Researchers interested in public policy have noted that laws may have a symbolic or an instrumental function. The example of sex offender legislation is used to look for both instrumental and symbolic effects of this legislation. Although the symbolic effects of sex offender legislation have been examined by prior research, less is known about the instrumental effects of this legislation. This research examines the instrumental functions of sex offender legislation using survey data that asked about whether members of the public have checked the sex offender registry and the reasons behind their answer. The findings of this study suggest largely symbolic effects of sex offender registry legislation, and implications of this finding are discussed.
Adkins, G., Huff, D., & Stageberg, P. ( 2000). The Iowa Sex Offender Registry. Des Moines: Iowa Department of Human Rights.
2.
Anderson, A.L., & Sample, L.L. ( 2008). Public awareness and action resulting from sex offender community notification laws. Criminal Justice Policy Review , 19, 371-396.
3.
Anderson, A.L., Evans, M.K., & Sample, L.L. ( 2009). Who accesses the sex offender registries? A look at legislative intent and citizen action in Nebraska. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law, and Society, 22, 313-329.
4.
Avrahamian, K.A. ( 1998). A critical perspective: Do "Megan’s laws" really shield children from sex-predators? Journal of Juvenile Law , 19, 301-317.
5.
Barak, G. ( 1994). Media, process, and the social construction of crime . New York: Garland.
6.
Beck, V.S., & Travis, L.F. ( 2004). Sex offender notification and protective behavior. Violence and Victims, 19, 289-302.
7.
Beck, V.S., & Travis, L.F. ( 2004). Sex offender notification and fear of victimization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 455-463.
8.
Ben-Yehuda, N. ( 1990). The politics and morality of deviance. New York: State University of New York Press.
9.
Cohen, S. ( 1972). Folk devils and moral panics: The creation of the Mods and Rockers. New York: St. Martin ’s.
10.
Duwe, G., & Donnay, W. ( 2008). The impact of Megan’s law on sex offender recidivism: The Minnesota experience. Criminology, 46, 411-446.
11.
Edleman, M. ( 1988). Constructing the political spectacle. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Fox, S. ( 2004). Older Americans and the Internet. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project .
13.
Gavin, H. ( 2005). The social construction of the children sex offender explored by narrative. Qualitative Report, 10, 395-415.
14.
Grattet, R., & Jenness, V. ( 2008). Transforming symbolic law into organizational action: Hate crime policy and law enforcement practice. Social Forces , 87, 501-527.
15.
Gusfield, J.R. ( 1963). Symbolic crusade: Status politics and the American temperance movement. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
16.
Hawkins, K. ( 2002). Law as a last resort: Prosecution decision-making in a regulatory agency. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
17.
Hinds, L., & Daly, K. ( 2000). The war on sex offenders: Community notification in perspective . Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 13, 284-306.
18.
Howard, G.J. ( 1999). Garbage laws and symbolic policy: Governmental responses to the problem of waste in the United States. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 10, 157-299.
19.
Jenkins, P. ( 1998). Moral panic: Changing concepts of the child molester in modern America. London: Yale University Press.
20.
Jenness, V. ( 2004). Explaining criminalization: From demography and status politics to globalization and modernization. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 147-171.
21.
Kernsmith, P.D., Craun, S.W., & Foster, J. ( 2009). Public attitudes toward sexual offenders and sex offender registration. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 18, 290-301.
22.
Levenson, J.S., Brannon, Y., Fortney, T., & Baker, J. ( 2007). Public perceptions and community protection policies . Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 7(1), 1-25.
23.
Levenson, J.S. ( 2006). The new scarlet letter: Sex offender policies in the 21st century. In D. Prescott (Ed.), Applying knowledge to practice: Challenges in the treatment and supervisions of sexual abusers. Oklahoma City, OK: Wood and Barnes, 185-202.
24.
Martin, M., & Marinucci, C. ( 2006, July 18). Support behind tough sex offender initiative . San Francisco Chronicle, p. 3B.
25.
Oliver, W.M., & Marion, N.E. ( 2008). Political party platforms: Symbolic politics and criminal justice policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 397-413.
26.
Petrosino, A.J., & Petrosino, C. ( 1999). The pubic safety potential of Megan’s law in Massachusetts: An assessment from a sample of criminal sexual psychopaths. Crime and Delinquency, 45, 140-158.
27.
Phillips, D.M. ( 1998). Community notification as viewed by Washington’s citizens. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
28.
Prescott, J.J., & Rockoff, J.E. ( 2008). Do sex offender registration and notification laws affect criminal behavior? Unpublished paper. Retrieved December 2, 2009, from http://ssrn.com/abstracts=1100663
29.
Quinn, J.F., Forsyth, C.J., & 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, 215-232.
30.
Rosenberg, G. ( 1991). The hollow hope: Can courts bring about social change?Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
Sample, L.L. ( 2006). An examination of the degree to which sex offenders kill . Criminal Justice Review, 31, 230-250.
32.
Sample, L.L., & Kadleck, C. ( 2008). Sex offender laws: Legislators’ accounts of the need for policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19(1), 40-62.
33.
Sandler, J.C., Freeman, N., & Socia, K.M. ( 2008). Does a watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New York State’s sex offender registration and notification law. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14, 284-302.
34.
Schram, D.D., & Milloy, C.D. ( 1995). Community notification: A study of offender characteristics and recidivism. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
35.
Steinbock, B. ( 1995). A policy perspective. Criminal Justice Ethics, 14, 212-234.
36.
Stolz, B.A. ( 1983). Congress and capital punishment: An exercise in symbolic politics. Law and Policy Quarterly, 3, 157-180.
37.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. ( 1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
38.
Tewksbury, R. ( 2002). Validity and utility of the Kentucky Sex Offender Registry . Federal Probation, 66(1), 21-26.
39.
True, J.L., Jones, B.D., & Baumgartner, F.R. (2007). Punctuated-equilibrium theory: Explaining stability and change in public policy making. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 155-187). Cambridge, MA: Westview.
40.
Walker, J.T., Madden, S., Vasquez, B.E., VanHouten, A.C., & Ervin-McLarty, G. (2005). The influence of sex offender registration and notification laws in the United States. Available from www.acjc.org
41.
Zevitz, R.G., & Farkas, M.A. ( 2000). Sex offender community notification: Examining the importance of neighborhood meetings. Behavioral Sciences and the Law , 18, 393-408.
42.
Zevitz, R. ( 2006). Sex offender community notification: Its role in recidivism and offender reintegration. Criminal Justice Studies, 19, 193-208.
43.
Zgoba, K.M. ( 2004). Spin doctors and moral crusaders: The moral panic behind child safety legislation. Criminal Justice Studies, 17, 385-404.
