April 2009:Introduction:
Sex offender residency restrictions (SORRs) are a manifestation of the American public’s retributivist attitudes and biased fears1 -attitudes and fears that ultimately result in ineffective policy choices. Over the last quarter century in the United States there has been a reemergence of “just deserts” as a generalized theory of policy. This retributivist policy is particularly salient in recent civil sanctions levied against sex offend-ers after their release from prison.
Sex offenders, as a group, incite the public’s fear and hatred, and politicians seeking to curry electorate favor often support increasingly harsh sanctions against these “political pariahs of our day.”2 Most recently, in an attempt to keep communities safe, at least twenty-two states3 and hundreds of local municipalities have placed severe restrictions on where sex offenders may live after being released from prison.
These restrictions typically exclude sex offenders from living within 1000 to 2500 feet of schools, parks, day care centers, and other areas where children congregate.4 However, research indicates that these fear-driven laws are ill-advised policy choices based on faulty reasoning. They aggravate recidivism risk factors, and hence may actually make communities less safe.5
By framing these public safety laws in the context of modern criminal policy, this paper highlights the possible mechanisms responsible for the restrictions’ development and proliferation despite the growing body of research evidencing their coun-terproductivity. Understanding the context in which these laws have developed will help shed light on the most useful avenues of sex offender legislation reform.
Instead of focusing on the constitutional rights of sex offenders, as most legal scholars have done, strategies for sex offender legislation reform need to focus on uniting the political and legal aspects of the reform effort. More effective reform can be sought through a better informed public, rather than a protective judiciary.
For the remainder of this paper: by Lindsay A. Wagner
2 comments:
Wagner's paper is all well and good, but I do have to respond to one paragraph:
"Instead of focusing on the constitutional rights of sex offenders, as most legal scholars have done, strategies for sex offender legislation reform need to focus on uniting the political and legal aspects of the reform effort. More effective reform can be sought through a better informed public, rather than a protective judiciary."
Unfortunately, the public is too far gone to make the changes without the teeth of law to back it up. In short, we are at a point where reform must FIRST be instigated by a ruling of a "protective judiciary." Until that happens, it is business as usual. Munis and states will go back and forth as Iowa is currently doing, without regard to constitutional direction.
If you read the entire paper you'll see that a large part of the argument is that legal reformers need to focus on articulating a cognizable legal claim that also carries a powerful political punch -- because obviously "sex offenders' rights" does not work. If legal reformers can find a way to frame the claim in a more politically popular way, merging political and legal rhetoric, the chances of success are enhanced.
Post a Comment