Public Perceptions About Sex Offenders and Community Protection Policies

By J. Levenson, Yolanda Nicole Brannon, T. Fortney, J. N. Baker. 2007

579 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/691cbf20e1a35964009e51d4eaf174ffcc017863

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Collateral Damage: Family Members of Registered Sex Offenders (2009, background): “…and notification laws are strongly endorsed by the public, who believe that knowing where sex offenders live can enhance their ability to protect themselves and their children from sexual victimization (Anderson and Sample 2008; Levenson et al. 2007a; Lieb and Nunlist 2008; Mears et al. 2008).”
Sex Offender Residence Restrictions: Unintended Consequences and Community Reentry (2007, background): “Despite the dearth of evidence linking residential proximity to schools and sex offense recidivism, zoning restrictions are widely popular, partly due to the belief that sex offenders have extraordinarily high recidivism rates (Levenson, 2006; Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, & Baker, 2007; Quinn, Fors”
Public Awareness and Action Resulting From Sex Offender Community Notification Laws (2008, background): “Several scholars have found widespread public support for sex offender registration and community notification (Levenson et al., 2007; Martin & Marinucci, 2006; Phillips, 1998).”
Assessing the Impact of Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification On Sex-Offending Trajectories (2010, background): “With the exception of providing a “feel-good” policy for the public (Brannon, Levenson, Fortney, & Baker, 2007; Levenson et al., 2007), there is little demonstrable public safety value for SORN (Schram & Milloy, 1995; Zgoba et al., 2008).”
Reductions in Risk Based on Time Offense-Free in the Community: Once a Sexual Offender, Not Always a Sexual Offender (2017, background): “The notion that sexual offenders present an enduring risk is now well entrenched among the public (Harris & Socia, 2016; Levenson et al., 2007), policymakers (Sample & Kadleck, 2008), and those working in the criminal justice system (Bumby & Maddox, 1999; Lawson & Savell, 2003; Zevitz & Farkas,…”
Attitudes towards sexual offenders: what do we know, and why are they important? (2017, background): “This cycle is related to several issues, including legislative discussions (Harper & Hogue, 2014), support for punitive and restrictive policy positions (Koon-Magnin, 2015; Levenson et al., 2007), and the stigmatization of sexual offenders (Jahnke et al., 2015; Willis et al., 2010).”
Desistance and Attitudes Towards Sex Offenders: Facilitation or Hindrance? (2010, background): “Accordingly, several researchers (Levenson et al. 2007a) have advocated for the value of providing accurate information to the public in an attempt to positively influence attitudes towards sex offenders.”
Collateral consequences of sex offender residence restrictions (2008, background): “offense recidivism is often exaggerated ( Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, & Baker, 2007; Levenson &”
The Complexity of Public Attitudes Toward Sex Crimes (2017, unknown): “One of the more consistent findings is that females typically report greater fear of and punitiveness toward sex offenders (Brown, Deakin, & Spencer, 2008; Craig, 2005; Kernsmith et al., 2009; Levenson et al., 2007; Phillips, 1998; Pickett et al., 2013; Willis, Malinen, & Johnston, 2013).”