Sex offender perceptions of residency restriction laws

Abstract

The use of residency restriction laws to monitor and control the movements of registered sex offenders in the United States has gained momentum in recent years since the passage of the first federal laws mandating sex offender registries. More than 30 states and hundreds of cities and towns have passed these laws. The purported theory behind residency restriction laws is to prevent registered sex offenders from possible interactions with potential victims. While the residency restriction laws may be theoretically sound, in practice there has been little in the way of empirical proof that they work as designed. As of yet, Massachusetts does not have a statewide residency restriction law, however, there is continuing pressure to enact one. This study explored the possible effects of such a law on those who would be most affected by it: registered sex offenders in Massachusetts. The theoretical framework drew upon social exclusion, disintegration, and labeling theories regarding the potential effects of residency restriction. One hundred registered sex offenders were selected to take part in a survey responding to 12 statements designed to determine their perceptions and attitudes towards potential residency restriction laws. The survey was followed by open-ended interviews with ten of the participating registered sex offenders. The results of the survey and the interviews show that the vast majority of the participants felt that the residency restriction laws would hinder their ability to reintegrate into society. Such findings consequently suggest that new laws would not provide additional safety to potential victims and might instead lead to increased recidivism (repeat offending).