|
One of the clearest findings of this body of research is that residency restrictions and,
<br />more generally, sex offender registration create a hardship for sex offenders. However,despite
<br />both registration and residential restrictions being focused on promoting community safety,
<br />the impact of such laws on sexual recidivism remains unclear. Given that the residential
<br />proximity issue has not been fully addressed empirically, there may be truth to the notion
<br />that when sex offenders reoffend sexually, they are likely to do so very close to where they
<br />live. If so, then policies restricting where sex offenders live may have merit in terms of
<br />enhancing public safety.
<br />THE JOURNEY TO CRIME
<br />A growing literature addressing where criminal offenders commit their offenses has
<br />consistently shown that the number of criminal offenses that an offender commits decreases
<br />as distance from an offender’s residence increases (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1984;
<br />Rengert, 2004; Rengert, Piquero, & Jones, 1999). However, for violent offenders (including
<br />sex offenders), this pattern typically does not hold. Confrontational offenders—who actually
<br />encounter their victims personally—seek offending locations where they are unlikely to be
<br />recognized (and therefore apprehended). Data from 565 rapes committed by serial rapists
<br />showed that offenses occurred an average of more than 3 miles from offenders’ homes
<br />(Warren et al., 1998). Also focusing on serial rapists, Canter and Gregory (1994) found that
<br />86% of the offenders they studied did not offend against victims who lived nearby, but
<br />instead they “marauded” outward into an area of an average of 180 square miles. In New
<br />Zealand, serial sexual assault offenders committed their offenses an average of 3 kilometers
<br />(1.86 miles) away from their residences (Lundrigan & Czarnomski, 2006).
<br />For other types of violent crime, Groff and McEwen (2006) reported that homicide
<br />offenders committed the offense, on average, 0.69 miles from their homes. In addition, Tita
<br />and Griffiths (2005) showed that across 9 years of homicides in Pittsburgh, homicide offend-
<br />ers rarely killed in their own neighborhoods. Also, they found that characteristics of events
<br />and relationships were more important than characteristics of victims and opportunities in
<br />determining where offenses took place.
<br />THE PRESENT STUDY: RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS IN MINNESOTA
<br />In a 2006 report, Nieto and Jung identified 22 states (Alabama, Arkansas, California,
<br />Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri,Minnesota,
<br />New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and
<br />West Virginia) that have residency restriction legislation for sex offenders. Of these, how-
<br />ever, 4 (New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, and Minnesota) do not have statutory language specifi-
<br />cally prohibiting sex offenders from living within a certain distance of a child congregation
<br />location. In New Mexico, schools must be notified of sex offenders living within a 1-mile
<br />radius, but the law does not restrict where they can live. In Oregon and Texas, a government
<br />body (e.g., Department of Corrections or the Parole Board) is responsible for determining
<br />where and how close a sex offender can live to a child congregation location. In Minnesota,
<br />Nieto and Jung (2006, p. 21) reported that “the Parole Commissioner determines if and
<br />where a level II and III sex offender may reside within 1,500 feet of school zones.”
<br />Nieto and Jung’s (2006) description of Minnesota’s residency restriction statute is flawed,
<br />however. First, the actual statute does not mention a Parole Commissioner nor does the State
<br />Duwe et al. / RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY & SEX OFFENSE RECIDIVISM 487
<br /> at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
|