To date, scholars have simply inferred the beliefs underlying sex offender laws from the passage and content of the legislation. Few researchers have directly spoken to legislators to determine their opinions of the sex offender problem. This study seeks to determine the perceptions of sex offenders and sex offending in the 1990s that drove the need for sex offender reform in Illinois and the degree to which these perceptions influenced the content of the laws. The findings suggest that policy makers had very distinct ideas about the nature of the sex offender problem in terms of who was responsible, who was in need of protection, and the degree to which legislative responses would address the issue. There was congruence between these personal perceptions and the content of sex offender laws. The results shed light on the degree to which public officials' personal perceptions influence the passage and content of legislation.
Avrahamian, K.A. (1998). A critical perspective: Do `Megan's Laws' really shield children from sex-predators? Journal of Juvenile Law , 19(4), 301-317.
2.
Barak, G. (1994). Media, process, and the social construction of crime. New York: Garland.
3.
Beckett, K., & Sasson, T. (2000). The politics of injustice crime and punishment in America. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
4.
Ben-Yehuda, N. (1990). The politics and morality of deviance. Albany: State University of New York Press.
5.
Best, J. (1989). Images of issues: Typifying contemporary social problems. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine .
6.
Cohen, S. (1972). Folk devils and moral panics: The creation of the mods and rockers. New York: St. Martin's.
7.
Goode, E., & Ben-Yehuda, N. (1996). Enter moral panics. In G. W. Potter & V. E. Kappeler (Eds.), Constructing crime: Perspectives on making news and social problems (pp. 195-225). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
8.
Humphreys, L. (1975). Tearoom trade: Impersonal sex in public places . New York: Aldine.
9.
Jenkins, P. (1998). Moral panic, changing concepts of the child molester in modern America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10.
Kappeler, V.E., Blumberg, M., & Potter, G.W. (2000). The mythology of crime and criminal justice. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
11.
Kau, J.B., & Rubin, P.H. (1982). Congressmen, constituents, and contributors. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.
12.
Levenson, J.S., Brannon, Y., Fortney, T., & Baker, J. (2007). Public perceptions and community protection policies . Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 7(1), 1-25.
13.
Levenson, J.S., & Cotter, L.P. (2005). The effects of Megan's Law on sex offender reintegration . Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 49-66.
14.
Lewis, E. (1977). American politics in a bureaucratic age: Citizens, constituents, clients, and victims. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
15.
Lowney, K.S., & Best, J. (1995). Stalking strangers and lovers: Changing media typifications of a new crime problem. In J. Best (Ed.), Images of issues typifying contemporary social problems (pp. 89-108). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
16.
Martin, M., & Marinucci, C. (2006, July 18). Support behind tough sex offender initiative . San Francisco Chronicle, p. 3B.
17.
Mustaine, E.E., Tewksbury, R., & Stengel, K.M. (2006). Social disorganization and residential locations of registered sex offenders: Is this a collateral consequence? Deviant Behavior, 27(3), 329-350.
18.
Petrosino, A.J., & Petrosino, C. (1999). The public safety potential of Megan's Law inMassachusetts: An assessment from a sample of criminal sexual psychopaths. Crime & Delinquency , 45(1), 140-158.
19.
Phillips, D.M. (1998). Community notification as viewed by Washington's citizens. Washington, DC: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
20.
Rudin, J. (1996). Megan's Law: Can it stop sexual predators—And at what cost to constitutional rights?Criminal Justice, 11(3), 2-10, 60-63.
21.
Sample, L.L. (2006). An examination of the degree to which sex offenders kill. Criminal Justice Review, 31(3), 230-250.
22.
Sample, L.L., & Bray, T.M. (2003). Are sex offenders dangerous?Criminology & Public Policy, 3(1), 59-82.
23.
Sample, L.L., & Bray, T.M. (2006). Are sex offenders different? An examination of re-arrest patterns. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17(1), 83-102.
24.
Shajnfeld, A., & Krueger, R.B. (2006). Reforming (purportedly) non-punitive responses to sexual offending. Developments in Mental Health Law, University of Virginia, 26(1), 31-53.
25.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26.
Sutherland, E.H. (1950). The diffusion of sexual psychopath laws. American Journal of Sociology, 50, 142-148.
27.
Tewksbury, R. (2002). Validity and utility of the Kentucky Sex Offender Registry. Federal Probation, 66, 1.
28.
Tewksbury, R. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration . Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 67-81.
29.
Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. (2006). Perceptions of sex offender registration: Collateral Consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum , 26(3), 309-334.
30.
Zevitz, R.G. (2003) Sex offender community notification and its impact on neighborhood life. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal, 20(1), 41-61.
31.
Zevitz, R.G., & Farkas, M.A. (2000). Sex offender community notification: Examining the importance of neighborhood meetings. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18(2/3), 393-408.
