This research examines the placement of sexually violent predators (SVPs) in California communities in order to understand variations in community responses to sex offenders, and, more broadly, to understand how local circumstances shape official and unofficial responses to crime. The research considers how current and past relationships between local government officials, law enforcement agencies, and residents shape community members' responses when a sex offender moves in, and what accounts for differences in responses between communities. To answer these questions, this research uses archival analyses and in-depth interviews with residents and officials in five communities that have recently experienced SVP placements.
This project will contribute to understanding the dynamics of the local politics of crime control, including how residents and officials negotiate responsibilities for crime control given general public distrust of government, formal and informal strategies for achieving public safety in light of the unique mixtures of social control already at work in communities, and the meaning of rights when working toward the shared goal of public safety. Exploring these issues at a local level will not only expand understanding of the politics of crime control, but will also contribute to discussions about how to balance community and criminal justice concerns in policies that regulate sex offender releases. To provide a foundation for community members, policymakers, and criminal justice workers to work together in addressing sex offender reintegration and broader crime control issues, this research will be disseminated through academic journals, presentations to academics and sex-offender practitioners, and participation in the Visualizing Governing through Crime in California research collaborative.
Expressions of outrage, revulsion, and fear of sexual offenders are common throughout American society. In a handful of high-profile instances, some have turned words into action by targeting individual sex offenders for physical violence, threats, and harassment. While violence and threats toward particular sex offenders are relatively rare, responses often involve the mobilization of local citizens who direct their outrage toward government officials and law enforcement agencies. Despite Americans' similar thoughts and feelings about sex offenders, there are important differences in how people respond to sex offenders in their communities. This study examined the placement of sexually violent predators (SVPs) in California communities in order to understand the similarities and differences in community responses to sex offenders, and, more broadly, to understand how local circumstances shape official and unofficial responses to crime. Sociological and sociolegal research has suggested that elites and politicians fuel Americans' widespread hostility toward sex offenders by perpetuating "moral panic" (Jenkins 1998), constructing citizens as potential victims of sexual assault (Simon 2000), and generating legislation that addresses only the most extreme sexual offenses (Janus 2006). Yet, these broad accounts do not address local community responses to sex offenders. Doing so requires understanding how local factors contribute to similarity and variation in responses across communities. More specifically, this research asks: How do local political circumstances shape community members' responses when a sex offender moves in? How do they respond similarly despite local circumstances? What accounts for differences in responses between communities? To answer these questions, I conducted participant observation, archival analyses and in-depth interviews with residents and officials in three California communities that have recently experienced SVP placements. I found that communities' relationships with local political and legal institutions shaped how they responded to these placements. For example, residents in a community that related to political authority as a source of entitlement rallied around local politician's efforts to keep the SVP out of their town. In contrast, residents in another community that related to political authority as a source of alienation were mostly ambivalent toward their local politicians' efforts. In another case, residents rallied around a lawsuit as the main strategy for responding to an SVP in their town in part because they related to the law as a source of protection rather than control. The challenge in making policies to regulate sex offender releases lies in how to balance community and justice concerns in order to truly increase public safety. One of the key issues addressed by this research is how community members should be involved in making decisions about where to house sex offenders on parole, probation, or in other conditional release situations. Options range from no community member involvement to full involvement through, for example, citizens’ advisory panels. While those involved in the SVP placement process tend to focus on avoiding, reducing, or waiting out unfavorable community responses, a new model might draw upon local residents’ motivation for civic engagement by including their opinions earlier in the process. For example, recruiting community activists to serve on housing search committees could shift the discussion from why an SVP should not live in the neighborhood toward where an SVP might be able to live to accommodate both public safety and criminal justice concerns. Because the form of community responses is tied to local residents’ relationships with formal political and legal institutions, the best solution may be to tailor the process according to different local contexts. Perhaps in places where activated residents see political authority as a source of entitlement, the state could engage local politicians in the housing search process. However, this same procedure in another place might exacerbate negative community responses. In places that lack a local political body, perhaps local law enforcement entities that have a good rapport with the community could have begin talking informally with residents about upcoming placements and releases before residents receive notification flyers. These solutions will not completely eliminate negative community responses, but perhaps this should not be the goal. Instead, we might begin to think about community opposition to SVP placements as groups of local residents engaging in civic life. From this perspective, local reactions represent the workings of intact communities rather than symptoms of a broken social system or close-minded local values. Perhaps the point then would be to use SVP placements and sex offender reentry more generally as opportunities to foster civic engagement in order to reduce fear, increase safety, build stronger communities, and increase transparency and accountability in government.
