases; depression; suicide attempts; early onset of sexual activity, promiscuity,
and unintentional pregnancies (Levenson et al., 2015).
Levenson and colleagues (2015) used a convenience sample of 709 respondents
participating in sex offender treatment programs recruited for participation through the
Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. Only 47 respondents were female. Ninety-five
percent of these women reported their index offense to have been sexual and involved a minor –
usually females (58 percent). Only 11 percent were strangers to their victims. Eighty percent of
these women had no history of sexual crimes, and overall, each offender had an average of one
victim. Twenty-three of these women were sexually abused as children. Forty percent reported
being emotionally neglected as children, and 38 percent reported being verbally abused.
Approximately one-third of this sample experienced physical abuse in childhood. These statistics

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
30
are supported by the physical and sexual abuse reported by 36.6 percent of female jail inmates
and 36.7 percent of females incarcerated in state prisons in the study conducted by Harlow
(1999, as cited in Levenson et al., 2015).
Two-thirds of the 679 men evaluated in a follow-up publication by Levenson et al. (2016)
reported their index offense as being sexually motivated and involving a minor. Nine percent
victimized an adult. Most victims were female, with approximately one-third of victims being
strangers to the offenders. Forty-two percent of the male offenders were subjected to physical
abuse, and 38 percent experienced sexual abuse as children. Thirty-eight percent also were
emotionally neglected in childhood. For every category examined with the ACE scale, these men
exhibited statistically significantly higher scores than the general male population. Higher scores
correlated significantly with more non-sexual crimes, facets of aggression, contact offenses, and
young victims (Levenson et al., 2016).
Of the 709 men and women surveyed by Levenson and colleagues (2015; 2016), only 16
percent of the men and 20 percent of the women reported having no adverse childhood
experiences than more than one-third of men and 35 percent of women in the general population.
Pervasive trauma negatively impacts coping skills through cognitive distortions. Adjusting to
non-abusive relationships and environments can prove to be challenging for those exposed to
childhood traumas. Furthermore, elevated ACE scores correlate with higher levels of recidivism
risk (Levenson et al., 2015; Levenson et al., 2016).
Recidivism
One of the most complex aspects of sex offender legislation, recidivism, is also one of the
issues propelling the expansion of these laws. Recidivism is the act of criminally offending by a
person who has previously been convicted of or plead guilty to a crime. However, when it comes
to calculating recidivism risk among sex offenders, there is a significant disparity between the
results of various studies because some calculations include only sexual re-offenses. In contrast,

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
31
other calculations include sexual and general recidivism combined. Other calculations even
include technical violations in recidivism rates. Including all crimes and violations with sexual
offenses committed by a current sex offender does give valuable information about the issues sex
offenders face, which lead them to reoffend. However, the absolute inclusion of all violations
and non-sexual crimes does little to inform the populace about the actual probability of a sex
offender committing another sex crime. Instead, public panic is fueled by exaggerated
projections when the media comments on general recidivism rates without divulging that these
rates are not for sexual crimes only.
In 2003, the US Department of Justice found that recidivism related to new sex crimes
committed by registered offenders over three years to be 5.3 percent (Horowitz, 2015; Zgoba &
Levenson, 2012), making the sex offender population one of the least likely of all criminal types
to reoffend. Furthermore, research conducted in Washington State revealed that those offenders
with child victims have the lowest sexual recidivism rate at 2.3 percent. Those offenders
included in this study who have committed rape against an adult have the highest rate of sexual
recidivism at 3.9 percent (Horowitz, 2015). Meta-analyses reviewed by Kim and colleagues
(2016) reported reductions in recidivism rates from 10 to 22 percent due to various sex offender
treatments. Turner, Chamberlain, Jannetta, and Hess (2015, p. 17) state that having a high school
education, employment, and residence can reduce “the odds of being returned to prison” for
sexual offenders by 60 to 70 percent. However, this article features statistical presentation issues
that warrant hesitation in devoting complete confidence to this figure. The article does contain
many salient points about the issues faced by sexual offenders, however.
Turner and colleagues (2015) utilize the data from a GPS monitoring pilot program in
California. San Diego County began this program equipped with four existing rosters of high-
risk sex offenders. The 20 highest risk offenders were determined in part by elevated Static-99

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
32
scores from these caseloads, which were not available for all offenders. The 20 from each of the
four caseloads were assigned to GPS monitoring. The rest of the participants were assigned to
rigorous supervision. Because the sample was not randomly selected, the authors examined the
between-group differences, which are apparent when viewed in the table of group comparisons.
However, the conversation within the text about these results begs for a skeptical review. While
58.8 percent of the comparison group had children and 67.5 percent of the GPS group had
children, the authors minimize the number of offenders with children by simply stating that more
than half the offenders were parents. Of the comparison group, 26.2 percent were married, while
21.4 percent of the GPS group were. However, the authors combine these groups to report that
approximately 24 percent of offenders were married during the study. Again, reporting that over
half the sample sought shelter at motels, the actual percentages of offenders seeking lodging in
these places was 54.5 percent for the comparison group and 64.6 percent for the GPS group.
Comparisons between the groups bury these statistics making it challenging to discern which
above statistics are for which group. By conflating the rates of individual groups with the rates
for the entire sample, the authors risk the credibility of these statistics. Similar analytical issues
surface in another seemingly valid study conducted by Scurich and John (2019, as cited in
Abbott, 2020).
Furthermore, the authors claim to have set the univariate significance of variables to
p<0.05 but then accepted results that were significant at the p<0.10 level, such as the 60 to 70
percent reduction in prison returns mentioned previously, leaving room for type I errors. Also, of
concern regarding this study, the data was collected from an inconsistent sample of sex
offenders. The study was limited to using 80 GPS units, and offenders cycled through the
program. When one offender graduated from the program or reoffended, another offender
entered the program in their place, so the sample observed was not consistent throughout the

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
33
study. Despite the confusing presentation and acquisition of statistics and no significant
differences in recidivism rates between the comparison and experimental groups, the outcomes
of this study suggest that GPS monitoring of sex offenders is a less expensive alternative to
prison, which allows for nearly constant monitoring of an offender’s current location, acting as
both a deterrent for offenders to abscond and an informant to law enforcement when offenders
enter exclusion zones or attempt escape (Turner et al., 2015).
Absconded sex offenders frighten by society because of the supposed threat they pose to
communities that they live in, unbeknownst to the citizens. Megan Kanka’s story is one of the
situations in which a previously convicted and improperly treated sexual offender, Jesse
Timmendequas, was able to exist in a quiet neighborhood undetected until he revealed himself as
Megan’s killer. Although Timmendequas registered with authorities, the community reeled over
not knowing he was living amongst them. If a compliant offender can commit such a horrendous
crime at home without their neighbors knowing, then, presumably, a non-compliant offender
could do so even more easily. This purported logic assumes that sex offenders who do not
register intend to engage in criminogenic activity without getting caught. The former director of
the US Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking
(SMART) Office was quoted by Koch (2007, p. 1, as cited in Zgoba & Levenson, 2012, p. 329)
as stating that “the people you need to be worried about most are the ones who aren’t registering
at all.” However, the juxtaposition of this statement with the statistical evidence of the meager
rates of sexual recidivism by sex offenders in toto reveals such statements to be baseless and
inflammatory.
This type of rhetoric is perpetuated in reports of non-compliant offenders. In 2007 the US
Marshals Service reported an estimated 100,000 absconded sex offenders. However, state
registry analyses reveal that there were roughly 28,000 non-compliant offenders at the time of

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
34
publication, and less than 14,000 were deemed to have wholly absconded. There is an undeniable
discrepancy between 100,000 and 14,000 (14. 3 percent and 2 percent of the sex offender
population, respectively). Furthermore, the fears fueled by these miscommunications of
information may be allayed by the fact that, in a comparison between New Jersey sex offenders
who failed to register and those who were compliant with registration, Zgoba and Levenson
(2012) found that these groups barely differed, with the former having a slightly higher sexual
recidivism rate of 18 percent than the 15 percent of the compliant group. Many individuals have
few options other than to abscond due to the residency constraints placed upon sex offenders and
the stigma which precludes them from finding gainful employment, and, likely, most of these
individuals have not failed to register only to engage in criminogenic activity.
In 2010, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reported an approximate
sex offender roster of over 700,000 registrants (Zgoba & Levenson, 2012). This number climbed
to 819,218 near the end of 2014 (Horowitz, 2015). Even the growth of only 100,000 registrants
over four years is dizzying when considering that, to the public mind, each registrant represents
another horrendous sex crime. Not all registrants will graduate from registration – many must
register for life, and some state registries require registrants to remain listed even after their
deaths. For a life registrant convicted in 2014 at the age of 18, the national sex offender
population would total far beyond 2,800,000 current and prior registrants during the remaining
60 years of the 18-year-old’s life, assuming offense rates remain static and reflective of the
growth between 2010 and 2014. Accurately calculating an offender’s risk of recidivism is vital to
the success of sex offender legislation because there are already far too many sex offenders for
law enforcement to monitor sufficiently and supervise. Accurate estimations of recidivism allow
law enforcement agents to focus on the highest-risk offenders. When agents contend with
enormous caseloads, there is a tremendous probability of offenses going undetected or the blame

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
35
for them being wrongly attributed to a registered offender, leaving the actual offender on the lam
and able to victimize again.
What works?
Traditionally, punitive measures are taken against sex offenders – they are sentenced to
lengthy prison terms with stringent sanctions upon release and face a slew of issues pertaining to
simply meeting their basic needs because of the systemic issues related to the stigma of the sex
offender label. Offenders are expected to “suck it up” and do their best to mitigate the strife to
reintegrate successfully. If offenders fail, it is perceived by the public as the offender’s fault – a
sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. Ultimately, offender failure is no big deal to the public because
the offender will go back to prison for a technical violation of their probation or parole
conditions, and the community will once again have one less “predator” about whom they must
worry. As previously mentioned, there are several issues with this mentality that feeds into the
cycle of recidivism – increasing costs to taxpayers and robbing more families of their precious
children. At some point, our society must recognize that the current methods of restraining sex
offenders are antithetical to their proposed outcomes.
The Collaborative Outcome Data Committee (CODC, 2007, as cited in Grady, Edwards,
& Pettus-Davis, 2017) is a group of experts in sex offender research that worked together to
transcribe a set of standards to which researchers can adhere to mitigate bias within studies. The
guidelines address seven areas of importance: “administrative control of the independent
variable, experimenter expectations, sample size, attrition, the equivalence of groups, outcome
variables, and correct comparison conducted” (Grady et al., 2017). Grady and colleagues (2017)
utilized the CODC guidelines to conduct their study of the Sex Offender Accountability and
Rehabilitation (SOAR) Program, which began in 1991 in North Carolina. This program is
reflective of other treatment programs for sex offenders across the US. Unfortunately, the

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
36
clinicians who implemented the program did not use any consistent or operationalized method
for selecting participants until a few years before the Grady et al. (2017) study began. However,
of the 297 volunteers for the study, 240 completed the treatment program, giving the researchers
enough data to determine that participating in this specific prison-based sex offender treatment
program did not significantly reduce the recidivism rates for violent or sexual crimes. However,
program attendance did correlate with a 34 percent reduction in non-violent, non-sexual
reoffending.
Like most sex offender treatment programs, SOAR focuses on reducing criminogenic
attitudes, bolstering relationship skills, and building empathy and awareness for victims. This 20-
week program utilizes cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) methods and group therapy to address
these needs. As with SOAR, research on other programs throughout the US does not imbue
readers with confidence in the efficacy of these programs, as findings are inconsistent and there
are methodological issues with some of the research designs. Duwe and Goldman (2009, as cited
in Grady et al., 2017) reviewed multiple meta-analyses and found that treatment participants
experienced lower treatment effects than the non-treated participants. They did find that CBT
combined with relapse prevention methods was the most effective treatment to reduce
recidivism.
One of the main issues surrounding “traditional” sex offender treatment methods is that
treatments manage offenders rather than rehabilitate them, as Birgden and Cucolo (2011) pointed
out. Countering this paradigm, the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA)
developed a code of ethics to direct the multidisciplinary practices involved with sex offender
treatment. This code pursues restorative justice by encouraging humane, constitutional treatment
of offenders to promote community and individual well-being through social inclusion and other
prosocial behaviors outlined by documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
37
featured in the International Bill of Rights (United Nations, 1948, as cited in Birgden & Cucolo,
2011). Developing an ethical treatment program that is useful in the successful treatment of most
or all sex offenders beginning during their incarceration and lasting through a risk-based
probation period could be one of the first steps to reconciling the issues presented or exacerbated
by SORN.
Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy
Callahan and Buckley (2018) define four areas addressed by CBT with sex offenders:
thinking errors, improving interpersonal understanding and relationships, appropriately
expressing sexual interests, and behavior management. Marilyn Callahan is a licensed social
worker in Oregon who had worked with the sex offender population before the label itself
existed. Although her self-published book is not peer-reviewed and does not cite any academic
sources within text or a bibliography, her accounts of clients’ stories and experiences with the
rehabilitation of sex offenders are of import within the context of this review as while Callahan is
an advocate for offender rehabilitation and redemption, she still utilizes polygraph testing to cull
a full disclosure of crimes from registrants. Those who tout their innocence or fail the initial full
disclosure polygraph must submit to testing repeatedly until Callahan is satisfied that they are
telling the truth. The efficacy of using polygraph as a lie detection test has been called into
question and argued amongst colleagues so often that the results of these tests are not even
admissible in court, further calling the validity of their general use into question (Cross & Sax,
2001; Jensen, Shafer, Roby, & Roby, 2016; Rosky, 2012; Rosky, 2016). Callahan and Buckley
(2018) discuss the benefits of dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT) as a collaborative treatment
method first developed for clients with a borderline personality disorder. This method teaches
mindfulness and tolerance of stress along with self-regulation of emotions and developing good
interpersonal skills.

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
38
Good Lives Model
The Good Lives Model (GLM) approaches sex offender treatment based on individual
strengths. By focusing on non-criminogenic interests with the support of others, offenders can
learn to engage in deterring inappropriate behaviors autonomously. The GLM recognizes that
much criminal activity is committed in response to unmet needs and helps offenders learn non-
violent, effective ways to achieve goals and acquire necessities. Callahan and Buckley (2018)
support using this model along with other methods such as relapse prevention to enhance
reductions in recidivism rates. One-third of US sex offender treatment programs and one-half of
Canadian programs utilize the GLM and CBT as two of the top three treatment methods of
choice (Birgden & Cucolo, 2011; Kim, Benekos, & Merlo, 2016). Half of the programs listed
relapse prevention as one of their top two choices (Kim et al., 2016).
Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing
The act of committing a crime can instigate trauma for the offender as well as the victim.
It is vital to incorporate trauma-sensitive therapies into sex offender treatment. When someone
who has been traumatized must recall the trauma – whether triggered by day-to-day interactions
or traditional therapies, the individual can become re-traumatized (Clark, Tyler, Gannon, &
Kingham, 2014). Initially utilized in the treatment of trauma, eye movement desensitization and
reprocessing (EMDR) therapy combines repetitive eye movements with recollections of trauma
to aid in transferring traumatic memories from the short-term memory into the long-term
memory (Callahan & Buckley, 2018; Clark et al., 2014). This form of treatment seems to be
especially promising as part of a treatment regimen for sex offenders.
Civil Commitment
The permittance of civil commitments seems to contravene rights upheld by the US
Constitution. It allows a state to determine that a soon-to-be-released-from-prison sex offender is

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
39
too dangerous to reintegrate successfully into society. After making this determination, the state
can then commit an offender to a treatment facility indefinitely if it so chooses, even though as
Callahan and Buckley (2018) point out, approximately only 18 percent of the offenders kept in a
civil commitment program in Minnesota would have been statistically likely to reoffend at some
point in their lives. Civil commitment not only begs to be questioned based on constitutionality
but also the government’s fiduciary duty to its constituents. In 2007, Gookin (as cited in Birgden
& Cucolo, 2011) reported that the cost of civilly committing one offender to be $97,000
annually. For the 4,534 persons committed for this cost in 20 states, this totaled nearly $440
million in a single year. That is an average of $22 million per state that could divert to more
prosocial and efficacious desistance methods.
Community Corrections
More than two million people are incarcerated in the US, and most of them will be
released back into society with meager rehabilitation if any. Each year more than half a million
inmates are returned to their communities. The number of individuals under community
supervision via probation or parole at the time of DeMichele’s (2014) study totaled five million.
Despite the intention of the penal system to deliver the justice portion of the criminal justice
system, the millions of individuals incarcerated in the US are often sequestered to correctional
facilities, which do little to correct the behaviors of inmates and often reinforce them. The
privatization of the prison system in the US has paved the way for business interests to overrule
and ignore empirical evidence encouraging many private prisons to reduce expenses by
restricting programming. Dwindling preparatory programs exacerbate recidivism rates by
subjecting naive releasees to the harsh realities of life as a felon. The price to house an inmate in
prison for one year is $30,000 to $35,000. That cumulates between $900,000 and over $1 million

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
40
to incarcerate someone at a fixed rate for 30 years (Callahan & Buckley, 2018). It is worth
considering, then, what alternatives there are to prison.
For Non-sexual Crimes
The efficacy of community corrections for non-sexual offenders offers hopeful
possibilities for helping sexual offenders with their rehabilitative and reintegrative struggles.
Low-risk offenders respond well to non-invasive community supervision that relegates their
supervision to mere administrative tasks. By minimizing the conditions to which a probationer
must adhere, there is less opportunity for the offender to become ensnared in technical violations,
resulting in reincarceration. Culturally sensitive community interventions that promote prosocial
behaviors and healthy relationships and skill development have tremendous effects on reducing
recidivism rates. In a meta-analysis of 397 studies, Lipsey (1992, as cited in DeMichele, 2014)
found that recidivism rates were reduced by 20 to 40 percent by participation in behavioral-based
programs that promote skill enhancement. Losel (1995, as cited in DeMichele, 2014) also found
that behavior- and skills-based programs resulted in reductions in recidivism rates in a meta-
analysis of 443 studies.
For Sexual Crimes
Considering the evidence supporting prosocial interventions for sex offenders and the
already low rates of sexual recidivism, this population would seem to be the ideal candidates for
community corrections and supervision. In one study, sex offense recidivism was reduced by
about 17 percent overall due to community sex offender treatment (Kim et al., 2016). Success
with the establishment and use of specialized courts to address specific social problems such as
domestic violence and substance abuse (Lamade et al., 2011) provides a precedential model for
creating a court system that specializes in the assessment of sexual offenders. Specialized courts
can monitor and treat offenders based on risk level instead of conviction. These courts could

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
41
easily offer social counseling to offenders to assist them in obtaining employment, housing, and
other necessities. Kruttschnitt, Uggen, and Shelton (2000) found that the combined effect of
steady employment and treatment significantly reduced recidivism rates, and probation and
parole had minimal effects on desistance. In addition to social assistance and psychological
treatment, it makes sense to utilize GPS monitoring as a cost-effective alternative to prison for
sex offenders as a means of surveillance and treatment.

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
42
Discussion
The volatile and emotionally charged stories which designate sex offenders as dangerous
fiends incapable of recompense or rehabilitation have perpetuated an onslaught of legislation
nationwide aimed at the public shaming of a diverse population of individuals ranging from
pubescent to geriatric. This population includes individuals required to register for urinating or
streaking in public without sexual motivation – actions which previous generations might have
deemed wholly normal. Moreover, while SORN policies dictate violent and predatory offenders
must register with law enforcement, these laws require the same level of monitoring for
individuals convicted of kidnapping or false imprisonment – even if these crimes are not sexually
incentivized. The net-widening that has occurred over the last few decades in the guise of
protecting victims from future victimization has only overburdened the resources available to
states to monitor and supervise sex offenders while disintegrating state budgets through the
exorbitant costs of incarceration. After three decades of failed efforts to stop sexual victimization
and reduce recidivism in a statistically significant way, it is time to critically evaluate the policies
in place before passing further legislation against the sex offender population. While rallying for
the villain is an unpopular activity, it is vital to propel an informed discussion with the American
public regarding the ineffective sex offender legislation that currently exists, which limits
successful reintegration and instead exacerbates the risk factors with which offenders must
contend to meet basic needs and comply with the crippling restrictions of SORN.
Future Research and Implications for Policy Changes
It is vital to address the issues of sex crimes further before they happen instead of
reactively enacting policies to track known predators who are unlikely to reoffend (Wexler,
Lurigio, & Rodriguez, 2011). Further research is needed to determine how specific interventions
work with or against each other to reinforce the successful reintegration of sex offenders.
Amendments to the AWA could introduce opportunities for states to uphold their positions as

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
43
laboratories by providing grants to states with empirically backed program design proposals to
address sex offender registration and treatment. It seems imperative that, at the very least, the
AWA be amended to require risk-based assessments of offenders to determine in which tier they
would be placed, with the lowest-risk offenders only having to register basic identifying
information with local authorities at the beginning of reentry and whenever the offender moves.
Repeat offenders could be required to register periodically, and violent offenders could be
evaluated for civil commitment before sentencing, with this presented as an alternative to prison.
This literature review seeks to elucidate the benefits and detriments of current sex
offender laws in the United States while also proffering an accurate depiction of the unnecessary
hardships faced by a vastly heterogeneous group of offenders ranging from mentally unwell
individuals who engage in predatory behaviors to curious adolescents exploring their bodies and
boundaries with similarly-aged peers to an elderly woman intent on saving her grandchildren
from the abuse they suffer in their parents’ charge. Surely someone outside the academic
community can find value in the lives of these teenagers engaging in normative sexual behaviors
and that of the grandmother even if there is a lack of empathy for someone who sexually abuses
another person, especially a child. Nevertheless, even that person not only deserves the
opportunity to redeem themselves personally and socially, but society deserves the opportunity
to forgive the offender.
The United States is well-known for its overflowing prisons and increasingly punitive
legislation against sex offenders. Over the last few decades, sexual recidivism rates have
decreased by 73 percent, yet the burgeoning sex offender population continues to grow across
the US (Caldwell, 2016). The term “Sex Offender” has been diluted by its ever-expanding
definition. Policymakers push legislation as a panacea for inflamed public fears without any
salient proof of the efficacy of their proposal. They instead have retroactively increased the

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
44
severity of the laws over time to produce a registry of over 800,000 highly stigmatized criminals
subjected to extreme scrutiny and disintegrative shaming (Agan, 2011; Horowitz, 2015) that
destabilize the successful reintegration of and increases the propensity for these offenders to
reoffend at higher rates than they would otherwise as a result of social shunning and denial of
basic needs thereby resulting in higher levels of incarceration that drain the taxpayer coffers of
funds that could divert to efficacious methods of sexual recidivism reduction and sex crime
prevention that would serve to fulfill the proposed purpose of current SORNA legislation.
Suppose America truly wants safety and justice for its most vulnerable populations. In
that case, America must stop scapegoating registered sex offenders while ignoring the sexual
exploitation of victims by their families and friends. This ignorance only fuels the abuse cycle by
allowing more traumas and victimizations to flow into it. While it may not seem patriotic to
stand up for the rights of those who harm others – especially in ways that inspire disgust in the
general population, by allowing harm to befall sex offenders and their families while also
ignoring the untold scores of individuals victimized by a loved one, who, exactly, is taking the
high road to justice?
Limitations
The most prominent limitation in my research is my status as a sex offender. I was
prompted by my attorney in Louisiana in 2009 to plead guilty to felony carnal knowledge of a
minor, as my significant other at the time had allegedly engaged in consensual sex with a 16-
year-old. My partner had coerced me to kiss the girl earlier that evening, and so I was implicated
in the sexual activity as well. It was through my experience of feeling cornered into admitting
guilt to a crime that I did not commit in order to avoid what my attorney estimated would be a
humiliating and traumatizing trial that revealed to me that this could happen to anyone.
Certainly, it could be claimed that I have a bias as a registered sex offender, but when I was

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
45
instructed to take a plea bargain, I had no idea what a sex offender was or what that designation
would mean for my life, just as so many other sex offenders experience. So, for the last nearly 12
years, I have utilized my experiences in the process of annually registering for 15 years as a Tier
1 offender in my previous state of Louisiana to now having to register as a Tier 2 offender in the
state of Ohio to work toward better and more effective legislation that will get communities the
results they seek and deserve for the safety of all citizens – especially children.
My tier status changed because of a discrepancy in the states’ laws determining that, even
though the age of consent in Ohio is 16, because there is no designation of my Louisiana
conviction within the Tier 1 category in Ohio’s statutes, I must now register semiannually for the
remainder of 25 years if my current attorney is unable to have my tier designation reevaluated.
While other offenders may find a similar experience beyond daunting, I am fortunate to have
both a college education and a very supportive network of few friends and family members who
value me and the work I aspire to do. This support and my experiences have given me the unique
opportunity to redefine my situation through an ethnographical lens to view the research while
also experiencing it objectively.
I am also a survivor of domestic and sexual abuse committed by my ex-husband (my co-
defendant), emotional and psychological abuse throughout childhood, and sexual harassment
from a former boss at a job where I was fired for reporting the sexual harassment. I have
experienced being sexually assaulted, raped, and have been strangled multiple times in non-
sexual assaults. The stigma that shrouds me does not inhibit my understanding of a victim’s
perspective, nor does it dampen my desire to be of value to my community and positively
contribute in whichever ways I can so that no one else must experience these kinds of horrors.

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
46
References
Abbott, B. R. (2020). Illuminating the dark figure of sexual recidivism. Behavioral Sciences &
the Law 38(6), 543-558. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2494
Abrams, L. S. (2005). Listening to juvenile offenders: Can residential treatment prevent
recidivism? Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 23(1), 61-85.
https://10.1007/s10560-005-0029-2
Ackerman, A. R., Sacks, M., Greenberg, D. F. (2011). Legislation targeting sex offenders: Are
recent policies effective in reducing rape? Justice Quarterly 29(6), 858-887.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2011.566887
Agan, A. Y. (2021). Sex offender registries: Fear without function? The Journal of Law &
Economics 54(1), 207-239. https://doi.org/10.1086/658483
Bailey, D. J. S., Klein, J. L. (2018). Ashamed and alone: Comparing offender and family
member experiences with the sex offender registry. Criminal Justice Review 43(4), 440-
457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016818756486
Birgden, A., Cucolo, H. (2011). The treatment of sex offenders: Evidence, ethics, and human
rights. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 23(3), 295-313.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063210381412
Bonnar-Kidd, K. K. (2010). Sexual offender laws and prevention of sexual violence or
recidivism. American Journal of Public Health 100(3), 412-419.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.153254
Brewster, M. P., DeLong, P. A., Moloney, J. T. (2012). Sex offender registries: A content
analysis. Criminal Justice Policy Review 24(6), 695-715.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403412459331

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
47
Budd, K. M., Mancini, C. (2016). Crime control theater: Public (mis)perceptions of the
effectiveness of sex offender residence restrictions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
22(4), 362-374. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000083
Caldwell, M. F. (2016). Quantifying the decline in juvenile sexual recidivism rates. Psychology,
Public Policy, and Law 22(4), 414-426. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000094
Callahan, M., Buckley, T. (2018). SO: The new scarlet letters: Sex offenders: Their treatment
and our challenge. Glass Spider Publishing.
Clark, L., Tyler, N., Gannon, T. A., Kingham, M. (2013). Eye movement desensitization and
reprocessing for offence-related trauma in a mentally disordered sexual offender. Journal
of Sexual Aggression 20(2), 240-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2013.822937
Corrigan, R. (2006). Making meaning of Megan’s law. Law & Social Inquiry 31(2), 267-312.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2006.00012.x
Costigliacci, S. J. (2008). Protecting our children from sex offenders: Have we gone too far?
Family Court Review 46(1), 180-197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2007.00191.x
DeVault, A., Miller, M. K., Griffin, T. (2016). Crime control theater: Past, present, and future.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 22(4), 341-348. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000099
Di Tella, R., Schargrodsky, E. (2013). Criminal recidivism after prison and electronic
monitoring. Journal of Political Economy 121(1), 28-73. https://doi.org/10.1086/669786
Dudley, R. M. (2016). Finding Jacob Wetterling: The 27-year investigation from kidnapping to
confession. McFarland & Company.
Dum, C. P. (2016). Exiled in America: Life on the margins in a residential motel. Columbia
University Press.

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
48
Dyck, J. J., Hagley, A. (2012). Political geography, direct democracy, and the reasoning voter:
Spatial proximity, symbolic politics, and voting on California’s proposition 83. Politics &
Policy 40(2), 195-220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00346.x
Edwards, W., Hensley, C. (2001). Contextualizing sex offender management legislation and
policy: Evaluating the problem of latent consequences in community notification laws.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45(1), 83-101.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X01451006
Freeman, N. J., Sandler, J. C. (2010). The Adam Walsh act: A false sense of security or an
effective public policy initiative? Criminal Justice Policy Review 21(1), 31-49.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403409338565
Grady, M. D., Edwards, D., Jr., Pettus-Davis, C. (2017). A longitudinal outcome evaluation of a
prison-based sex offender treatment program. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and
Treatment 29(3), 239-266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215585731
Harper, C. A., Harris, A. J. (2017). Applying moral foundations theory to understanding public
views of sexual offending. Journal of Sexual Aggression 23(2), 111-123.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2016.1217086
Jensen, T. M., Shafer, K., Roby, C. Y., Roby, J. L. (2016). Sex offender populations and clinical
efficacy: A response to Rosky. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 31(10), 1971-1978.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515570753
Kim, B., Benekos, P. J., Merlo, A. V. (2016). Sex offend3er recidivism revisted: Review of
recent meta-analyses on the effects of offender treatment. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse
17(1), 105-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014566719

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
49
Kruttschnitt, C., Uggen, C., Shelton, K. (2000). Predictors of desistance among sex offenders:
The interaction of formal and informal social controls. Justice Quarterly 17(1), 61-87.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820000094481
Lamade, R., Gabriel, A, Prentky, R. (2011). Optimizing risk mitigation in management of sex
offenders: A structural model. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 34(3), 217-
225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.04.008
Lasher, M. P., McGrath, R. J. (2012). The impact of community notification on sex offender
reintegration: A quantitative review of the research literature. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 56(1), 6-28.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X10387524
Levenson, J. S., Cotter, L. P. (2005). The effect of Megan’s law on sex offender registration.
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 21(1), 49-66.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986204271676
Levenson, J. S., Grady, M. D. (2016), The influence of childhood trauma on sexual violence and
sexual deviance in adulthood. Traumatology 22(2), 94-103.
https://doi.org/10.1037/trm0000067
Levenson, J. S., Willis, G. M., Prescott, D. S. (2015). Adverse childhood experiences in the lives
of female sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 27(3), 258-
283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214544332
Levenson, J. S., Willis, G. M., Prescott, D. S. (2016). Adverse childhood experiences in the lives
of male sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 28(4), 340-
359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214535819

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
50
Mancini, C., Barnes, J. C., Mears, D. P. (2011). It varies from state to state: An examination of
sex crime laws nationally. Criminal Justice Policy Review 24(2), 166-198.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403411424079
Mancini, C., Budd, K. M. (2016). Is the public convinced that “nothing works?”: Predictors of
treatment support for sex offenders among Americans. Crime & Delinquency 62(6), 777-
799. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128715597693
Mancini, C., Mears, D. (2016). Sex offenders – America's new witches? A theoretical analysis of
the emergence of sex crime laws. Deviant Behavior 37(4), 419-438.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2015.1060084
Maurelli, K., Ronan, G. (2013). A time series analysis of the effectiveness of sex offender
notification laws in the USA. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 24(1),
128-143. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2012.746383
Meloy, M., Curtis, K., Boatwright, J. (2013). Policy-makers' perceptions on their sex offender
laws: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Criminal Justice Studies 26(3), 273-288.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2012.744307
Mohseni, R. A. (2012). The sociological analysis of prison: Costs and consequences. Journal of
Law and Conflict Resolution 4(1), 13-19. https://doi.org/10.5897/JLCR11.037
Newton, M. (2006). The encyclopedia of serial killers (2nd ed.). Checkmark Books.
Pallone, N. J. (2003). Without plea-bargaining, Megan Kanka would be alive today. Criminology
& Public Policy 3(1), 83-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2003.tb00025.x
Quinn, J. F., Forsyth, C. J., Mullen-Quinn, C. (2004). Societal reaction to sex offenders: A
review of the origins and results of the myths surrounding their crimes and treatment
amenability. Deviant Behavior 25(3), 215-232.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620490431147

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
51
Rosky, J. W. (2012). The (f)utility of post-conviction polygraph testing. Sexual Abuse: A Journal
of Research and Treatment 25(3), 259-281. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063212455668
Rosky, J. W. (2016). More polygraph futility: A comment on Jensen, Shafer, Roby, and Roby
(2015). Journal of Interpersonal Violence 31(10), 1956-1970.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515570752
Sample, L. L., Cooley, B., ten Bensel, T., Hyter, C., Hurley, B. (2021). Forced interactions with
sheriff deputies over time and their influence on stigma and self identities among
individuals convicted of sex crimes. Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice &
Criminology 10(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.21428/88de04a1.dcb307ab
Socia, K. M., Harris, A. J. (2016). Evaluating public perceptions of the risk presented by
registered sex offenders: Evidence of crime control theater? Psychology, Public Policy,
and Law 22(4), 375-385. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000081
Spoo, S., Kaylor, L. E., Schaaf, S., Rosselli, M., Laake, A., Johnson, C., Jeglic, E. L. (2018).
Victims’ attitudes toward sex offenders and sex offender legislation. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(11), 3385-3407.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17740537
ten Bensel, T., Sample, L. L. (2017). The influence of sex offender registration and notification
laws on fostering collective identity among offenders. Journal of Crime and Justice
40(4), 497-511. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2015.1131184
Terry, K. J., Ackerman, A. R. (2015). A brief history of major sex offender laws. In R. G. Wright
(Ed.), Sex offender laws: Failed policies, new directions (2nd ed., pp. 50-65). Springer
Publishing Company, LLC.
Tewksbury, R. (2012). Stigmatization of sex offenders. Deviant Behavior 33(8), 606-623.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2011.636690

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
52
Tewksbury, R., Mustaine, E. E. (2012). Parole board members; views of sex offender registration
and community notification. American Journal of Criminal Justice 37(3), 413-431.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-011-9119-1
Tewksbury, R., Mustaine, E. E., Payne, B. K. (2011). Community corrections professionals’
views of sex offenders, sex offender registration, and community notification and
residency restrictions. Federal Probation 75(3), 45-50.
Turner, S., Chamberlain, A. W., Jannetta, J., Hess, J. (2015). Does gps improve recidivism
among high risk sex off3ender? Outcomes for California’s gps pilot for high risk sex
offender parolees. Victims & Offenders 10(1), 1-28.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2014.953236
Wexler, H. K., Lurigio, A. J., Rodriguez, P. F. (2011). Reforming the criminal justice system in
the United States: Issues and recommendations. The Prison Journal Supplement to 91(3),
1S-11S. http://doi.org/10.1177/0032885511415205
Williams, F. M. (2015). The problem of sexual assault. In R. G. Wright (Ed.), Sex offender laws:
Failed policies, new directions (2nd ed., pp. 13-49). Springer Publishing Company, LLC.
Winters, G. M., Jeglic, E. L., Calkins, C., Blasko, B. L. (2017). Sex offender legislation and
social control: An examination of sex offenders’ expectations prior to release. Criminal
Justice Studies 30(2), 202-222. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2017.1299894
Wright, R. G. (2008). From Wetterling to Walsh: The growth of federalization in sex offender
policy. Federal Sentencing Reporter 21(2), 124-132.
https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2008.21.2.124
Wright, R. G. (2015a). An interview with Patty Wetterling. In R. G. Wright (Ed.), Sex offender
laws: Failed policies, new directions (2nd ed., pp. 69-79). Springer Publishing Company,
LLC.

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD
53
Wright, R. G. (2015b). Introduction. In R. G. Wright (Ed.), Sex offender laws: Failed policies,
new directions (2nd ed., pp. 1-12). Springer Publishing Company, LLC.
Zgoba, K., Veysey, B. M., Dalessandro, M. (2010). An analysis of the effectiveness of
community notification and registration: Do the best intentions predict the best practices?
Justice Quarterly 27(5), 667-691. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820903357673
Zgoba, K.M., Levenson, J. (2012). Failure to register as a predictor of sex offense recidivism:
The big bad wolf or a red herring? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment
24(4), 328-349. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063211421019