Protecting Society or Fooling Ourselves?
Research-Based Insights on Sex Offender Policy in the United States
Dr. DJ Williams and Robbie Jenks, Idaho State University USA
“There is always a well-known solution to every human problem—
neat, plausible, and wrong.” – H. L. Mencken
Since the early 1990s, there has been increased concern within the United States
regarding incidents of sexual offending. According to Janus (2003), such concern has resulted in
a new wave of laws and policies that are “regulatory” (aimed at preventing future behavior),
rather than criminal. Indeed the “get tough on crime” attitude seems to be popular among many
citizens and politicians, and some emerging laws and policies perhaps reflect a sober
determination to get particularly tough on those charged with sexual crimes. Our primary
purpose here is to voice concerns on key aspects of this development from a broad social science
perspective that is strongly anchored in behavioral science research. We hope our summary of
the relevant literature cited herein is potentially helpful to a wide audience, including diverse
professionals involved in legal and correctional issues, policy-makers, inmates, and concerned
citizens.
Popular Myths of Sexual Offending and the Implementation of Harsher Policies
Quinn, Forsythe, and Mullen-Quinn (2004) published a review on the origins and results
of sexual offender myths that are rampant within American society. Indeed, a common belief,
even within some clinical circles, is that all sexual offenders are predators and many if not most
cannot be treated successfully. Such a view ignores at worst, and minimizes at best, the immense
heterogeneity of offenders, including their motivations, risk factors, strengths, resources and
commitments; and it also overlooks the vast diversity of societal sexual norms that have been
violated (see Quinn, et al., 2004). Neuilly and Zgoba (2006) reported that although sexual
offenses against children have not increased dramatically over the past several years, what has
increased significantly is the use of the term “sexual predator.” Sensationalized media accounts
of the most horrific cases of sexual violence, 24 hour per day news reporting, and widespread
misunderstanding of the complexities of sexual motivations and behaviors all contribute to the
current panic of violent sexual offending. Given that the creation of stricter laws is not
subsequent to new empirical or theoretical knowledge of sexual violence (Janus, 2003), the
question of whether mandatory sexual offender reporting requirements (Megan’s Law) is little
more than overgeneralization and emotional reasoning in response to a truly horrific tragedy, is,
perhaps a legitimate one.
Similar criticisms may apply toward emerging sentencing laws (Jessica’s Law), where
people convicted of a sexual crime against children (without also committing murder) may face
life in prison or the death penalty. Some states are considering making child sexual abuse a
capital offense based on the reasoning that child molesters kill souls. Such legislation passed in
Louisiana and Oklahoma (Gibeaut, 2007), but the first such case of capital punishment was
struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court upon appeal (Kennedy v. State of Louisiana). Critics
have pointed out that such legislation may lead to some offenders with little to lose going ahead
and killing their victims thus eliminating witnesses, and it also may discourage victims and their

family members from reporting sex crimes committed by those close to them (Gibeaut, 2007). If
so, severe child sexual violence potentially may increase, rather than decrease, along with adding
complications in effectively resolving these issues.
In addition to these criticisms, clinicians also should be disturbed at assumptions behind
capital punishment for sex crimes and resulting implications for standards of (in)justice. The
primary assumption is that through acts of child molestation, victims’ lives are not only altered,
but completely lost. According to this logic, by default, this assumes that childhood victims
cannot be helped; victims are incapable of working through abuse and always remain
disempowered; support from family, friends, and community has no significant affect on
victims’ lives; and future life experiences of victims are essentially rendered invalid and
meaningless. While acknowledging the destructive impact that sexual victimization brings to
children’s lives, don’t we also believe in and support the resiliency of victims, families and
communities? Professionals in all helping disciplines should be alarmed at legislation that
appears to be based on a simplistic view of justice with little consideration of the many valuable
contributions of family, friends, and community members who work in various capacities with
victims and offenders. Can victims effectively be helped? Can a victim of childhood sexual
abuse ever experience happiness again? Can she or he ever live a meaningful life after sexual
abuse has occurred? Or, after sexual violence has been inflicted, do victims’ lives abruptly halt to
constant meaninglessness that justly warrants the very real termination of another human life?
We do not intend to downplay harmful consequences of sexual violence to victims, yet we
believe the answers to the above questions should be fairly obvious to most reasonable people.
The implications of advocating for capital punishment for sexual molesters are substantial and
unjust. It is true that sexual violence, especially towards children, is tragic and deserves our full
attention and significant resources to both address and prevent it. However, an extreme policy
response to any crime also demands our full attention and critical analysis of assumptions and
rationale behind it.
Self Efficacy in Behavioral Change: What is its Role for Treated Sex Offenders?
In their recent review of the scholarly literature on sexual offender treatment, Marshall,
Marshall, and Serran (2007) wrote that although there is debate on the appropriate research
design to evaluate treatment effectiveness, when the existing research is considered, they
“believe the evidence indicates that sex offenders can be effectively treated” (p. 176). Promising
new approaches to sexual offender treatment currently are being developed, including those
rooted in a positive perspective that utilizes offenders’ existing strengths and resources (e.g.,
Good Lives Model, Ward & Stewart, 2003; Ward & Marshall, 2004).
Additionally, recent research has shown that, consistent with psychotherapy for other
populations, treatment process and therapeutic alliance (human relationship) issues are critical to
sex offender treatment success (i.e., Drapeau, 2005; Marshall, 2005; Marshall, Fernandez, et al.,
2003). However, clinical experience shows that many sexual offenders seem to have substantial
difficulty upon re-entering the community. Specifically, therapeutic messages based on rationale
and scientific evidence that behavior, including sexual offending behavior, can be changed, are
challenged by widespread accepted myths and recent policy realities that say otherwise. Put more
basically, just how important is it that sex offenders receive consistent messages concerning their
self-efficacy (to live crime-free)—the belief that successful personal behavioral change can

actually occur? Indeed, what role does self-efficacy play in sexual offender rehabilitation and,
particularly, the re-entry process?
Self-efficacy and/or a closely related construct (i.e., “competence,” “confidence,”
“perceived behavioral control,”) is essential to the predictive validity of numerous contemporary
social-cognitive theories and models used by scientists to account for behavioral change,
including Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1991), Theory of Planned Behavior (TPD; Azjen,
2002), Transtheoretical Model (TTM; Prochaska & Velicer, 1997), and Self Determination
Theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2000). From an SDT perspective, we would expect that for many
low-risk sexual offenders who are already motivated to live crime-free, treatment
overprescription and strict management policies would reduce existing motivation and possibly
increase risk due to excessive regulation by the legal system itself. Sadly, it would not surprise us
if sex offender recidivism rates (as measured over several years) are found to increase in the
future due to current policies.
To broadly summarize, scientists know that any behavioral change is often difficult for
individuals, including relatively common healthful lifestyle changes such as starting and
maintaining an exercise program, eating more nutritiously, quitting smoking or using condoms.
Achieving success with such changes requires support and the nurturing of self efficacy. Despite
the widely demonstrated necessity of increasing self-efficacy in order to change a variety of
behaviors, sexual offenders are continually confronted with policy messages upon re-entry that
seem to undermine their much needed self-efficacy. Policies rooted in research rather than fear—
and designed to increase offenders’ self efficacy concerning their abilities to manage risks and
live crime free—would likely have significant beneficial effects in reducing both future violence
and high offender management costs. Our general messages toward sex offenders should be akin
to “We believe that you are capable of changing for the better and we will support you in your
efforts to avoid reoffense,” rather than “no matter what, you will never change and you are not
welcome in our neighborhood/community.”
Conclusion
We do not yet fully know the effects of harsher laws and policies for sex offenders,
although various concerns about such legislation and its potential effects have been voiced herein
and elsewhere (Cohen & Jeglic, 2007; Fitch, 2003; Palermo, 205, 2007; Sullivan, 2006).
Nevertheless, research is beginning to emerge showing that recent punitive sex offender policies
do not seem to have the intended effect. For example, researchers analyzed the offense patterns
of sex offenders living in Minnesota and found that legislation restricting offenders from living
within a certain distance from places where children congregate (i.e., parks, schools, daycare
centers) were ineffective in preventing recidivism (Duwe, Donnay, & Tewksbury, 2008). On the
other hand, mandatory sex offender registration and notification laws are likely to increase
threats, harassment and potential violence toward families and innocent children of sex offenders
(Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009). Once again, this detrimental effect likely increases, rather than
decreases, risk for reoffense. Palermo and Farkas (2001) have cautioned that overextended
sexually violent predator laws have psychological effects not only on offenders, but also
members of society generally, particularly families with small children (i.e., promoting anxiety
and fear). When the general body of relevant research and evidence are considered, we may
reasonably predict that policies rooted in what might constitute a moral panic—instead of

behavioral research and scholarship—are likely to be burdensome, costly, and unethical with
little effectiveness in reducing most forms of sexual violence.
Toward Solutions: What can we do?
Unfortunately, challenging the status quo, particularly on matters dealing with sexual
offending, can be misperceived by some as unconscious support for offending. Perhaps the first
step in addressing this issue is to make it perfectly clear that we are fully against sexual violence
and victimization. We do not tolerate sexual violence. It is a major social problem, and it scars
the lives of many people. At this most basic level we can be in collective agreement. The
important questions then become: How do we best address sexual violence that has occurred, and
how do we best prevent future violence from occurring. We believe that following behavioral
research and promoting understanding and compassion are far better options than ignoring
important scholarship, reinforcing unchallenged myths and facilitating demonization.
It has been suggested that experts become more involved in informing and helping
develop public policy (Berliner, 2003; Harshbarger, 2003; Robinson, 2003). Unfortunately,
academics often are rewarded for imparting knowledge to fellow peers within professional
journals, whereas the career benefits associated with educating policy-makers and the general
public may be far less valued within the university setting. We believe the voices of academics
are important, but so are the voices of various professionals, victims, offenders, families, and
citizenry. We should look for and utilize multiple opportunities to educate a variety of audiences
on the myths and realities of sexual offenders and the various issues related to their management,
once again emphasizing the common community goals of how to best protect society, repair
harm, and reduce victimization.
Perhaps most importantly, we believe open, positive discussion and liberal education
regarding sexuality in general should be encouraged. Indeed, the issue of how to manage sexual
offenders and effectively prevent sexual violence occurs within broader cultural discourses
regarding human sexuality more generally. Many common discourses are negative toward
understanding sexuality and may involve shame. Sadly, in much of American society open and
honest discussion about sexuality remains awkward at best, and is usually discouraged or
forbidden. We believe that educated and thoughtful people, including youth, who are empowered
concerning sexuality and the ability to discuss it, are less likely to become victims of sexual
violence. Furthermore, open discussion based on acceptance, respect and compassion for all
people may lead to the identification of creative ways for people to meet a broader range of
specific sexual needs, thus further reducing incidents of sexual abuse violence.

Dr. D J Williams currently is a Visiting Professor of Sociology, Social Work & Criminal Justice
at Idaho State University. His interdisciplinary scholarship addresses various issues relating to
forensic social work, sexuality, deviance and human diversity.
Robbie Jenks is a student in the Social Work Program at Idaho State University. She is interested
in forensic social work, especially correctional issues and offender rehabilitation.

References
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the Theory of
Planned Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 665-683.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.
Berliner, L. (2003). Victim and citizen perspectives on sexual offender policy. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences, 989, 464-473.
Cohen, Me., & Jeglic, E. L. (2007). Sex offender legislation in the United States: What do we
know? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51,
369-383.
Drapeau, M. (2005). Research on the processes involved in treating sexual offenders. Sexual
Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 117-125.
Duwe, G., Donnay, W., & Tewksbury, R. (2008). Does residential proximity matter? A
geographic analysis of sex offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 484504.
Fitch, W. L. (2003). Sexual offender commitment in the United States: Legislative and policy
concerns. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 489-501.
Gibeaut, J. (2007). A deal with death. ABA Journal, January Issue, 12-13.
Harshbarger, S. (2003). The role of citizen education and political engagement in framing the
issues. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 8-12.
Janus, E. S. (2003). Legislative responses to sexual violence: An overview. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences, 989, 247-264.
Levenson, J., & Tewksbury, R. (2009). Collateral damage: Family members of registered sex
offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 54-68.
Marshall, W. L. (2005). Therapist style in sexual offender treatment: Influence on indices of
change. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 109-116.
Marshall, W. L., Fernandez, Y. M., Serran, G. A., Mulloy, R., Thornton, D., Mann, R. E., &
Anderson, D. (2003). Process variables in the treatment of sexual offenders: A review of
the relevant literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, 8, 205-234.
Marshall, W. L., Marshall, L. E., & Serran, G. A. (2007). Strategies in the treatment of
paraphilias: A critical review. Annual Review of Sex Research, XVII, 162-182.
Neuilly, M. A., & Zgoba, K. (2006). Assessing the possibility of a pedophilia panic and
contagion effect between France and the United States. Victims and Offenders, 1, 225254.
Palermo, G. B. (2005). Reflections on sexual offender notification laws. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 359-361.
Palermo, G. B. (2007). Sexually violent predator laws revisited. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 367-368.
Palermo, G. B., & Farkas, M. A. (2001). The dilemma of the sexual offender. Springfield, IL:
Charles C. Thomas.
Prochaska, J. O., & Velicer, W. F. (1997). The Transtheoretical Model of health behavior
change. American Journal of Health Promotion, 12, 38-48.
Quinn, J. F., Forsythe, C. J., & Mullen-Quinn, C. (2004). Societal reaction to sex offenders: A
review of the origins and results of myths surrounding their crimes and treatment
amenability. Deviant Behavior, 25, 215-232.

Robinson, L. O. (2003). Sex offender management: the public policy challenges. Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 1-7.
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Sullivan, D. (2007). Editor’s note. Contemporary Justice Review, 9, 119-125.
Ward, T., & Marshall, W. L. (2003). Good lives, aetiology and the rehabilitation of sex
offenders: A bridging theory. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 10, 153-169.
Ward, T., & Stewart, C. A. (2003). The treatment of sex offenders: Risk management and good
lives. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 353-360.