Residency restrictions stipulate the living arrangements of sex offenders, but underdiscussed are geographic restrictions that limit spatial interactions relating to loitering, presence, and entry. Our statutory analysis of state-level geographic restrictions identifies 38, 18, 19, and 14 states which have implemented residency, loitering, presence, and entry restrictions. Geographic restrictions are widely adopted, particularly between 2006 and 2010, and are dispersed randomly by region and division, with some states being more comprehensive than others, particularly in West South Central. Residency restrictions were typically older and longer, with distance markers progressively less common for loitering, presence, and entry restrictions. Geographic restrictions were more often offense-specific than registration-specific and demonstrated heterogeneity in the number and types of prohibited venues that were commonly youth-centric.
AndersonA. L.SampleL. L.CainC. M. (2015). Residency restrictions for sex offenders: Public opinion on appropriate distance. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 26(3), 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403413513897
3.
BarnesJ. C.DukesT.TewksburyR.De TroyeT. M. (2009). Analyzing the impact of a statewide residence restriction law on South Carolina sex offenders. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20(1), 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403408320842
4.
BuddK. M.ManciniC. M.BierieD. M. (2018). Parks, playgrounds, and incidents of sexual assault. Sexual Abuse, 31(5), 580–606. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063218797712
ChajewskiM.MercadoC. C. (2009). An evaluation of sex offender residency restriction functioning in town, county, and city-wide jurisdictions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20(1): 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403408320845
7.
CharmazK. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE.
8.
ColombinoN.MercadoC. C.LevensonJ.JeglicE. (2011). Preventing sexual violence: Can examination of offense location inform sex crime policy?International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 34(3), 160–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.04.002
9.
DuweG.DonnayW. (2010). The effects of failure to register on sex offender recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(5), 520–536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810364106
10.
GlaserB. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445. https://doi.org/10.2307/798843
11.
HuebnerB. M.KrasK. R.RydbergJ.BynumT. S.GrommonE.PleggenkuhleB. (2014). The effect and implications of sex offender residence restrictions. Criminology & Public Policy, 13(1), 139–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12066
12.
LeipnikM.YeX.SernaJ.StrongJ.WilkinsC.WuL. (2016). Spatial aspects of restrictions on registered sex offenders. Geographical Review, 106(2), 312–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1931-0846.2015.12152.x
13.
LesterJ. L. (2007). Off to Elba! The legitimacy of sex offender residence and employment restrictions. Akron Law Review, 40(2), 339–388.
14.
LevensonJ. S. (2008). Collateral consequences of sex offender residence restrictions. Criminal Justice Studies, 21(2), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786010802159822
LevensonJ. S.AckermanA. R.SociaK. M.HarrisA. J. (2015). Where for art thou? Transient sex offenders and residence restrictions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 26(4), 319–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403413512326
17.
LevensonJ. S.BrannonY. N.FortneyT.BakerJ. (2007). Public perceptions about sex offenders and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issue and Public Policy, 7(1), 137–161.
18.
LytleR. (2019). Beyond panic: Variation in the legislative activity for sex offender registration and notification laws across states over time. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(3), 451–476. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0887403416678287
19.
ManciniC.BarnesJ. C.MearsD. M. (2011). It varies from state to state: An examination of sex crime laws nationally. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(2), 166–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403411424079
20.
MeloyM. L.MillerS. L.CurtisK. M. (2008). Making sense out of nonsense: The deconstruction of state-level sex offender residence restrictions. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(3), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-008-9042-2
21.
MogaveroM. C.KennedyL. W. (2017). The social and geographic patterns of sexual offending: Is sex offender residence restriction legislation practical?Victims & Offenders, 12(3), 401–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2015.1084962
RossmoK. D. (2000). Geographic profiling. CRC Press.
24.
SampleL. L.BrayT. M. (2006). Are sex offenders different? An examination of rearrest patterns. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17(1), 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403405282916
25.
SandlerJ. C.FreemanN. J.SociaK. M. (2008). Does a watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New York State’s sex offender registration and notification law. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14(4), 284–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013881
26.
SociaK. M. (2012a). The efficacy of county-level sex offender residence restrictions in New York. Crime & Delinquency, 58(4), 612–642. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0011128712441694
27.
SociaK. M. (2012b). The implementation of county residence restrictions in New York. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18(2), 206–230. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024993
WalkerJ. T.GoldenJ. W.VanHoutenA. C. (2001). The geographic link between sex offenders and potential victims: A routine activities approach. Justice Research and Policy, 3(2), 15–33. https://doi.org/10.3818%2FJRP.3.2.2001.15
30.
ZandbergenP. A.HartT. C. (2006). Reducing housing options for convicted sex offenders: Investigating the impact of residence restriction laws using GIS. Justice Research and Policy, 8(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3818/JRP.8.2.2006.1
31.
ZandbergenP. A.LevensonJ. S.HartT. C. (2010). Residential proximity to schools and daycares: An empirical analysis of sex offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(5), 482–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810363549
32.
ZgobaK. M.MinerM.LevensonJ.KnightR.LetourneauE.ThorntonD. (2016). The Adam Walsh Act: An examination of sex offender risk classification systems. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 28(8), 722–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215569543
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
