Criminal Justice Policy Review

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sample, L. L.
Right arrow Articles by Bray, T. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Criminal Justice Policy Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, 83-102 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0887403405282916

Are Sex Offenders Different? An Examination of Rearrest Patterns

Lisa L. Sample

University of Nebraska at Omaha

Timothy M. Bray

University of Texas at Dallas

Sex offender registration and community notification requirements are universally applied to all sex offenders irrespective of their type. In this way, these policies treat sex offenders as a homogenous group, assuming that they exhibit similar reoffending patterns regardless of the age of their victims or the nature of their crimes. In this article, the authors highlight the assumption of homogeneity underlying sex offender laws and reviewit in light of current empirical evidence. They also offer a case study of recidivism rates for sex offenders in Illinois. The authors find that sex offenders are not the homogenous group that our policies assume, and they discuss the implication of this finding for the application of sex offender laws.

Key Words: sex offender • community • notification • recidivism • registration


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Criminal Justice and BehaviorHome page
G. Duwe, W. Donnay, and R. Tewksbury
Does Residential Proximity Matter? A Geographic Analysis of Sex Offense Recidivism
Criminal Justice and Behavior, April 1, 2008; 35(4): 484 - 504.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Crime DelinquencyHome page
B. E. Vasquez, S. Maddan, and J. T. Walker
The Influence of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws in the United States: A Time-Series Analysis
Crime Delinquency, April 1, 2008; 54(2): 175 - 192.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Criminal Justice Policy ReviewHome page
L. L. Sample and C. Kadleck
Sex Offender Laws: Legislators' Accounts of the Need for Policy
Criminal Justice Policy Review, March 1, 2008; 19(1): 40 - 62.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Criminal Justice Policy ReviewHome page
J. S. Levenson and D. A. D'Amora
Social Policies Designed to Prevent Sexual Violence: The Emperor's New Clothes?
Criminal Justice Policy Review, June 1, 2007; 18(2): 168 - 199.
[Abstract] [PDF]