Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Criminal Justice Review
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Farkas, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Stichman, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Sex Offender Laws: Can Treatment, Punishment, Incapacitation, and Public Safety be Reconciled?

Mary Ann Farkas

Amy Stichman

Sex offenders are viewed a unique type of criminal offender, particularly as more "objectionable,' less treatable, more dangerous, and more likely to recidivate. In recent years, these offenders have once again become the focus of intense legal scrutiny, primarily through laws specifically targeting them for indefinite confinement, registration and community notification, polygraph testing, and chemical castration. This article examines the underlying assumptions and justifications for these sex offender laws. We ask whether treatment, punishment, and public safety can be reconciled as justifications for the laws. We conclude that, even though treatment is an implicit rationale in the laws' provisions, punishment, incapacitation, and public safety are the ostensive purposes of these special laws and policies directed toward sex offenders. Moreover, this article questions the constitutionality and rationality of sex offender laws and policies and their consequences for sex offenders, treatment professionals, the mental health and criminal justice systems, and society in general.

Criminal Justice Review, Vol. 27, No. 2, 256-283 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/073401680202700204
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Interpers ViolenceHome page
S. W. Craun and M. T. Theriot
Misperceptions of Sex Offender Perpetration: Considering the Impact of Sex Offender Registration
J Interpers Violence, December 1, 2009; 24(12): 2057 - 2072.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Criminal Justice ReviewHome page
P. M. Kautt and K. Mueller-Johnson
Cross-Jurisdictional Disposition Variability Under Sentencing Guidelines: The Example of Equivalent Sex Offenses
Criminal Justice Review, September 1, 2009; 34(3): 350 - 381.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Sex AbuseHome page
P. D. Kernsmith, E. Comartin, S. W. Craun, and R. M. Kernsmith
The Relationship Between Sex Offender Registry Utilization and Awareness
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, June 1, 2009; 21(2): 181 - 193.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Punishment SocietyHome page
D. Spencer
Sex offender as homo sacer
Punishment Society, April 1, 2009; 11(2): 219 - 240.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Criminal Justice ReviewHome page
P. M. Kautt and D. W. Roncek
Schools as Criminal "Hot Spots": Primary, Secondary, and Beyond
Criminal Justice Review, December 1, 2007; 32(4): 339 - 357.
[Abstract] [PDF]