08-22-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Duwe et al. / RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY & SEX OFFENSE RECIDIVISM 501 Residency restriction laws would likely offer, at best, a marginal impact on the incidence of sexual recidivism. Together with emerging research suggesting that sex offender regis- tration and notification processes have a negligible effect on recidivism (Walker, Madden, Vasquez, VanHouten, & Ervin-McLarty, 2006), this finding casts doubt on the efficacy of such policies. This is not to say that housing restrictions would never prevent a sex offender from reoffending sexually. Based on the results presented here, however, the chances that it would have a deterrent effect are slim. Indeed, during the past 16 years, not one sex offender released from a MCF has been reincarcerated for a sex offense in which he made contact with a juvenile victim at or near a school, park, or daycare center close to his home. In short, it is unlikely that residency restrictions would have a deterrent effect because the types of offenses that such laws are designed to prevent are exceptionally rare and, in the case of Minnesota, virtually nonexistent in the past 16 years. It is still possible, however, that a housing restrictions law could have an impact because laws sometimes have unintended consequences. It is debatable, though, whether the impact would be a positive one. In 2002, Iowa passed a residency restrictions law prohibiting sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a child congregation location. Although there are no hard data on the impact of the law, anecdotal evidence suggests that residency restric- tions may limit offender employment prospects, reduce suitable housing opportunities, and threaten the reliability of the sex offender registry by causing more offenders to become homeless, change residences without notifying the authorities, or register false addresses. Moreover, the forced removal of offenders from established residences may have an adverse impact on family members, causing children to be pulled out of school and away from friends and resulting in the loss of jobs and community connections for spouses (Iowa County Attorneys Association, 2006). Recognizing the harmful impact that residency restrictions can have on others besides the offender, the American Correctional Association (2007) has passed a resolution calling for legislatures to examine and consider the negative consequences that these laws create. By making it more difficult for sex offenders to successfully re-enter society, housing restrictions might promote conditions that militate against the goal of reducing the extent to which they recidivate sexually. APPENDIX Coding of Variables Offender race: Dichotomized as White (1) or minority (0). Age at release: The age of the offender in years at the time of release based on the date of birth and release date. Metro-area: A rough proxy of urban and rural Minnesota, this variable measures an offender’s county of commitment, dichotomizing it into either metro-area (1) or greater Minnesota (0). The seven metro-area counties include Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington. The remaining 80 counties were coded as non-metro area or greater Minnesota counties. Multiple prior felony convictions: Offenders who had more than one prior felony conviction (including the instant offense) were assigned a value of 1, whereas those without multiple prior felony convictions were assigned a value of 0. (continued) at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from