Sex Offenders on Campus: University-based Sex Offender Registries and the Collateral Consequences of Registration

SEX OFFENDERS HAVE long been considered among the most despised and feared criminals in Western culture. Despite the varying circumstances and offenses that may be included by lawmaking bodies as “sex offenses,” the mere mention of the phrase “sex offender” typically conjures up images of sadistic rapists and child predators. Accordingly, prevention of these types of crimes has been a concern of policymakers at all levels of government for many years. Correctional programming for sex offenders and other types of “violent” or “heinous” criminals has traditionally included either simply incarcerating such offenders for purposes of incapacitation, or at times providing treatment in pursuit of rehabilitation for incarcerated offenders. Convicted offenders in community corrections programs have also been subjected to a variety of mandatory treatment programs, medical interventions and strict conditions of probation and parole.

Quinn, Forsyth, and Mullen-Quinn (2004) point out that of the particularly loathed segments of the criminal population, sex offenders rank among the most repulsive, as evidenced by historically harsh sentencing trends and poor treatment by society. A popular practice in the criminal justice response to sex offenders has been the creation of publicly-accessible, Internet-based sex offender registries, currently operating in most states in the U.S. These registries are often coupled with the recent trend of community notification programs that are intended to make citizens explicitly aware of registered sex offenders within communities. Such programs are described by Quinn et al. (2004) as a shaming or “branding” device, a practice that has been used on similar populations throughout history. The ideology behind these mechanisms is essentially to generate a boundary between the targeted group and society, a philosophy that Presser and Gunnison (1999) caution may not be appropriate for dealing with a sensitive population such as sex offenders.

The expressed goals of sex offender registries are to reduce recidivism and promote public safety. It is anticipated that such registries will increase community awareness, making sex offenders feel more susceptible to the risks associated with offending. This line of thinking has led to the growth of not only the traditional state-wide sex offender registries, but also new, more specialized forms of offender registries. One of the most recent innovations is the creation of sex offender registries on college and university campuses across the U.S., allowing members of campus communities to better protect themselves from potential offenders. The outcomes of such registries, however, including the effects of such specialized registries on offenders, have yet to be studied. As a result, policymakers and society as a whole are unaware of the potential consequences and considerations that may be associated with such specialized forms of sex offender registries.

This study is intended to promote a better understanding of college and university-based sex offender registries, allowing for the transfer of important practical and ideological knowledge about such entities to policymakers and the public. The data, to be discussed later in greater detail, is gathered via surveys with a sample of offenders listed on university-based registries. Analysis of their experiences and perceptions provides one way of assessing the utility of sex offender registries—both in general and in this specialized form—as a tool for effectively enhancing public safety and promoting community awareness. The present study also adds to the literature that suggests that offenders’ perceptions of sanctions can provide valuable contributions to the structural and procedural implementation of a sanction. Finally, it is anticipated that the insight gained from the research will help determine if collateral consequences gained through the supplementary listing on a university-based registry are different in form and severity than research has suggested for the listing of individuals on state-wide registries. ..more.. byRichard Tewksbury and Matthew B. Lees, Department of Justice Administration, University of Louisville