Returning to the community after incarceration can be a difficult challenge. These issues are exacerbated for sex offenders, who reenter society carrying strong stigmas and who are subject to a variety of both legal and extralegal restrictions. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 24 incarcerated, soon-to-be released sex offenders, this study examines their perceptions and expectations of reentry challenges and opportunities. Analysis shows that sex offenders have very limited understandings of reentry legal restrictions. In addition, offender accounts revealed sex offenders generally held positive expectations for community reentry. They reflect the belief that they will be able to draw upon personal, familial, and social resources to avoid the consequences of stigmatization.
BarnesJ. C.DukesT.TewksburyR.De TroyeT. (2009). Predicting the impact of a statewide residence restriction law on South Carolina sex offenders. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20, 21-43.
2.
BrannonY. N.LevensonJ. S.FortneyT.BakerJ. N. (2007). Attitudes about community notification: A comparison of sexual offenders and the non-offending public. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, 19, 369-380.
3.
BurchfieldK. B.MingusW.(2008). “Not in my neighborhood”: Assessing registered sex offenders’ experiences with local social capital and social control. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 356-374.
4.
CopesH.BrownA.TewksburyR. (2011). A content analysis of ethnographic research published in top criminology and criminal justice journals from 2000-2009. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22(3), 341-359.
5.
DuweG.DonnayW.TewksburyR. (2008). Does Residential Proximity Matter? A Geographic Analysis of Sex Offense Recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 484-504.
6.
FarkasM. A.MillerG. (2007). Reentry and reintegration: Challenges faced by the families of convicted sex offenders. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 20(2), 88-92.
7.
FoxK. J. (1999). Changing violent minds: Discursive correction and resistance in the cognitive treatment of violent offenders in prison. Social Problems, 46, 88-103.
8.
GoffmanE. (1963) Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
9.
GuestG.BunceA.JohnsonL. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and validity. Field Methods, 18, 59-82.
10.
HochstetlerA.CopesH.WilliamsJ. P. (2010). That’s not who I am: How offenders commit violent acts and reject authentically violent selves. Justice Quarterly, 27, 492-516.
11.
HughesL. A.BurchfieldK. B. (2008). Sex offender residence restrictions in Chicago: An environmental injustice. Justice Quarterly, 24, 647-671.
12.
HughesL. A.KadleckC. (2008). Sex offender community notification and community stratification. Justice Quarterly, 25, 647-671.
13.
LevensonJ. S. (2008). Collateral consequences of sex offender residence restrictions. Criminal Justice Studies, 21, 153-166.
14.
LevensonJ. S.CotterL. P. (2005). The effect of Megan’s Law on sex offender reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 49-66.
15.
LevensonJ. S.D’AmoraD. A.HernA. (2007). Megan’s Law and its impact on community reentry for sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 587-602.
16.
LevensonJ. S.HernA. (2007). Sex offender residence restrictions: Unintended consequences and community re-entry. Justice Research and Policy, 9, 59-73.
17.
LevensonJ. S.TewksburyR. (2009). Collateral damage: Family members of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 54-68.
18.
LevensonJ. S.ZgobaK. M.TewksburyR. (2007). Sex offender residence restrictions: Sensible crime policy or flawed logic?Federal Probation, 71, 2-9.
19.
LoganW. A. (2009). Knowledge as power: Criminal registration and community notification laws in America. Stanford, CA: Stanford Law Books.
20.
MarunaS.CopesH. (2005). What have we learned from five decades of neutralization research?Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, 32, 221-320.
21.
MercadoC. C.AlvarezS.LevensonJ. S. (2008). The impact of specialized sex offender legislation on community re-entry. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 20, 188-205.
22.
MustaineE. E.TewksburyR.StengelK. M. (2006a). Social disorganization and residential locations of registered sex sffenders: Is this a collateral consequence?Deviant Behavior, 27, 329-350.
23.
MustaineE. E.TewksburyR.StengelK. M. (2006b). Residential location and mobility of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 177-192.
24.
PresserL. (2008). Been a heavy life: Stories of violent men. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
25.
QuinnJ. F.ForsythC. J.Mullen-QuinnC. (2004). Societal reaction to sex offenders: A review of the origins and results of the myths surrounding their crimes and treatment amenability. Deviant Behavior, 25, 215-232.
26.
SampleL.BrayT. (2003). Are sex offenders dangerous? Journal of Criminology and Public Policy, 3, 59-82.
27.
SampleL.BrayT. (2006). Are sex offenders different? An examination of rearrest patterns. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17, 83-102.
28.
SampleL. L.KadleckC. (2008). Sex offender laws: Legislators accounts of the need for policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 40-62.
29.
SchiavoneS. K.JeglicE. L. (2009). Public perception of sex offender public policies and the impact on sex offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53, 679-695.
30.
ScottM.LymanS. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46-62.
31.
SociaK. M. (2011). The policy implications of residency restrictions on sex offender housing in upstate New York. Criminology and Public Policy, 10, 351-389.
32.
SureshG.MustaineE. E.TewksburyR.HigginsG. E. (2010). Social disorganization and registered sex offenders: An exploratory spatial analysis. Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 7, 180-213.
33.
SykesG.MatzaD. (1957). Techniques of neutralization. A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22, 664-670.
34.
TewksburyR. (2004). Experiences and attitudes of registered female sex offenders. Federal Probation, 68, 30-33.
35.
TewksburyR. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 67-81.
36.
TewksburyR. (2007). Exile at home: The unintended collateral consequences of sex offender residency restrictions. Harvard Civil Rights—Civil Liberties Law Review, 42, 531-540.
37.
TewksburyR.JenningsW. G. (2010). Assessing the impact of sex offender registration and community notification on sex offending trajectories. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 570-582.
38.
TewksburyR.LeesM. (2007). Perceptions of punishment: How registered sex offenders view registries. Crime & Delinquency, 53, 380-407.
39.
TewksburyR.LeesM. (2006). Perceptions of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26, 309-334.
40.
TewksburyR.LevensonJ. S. (2009). Stress experiences of family members of registered sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 27, 611-626.
41.
TewksburyR.MustaineE. E. (2006). Where to find sex offenders: An examination of residential locations and neighborhood conditions. Criminal Justice Studies, 19, 61-75.
42.
TewksburyR.MustaineE. E. (2008). Where registered sex offenders live: Community characteristics and proximity to possible victims. Victims & Offenders, 3, 86-98.
43.
TewksburyR.MustaineE. E. (2009). Stress and collateral consequences for registered sex offenders. Journal of Public Management and Social Policy, 15, 215-239.
44.
TewksburyR.ZgobaK. M. (2010). Perceptions and coping with punishment: How registered sex offenders respond to stress, internet restrictions and the collateral consequences of registration. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 537-551.
45.
VandiverD. M.DialK. C.WorleyR. M. (2008). A qualitative assessment of registered female sex offenders: Judicial processing experiences and perceived effects of a public registry. Criminal Justice Review, 33, 177-198.
46.
WakelingH. C.WebsterS.MouldenH. M. (2007). Decisions to offend in men who sexually abuse their daughters. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 13, 81-99.
47.
WilliamsD. J. (2004). Sexual offenders’ perceptions of correctional therapy: What can we learn?Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 11, 145-162.
48.
ZandbergenP. A.HartT. C. (2009). Availability and spatial distribution of affordable housing in Miami-Dade County and implications of residency restriction zones for registered sex offenders. Miami, FL: Miami Coalition for the Homeless.
49.
ZandbergenP. A.HartT. C. (2006). Reducing housing options for convicted sex offenders: Investigating the impact of residency restriction laws using GIS. Justice Research and Policy, 8, 1-24.
50.
ZevitzR.FarkasM. A. (2000). Sex offender community notification: Managing high risk criminals or exacting further vengeance?Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 375-391.
51.
ZgobaK.WittP.DalessandroM.VeyseyB. (2008). Megan’s Law: Assessing the practical and monetary efficacy. (Report on Grant Award 2006-IJ-CX-0018). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
