Home Law Enforcement Is Our Approach to Sex Offender Risk and Policy on the Mark?

Is Our Approach to Sex Offender Risk and Policy on the Mark?


By Michelle Beshears, professor of criminal justice at American Military University

Sex offender registration laws and policies appear to have been based on popular misconceptions regarding sex offenders. That is, law and policy were based on the premise that ALL sex offenders are a danger to society, a danger to children, strangers to their victims, and likely to reoffend (Levenson & D’Amora, 2007).

However, this is not the case.

In some states where laws have been applied retroactively, persons who have been charged with indecent exposure (such as urinating in public) have been required to register as a sex offender (Freeman-Longo, 2001). Additionally, several teenagers have been found guilty of the recent trend of “sexting” and must now register as sex offenders. The problem is, not all sexual offenders have committed sexual crimes against children, yet the majority of the laws are focused on protecting children from sex offenders.

The Need for Better Risk Assessment Strategies
Most policy initiatives have not incorporated risk assessment strategies into their programs. Instead, they are applied broadly to all sex offenders. This flaw has been acknowledged and risk assessment has been included in more recent studies (Parent, Guay, & Knight, 2011). Additionally, the percentage of recidivism rates of sex offenders have been relatively low, as only a small percentage of convicted sex offenders have returned to prison because of committing additional sex crimes (Bonnar-Kidd, 2010; Galeste, Fradella, & Vogel, 2012).

In a three-year follow-up study of sex offenders in 15 states, the rate of recidivism was about 5.3% (Galeste et al., 2012). This has been compared to recidivism rates over a three-year study of other crimes; offenders who committed burglary recidivated 74%, larceny 75%, and theft 70% (Galeste et al., 2012).

Increased Restrictions Foster Unanticipated Issues
Despite these findings, restrictions for sex offenders have expanded even further since the implementation of the first sex registration and notification laws. Many states have now enacted housing restriction statutes and zoning ordinances (Schiavone & Jeglic, 2009). These statutes have prohibited sex offenders from living in areas that are within a specific proximity of children (Schiavone & Jeglic, 2009). State laws have specified that sex offenders are forbidden to live in areas where children congregate, such as schools, daycare centers, parks, and school bus stops (Schiavone & Jeglic, 2009). This has prevented sex offenders from living in many areas.

Some states have imposed such severe restrictions that it has left a large number of sex offenders homeless (Bonnar-Kidd, 2010). For example, Proposition 83 is a law passed in California that prohibits sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park (Bonnar-Kidd, 2010). The reason for the passing of Proposition 83 was because California was reported to have the greatest population of repeat sex offenders (RSOs) and subsequently, this proposition would allow for improved tracking and apprehension of them (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2010). Subsequently, approximately 2,700 sex offenders were forced to move, and many ended up homeless (Bonnar-Kidd, 2010).

Enhanced Legislation Increases Number of Offenders, But is it Fair and Accurate?
The result of increased legislation has had an impact on the number of sex offenders in the national and state registries. The number of sex offenders living in the United States has increased greatly over the past few years. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children survey of sex offenders for 2012 showed that there were approximately 747,408 RSOs living in the U.S. Those numbers increased from the 2011 survey, which indicated an estimated 739,853 living in the U.S. (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, News and Events, 2012).

The numbers have continued to rise each year, but an even more disturbing issue is the number of unaccounted sex offenders (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, News and Events, 2012). In 2007, there were approximately 100,000 RSOs who were unaccounted for or noncompliant in terms of registering and as of January 2012, there were more than 31,000 noncompliant or fugitive sex offenders (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, News and Events, 2012).

While these numbers may be a cause for concern, what is more concerning is the number of offenders who should probably not even be on the registry to begin with. Another consideration is the lives that may have been unjustly affected in a negative way as a result of this policy. Lastly, the mandate is costly and man-hour intensive, so researchers are calling for an examination of more evidence-based practices with regard to the treatment of sex offenders.

About the Author: Michelle L. Beshears earned her baccalaureate degrees in social psychology and criminal justice and graduate degrees in human resource development and criminology from Indiana State University. Beshears served in the U.S. Army for 11 years. She obtained the rank of Staff Sergeant prior to attending Officer Candidate School at Fort Benning, Georgia where she earned her commission. As a commissioned officer Beshears has led numerous criminal investigations and worked with several external agencies as well. As a civilian she has worked with the local sheriff’s department, state drug task force and FBI. Michelle is currently pursuing her Doctorate degree in Criminal Justice. Beshears resides with her husband Michael, their son Hunter, and daughter Malia near Norfork and Bull Shoals Lakes, in Clarkridge, Arkansas. Michelle is currently an assistant professor of criminal justice at American Military University & American Public University and is full-time faculty in the School of Public Service & Health. You can contact her at michelle.beshears(at)mycampus.apus.edu.


Bonnar-Kidd, K., (2010). Sexual offender laws and prevention of sexual violence recidivism. American Journal of Public Health, 100(3), 412-419. doi:10.2105/ AJPH.2008.153254

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (2010). Jessica’s Law. Retrieved from http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/parole/sex_offender_facts/ jessicas_law.html

Freeman-Longo, R. E. (2001). Revisiting Megan’s Law and sex offender registration: Prevention or problem. Retrieved from http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/ appa/pubs/RML.pdf

Galeste, M. A., Fradella, H. F., & Vogel, B. (2012). Sex offender myths in print media: Separating fact from fiction in U.S. newspapers. Western Criminology Review, 13(2), 4-24. Retieved from http://wcr.sonoma.edu/

Levenson, J. S., & D’Amora, D.A. (2007). Social policies to prevent sexual violence: The emperor’s new clothes? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18,168-199. doi:10.1177/ 0887403406295309

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. (2012). News and events: Number of registered sex offenders in the US nears three-quarters of a million. Retrieved from http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/NewsEventServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=4615

Parent, G., Guay, J., & Knight, R. A. (2011). An assessment of long-term risk of recidivism by adult sex offenders: One size doesn’t fit all. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(2), 188-209. doi:10.1177/0093854810388238

Schiavone, S. K., & Jeglic, E. L. (2009). Public perception of sex offender social policies and the impact on sex offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(6), 679-695. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0306624X08323454


Online Degrees & Certificates In Criminal Justice

Our criminal justice programs are among the most popular at the university, bringing you peer interactions and an expanded network of criminal justice professionals who are dedicated to safeguarding their communities and nation. Courses in this program are taught by highly credentialed and experienced instructors, many who have served as sheriffs, legal counsel, police chiefs, military, and homeland security and intelligence leaders.

Request Information

Please complete this form and we’ll contact you with more information about AMU. All fields except phone are required.

Validation message here
Validation message here
Validation message here
Validation message here
Validation message here
Validation message here
Validation message here
Validation message here
Validation message here
Ready to apply? Start your application today.

We value your privacy.

By submitting this form, you agree to receive emails, texts, and phone calls and messages from American Public University System, Inc. which includes American Military University (AMU) and American Public University (APU), its affiliates, and representatives. I understand that this consent is not a condition of enrollment or purchase.

You may withdraw your consent at any time. Please refer to our privacy policy, terms, or contact us for more details.


  1. The number that is always missing from these discussions is the sexual offense rate for the general adult male population.

    How can one assess risk without a baseline? What evolves out of this flawed approach is that any risk is too great, and so recidivism rates of 0% are used as an implicit baseline.

    And so what is this risk? I have calculated the risk several ways and have looked through the literature to validate these results. I will be happy to share the citations with anyone truly interested. R Karl Hanson (Static-99) arrived at the same numbers independently.

    The general adult male population has a sexual offense rate of approximately 1% to 5%. This is on the order of the recidivism rates for low risk sex offenders, and sex offenders have undergone treatment their rates drop to around 2%.

    More importantly we need to be asking each other why has this baseline been removed from the narrative of sex offender risk? It is a matter of obfuscation.

  2. People do not really believe that a paedophile or rapist can change and so once exposed they have a life sentence in or out of prison. It is certainly difficult for ex offenders who were committed to prison originally for child or adult sex offences to re-establish themselves in society as there are so many barriers to them being re-employed…..Because of this, it is important before sentencing to think very carefully about whether the crime committed would actually be putting others in danger in the future as once a person is labelled it is there for life.


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *