08-22-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

484 DOES RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY MATTER? A Geographic Analysis of Sex Offense Recidivism GRANT DUWE WILLIAM DONNAY Minnesota Department of Corrections RICHARD TEWKSBURY University of Louisville In an effort to reduce sex offense recidivism, local and state governments have recently passed legislation prohibiting sex offenders from living within a certain distance (500 to 2,500 feet) of child congregation locations such as schools, parks, and daycare centers. Examining the potential deterrent effects of a residency restrictions law in Minnesota, this study analyzed the offense patterns of every sex offender released from Minnesota correctional facilities between 1990 and 2002 who was reincarcerated for a new sex offense prior to 2006. Given that not one of the 224 sex offenses would have likely been prevented by residency restrictions, the findings from this study provide little support for the notion that such restrictions would signifi- cantly reduce sexual recidivism. Keywords:sex offenders; recidivism; deterrence; offense patterns; residency requirements I n light of the perception that sex offenders pose a major threat to their communities because they are highly incorrigible, local and state governments have recently enacted policies that restrict where sex offenders are allowed to live. For example, 22 states have passed legislation that may prohibit sex offenders from living near schools, daycare centers, parks, and other areas where potential vulnerable victims may be present (Nieto & Jung, 2006). In some states, local governments have passed ordinances restricting the placement of sex offenders. In Minnesota, for example, local governments in Taylors Falls and Wyoming have both passed such ordinances. Designed to enhance the safety of children, residency restrictions are targeted mainly toward child molesters, who often gain access to their victims through marriage, occupation, or the neighborhood in which they live (Walker, Golden, & VanHouten, 2001). Because resi- dency restrictions are intended to prevent child molesters from making direct contact with children, they are primarily applicable with the third type of access—neighborhood (Walker et al., 2001). But are such policy measures consistent with the reality of sexual recidivism? That is, are sex offenders highly likely to recidivate? And, when they do reoffend, are they likely to do so by selecting victims who reside in close proximity to where they live? CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 35 No. 4, April 2008 484-504 DOI: 10.1177/0093854807313690 © 2008 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology AUTHORS’NOTE:The views expressed in this study are not necessarily those of the Minnesota Department of Corrections. The authors wish to thank Karl Hanson and Michael Miner for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article and Nicole Hansen from the Minnesota Department of Corrections for her work in collecting and entering the data. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Grant Duwe, Minnesota Department of Corrections, 1450 Energy Park Drive, Suite 200, St. Paul, MN 55108; e-mail: GDuwe@co.doc.state.mn.us. at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from