Homeless sex offenders
Abstract
The main aim of sex offender research in the past has not focused on the how residential restriction laws relate to homeliness of the sex abuse or assault perpetrators. Past studies have, however, found that the enactment of residential restriction laws and ordinances have had many barriers to reintegration of the offenders into the society. Research on housing instability brought about by these laws indicate that all sex offenders find it difficult to find a house and their felony convictions makes them unable to find a job through which they would pay for rent. By addressing the issue of homelessness among the sex offenders including those who have been registered, various scholarly research work has explored how the restrictive laws have lead to homelessness especially among the young sex offenders. The issues of homelessness is shown to have mostly affected the young offenders who still need the need of their parents and guardians especially in terms of finances since they have not developed enough to be independent. These studies have also explored the effects of homelessness among the sex offenders while trying to reintegrate them into the society where such a process has been found to face many barriers. In addition, the relationship between homelessness and rate of recidivism has also been addressed various research work, and there are clear indications to show that homelessness leads to increased cases of recidivism especially among the young sex offenders. This paper aims at looking into the issue of homeless sex offenders, a situation that is occasioned by enactment of residential restrictive laws, and how homelessness relates to recidivism. A discussion on the way forward is also included in the paper.
Homeless sex offenders due to residential restrictive laws
The impacts of sexual assault and abuse on victims shows that effects of this kind of crime is usually brutal and even long lasting. Since many of the sexual assaults happens in the context of well established relationships which are the offenders manipulate over time, these victims can be confused. The perpetrators may also make them feel responsible and this makes the victim to experience barely unbearable trauma. On this account, the U.S congress passed a registration law on sex offender in 1994 with an aim of improving public safety by deterring the offenders from such crimes in future (Donaher, 2015). Other states laws followed which provided that communities have to be notified of these offenders residing on their jurisdictions. Over time, a number of states have enacted embarked on enacting some kind of residency restrictions which forbids sex assault perpetrators from living within a given distance of daycare centers, schools and other places that children normally congregate. Moreover , many municipalities , in states that have or have not enacted restriction statutes , have come up with some ordinances which forbids those convicted offenders from residing within given distances from places within the communities where children are normally found. In addition, some communities have prohibited the sex offenders who are registered from living near them, even if victim of their crime do not live there. The effects of such laws have increased the isolation of the offenders in terms of financial stress which translate to increased homelessness (Rolfe, Tewksbury & Schroeder, 2016).
In the whole of United States, the residential restriction laws and other related ordinances results to a difficult time for sex offenders in finding housing. Different researches have confirmed that few housing options are available for sex offenders due to the restrictions placed on their places of residence. Moreover, research has shown that these restrictions do little in reducing cases of recidivism by the offenders (Rolfe, Tewksbury & Schroeder, 2016). In fact, by making it difficult for the offenders to find housing options, the restrictions are likely to unintentionally increase the chances of recidivism. For there to be success in reintegration efforts, stable housing is one of the many precondition, but the enactment of restriction laws have resulted to a situation where securing stable housing for the offenders is next to impossible (Levenson, Ackerman, Socia, & Harris, 2015). The continued efforts by various authorities to enact residence restriction laws for convicted rapist and pedophiles , and applying such laws is continuously exposing the offenders to housing instability and this has major effects on their lives especially in trying to reintegrate them into the community (Puls, 2016). The housing restrictions and reduced housing options isolates the offenders further , and pushes them away from social support and even jobs , and this increases the likelihood for them to abuse again.
The interference brought about by the residence restrictions on the social stability and social support for the majority of the registered sex offenders makes are a major part of the unintended consequences of these laws. Many of the sex offenders have reported transience due to housing restrictions, which also includes a lot of movements and homelessness. The 2,500 feet buffer zones lead to greater difficulties in finding housing. In addition, the registered offenders are forced to move for various reasons, which comprises of definition by probation officers of places where children frequents, errors in measuring the distances and ignorance of zoning laws that have been passed in the locality (Levenson & Cotter, 2005). Even though the offenders may have some housing solution in accordance with laws of a given state, their future movements due to any reason means that they have to adhere to other restrictions in places that they move. Even if some offenders in various researches may have indicated not having been affected by the restrictions laws, they may have to face such restrictions in future in other states (Levenson, Ackerman, Socia, & Harris, 2015).
Therefore, a major unintended effect of the restriction is seen in the aforesaid research is that the lead to homelessness. For instance, a report carried out by California Sex Offender Management Board indicated that there was a 101 percent increase in cases of homeless registered offenders, a year after the enactment of restrictions across the whole state within the indicated 2000 feet of parks and schools (Levenson, 2016). In majority of the cases, the offenders lack of shelter space for the homeless leaves them with little choice to rent houses or even live on the street. However, the registered sex offenders experience difficulties in finding payable work that would help them to have enough money to pay for such rent. The sex offenders cannot compete fairly against other applicants for the same positions given their convictions for sexual felony (Levenson, 2016). Even the smallest businesses such as fast-food restaurants cannot employ them given that children are also customers in such places. Even where they find jobs, they payments are not sufficient to cater for the inflated rents which further complicate their housing needs. Moreover, many landlords decline to renew the leases of sex offenders who may also find themselves in areas that are distant from employment hubs or other amenities such as health facilities for health disorder, agencies for social services and even public means of transportation (Levenson, 2016).
Research on sex offenders housing stability due to restrictive laws
The graph shows that many sex offenders faced challenges in trying to find a house in the community. The high percentage of those unable to move home may indicate the case of homeless young sex offenders
Homelessness as a risk factor for recidivism
Residence restrictions are more so detrimental to the younger sexual offenders’ in terms of housing stability. These younger sex offenders are likely to experience homelessness and transience, most likely because of the difficulties they encounter while trying to live in the same neighborhoods with their families especially close to places that children frequently gather (Levenson, University, & Hern, 2007). Since many of the young offenders are still dependent on guardian pr parents psychologically and financially, the laws restricting housing can be very problematic for them. In addition, youth represent a major risk for sexual offences overall and general recidivism and lifestyle instability leads to an increase in this risk. Since residence restrictions are normally related to the registration status of sex offenders, there is a likelihood of a growing housing crisis for a considerable number of sexual offenders in the youth category, especially those who have been prohibited from living in the same vicinity with families (Nieto & Jung, 2006). The young adults are normally less prepared financially and developmentally to be independent ,and in fact , the trouble this group may face while trying to secure stable housing may have deep psychological effect on them. There are higher chances for recidivism among young sex offenders, and this risk increases as result of lifestyle instability. Regardless of a growing popularity for housing regulations in many states, there are indications that these regulations provide little value in averting cases of recidivism (Levenson, 2008).
In Indiana , for instance , as in many other states , housing restrictions on sex offenders are a bit comprehensive since rapist are included even though in some states like Illinois and Florida , these kind of regulations only relate to sex assault on minor victims (Levenson, University, & Hern,2007). Since the state provides limitations on restricted areas to schools, it is likely that sex offenders residing in states that that have a larger number of forbidden areas encounter more disruption in housing stability. This information is obtained largely from the perception of sex offenders on housing restriction in preventing recidivism. The concern for the sex offenders’ perceptions on effect of homelessness is important, and even though they have committed heinous crimes with victims being greatly harmed, it is in the interest of the society to prevent the recurrence of such crimes. The aim is to provide protection for the public against dangerous criminals and it is important for the society to carry out a cost-benefit analysis on restrictions placed on housing the sex offenders (Levenson, University, & Hern, 2007). A major unintended effect of laws aim at zoning of the sex offenders how they separate them from society including children and families , or how some families are forced to relocate which leads to financial and psychological hardship for the offenders and victim’s families.
On the other hand, it is understandable why laws that seek to restrict housing of criminals are enacted. The authorities may foresee a situation where a family that is allowed to live with a sex offender may fear family disruption, so that parents or children may not prefer to report case of recidivism perpetrated by members of the household. The aim may prevent victims from seeking justice, therapeutic intervention and more importantly, their protection. Such kind of concerns have been raised by Iowa County Attorney Association , where they noted that housing restrictions are normally imposed on families and victims after a reunification with sex offenders , which leads to unnecessary disruption such as community connections , continuity with studies and even spousal engagement (Levenson, 2016). Despite the well intended reasons for enacting restriction laws, the resulting homelessness among the sexual offenders can psychological affects which provide an environment for recidivism. Moreover, psychosocial stressors emerging from homelessness due to residence restriction like instability and transience can present a challenge to the coping abilities of some these offenders and this has the potential to increase the recidivism risk (Levenson, & Cotter, 2005). Research has previously indicated that most of the recidivists undergo increased subjective distress and anger just before they commit an offense. The issue of homelessness is, therefore, a risk factor which can reduce the gains made in preventing sex offenses and reintegration efforts for the offenders. There is little evidence to show the housing restrictions for sex offenders makes the community any better or rather prevent the cases of recidivism in the community. The issue at hand is, therefore, whether the cost of these laws in terms of rendering the sex offenders homeless translates to increased public safety or whether they can enhance the reintegration of sexual offenders who are has completely reformed after being convicted.
Way forward
Evidence from research shows that housing instability lead to an increased risk for recidivism especially in relation to housing instability for sex offenders. There is a need for reducing homelessness among the sex offenders, which is a crucial step in improving public safety. When offenders are allowed to live within the society such as with family members, there is less likelihood of recidivating but homeless and frequent movements may lead to future engagement of such crimes (Puls, 2016). This implies that life circumstances and situational context of sex offenders are essential aspects influencing the possibility of reoffending. While the restrictive laws may appear to be common sense, by keeping sex offenders away from the public especially vulnerable youngsters, they are seen to fail in the achievement of the intended purpose. The homelessness resulting from residential restrictions has psychosocial impacts especially among the youths who are not ready to depend on themselves financially so as to afford a home. This calls for reforms of the many residential laws restricting the housing of the offenders. It is important to ensure that sexual offenders are not homeless which will reduce the psychosocial stressors like anger which will in turn lead to cases of recidivism.
Summary
The issue of homeless sex offenders has been brought about by various laws on residential restriction. These laws have restricted the movements of sex offenders especially in places where children can frequently be found including schools, health centers and even public parks. The result is reduction of options available for the offenders to find housing meaning that may be forced to live in streets. These individuals are unable to compete with other applicants for jobs and this denies them income that would help in paying rents. Homelessness among sex offenders increase the likelihood of recidivism since it expose them to harsh environments and psychosocial stressors. The problem is more pronounced among the young offenders who are not financial independent. There is a need to reform residential restrictive laws to give more housing options to sex offenders.
References
Donaher, E. (2015). Sex Offender Registration Laws for the Homeless: Safeguarding Society or Punishing Sexually Dangerous Individuals for Being Homeless. NDL Rev., 91, 375.
Levenson, J., Ackerman, A. R., Socia, K. M., & Harris, A. J. (2015). Where for art thou? Transient sex offenders and residence restrictions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 26(4), 319-344.
Rolfe, S. M., Tewksbury, R., & Schroeder, R. D. (2016). Homeless Shelters’ Policies on Sex Offenders: Is This Another Collateral Consequence?. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 0306624X16638463.
Levenson, J. S. (2008). Collateral consequences of sex offender residence restrictions. Criminal Justice Studies, 21(2), 153-166.
Nieto, M., & Jung, D. (2006). The impact of residency restrictions on sex offenders and correctional management practices: A literature review (Vol. 6, No. 8). California State Library California Research Bureau.
Levenson, J. S., University, L., & Hern, A. L. (2007). Sex offender residence restrictions: Unintended consequences and community reentry. Justice Research and Policy, 9(1), 59-73.(india
Levenson, J. S., & Cotter, L. P. (2005). The impact of sex offender residence restrictions: 1,000 feet from danger or one step from absurd?. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49(2), 168-178.
Levenson, J. S. (2016). Hidden challenges: Sex offenders legislated into homelessness. Journal of Social Work, 1468017316654811.
Puls, G. (2016). No Place to Call Home: Rethinking Residency Restrictions for Sex Offenders. BCJL & Soc. Just., 36, 319.
