Transforming Potential Offenders into Motivated Ones: Are Sex Offenders Tempted by Alcohol and Pornography?

Abstract

One of the primary concerns of scholars of routine activity theory is the explication of the three core elements necessary for crime to occur. Using sex offenders as a sample of offenders, the present analysis examines the element potential offender and considers whether or not there are differences among offenders and their locations that may transform potential offenders into actively motivated ones. Until recently, most routine activity scholars took potential offenders as a given and used the terms potential and motivated interchangeably. This analysis shows that there is a distinctive difference between the presence of potential offenders and the idea that there may be offenders who are more actively motivated, particularly by the presence of community temptations (e.g., factors that attract or draw offenders to offending). We find that for sexual victimization rates, the presence of potential offenders is insignificant, whereas the presence of potential offenders in combination with the presence of community temptations is significant.

Notes

¹We acknowledge that the use of community structures as predictors is reminiscent of ecological or environmental explanations. As proposed by Newman (1973) and Brantingham and Brantingham (1981), the physical components of communities may be considered important for understanding activities and processes within communities.

²In January 2003, the government of Jefferson County and the city of Louisville merged, creating the countywide entity of metro Louisville.

³The use of fire stations as measure of capable guardians is unique. We employ this measure in combination with police stations as both offer continual presence and are considered “safe places” for children and others in need or danger.

RSOs: registered sex offenders.

∗α ≤ .05; ∗∗α ≤ .10.

D1 Adjusted R-square: .111; F statistic: 2.792 (p = .004); SEE: .092.

D2 Adjusted R-square: .124 (change is significant at .004); F statistic: 2.966 (p = .001); SEE: .090.

D3 Adjusted R-square: .138 (change is significant at .029); F statistic: 3.104 (p = .001); SEE: .091.

RSOs: registered sex offenders.

∗α ≤ .05; ∗∗α ≤ .10.

D1 Adjusted R-square: .172; F statistic: 3.964 (p = .001); SEE: .062.

D2 Adjusted R-square: .162 (change is not significant); F statistic: 3.119 (p = .001); SEE: .090.

D3 Adjusted R-square: .170 (change is not significant); F statistic: 3.449 (p = .001); SEE: .091.

⁴Variable tolerances also indicate no collinearity issues are present.

⁵Throughout the analysis we use thresholds of .05 and .10 as indicators of statistical significance. This is necessitated due to the small number of cases in the data.

⁶Again, variable tolerances indicate no collinearity issues are present.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Elizabeth Ehrhardt Mustaine

ELIZABETH EHRHARDT MUSTAINE is Association Professor of Sociology at the University of Central Florida. Her research focuses on sex offender registration, collateral consequences of sex offender registration and issues in criminal justice education professionalism.

Richard Tewksbury

RICHARD TEWKSBURY is Professor of Justice Administration at the University of Louisville. His research focuses on sex offender registration and its social consequences, institutional corrections and suicide.