Sex Offender Post-Incarceration Sanctions: Are There Any Limits?

2008

INTRODUCTION
American society has decided that there is no greater villain than the sex offender. Terrorists, drug dealers, murderers, kidnappers, mobsters, gangsters, drunk drivers, and white-collar criminals do not elicit the emotions and evoke the political response that sex offenders do. The intent of this paper is to empirically substantiate this claim. Central to this argument is the imposition of post-incarceration sanctions.

One way to discern society’s views about specific forms of criminal behavior is to examine historical, and contemporary methods of punishment. In the last fifteen years, all forms of government have pursued unique ways to control sex offenders after their release from prison or jail. All criminal offenders are subject to community supervision in the form of probation or parole conditions. For some offenders, probation and parole conditions may be quite restrictive and may include random drug tests, unannounced home visits, searches, and strict requirements for substance abuse and psychological counseling. Yet, as will be discussed in this article, there are a number of post-incarceration sanctions that have been created exclusively for and apply only to sex offenders.1

The growth of sex offender post-incarceration controls have come from the federal government,2 state governments,3 and now in an interesting trend, from local cities and towns;4 all of whom are trying to determine if, when, and how sex offenders will return to their communities. Specifically, society has imposed post-incarceration controls on sex offenders’ privacy, places of residence, travel, employment, sexuality, and reproductive rights.5

The article is structured as such: Section II examines the justification for these additional controls on sex offenders, notably the public fears about sex offender recidivism and the scientific data on sexual assault and sex offenses. Section III examines several specific areas of sex offender control including sex offender registration and notification, the recent enactment of the Adam Walsh Act,6 the use of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to track and monitor sex offenders, civil commitment, the passage of residency restrictions, and the use of chemical castration. One additional trend is discussed, albeit a different form of sex offender control. Section III concludes with a discussion of the trend toward expanding the death penalty to include sex offenders. Section IV provides a discussion of the current trends and tendencies. The paper concludes with an assessment of the future of sex offender controls.

Before turning to a discussion about the justification for these laws, it is important to note one area of sex offender control that this paper does not examine. It has become quite common to open a daily newspaper and hear about the man who was arrested for soliciting a child via the Internet for sex. These cases almost always involve local, state, or federal law enforcement posing as an underage child who develops a relationship with an adult male. The relationship ends when the adult male arranges for sex, arrives at a pre-arranged location with the intention to meet this child, and is arrested by law enforcement authorities.

This practice has received the public notoriety and support of the national media with NBC’s Dateline: To Catch A Predator.7 Individuals arrested in these Internet sex stings have included officials in the Department of Homeland Security, a Massachusetts State Trooper, an Iraq veteran, a prosecutor, public school officials, and an Army Reserve Lt. Col., among others.8 This form of preventive detention is quite controversial. Supporters of this approach argue that the individuals arrested were looking to have sex with children and this is the only way to prevent that.9 Those opposed to this practice argue that it is a dangerous new form of entrapment with no actual victims, only deceptive police officers.10

The practice and increasing use of the Internet sex sting is a topic worthy of its own examination for both the legal questions, as well as the ethical and political issues that arise. Given that limitation, it is time to begin to examine why sex offenders are treated so differently than other criminals. ..Rest of the Paper.. by Richard G. Wright, Ph.D. in Public Policy, University of Massachusetts, Boston. He is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Bridgewater State College teaching a variety of courses including Sex Crimes, Terrorism, Civil Liberties & Victimology. For over fifteen years, Professor Wright has worked in research, evaluation, and program development in the fields of domestic violence and sexual assault. He is also the editor and principal contributor to RICHARD WRIGHT ET AL., SEX OFFENDER LAWS: RHETORIC & REALITY (Springer International Publishing) (forthcoming 2009).