Introduction for special issue on desistance from sexual offending

We are proud and excited to introduce this special issue as the first deliverable of the recently formulated collaborative organization – the Sex Offense Policy Research Working Group (SOPR). This group is made up of academics and practitioners who came together with a shared vision to produce and disseminate research. Our goal is to encourage evidence based public policy that addresses the treatment, management, and prevention of sexual offending in our communities. Our mission is to build ‘a supportive community for both established and emerging scholars in the field, forging constructive partnerships with policymakers and criminal agencies, and advancing empirical knowledge to inform the development and implementation of evidence-informed public polices’ (www.sopresearch.org/bylaws).

There are a number of divisions in American Society of Criminology (ASC) and the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS), such as the Division of Women & Crime, Victimology, and Corrections & Sentencing, but none have focused on sexual offenses. As criminologists, the goal of SOPR is to produce methodologically rigorous research on sex crimes and public policy to inform best practices and engage with practitioners, law makers, and legislators. No other offense receives the specialized attention that sexually offending does, and indeed, no criminal conviction attracts more specialized treatment and management than sexual crimes (especially against a stranger child). The main emphasis of law, treatment, community fears, and sentencing decisions is recidivism and risk (Jeglic, Mercado, & Levenson, 2012; Petrunik, 2002). In turn, legislatures (particularly in the United States) have passed numerous laws aimed at registering, managing, and restricting the employment, residence, and movement of people convicted of sexual offenses (Jeglic et al., 2012). This has all occurred against a backdrop of lasting perceptions that sex offenders are destined to reoffend and are always at risk to do so.

The notion of desistance is often difficult to conceptualize, especially for our sample of interest, because of the way they are treated by the formal and informal arms of the criminal justice system and society, in general. However, while these laws continue to be passed and legislation continues to be more stringent, two important realities must be noted. First, desistance is a natural human process that is observed across a wide range of offenses and offender types. Much like other criminally involved persons, those who are convicted of a sexual offense will also eventually desist. Second, if we follow the assumption that individuals who commit sex crimes tend to share more similarities than differences with those who commit nonsexual crimes, it is reasonable to expect that they will desist in similar ways, using similar techniques. The articles in this special issue explore this very concept of desistance and the process in which desistance occurs for individuals who have committed a sex crime.

Research on sex crimes has so far focused on the etiology of offending, the extent to which it is possible to assess an individual’s risk of recidivism, and collateral consequences of sex offender policies (Beech & Ward, 2004; Levenson & Zgoba, 2014; Marshall & Barbaree, 1990; Tewksbury, 2014). This has led to the growth a specific mass industry of sex crimes related policy, assessment, and treatment. The experience of individuals convicted of sexual offenses (and their friends and family) upon release from custody and community re-entry is seldom a topic of discussion. More specifically, what remains unexplored is the emotional, familial, and spiritual impact of formal legislation and informal social controls on the process of desistance from sexual offending.

This special issue on ‘The Role of Social Control in Desistance from Sexual Offending,’ focuses on desistance from sexual offending from a range of perspectives. The contributors have interviewed individuals convicted of sex crimes, their family members, and practitioners to (1) identify various social control mechanisms that prevent future sexual offending, (2) discuss how such mechanisms influence desistance from sex offending, and (3) propose policy implications that better integrate social control mechanisms to assist sex offenders from re-offending. To understand the role of informal social control, Harris, Ackerman, and Haley (2017) considered the extent to which religion and spirituality informs and impacts the process of desistance from sexual offending. Their study drew on life story interviews with a sample of men convicted of sexual offenses, released from custody, and self-reported desistance. The authors focused specifically on four features of religion: emotional regulation or religious coping, forgiveness and resilience, social bonds and connectivity, and ritual/routine. They found that men who reported that religion was helpful in re-entry efforts, also indicated that religion was the only thing they had in their lives. The results of this study suggested that legislation and local policies prohibiting individuals from the right to practice their religion complicated and lengthened the desistance process. They recommended that men returning from custody be given the opportunity to engage with religious communities and pursue the spirituality of their choice.

Extending this line of research on informal social control, Lytle, Bailey, and ten Bensel (2017) examined how relationship quality either supported or interfered with the desistance process. They conducted life history interviews with 25 individuals who desisted from sex crimes and have returned to the community, to determine the quality and timing of romantic relationships. Their goal was to highlight the importance of examining the quality of romantic relationships and how these relationships can vary among sex offenders and over time. They found that the quality romantic relationships were not static, nor could these relationships be fully understood using binary constructs. In fact, by examining the life history of their participants, they found that support from romantic partners changed based on timing of relationships. Desisters, in this study, indicated a wide range of social support from positive, equal partnership to negative, isolated relationships. As a result, the authors cautioned against quantifying romantic relationships into binary variables because the nuances of relationships are then lost and the quality of support, as it could potentially impact the desistance process, becomes ambiguous.

Cooley, Moore, and Sample (2017) focused on legal channels by considering the role of formal social controls, specifically registration and community notifications laws, in deterring sexual offending as a larger component of the desistance process. They conducted interviews with 77 registrants to understand the impact of SORN laws in their decision-making process and the context in which it occurred. They found that the threat of conviction (i.e. prison or parole/probation) did not serve as a deterrent to reoffend, neither did the requirement to register. The majority of their sample indicated that by registering as a sex offender, they were more aware of the policies that now dictated their lives, which promoted a higher level of policy compliance. In addition, the authors found that the prospect of punishment based on registration violations served as a greater deterrent from reoffending than community notification. The threat of civil commitment, on the other hand, negated the possibility of seeking counselling or therapeutic assistance for their sample, which likely hindered the desistance process. Overall, the authors suggested that the threat of sanctions appeared to directly influence the decision-making process to desist from sexually reoffending. Registration and community notification laws served as an indirect catalyst for desistance through threat of sanctions.

In addition to formal and informal social control mechanisms, several authors in this special issue discussed how SORN laws not only impacted ex-offenders, but also their family members who, theoretically, are supposed to be social support mechanics in the desistance process. For example, Bailey and Sample (2017) explored how families of sex offenders coped with the consequences of sex offender laws over time. They argued that familial support is an important form of informal social control and these relationships can play a crucial part in the desistance process, yet little is known about how family members manage the burdens of sex offender laws, community stigma, and how they continue to provide support for their loved ones. Guided by strain theory, they drew from qualitative interviews with 38 sex offender family members to understand the type of coping strategies used by family members and how these strategies evolved over time. They found that strain, coping strategies, and family stability were dependent upon existing qualities of the family unit. Adaptive strategies of acceptance or negative emotional coping methods could alleviate or exacerbate levels of strain; thus, impacting the social bonds with registrants. The authors recommended that future research should focus on strategies on how to decrease strain on family members and to provide specialized training to criminal justice agencies to reduce isolation of family members.

Kilmer and Leon (2017) also conducted a qualitative study to examine the impact of sex offender legislation on families of registered offenders, focusing specifically on sex offender regulations and how these policies impacted family dynamics. They also explored ‘extra-legal’ constraints implemented by employers and landlords on income and housing permanence. They found that sex offender laws interrupted family bonding activities, such as a parent’s ability to attend school events, participate in trick-or-treat, and take family vacations. The participants in this study indicated that sex offender laws have created an environment that cultivates social rejection, isolation, and have generated barriers within family units; thus, diminishing the process of a successful reintegration and desistance. The authors recommended a critical examination of the current sex offender policies and suggested a need for reform.

Lastly, Winters, Jeglic, Calkins, and Blasko (2017) investigated individuals who were convicted of a sex offense and awaiting release from prison to understand the extent of their knowledge on sex offender laws and requirements, expectations about the barriers they will face upon release, and if and how they were prepared to overcome these barriers. The authors found that more than one third of their sample were unaware whether they would be subjected to sex offender laws, but the majority of their sample indicated they felt prepared to re-enter society. Although, the majority of their sample indicated that they expected some barriers to reintegration (i.e. housing, employment), they did not indicate that sex offender policies would impact these modes of reintegration. As a result of their findings, the authors suggested that there is a ‘need for educating sex offenders’ about SORN laws and its’ requirements, informing them about which policies they may be subject to upon release, and assisting them in developing a sound plan to successfully re-enter society and begin and maintain the desistance process.

Overall, the findings from this collection of manuscripts painted a detailed picture of the rich, but complicated tapestry of emotions, activities, cognitions, and circumstances experienced by those convicted of a sexual offense and their families. They found, and we agree, that desistance is a complex, fluid, and inevitable outcome for all types offenders, even for individuals who have been convicted for a sex crime. To our knowledge, this is the first time that the lived experiences of men and women living under SORN have been collected and bundled together for a special issue. We encourage other scholars to expand this body of research and tap into effective strategies to combat the burdens and collateral consequences discussed this special issue.