Examining rates of sexual offenses from a routine activities perspective

Victims and Offenders

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 75-85

  Tewksbury, Richard ^a   Mustaine, Elizabeth Ehrhardt ^b   Stengel, Kenneth M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Routine activities theory; Sex offenders; Sex offenses

Indexed keywords

EID: 38549134896     PISSN: 15564886     EISSN: 15564991     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15564880701752306     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Arnold, R., Keane, C. and Baron, S. (2005) Assessing risk of victimization through epidemiological concepts: An alternative analytic strategy applied to routine activities theory. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 42, pp. 345-365.
2. Beck, V. S. and Travis, L. F. (2004) Sex offender notification and fear of victimization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, pp. 455-463.
3. Beck, V. S. and Travis, L. F. (2004) Sex offender notification and protective behavior. Violence and Victims, 19, pp. 289-302.
4. Burchfield, K. B. and Mingus, W. (2006) Not in my neighborhood: Assessing registered sex offenders'experiences with local social capital and social control. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society of Criminology Los Angeles
5. Cohen, L. E. and Felson, M. (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, pp. 588-608.
6. Colorado Department of Public Safety (2004) Report on safety issues raised by living arrangements for and location of sex offenders in the community, Sex Offender Management Board, Denver
7. Duwe, G., Donnay, W. and Tewksbury, R. (2006) Does residential proximity matter? A spatial analysis of sex offense recidivism, Minnesota Department of Corrections, St. Paul
8. Levenson, J. and Cotter, L. (2005) The effects of Megan's law on sex offender reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21:1, pp. 49-66.
9. Miethe, T., Stafford, M. and Long, J. (1987) Social differentiation in criminal victimization: A test of routine activities theories. American Sociological Review, 52, pp. 184-194.
10. Mustaine, E. and Tewksbury, R. (1998) Victimization risks at leisure: A gender-specific analysis. Violence and Victims, 13:3, pp. 3-21.
11. Mustaine, E. and Tewksbury, R. (1998) Predicting risks of larceny theft victimization: A routine activities analysis using refined lifestyle measures. Criminology, 36, pp. 829-858.
12. Mustaine, E. and Tewksbury, R. (2000) Comparing the lifestyles of victims, offenders, and victim-offenders: A routine activity theory assessment of similarities and differences for criminal incident participants. Sociological Focus, 33, pp. 339-362.
13. Mustaine, E. and Tewksbury, R. Registered sex offenders, residence, and the influence of race. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice.
14. Mustaine, E., Tewksbury, R. and Stengel, K. (2006) Social disorganization and residential locations of registered sex offenders: Is this a collateral consequence?. Deviant Behavior, 27, pp. 329-350.
15. Mustaine, E., Tewksbury, R. and Stengel, K. (2006) Residential location and mobility of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, pp. 176-192.
16. Rodgers, K. and Roberts, G. (1995) Women's non-spousal multiple victimization: A test of routine activities theory. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37, pp. 363-375.
17. Sample, L. L. (2001) The social construction of the sex offender, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, St. Louis
18. Schwartz, M., DeKeseredy, W., Tait, D. and Alvi, S. (2001) Male peer support and a feminist routine activities theory: Understanding sexual assault on the college campus. Justice Quarterly, 18, pp. 623-650.
19. Spano, R. and Nagy, S. (2005) Social guardianship and social isolation: An application and extension of lifestyle/routine activities theory to rural adolescents. Rural Sociology, 70, pp. 414-438.
20. Tewksbury, R. (2002) Validity and utility of the Kentucky sex offender registry. Federal Probation, 66, pp. 21-26.
21. Tewksbury, R. (2004) Experiences and attitudes of registered female sex offenders. Federal Probation, 68, pp. 30-33.
22. Tewksbury, R. (2005) Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21:1, pp. 67-81.
23. Tewksbury, R. and Lees, M. (2006) Consequences of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26, pp. 309-334.
24. Tewksbury, R. and Lees, M. (2007) Perceptions of punishment: How registered sex offenders view registries. Crime and Delinquency, 53:3, pp. 380-407.
25. Tewksbury, R. and Mustaine, E. (2003) College students'lifestyles and self-protective behaviors: Further consideration of the guardianship concept in routine activities theory. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, pp. 302-327.
26. Tewksbury, R. and Mustaine, E. (2006) Where to find sex offenders: An examination of residential locations and neighborhood conditions. Criminal Justice Studies, 19, pp. 61-75.
27. Walker, J., Golden, J. and VanHouten, A. (2001) The geographic link between sex offenders and potential victims: A routine activities approach. Justice Research and Policy, 3:2, pp. 15-33.
28. Welchans, S. (2005) Megan's Law: Evaluations of sexual offender registries. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16, pp. 123-140.
29. Zevitz, R. G. and Farkas, M. (2000) Sex offender community notification: Examining the importance of neighborhood meetings. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, pp. 393-408.