Perceptions of punishment: How registered sex offenders view registries

Crime and Delinquency

Volumn 53, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 380-407

  Tewksbury, Richard ^a   Lees, Matthew B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE   (United States)

Author keywords

Collateral consequences; Offender perceptions; Recidivism; Sex offender; Sex offender registry

Indexed keywords

EID: 34250214961     PISSN: 00111287     EISSN: 1552387X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0011128706286915     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Adams, D.B. (2002). Summary of state sex offender registries, 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
2. Adkins, G., Huff, D., Stageberg, P. (2000). The Iowa sex offender registry and recidivism. Des Moines: Iowa Department of Human Rights.
3. Alpert, G.P., Hicks, D.A. (1977). Prisoners' attitudes towards components of the legal and judicial systems. Criminology, 14, 461-481.
4. Beccaria, C. (1963). On crimes and punishment. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. (Original work published in 1764 )
5. Berliner, L., Schram, D., Miller, L.L., Milloy, C.D. (1995). A sentencing alternative for sex offenders: A study of decision making and recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 487-502.
6. Burton, V.S., Jr., Cullen, F.T., Travis, L.F. III. (1987). The collateral consequences of a felony conviction: A notional study of state statutes. Federal Probation, 51 (3). 52-60.
7. Charmaz, K. (1983). The grounded theory method: An explication and interpretation. In R. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research (pp. 109-126). Boston: Little, Brown.
8. Crouch, B.M. (1993). Is incarceration really worse? Analysis of offenders' preferences for prison over probation. Justice Quarterly, 10 (1). 67-88.
9. Curtis, K. (2003, January 8). California loses 33,000 sex offenders. Associated Press, San Jose, CA. Retrieved February 10, 2005, from http://www.rentalresearch.com/CaliforniaLoosesSexOffenders.pdf.
10. Dodge, M., Pogrebin, M.R. (2001). Collateral costs of imprisonment for women: Complications of reintegration. The Prison Journal, 81 (1). 42-54.
11. Finn, P. (1997). Sex offender community notification. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
12. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of a spoiled identity. New York: Touchstone Books.
13. Goodman, E.A. (1996). Megan's Law: The New Jersey Supreme Court navigates uncharted waters. Seton Hall Law Review, 26, 764-802.
14. Harding, D. (2003). Jean Valjean's dilemma: The management of ex-convict identity in the search for employment. Deviant Behavior, 24, 571-596.
15. Kinsey, K. (1992). Deterrence and alienation effects of IRS enforcement: An analysis of survey data. In J. Slemrod (Ed.), Why people pay taxes (pp. 259-285). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
16. Larson, C.J., Berg, B.L. (1989). Inmates' perceptions of determinate and indeterminate sentences. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7 (1). 127-137.
17. Levenson, J.S., Cotter, L.P. (2005). The effects of Megan's Law on sex offender reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21 (1). 49-66.
18. Lieb, R. (1996). Community notification laws: A step towards more effective solutions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 298-300.
19. Makkai, T., Braithwaite, J. (1991). Criminological theories and regulatory compliance. Criminology, 29, 191-217.
20. Makkai, T., Braithwaite, J. (1994). Reintegrative shaming and compliance with regulatory standards. Criminology, 32, 361-386.
21. Olivares, K.M., Burton, V., Jr., Cullen, F.T. (1996). The collateral consequences of a felony conviction: A national study of state legal codes 10 years later. Federal Probation, 60 (3). 10-17.
22. Pawson, R. (2002). Does Megan's Law work? A theory-driven systematic review (Working Paper 8). London: University of London, ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice. Retrieved February 5, 2005, from http://www.evidencenetwork.org/cgi-win/enet.exe/biblioview?780
23. Petersilia, J., Deschenes, E.P. (1994). What punishes? Inmates rank the severity of prison vs. intermediate sanctions. Federal Probation, 58 (1). 3-8.
24. Plotkinoff, J., Woolfson, R. (2000). Where are they now? An evaluation of sex offender registration in England and Wales. London: Home Office.
25. Pogrebin, M., Dodge, M., Katsampes, P. (2001). The collateral costs of short-term jail incarceration: The long-term social and economic disruptions. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5 (4). 64-69.
26. Quinn, J., Forsyth, C., Mullen-Quinn, C. (2004). Societal reaction to sex offenders: A review of the origins and results of the myths surrounding their crimes and treatment amenability. Deviant Behavior, 25, 215-233.
27. Sherman, L.W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 445-473.
28. Sherman, L.W., Berk, R.A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49 (1). 261-272.
29. Szymkowiak, K., Fraser, T. (2002). Registered sex offenders in Hawaii. Honolulu, HI: Department of the Attorney General.
30. Tewksbury, R. (2002). Validity and utility of the Kentucky sex offender registry. Federal Probation, 66 (1). 21-26.
31. Tewksbury, R. (2004). Experiences and attitudes of registered female sex offenders. Federal Probation, 68 (3). 30-33.
32. Tewksbury, R. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21 (1). 67-81.
33. Tewksbury, R., Higgins, G. (2005). What can be learned from an online sex offender registry site ? Journal of Community Corrections, 14 (3). 9-11, 15-16.
34. Tewksbury, R., Lees, M. (2005, March). Stigma, harassment, vulnerability, and practical difficulties: Registered sex offenders' experiences in the community. Presentation given at the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences 42nd Annual Meeting, Chicago.
35. Tewksbury, R., Mustaine, E.E. (in press). Where to find sex offenders: An examination of residential locations and neighborhood conditions. Criminal Justice Studies.
36. Turner, S., Greenwood, P., Fain, T., Deschenes, E.P. (1999). Perceptions of drug court: How offenders view ease of program completion, strengths and weaknesses, and the impact on their lives. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2 (1). 61-85.
37. Tyler, T.R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
38. Vandiver, D.M., Walker, J.T. (2002). Female sex offenders: An overview and analysis of 40 cases. Criminal Justice Review, 27, 284-300.
39. Williams, K.R., Hawkins, R. (1992). Wife assault, costs of arrest, and the deterrence process. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29, 292-310.
40. Zevitz, R.G., Farkas, M. (2000 a). Sex offender community notification: Assessing the impact in Wisconsin. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
41. Zevitz, R.G., Farkas, M. (2000 b). Sex offender community notification: Examining the importance of neighborhood meetings. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 393-408.
42. Zevitz, R.G., Farkas, M. (2000 c). Sex offender community notification: Managing high risk criminals or exacting further vengeance ? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 375-391.
43. Zhang, L., Messner, S.F., Lu, Z. (1999). Public legal education and inmates' perceptions of the legitimacy of official punishment in China. British Journal of Criminology, 39, 433-450.