Upload
liz-kb
View
222
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/30/2019 Assessing the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Legislation
1/17
Assessing the Effectivenessof Sex Offender Legislation
By: Liz Berger
7/30/2019 Assessing the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Legislation
2/17
Introduction
Most controversial sex offender policies:
Registration
Community notification
Living restrictions
DNA provisions
Reason for controversy:
Outcomes do not seem to meet intendedgoals
Nonetheless, there is wide public support forpolicies
7/30/2019 Assessing the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Legislation
3/17
R.G. Wright
Criminology and Policy (2003)
Sex offender registration and notification:
Public attention, political emphasis, and fear
Meta-analysis study
Current sex offender policies are ineffective
in reducing sexual violence
Policies deflect from more realistic concerns Little prevention and specialized treatment in
current legislation
7/30/2019 Assessing the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Legislation
4/17
L. L. Sample & T. M. Bray
Criminology and Policy (2003)
Are sex offenders dangerous?
Policies are based on inaccurateassumptions
Sex offenders have the lowest rate of
recidivism compared to other criminal
categories
DNA collection is not an effective deterrent
7/30/2019 Assessing the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Legislation
5/17
K. M. Socia, Jr. & J. P. Stametel
Sociology Compass (2010)
Assumptions and evidence behind sexoffender laws: Registration, community
notification, and residence restrictions Celebrated cases have propelled inaccurate
assumptions
Media coverage exacerbates these
assumptions Registration, notification, and residency
restriction laws are constructed bypolicymakers to appease a worried public
7/30/2019 Assessing the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Legislation
6/17
K. M. Socia, Jr. & J. P. Stametel
Sociology Compass (2010)
(con.)
No real increase in public awareness
Increased fear of victimization
Increased law enforcement workload
Such laws are expressive reactions to public
uproar Lack of evidence/research backing the
policies
7/30/2019 Assessing the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Legislation
7/17
Registration Laws
Mantel-Haenszal Test
Independen
t VariableDependent Variable P-value Decision
Registration
Deterrent effect .417 Do not reject H0
Increase in public
awareness.594 Do not reject H0
Victim concern .079 Do not reject H0
Public overreaction .004Reject H0:
R=.248, sig.=.001
Increased workload .011Reject H0:
R=.191, sig.=.010
7/30/2019 Assessing the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Legislation
8/17
Independent
VariableDependent Variable P-value Decision
Notification
Deterrent effect .054 Do not reject H0
Increase in public
awareness.455 Do not reject H0
Victim concern .075 Do not reject H0
Public overreaction .018Reject H0:
R=.186, sig.=.012
Increased workload .009Reject H0:
R=.196, sig.=.008
Notification Laws
Mantel-Haenszal Test
7/30/2019 Assessing the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Legislation
9/17
o ec onChi-Squared Test for
IndependenceIndependent
Variable
Dependent
VariableP-value Decision
DNA
provision
sample
Deterrent effect .644 Do not reject H0
Increase in public
awareness.168 Do not reject H0
Victim concern .123 Do not reject H0
Public
overreaction.916 Do not reject H0
Increased
workload.643 Do not reject H0
7/30/2019 Assessing the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Legislation
10/17
es ency es r c onsChi-Squared Test for
IndependenceIndependent
Variable
Dependent
VariableP-value Decision
Residency
restrictions
(activities
near childrenare restricted)
Deterrent effect .646 Do not reject H0
Increase in public
awareness.640 Do not reject H0
Victim concern .786 Do not reject H0
Public
overreaction.512 Do not reject H0
Increased
workload.898 Do not reject H0
7/30/2019 Assessing the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Legislation
11/17
Public Overreaction
Independent Samples T-Test
Independent
Variable
Dependent
VariableMean P-value Decision
Public
overreaction
DNA
provision
sample
4.14
(Frequently)
.157Do not
reject H0
Living
restrictions
4.14
(Frequently) .415Do not
reject H0
7/30/2019 Assessing the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Legislation
12/17
Public Overreaction
Mantel-Haenszal Test
Independent
Variable
Dependent
VariableP-value Decision
Public
overreaction
Registration .001Reject H0:
R=.248, sig.=.001
Notification .012Reject H0:
R=.186, sig.=.012
7/30/2019 Assessing the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Legislation
13/17
Media Sensationalism
Mantel-Haenszal Test
Independent
Variable
Dependent
VariableP-value Decision
Media
sensationalis
m
Public
overreaction .000Reject H0:R=.494, sig..000
Registration .000Reject H0:R=.286, sig..000
Notification .002 Reject H0:R=.226, sig.=.002
7/30/2019 Assessing the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Legislation
14/17
Media Sensationalism
Independent Samples T-Test
Independent
Variable
Dependent
VariableMean P-value Decision
Media
sensationalis
m
DNA
provision
sample
3.87
(Frequently)
.78Do not
reject H0
Living
restrictions
2.07
(Rarely) .528Do not
reject H0
7/30/2019 Assessing the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Legislation
15/17
Conclusions
Current sex offender legislation may be
ineffective:
Policies do not successfully deter
Policies do not decrease fear of the victim
Policies do not increase public awareness
Legislation seems to be spurred by:
Public overreaction/public opinion
Media effects
7/30/2019 Assessing the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Legislation
16/17
Potential Limitations
Literature review
Lack of generalizability
Largely descriptive
Cannot discern causal links
Statistical analysis
Response bias
Sample bias
Possibility of outliers
7/30/2019 Assessing the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Legislation
17/17
Future Research
Policies need to be more systematic and
thought-out
More research focusing on whythe policies
do not work
Assumption checking