08-22-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

498 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR significantly higher than those for the other recidivists. The 28 residential proximity offend- ers were also more likely to have victimized a stranger in their prior offense. Because of their greater victimization of adult female strangers, these offenders were significantly more likely to have used physical force during the sex crime. Finally, compared to the other recidivists, they were significantly less likely to commit the reoffense at a location where they shared the residence with the victim. But how many of the 28 cases might have been prevented by a law barring sex offenders from living near prohibited areas such as schools, daycare centers, or parks? Twelve cases would be eliminated from consideration because they involved adult victims. Of the remaining 16 cases with juvenile victims, 12 involved offenders who established direct contact within 1,000 feet, and 2 additional cases involved an offender who initiated contact within 2,500 feet. Not one of the 16 cases, however, was facilitated by close proximity to a school, daycare, or park. Instead, the offenders in these 16 cases victimized neighbors, or they made contact with victims near their own property. For example, in 8 of the cases, the victim was a neighbor to the offender in that they lived in the same residential block, trailer park, or apartment building. In 4 of the cases, the offenders made contact with the victims just outside their own property. In 1 incident, the offender met the victim, a 17-year-old male runaway, at a nearby fast food restaurant. One of the offenders molested a child who lived in the same apartment building of an acquaintance he was visiting. In another incident, the offender lived near a shopping mall, which is where he initiated contact with a juvenile victim. And in the final case, the offender gained entrance by breaking into the victim’s home. In general, though, the offenders typically gained access to the victims by enticing them with a ruse: for example, an offer to use the offender’s phone or paying the victim money to clean the offender’s residence. Of the 224 cases, there were a total of 3 in which the offender established contact with the victim at a possible prohibited area where children are known to be present. The loca- tion was a park in 2 of the incidents and a school in the other incident. In 2 of the cases, however, the offender lived more than 10 miles away from the first contact location, whereas the victim in the other case was an adult. Therefore, none of the 224 incidents of sex offender recidivism fit the criteria of a known offender making contact with a child victim at a loca- tion within any of the distances typically covered by residential restriction laws. TABLE 5: Offender Residence–First Contact Distances for Direct-Contact Offenders Distance Number % <1,000 ft. (0.00–0.19 miles) 18 22.8 1,000–2,500 ft. (0.20–0.47 miles) 5 6.3 2,501–5,280 ft. (0.48–0.99 miles) 7 8.8 1–2 miles 6 7.6 3–5 miles 10 12.7 6–10 miles 4 5.1 11–20 miles 4 5.1 >20 miles 7 8.8 Telephone 4 5.1 Internet 1 1.2 Unknown 13 16.5 Total 79 100.0 at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from