-
-
-
-
Incarcerated Sex Offenders Expectations for Reentry
-
-
-
-
-
The Prison Journal
Incarcerated Sex Offenders' Expectations for Reentry
Richard Tewksbury and Heith Copes
The Prison Journal 2013 93: 102 originally published online 3 December 2012 DOI: 10.1177/0032885512467318
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/93/1/102
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for The Prison Journal can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://tpj.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/93/1/102.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Jan 24, 2013
OnlineFirst Version of Record - Dec 3, 2012
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at OhioLink on February 1, 2013
TPJ93110.1177/003288551246731
urnalTewksbury and Copes Publications
ermission:
ournalsPermissions.nav
Incarcerated Sex Offenders’ Expectations for Reentry
The Prison Journal 93(1)
Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0032885512467318 http://tpj.sagepub.com
Richard Tewksbury1 and Heith Copes2
Abstract
Returning to the community after incarceration can be a difficult challenge. These issues are exacerbated for sex offenders, who reenter society car- rying strong stigmas and who are subject to a variety of both legal and extralegal restrictions. Drawing on
Keywords
sex offenders, reentry, stigmatization, legal restrictions
One of the most frequently discussed criminal justice issues in recent years centers on how communities should respond to the “threat” of sex offenders. In response to these concerns, state and local legislatures have enacted numer- ous laws that have made sentences harsher, created and expanded community
1University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA
2University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
Corresponding Author:
Richard Tewksbury, Department of Justice Administration, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292, USA
Email: richard.tewksbury@louisville.edu
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at OhioLink on February 1, 2013
Tewksbury and Copes |
103 |
|
|
supervision, and imposed accompanying restrictions, regulations, and other consequences on sex offenders. Although legislators show a concern and desire for continuing the
Although seemingly well intended, legal developments such as sex offender registration and community notification (SORN) laws, residency restrictions for convicted sex offenders, and increased supervision of sex offenders post- incarceration show little or no impact on rates of recidivism (Socia, 2011; Tewksbury & Jennings, 2010; Zgoba, Witt, Dalessandro, & Veysey, 2008). And, when examining experiences, research has shown that sex offenders subject to registration, community notification, and residency restrictions experience increased levels of stress (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2009; Tewksbury & Zgoba, 2010), social isolation and a persistent sense of vulner- ability (Mercado, Alvarez, & Levenson, 2008; Tewksbury, 2004, 2005, 2007; Tewksbury & Lees, 2006, 2007), and relegation to socially disorganized, impoverished, and undesirable neighborhoods (Hughes & Burchfield, 2008; Hughes & Kadleck, 2008; Mustaine, Tewksbury, & Stengel, 2006a, 2006b; Suresh, Mustaine, Tewksbury and Higgins, 2010; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2006, 2008). What remains unknown is the degree to which sex offenders who will soon return to the community from prison are aware of and prepared to cope with such sanctions and restrictions.
Reactions of Society
and System to Sex Offenders
The general public, criminal justice officials, the media, and law makers all seem to consider sex offenders as the most serious danger to society and daily life. As a result of the widespread condemnation of sex offenders, myriad laws have been passed to attempt to control sex offenders. Most notably, this includes the now universal practice of SORN and residency restrictions.
One of the primary accompanying restrictions of SORN, residency restric- tions, focuses on where offenders reside. Nearly universal in urban areas, residence restrictions prohibit registered sex offenders from living within specified distances of “child congregation locations,” most commonly defined as schools, day cares, and public parks. The implementation of resi- dence restrictions has meant that, especially in urban communities, registered sex offenders are prohibited from residing in a majority of available housing
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at OhioLink on February 1, 2013
104 |
The Prison Journal 93(1) |
|
|
(Socia, 2011; Zandbergen, & Hart, 2006, 2009). However, as is the case with SORN in general, the empirical evidence fails to support the efficacy of such laws (Barnes, Dukes, Tewksbury, & De Troye, 2009; Duwe, Donnay, & Tewksbury, 2008).
Collateral Consequences for Sex Offenders
It is generally assumed and accepted that SORN laws are designed to protect
The most intensively examined of the documented collateral consequences for sex offenders has been their difficulty in finding suitable housing (Levenson, 2008; Levenson, D’Amora, & Hern, 2007; Levenson & Hern, 2007; Levenson, Zgoba, & Tewksbury, 2007; Tewkbury, 2004, 2005, 2007; Tewksbury & Lees, 2006, 2007; Vandiver, Dial, & Worley, 2008). Registered sex offenders (both with and without legal restrictions on where registered sex offenders may reside) often reside in socially disorganized communities (Mustaine et al., 2006a, 2006b; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2006, 2008). The location of large numbers of registered sex offenders in communities charac- terized by economic disadvantage, low degrees of social cohesion and collec- tive efficacy, and high crime rates is seen as an involuntary process or a “relegation” of sex offenders to the least desirable neighborhoods (Mustaine et al., 2006a; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2006).
In addition to the objective experiences of collateral consequences, it is common for registered sex offenders to report experiencing a number of sub- jective consequences, including social ostracism, a recognition of being neg- atively labeled, a pervasive sense of being vulnerable to recognition and attack, and fear of personal violence (Mercado et al., 2008; Tewksbury & Lees, 2006; Zevitz & Farkas, 2000). However, it appears that actually
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at OhioLink on February 1, 2013
Tewksbury and Copes |
105 |
|
|
experiencing violence and attack are relatively uncommon (Tewksbury & Lees, 2006).
The effects of collateral consequences impact individuals beyond sex offenders themselves. Family members are subject to both harassment and the practical and economic consequences that are applied to registered sex offenders (Farkas & Miller, 2007; Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009; Tewksbury & Levenson, 2009). Family members, especially those who live with a regis- tered sex offender, experience collateral consequences of the offender’s sta- tus, what Goffman (1963) referred to as “courtesy stigmas.” Common among these are financial hardships (53% of surveyed family members of registered sex offenders), receipt of threats or harassment from neighbors (44%), and having property damaged or destroyed (27%; Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009). Perhaps the strongest and most potentially deleterious courtesy stigmas are applied to the children of registered sex offenders. More than 50% of sur- veyed family members of registered sex offenders report experiencing conse- quences for registrants’ children. These consequences include depression, anxieties, fears, frequently expressions of anger, and ostracism and ridicule from peers (Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009).
Knowing that community reentry can be a significant challenge for felons, and that sex offenders returning to the community under SORN and accom- panying restrictions can be daunting, the present study seeks to identify the expectations that incarcerated sex offenders have for their return to the com- munity. If registered sex offenders are aware of the legal and social barriers that they are likely to encounter upon release, they may be better equipped socially, psychologically, and emotionally for reentry. They may also be bet- ter prepared to help their families get ready for the challenges they all may face. If such offenders are not aware of, and prepared for, such barriers and challenges, their likelihood of successfully reentering the community may be lessened. The goal of the present study is to examine what expectations, both positive and negative, incarcerated sex offenders have about their return to the community.
Method
Data for the present analysis come from semistructured interviews conducted with 24 sex offenders incarcerated in one medium security prison in a Midwestern state. All interviewees had release dates within 3 years of the time of their interview (with a mean of approximately 1 year until release).1 Prior to initiation, the project was reviewed by institutional review boards for both the state Department of Corrections and the lead author’s university.
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at OhioLink on February 1, 2013
106 |
The Prison Journal 93(1) |
|
|
All interviewees were male and were between the ages of 24 and 67 (mean age was 40.6).
The lead author collected all data using semistructured interviews. This style of interview allows the participants to discuss their thoughts and beliefs in detail. Moreover, it allows the researcher to gain
The interviews took place in a private office at the prison and were audio recorded with the participants’ permission. Interviews lasted an average of 30 min (range of
What Sex Offenders Know
About Restrictions and Conditions
Beyond simply assessing their expectations for community reentry, incarcer- ated sex offenders approaching their release dates were queried about their legal restrictions or conditions to which they would be subject upon release. The overwhelming theme in the responses of offenders was that they had little understanding or knowledge about such restrictions. The large majority of offenders reported knowing of only two conditions: registration and being on a conditional release status.
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at OhioLink on February 1, 2013
Tewksbury and Copes |
107 |
|
|
All offenders knew that they would have to be listed on the state’s sex offender registry, although their collective knowledge about what registra- tion entails and the length of registration showed a great deal of confusion and uncertainty. In addition, in the state where the study was conducted, upon release from incarceration all sex
In addition, almost no sex offenders were aware of the state’s residence restriction law prohibiting their residing within 1,000 feet of child congrega- tion locations. And, for the few who did know that there was “some kind” of restrictions on where they could live, none accurately reported knowing the specifics of the law.
In summary, although nearly all
Negative Expectations
The sex offenders interviewed for this project often believed they could return to the community with little trouble. They thought that with the sup- port and assistance of family and friends, they could secure steady employ- ment and eventually return to a “normal life.” Key to their hopes was having community members, both those they already knew and those they did not, see them for the people they believed themselves to be, instead of seeing them only as the label that they carried. However, the positive expectations that were held by these offenders need to be tempered with their less posi- tive, and negative, expectations for what awaits them upon release. The major concerns they had about their reentry centered on finding stable hous- ing and employment, maintaining and establishing social relationships, liv- ing with or overcoming the sex offender label, combating the assumption that they are dangerous to others, and being vulnerable to attacks.
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at OhioLink on February 1, 2013
108 |
The Prison Journal 93(1) |
|
|
Housing and Employment
Two practical issues that stand out as especially significant in the expectations of
Halfway houses, a common housing placement for released offenders, were also perceived to be inaccessible. Some interviewees reported having contacted numerous halfway houses around the state, but were turned away because, as Jax reflected, “halfway houses just don’t want to take sex offend- ers.” Housing, whether through a formalized and structured program such as a halfway house, or found and paid for on one’s own, was seen as the most significant practical barrier facing sex offenders seeking to reenter the com- munity. Almost without exception, the offenders interviewed reported being concerned, worried, and/or frustrated with their attempts to locate housing for their impending release. Jimmy explained his frustrations with housing:
I know it’s going to be tough, especially with sex offenders, it’s really tough. I know it’s really tough. They don’t want them living here, they don’t want them here, they don’t want them there. Okay, you’re going to be ostracized.
Clearly these issues are not unique to only sex offenders. However, due to sex offender specific laws (e.g., residency restrictions), the scope and weight of such issues are especially important for
Relationships
In addition to the practical challenges and problems associated with locating and securing housing after their release, interviewees also anticipated prob- lems with their personal relationships, including these with new and old
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at OhioLink on February 1, 2013
Tewksbury and Copes |
109 |
|
|
friends, current family and significant others, and possible dating situations. Friendships were viewed as especially vulnerable. Most of the interviewees reported that they had lost at least one friend since their offenses came to public light. As a result of experiencing such losses, many of the offenders reported being leery about whether previous friendships would remain intact and reported being concerned about if and how they would be able to make new friends upon release. Although it is recognized that many types of offenders may experience such losses and stresses, for sex
Some offenders expressed strong concerns over family members rejecting them because either they victimized a family member or the loved ones of family members (through marriage,
Offenders saw different types of personal relationships being impacted in different ways and to different degrees. Devon, a
I don’t know how dating, or any of that stuff is going to be, you know what I mean? . . . It feels like I’m going to get out and be lonely though. Not with women or anything like that, ’cause I’ve always been, well, it don’t matter about them. Them’s easy to pick up. But, as far as hav- ing real friends . . . you know what I’m saying?
Not all interviewees saw dating and establishing (even
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at OhioLink on February 1, 2013
110 |
The Prison Journal 93(1) |
|
|
and for others, potential, budding relationships were curtailed in their early stages. As Hunter reported, although he was planning/hoping on living with his wife after release, he was unsure of whether she would still be there for him, and with him, after his release. After explaining that he hoped/planned to live with her after his release he did acknowledge the following about his wife:
I just hope I don’t get out too late, before my wife ends up, you know. She’s going to get lonely after all this time. That’s a long time waiting. I mean, if she does, like I said, I can’t be mad at her . . . I mean I hope she hadn’t. Her daughters, they love me too, and they said she ain’t found nobody else yet.
Aaron related the story of meeting a woman while incarcerated and thinking that he had a real possibility of developing a serious relationship with her, until he told her of his charges. He said that in one of his first letters to her after being introduced:
I let her know, this is the nature of my crime, this is what happened, this is what I’m in here for, this is how much time I’ve got. The reason I’m letting you know this is because I want you to understand that if we become friends or become more than friends, at least you know this is about me.
However, Aaron never heard from the woman again, because in his mind the loss of the potential relationship was due to his status as a sex offender. As he said, “I think it was like a
Living With the Label
The most persistently reported negative expectation for returning to the com- munity for sex offenders was the fact that they will have to contend with living with a very public, very negative label. Sex offenders recognize that their labeled status could limit both their social and practical life opportuni- ties. Dustin, reflecting on how he expects members of his hometown to react to his return, said, “It’s just a lot of things that people are so negative towards that sex offense or just the word that really kills a lot of things, a lot of opportunities that, well, these guys out here, they got brains.”
The ways in which sex offenders perceived their labels often centered on the idea that they believed society sees them as “monsters” and that this
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at OhioLink on February 1, 2013
Tewksbury and Copes |
111 |
|
|
perception is one that will invariably be a permanent part of their identity. This view was illustrated in the words of Marcus, who when discussing how he anticipated community members receiving his return to the community suggested:
Those people all think “Oh! Marcus, was a horrible monster!” . . .
What’s going to be the reaction? Your reaction might be different from others, but if I come right out and say, “Hey, I’m Marcus, I’m a sex offender” then you’re gonna sit there and say “Whoa!” It’s like we’re what was that disease? Lepers.
Or, as Jax succinctly stated, “I’m not a citizen. I’m a sex offender.”
The label that sex offenders perceived being applied to them was almost always seen as a permanent part of their identity. “We are like dirt . . . We made a mistake. A robber made a mistake. A murderer made a mistake. They’re all free to go when they get out of here. Me? When I leave out of here I’m tagged for the rest of my life” was the view espoused by Reese. Similarly, Brent, who said he realistically does not expect to return to the streets for at least another 2 years offered, “That’s the way people think out there. Sex offender? Garbage! Shouldn’t even come back out on the street. Not allowed out there.” Or, in a simple summary fashion that characterized many of Jax’s espoused views, “You’re marked, you’re marked for the rest of your life, until you die. Ain’t nothing I can do about it.”
Assumed Dangerous
As a part of the strong labeling that sex offenders perceive being applied to them was the perception of society that as a sex offender, they are highly dangerous. The label of “sex offender” was experienced as a declaration by society that the individual is to be feared. The danger that the individual is perceived to pose was especially focused on being a danger to children. Reoffending seems to be assumed. Marcus expressed this in his comment: “The ways people view us, they think that we’re the worst of the worst. … They think, once you’re a sex offender, you’re just gonna come back out and you’re just gonna reoffend.” Similarly, Nathan, who had already served over 6 years on his rape and sodomy convictions reflected, “We are the least likely to reoffend, but they probably don’t want to hear that. They just hear ‘sex offender’ and that’s their mindset.”
At the core of the label is society’s fear and assumption that a sex offender is highly likely to recidivate. However, as Marcus and Nathan knew, official
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at OhioLink on February 1, 2013
112 |
The Prison Journal 93(1) |
|
|
statistics do not bear this out. In actuality, sex offenders have some of the lowest rates of recidivism of all varieties of offenders (Sample & Bray, 2003, 2006). As with most emotionally laden issues, the facts are subsumed by the emotional responses. And, in the case of how society views sex offenders, the fear of the offender reoffending is primary in how offenders believed the public constructs their perceptions.
Being Rejected
In the end, the ways that sex offenders expected to be responded to upon their return to the community is to simply be rejected. The assumption was that because they are labeled and presumed to be a significant danger to oth- ers (especially children), they are going to be outcasts. Alex, who was approximately midway through his
I’ll have to expect harsh words and I stuff, I guess. Whatever. Hatred.”
At least in part, the strong assumption of simply being rejected by society emanates from how offenders have experienced reactions of others while incarcerated. Harassment, ostracism, and labeling occur in prison; one of the most
Positive Expectations
Despite acknowledging the possibility of life being difficult once they are released, those we spoke with were remarkably optimistic about their futures. When discussing their expectations and intentions for returning to the community after release, sex offenders in the sample did offer some positive expectations. As they largely did not have much information or knowledge about restrictions or special conditions that would apply to them these offenders expected at least some degree of being able to return to a
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at OhioLink on February 1, 2013
Tewksbury and Copes |
113 |
|
|
“normal” life. These offenders have a strong desire to unobtrusively reenter the community, to return to life as they knew it prior to incarceration, and to avoid negative consequences of being labeled. Specific aspects of life for which this sample of sex offenders held positive expectations included their reunification with family, friends, and securing employment. Although they also anticipated some negative experiences, they held out hope that others would be able to see past their label and judge and react to them as the person they know themselves to
A significant minority of interviewees believed that upon release from prison they would be able to return to their home communities where they would find, as Devon said, “It’s going to be the same as when I left.” These offenders relied on a belief that community members and loved ones would either not necessarily care about their return or would welcome the individual back. This belief was universally based on the intention to “stay out of every- body’s way, and do what I got to do to be a productive citizen” (Jimmy). For offenders from larger communities, there was a belief that they would be able to return to the community and most others would either be unaware or unconcerned about their return. For those from small communities and rural areas, the intent to return to a “normal” life centered on the belief that others know them and would see them similar to their preoffense identity.
Relationships
The most commonly cited determinant of a smooth, positive return to the community was the offender’s family. The focus on family encompassed both a typically strong desire to reunite with loved ones and to have family members provide practical and emotional assistance in a successful reentry process. Family is viewed as a likely source of housing, employment assis- tance, and generalized “support” and “help.” For most offenders, family was seen as those most likely to accept the individual and to support them, in whatever ways may be necessary. Dylan, who had served 36 months on a
Others, however, expressed hope and positive anticipations for reuniting with family members, but also recognized that there may be some reservations
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at OhioLink on February 1, 2013
114 |
The Prison Journal 93(1) |
|
|
or difficulties in reconnecting with their families. For instance, Hunter dis- cussed his anticipated release in a little over 2 years and 6 months and his hopes of reuniting with his wife saying, “Me and my wife will still be together. She’s not planning on going anywhere. But, if she does, I can’t hate her for it. I still love her, regardless of what happens.” Somewhat similar in his belief that his family will be there to assist and support him, yet not seem- ingly completely convinced, Dylan stated, “I’ve got a lot of family that says they will help me. At least they wrote letters and said that they will.”
In addition to their families, most offenders reported that their friends were one of the aspects of “normal life” to which they were looking forward. As with family, friends were seen as providing support, both practically and emotionally. Benji, who has been incarcerated for 18 months of his
Employment
When interviewees were asked about their plans for returning to the com- munity, the first most commonly discussed issue was employment. Several offenders reported that their family members had already made arrangements for jobs for them, and others reported that they believed their families would be their major resource for finding employment. Aaron, a
More frequently, however, offenders reported that they “knew” it would be difficult to get a job, but they believed if they simply persisted they would not have too much difficulty. Several offenders reported that they expected the
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at OhioLink on February 1, 2013
Tewksbury and Copes |
115 |
|
|
fact that they had a felony conviction to be a limit on their ability to find a job. Most focused on the fact that they would have a “felony conviction,” not on the fact that their conviction is as a sex offender. As Jax said, “Well, you got a record, you got a record, so a lot of places won’t hire you.”
For a few offenders, however, there was the recognition that the sex offender label may present special difficulties in securing employment. As Brandon suggested, “It’s hard to get a job period. But, I’m charged with a sex crime too. But, I’m going to try my best and just see what I can do.” In the words of Jax:
My plans are to find a job. Of course, not many places will. That’s the roughest part on me right now . . . I mean, they would actually proba- bly take murderers, bank robbers, arson, drug dealers, (but) not the person with a sex charge, which is my situation. Just because of the title “sex offender.”
As Dustin, a
In the end, the majority of offenders held positive hopes about being able to find a job. Jimmy, looking to be released in less than a month showed his hopeful yet realistic view saying:
I’m not too much worried about a job, because I’ve always been able to work. If that means going to a job site and being a laborer. I’m not too proud, you know? If that means going out and having to work on somebody’s farm. I’m not too proud. I gotta do what I have to do.
If They Could Only See the Real Me
A final, and perhaps the strongest contributor to offenders’ holding of posi- tive expectations for their return to the community, was a belief that their family, friends, and all others, will accept them and welcome them back to the community if and when they “see the real me, not just a sex offender.” A majority of the offenders explained, often at length, that they had confidence in their abilities to reintegrate to their communities, because, as Jax stated, “they know who I am, and a sex offender is not one of them.”
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at OhioLink on February 1, 2013
116 |
The Prison Journal 93(1) |
|
|
Contacts on the outside are presumed to see the person, not the label. Offenders stressed that if they can have the opportunity to reunite with family, friends, and new acquaintances they will be able to understand them as a whole person, not simply a label. As Dustin said, “I’m hoping that people will see who I am, not the title.” For some offenders this meant demonstrating to others that they are not “really” a sex offender, and for others it meant demon- strating that they have changed. As Aaron was explaining how he was confi- dent in his ability to successfully return to the community, he emphasized:
I believe once people see the change in me, my behavior, the way I talk, the way I behave myself, my attitude, as I said earlier, I believe that I will leave an impression on them to where the next time they see me and come around me, they’ll know what to expect, they’ll know how to approach me, how to deal with me. Because, they’ll see that I’m not the same anymore.
The “real” person that sex offenders see in themselves is not someone to be avoided, to be ostracized, or to invoke fear. The “real me” in the eyes of these sex offenders is a good person, albeit someone who has “made a mis- take or two.” Hunter said that one of the main ways he copes with the stress of his situation is to “just keep reminding myself that I am a good person. I’m not what everybody else thinks. I know what I am . . . I mean, I’m a strong person. I been through a lot, nothing like this though.” However, despite their pasts, and despite recognizing the likelihood of some difficulties and unique challenges, As Jaden, a
Discussion
Reentry into the free world after incarceration can be a difficult challenge for all those who have spent time in prison. Upon release, inmates will have lost the right to vote (although this varies by state, in the current state all con- victed felons are disenfranchised), have troubles finding stable, fulfilling employment, have strained relationships with family and friends, and will
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at OhioLink on February 1, 2013
Tewksbury and Copes |
117 |
|
|
likely have difficulties forming new bonds with others. These problems are compounded when one has been convicted of a sex crime. It is important for those who are leaving prison to understand what is in store for them after release if for no other reason than to better prepare themselves for reentry. Our results suggest that sex offenders know very little about SORN laws and accompanying restrictions. They know they will have to register, and some know about a state law imposing a
Offender accounts also revealed that among this
In addition, it is important to note that the generally optimistic view of their upcoming release and return to the community was based on limited knowledge about legal requirements and release conditions that apply to all sex offenders across the state. Optimism, then, appeared to stem, at least in part, from a lack of understanding of the legal requirements imposed on reg- istered sex offenders and a belief that collateral consequences commonly experienced by registered sex offenders were not likely to be experienced because of the unique traits and relationships of the individuals. In short, they believed that while others may experience negative consequences, they would somehow be able to overcome such hurdles.
It appears that the sex offenders we interviewed were aware that their return to their lives will be difficult. Nevertheless, they still remained
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at OhioLink on February 1, 2013
118 |
The Prison Journal 93(1) |
|
|
offenders are able to engage in behavior that is contradictory to their beliefs is through the use of linguistic accounts (Scott & Lyman, 1968; Sykes & Matza, 1957).
This ability to sidestep stigma and show how they differ from “real” crimi- nals is important for those who engage in criminal behaviors. Decades of research shows that this ability to make sense of their actions is important for maintaining a positive
When designing these programs to promote changes in the way offenders think about their crimes, the goal should not be to completely remove their optimism (Fox, 1999). Doing so could lead to greater anxiety and possibly learned helplessness where offenders accept there is no point in trying to desist from crime, which will likely lead to higher rates of recidivism. The goal should be to present an accurate depiction of what is in store for them and provide viable solutions to the problems they will likely face. Doing so may greatly reduce the unintended consequences of sex offender registry and notification laws.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or pub- lication of this article.
Notes
1.We recognize that our sample of 24 is relatively low, which some may see as a limitation of the data. However, the goal of exploratory qualitative research is to interview enough participants to reach saturation, which occurs when no new themes or information comes from additional interviews. Although there are no clear guidelines for how many interviews are enough to reach saturation, a review
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at OhioLink on February 1, 2013
Tewksbury and Copes |
119 |
|
|
of ethnographic research in the top criminology and criminal justice journals shows that the median sample size for studies based on
2.Percentages do not total 100% as most offenders were serving time for multiple charges.
References
Barnes, J. C., Dukes, T., Tewksbury, R., & De Troye, T. (2009). Predicting the impact of a statewide residence restriction law on South Carolina sex offenders. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20,
Brannon, Y. N., Levenson, J. S., Fortney, T., & Baker, J. N. (2007). Attitudes about community notification: A comparison of sexual offenders and the
Burchfield, K. B., & W. Mingus. (2008). “Not in my neighborhood”: Assessing reg- istered sex offenders’ experiences with local social capital and social control.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35,
Copes, H., Brown, A., & Tewksbury, R. (2011). A content analysis of ethnographic research published in top criminology and criminal justice journals from 2000- 2009. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22(3),
Duwe, G., Donnay, W., & Tewksbury, R. (2008). Does Residential Proximity Mat- ter? A Geographic Analysis of Sex Offense Recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35,
Farkas, M. A., & Miller, G. (2007). Reentry and reintegration: Challenges faced by the families of convicted sex offenders. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 20(2),
Fox, K. J. (1999). Changing violent minds: Discursive correction and resistance in the cognitive treatment of violent offenders in prison. Social Problems, 46,
Goffman, E. (1963) Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and validity. Field Methods, 18,
Hochstetler, A., Copes, H., & Williams, J. P. (2010). That’s not who I am: How offenders commit violent acts and reject authentically violent selves. Justice Quarterly, 27,
Hughes, L. A., & Burchfield, K. B. (2008). Sex offender residence restrictions in Chicago: An environmental injustice. Justice Quarterly, 24,
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at OhioLink on February 1, 2013
120 |
The Prison Journal 93(1) |
|
|
Hughes, L. A., & Kadleck, C. (2008). Sex offender community notification and com- munity stratification. Justice Quarterly, 25,
Levenson, J. S. (2008). Collateral consequences of sex offender residence restrictions.
Criminal Justice Studies, 21,
Levenson, J. S., & Cotter, L. P. (2005). The effect of Megan’s Law on sex offender reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21,
Levenson, J. S., D’Amora, D. A., & Hern, A. (2007). Megan’s Law and its impact on community reentry for sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25,
Levenson, J. S., & Hern, A. (2007). Sex offender residence restrictions: Unintended consequences and community
Levenson, J. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2009). Collateral damage: Family members of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34,
Levenson, J. S., Zgoba, K. M., & Tewksbury, R. (2007). Sex offender residence restrictions: Sensible crime policy or flawed logic? Federal Probation, 71,
Logan, W. A. (2009). Knowledge as power: Criminal registration and community notification laws in America. Stanford, CA: Stanford Law Books.
Maruna, S., & Copes, H. (2005). What have we learned from five decades of neutral- ization research? Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, 32,
Mercado, C. C., Alvarez, S., & Levenson, J. S. (2008). The impact of specialized sex offender legislation on community
Mustaine, E. E., Tewksbury, R., & Stengel, K. M. (2006a). Social disorganization and residential locations of registered sex sffenders: Is this a collateral consequence?
Deviant Behavior, 27,
Mustaine, E. E., Tewksbury, R., & Stengel, K. M. (2006b). Residential location and mobility of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30,
Presser, L. (2008). Been a heavy life: Stories of violent men. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Quinn, J. F., Forsyth, C. J., &
Sample, L., & Bray, T. (2003). Are sex offenders dangerous? Journal of Criminology and Public Policy, 3,
Sample, L., & Bray, T. (2006). Are sex offenders different? An examination of rear- rest patterns. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17,
Sample, L. L., & Kadleck, C. (2008). Sex offender laws: Legislators accounts of the need for policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19,
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at OhioLink on February 1, 2013
Tewksbury and Copes |
121 |
|
|
Schiavone, S. K., & Jeglic, E. L. (2009). Public perception of sex offender public poli- cies and the impact on sex offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53,
Scott, M., & Lyman, S. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33,
Suresh, G., Mustaine, E. E., Tewksbury, R., & Higgins, G. E. (2010). Social disorga- nization and registered sex offenders: An exploratory spatial analysis. Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 7,
Sykes, G., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization. A theory of delinquency.
American Sociological Review, 22,
Tewksbury, R. (2004). Experiences and attitudes of registered female sex offenders.
Federal Probation, 68,
Tewksbury, R. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21,
Tewksbury, R. (2007). Exile at home: The unintended collateral consequences of sex offender residency restrictions. Harvard Civil
Tewksbury, R., & Jennings, W. G. (2010). Assessing the impact of sex offender regis- tration and community notification on sex offending trajectories. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37,
Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. (2007). Perceptions of punishment: How registered sex offenders view registries. Crime & Delinquency, 53,
Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. (2006). Perceptions of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26,
Tewksbury, R., & Levenson, J. S. (2009). Stress experiences of family members of registered sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 27,
Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2006). Where to find sex offenders: An examina- tion of residential locations and neighborhood conditions. Criminal Justice Stud- ies, 19,
Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2008). Where registered sex offenders live: Com- munity characteristics and proximity to possible victims. Victims & Offenders, 3,
Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2009). Stress and collateral consequences for registered sex offenders. Journal of Public Management and Social Policy, 15,
Tewksbury, R., & Zgoba, K. M. (2010). Perceptions and coping with punishment: How registered sex offenders respond to stress, internet restrictions and the col- lateral consequences of registration. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54,
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at OhioLink on February 1, 2013
122 |
The Prison Journal 93(1) |
|
|
Vandiver, D. M., Dial, K. C., & Worley, R. M. (2008). A qualitative assessment of registered female sex offenders: Judicial processing experiences and perceived effects of a public registry. Criminal Justice Review, 33,
Wakeling, H. C., Webster, S., & Moulden, H. M. (2007). Decisions to offend in men who sexually abuse their daughters. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 13,
Williams, D. J. (2004). Sexual offenders’ perceptions of correctional therapy: What can we learn? Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 11,
Zandbergen, P. A., & Hart, T. C. (2009). Availability and spatial distribution of afford- able housing in
Zandbergen, P. A., & Hart, T. C. (2006). Reducing housing options for convicted sex offenders: Investigating the impact of residency restriction laws using GIS.
Justice Research and Policy, 8,
Zevitz, R., & Farkas, M. A. (2000). Sex offender community notification: Managing high risk criminals or exacting further vengeance? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18,
Zgoba, K., Witt, P., Dalessandro, M., & Veysey, B. (2008). Megan’s Law: Assessing the practical and monetary efficacy. (Report on Grant Award
Bios
Richard Tewksbury is professor of Justice Administration at the University of Louisville. His research focuses on issues of sex offender registration, criminal vic- timization risks, and criminal justice client and provider experiences. He is currently editor of Criminal Justice Studies and has previously served as editor of both
American Journal of Criminal Justice and Justice Quarterly.
Heath Copes is associate professor in the Department of Justice Studies at the University of Alabama Birmingham. He is a qualitative methods specialist, focusing his research on issues of offender and criminal justice staff experiences.
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at OhioLink on February 1, 2013