Despite speculation regarding the role of collateral consequences of sexual offender policies in psychosocial and criminogenic outcomes, there has been no empirical analysis in the extant literature examining these links. Lack of conceptual underpinnings and no psychometrically valid measure of collateral consequences has limited study in this area. A systematic literature review was conducted to assess the state of measurement in terms of conceptual and operational definitions, populations sampled, domains assessed, items used, and scale properties reported. Nineteen studies met inclusion criteria. Themes emerged regarding commonly assessed collateral consequences, the misconnect between legal and psychological conceptualizations of collateral consequences, the division between external (i.e., social) and internal (i.e., affective) collateral consequences, as well as a trend toward emphasizing the psychological damages (in addition to discrete experiences of loss) associated with a sexual offense. Findings are discussed, and a unifying definition of collateral consequences is proposed to guide future scale development.
BrannonY. N.LevensonJ. S.FortneyT.BakerJ. N. (2007). Attitudes about community notification: A comparison of sexual offenders and the non-offending public. Sexual Abuse, 19(4), 369–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320701900403
2.
BrownK.SpencerJ.DeakinJ. (2007). The reintegration of sex offenders: Barriers and opportunities for employment. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 46(1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2311.2007.00452.x
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(3), 356–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807311375
4.
BurchfieldK. B.MingusW. (2014). Sex offender reintegration: Consequences of the local neighborhood context. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(1), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-012-9195-x
5.
CallC. (2017). How acceptable are their obstacles to reentry? Attitudes of community corrections professionals toward collateral consequences for sex offenders. Corrections, 2, 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2017.1305878
6.
CallC. (2018). The community corrections perspective toward sex offender management policies and collateral consequences: Does contact with sex offenders matter?Criminal Justice Studies, 31, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2017.1393418
7.
CarpenterC. L.BeverlinA. E. (2011). The evolution of unconstitutionality in sex offender registration laws. Hastings Law Journal, 63, 1071–1133.
8.
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
9.
ChinG. (2017). Collateral consequences. In LunaE. (Ed.), Reforming criminal justice: Punishment, incarceration, and release (Vol. 4, pp. 371–395). Arizona State University.
10.
ComartinE. B.KernsmithP. D.MilesB. W. (2010). Family experiences of young adult sex offender registration. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19(2), 204–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538711003627207
11.
CraunS. W.BierieD. M. (2014). Are the collateral consequences of being a registered sex offender as bad as we think: A methodological research note. Federal Probation, 78, 28–31.
12.
CubellisM. A.WalfieldS. M.HarrisA. J. (2016). Collateral consequences and effectiveness of sex offender registration and notification: Law enforcement perspectives. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(4), 1080–1106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X16667574
13.
EdwardsW.HensleyC. (2001). Contextualizing sex offender management legislation and policy: Evaluating the problem of latent consequences in community notification laws. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45(1), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X01451006
14.
FrenzelE. D.BowenK. N.SpraitzJ. D.BowersJ. H.PhaneufS. (2014). Understanding collateral consequences of registry laws: An examination of the perceptions of sex offender registrants. Justice Policy Journal, 11(2), 1–22.
15.
HarrisA. J.WalfieldS. M.ShieldsR. T.LetourneauE. J. (2015). Collateral consequences of juvenile sex offender registration and notification: Results from a survey of treatment providers. Sexual Abuse, 28(8), 770–790. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215574004
16.
HigginsE. M.RolfeS. M. (2017). “The sleeping army”: Necropolitics and the collateral consequences of being a sex offender. Deviant Behavior, 38(9), 975–990. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2016.1229947
17.
JeglicE. L.MercadoC. C.LevensonJ. S. (2012). The prevalence and correlates of depression and hopelessness among sex offenders subject to community notification and residence restriction legislation. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(1), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-010-9096-9
18.
JonesT.NewburnT. (2013). Policy convergence, politics and comparative penal reform: Sex offender notification schemes in the USA and UK. Punishment & Society, 15, 439–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474513504801
KleinJ. L.TolsonD.CollinsC. (2014). Expressing strain: A qualitative evaluation of the testimonies of female sex offenders. Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice and Criminology, 2(1), 119–147.
21.
KruttschnittC.UggenC.SheltonK. (2000). Predictors of desistance among sex offenders: The interaction of formal and informal social controls. Justice Quarterly, 17(1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820000094481
22.
LasherM. P.McGrathR. J. (2012). The impact of community notification on sex offender reintegration: A quantitative review of the research literature. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56(1), 6–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X10387524
23.
LevensonJ.TewksburyR. (2009). Collateral damage: Family members of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(1–2), 54–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12103-008-9055-x
24.
LevensonJ. S. (2008). Collateral consequences of sex offender residence restrictions. Criminal Justice Studies, 21(2), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786010802159822
25.
LevensonJ. S. (2018). Sex offender management policies and evidence-based recommendations for registry reform. Current Psychiatry Reports, 20(21), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-018-0884-0
26.
LevensonJ. S.CotterL. P. (2005a). The effect of Megan’s Law on sex offender reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986204271676
27.
LevensonJ. S.CotterL. P. (2005b). The impact of sex offender residence restrictions: 1,000 feet from danger or one step from absurd?International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X04271304
28.
LevensonJ. S.D’AmoraD. A.HernA. L. (2007). Megan’s law and its impact on community re-entry for sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(4), 587–602. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.770
29.
LevensonJ. S.GradyM. D.LeibowitzG. (2016). Grand challenges: Social justice and the need for evidence-based sex offender registry reform. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 43, 3–38.
30.
LevensonJ. S.HernA. L. (2007). Sex offender residence restrictions: Unintended consequences and community reentry. Justice Research and Policy, 9(1), 59–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.3818/JRP.9.1.2007.59
31.
LiberatiA.AltmanD. G.TetzlaffJ.MulrowC.GøtzscheP. C.IoannidisJ. P.… MoherD. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(10), e1–e34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
32.
LoganW. A. (2013). Informal collateral consequences. Washington Law Review, 88, 1103–1118.
33.
MercadoC. C.AlvarezS.LevensonJ. (2008). The impact of specialized sex offender legislation on community reentry. Sexual Abuse, 20(2), 188–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063208317540
34.
MingusW.BurchfieldK. B. (2012). From prison to integration: Applying modified labeling theory to sex offenders. Criminal Justice Studies, 25(1), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2012.657906
35.
PinardM. (2006). An integrated perspective on the collateral consequences of criminal convictions and reentry issues faced by formerly incarcerated individuals. Boston University Law Review, 86, 623–690.
36.
PinardM. (2010). Collateral consequences of criminal convictions: Confronting issues of race and dignity. New York University Law Review, 85, 457–534.
37.
PinardM.ThompsonA. C. (2005). Offender reentry and the collateral consequences of criminal convictions: An introduction. NYU Review of Law & Social Change, 30, 585–620.
38.
RobbersM. L. (2009). Lifers on the outside: Sex offenders and disintegrative shaming. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X07312953
39.
RobertsJ. (2008). The mythical divide between collateral and direct consequences of criminal convictions: Involuntary commitment of sexually violent predators. Minnesota Law Review, 93, 670–740.
40.
RogersR. (2008). Detection strategies for malingering and defensiveness. In RogersR. (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3rd ed., pp. 14–35). Guilford Press.
41.
TewksburyR. (2004). Experiences and attitudes of registered female sex offenders. Federal Probation, 68, 30–33.
42.
TewksburyR. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986204271704
43.
TewksburyR. (2007). Exile at home: The unintended collateral consequences of sex offender residency restrictions. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 42, 531–540.
44.
TewksburyR. (2012). Stigmatization of sex offenders. Deviant Behavior, 33(8), 606–623.
45.
TewksburyR.LeesM. B. (2006a). Perceptions of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26(3), 309–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732170500524246
46.
TewksburyR.LeesM. B. (2006b). Sex offenders on campus: University-based sex offender registries and the collateral consequences of registration. Federal Probation, 70, 50–56.
47.
TewksburyR.LeesM. B. (2007). Perceptions of punishment: How registered sex offenders view registries. Crime & Delinquency, 53(3), 380–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128706286915
48.
TewksburyR.LevensonJ. (2009). Stress experiences of family members of registered sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27, 611–626. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.878
49.
TewksburyR.MustaineE. E. (2009). Stress and collateral consequences for registered sex offenders. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, 15(2), 215–239.
50.
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(4), 537–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X09339180
51.
TravisJ. (2002). Invisible punishment: An instrument of social exclusion. In MauerM.Chesney-LindM. (Eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment (pp. 15–36). New Press.
52.
UggenC.StewartR. (2014). Piling on: Collateral consequences and community supervision. Minnesota Law Review, 99, 1871–1912.
53.
VuoloM. (2017). Situating the prediction problem within collateral consequences: Communicating risk to employers. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(3), 959–961. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12327
54.
WackerJ. G. (2004). A theory of formal conceptual definitions: Developing theory-building measurement instruments. Journal of Operations Management, 22(6), 629–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2004.08.002
55.
WakefieldH. (2006). The vilification of sex offenders: Do laws targeting sex offenders increase recidivism and sexual violence. Journal of Sexual Offender Civil Commitment: Science and the Law, 1, 141–149.
56.
WheelockD. (2005). Collateral consequences and racial inequality: Felon status restrictions as a system of disadvantage. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986204271702
57.
WheelockD.UggenC. (2005). Race, poverty and punishment: The impact of criminal sanctions on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic inequality. The Colors of Poverty: Why Racial and Ethnic Disparities Persist, 23–47.
58.
WintersG. M.JeglicE. L.CalkinsC.BlaskoB. L. (2017). Sex offender legislation and social control: An examination of sex offenders’ expectations prior to release. Criminal Justice Studies, 30(2), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2017.1299894
59.
ZevitzR. G.FarkasM. A. (2000). Sex offender community notification: Assessing the impact in Wisconsin. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
60.
ZgobaK. M.LevensonJ.McKeeT. (2009). Examining the impact of sex offender residence restrictions on housing availability. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20(1), 91–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403408322119
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.
