08-22-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Duwe et al. / RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY & SEX OFFENSE RECIDIVISM 497 offenders had a relatively high rate of specialization. In contrast to those who established direct contact with the victims, collateral contact offenders were significantly more likely to commit the reoffense in the residence that they shared with the victim. The 32 recidivists who offended against a biological family member were significantly more likely to victimize a child in both their previous and current sex crimes. These offenders were also significantly more likely to have a history of offending against family members. Indeed, 50% (n =16) victimized a family member in their previous offense. Like collateral- contact offenders, these recidivists were, compared to direct-contact offenders, significantly less likely to use physical force but significantly more likely to commit the offense at the residence that they shared with the victim. Of the three reoffenses that took place in which the offense location was different from the residence shared by the victim and offender, two involved biological-contact offenders. OFFENDER RESIDENCE–FIRST CONTACT DISTANCE FOR DIRECT-CONTACT OFFENDERS In assessing the potential deterrent effects of residency restrictions on sexual reoffend- ing, it is, as noted earlier, necessary to focus on the 79 direct-contact cases. As shown in Table 5, it was not possible to estimate the offender residence–first contact distance for 13 of the cases because of unavailable address information for either the offender’s residence or the first contact location. However, even if it were possible to estimate the first contact distance, none of the cases would have likely been affected by residency restrictions according to the criteria outlined above. For example, in 10 of the 13 cases, the victim was an adult. In the 3 cases involving juvenile victims, 1 offender met the victim through his occupation. In the other two cases, the offenders established “consensual” romantic relation- ships with the victims, both of whom were 14 years old. One of the offenders, who was 24 at the time, met the victim at a party attended by mutual friends, and the other offender, who was 19 years old, “picked up” the victim as she was taking a walk from her home. Given that 4 offenders established contact via telephone and 1 offender initiated contact via the Internet, there were 61 direct-contact cases in which address information was avail- able. Of the 61 cases, more than half (n =31) contacted their victims beyond a mile from where they were residing at the time of the offense. In the other 30 cases, the offenders met their victims less than a mile away from their home. However, 1 of these offenders victimized an inmate while he was incarcerated at a county jail, whereas another offender molested his roommate at a halfway house following his release from prison. Because residency restric- tions would not apply in either situation, both cases were excluded, lowering the total to 28. Of the 28 cases, 21 would qualify for less than a 2,500-foot (less than 0.5 miles) zone, whereas this number would drop to 16 for a 1,000-foot (less than 0.2 miles) zone. RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY FOR DIRECT-CONTACT OFFENDERS In Table 6, we compare the characteristics of the 28 offenders who established direct vic- tim contact within 1 mile of their residence with the remaining 196 offenders. When the 28 offenders established direct victim contact within 1 mile of their residence, they were likely to target an adult female stranger. Indeed, 43% (n =12) of the victims in their reoffense were adults, 79% (n =22) were females, and 68% (n =19) were strangers. More specifi- cally, the results from a t test reveal that the percentages of adult and stranger victims were at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from