Editorial: Is This Any Way to Develop Policy?

In the last two decades, in the United States, a number of laws have been enacted that purport to protect women and children from repeat sex offenders. In general, these laws are based on public fear and misperception of both the nature of sexual crimes and the risk that is posed by convicted sexual offenders. As these laws become more and more draconian, their unintended outcomes are changing both the nature of sexual offender treatment and the viability of providing such treatment.In this issue, Fortney, Levenson, Brannon, and Baker present analyses of both general public and our clients’ perceptions of reoffending rates, treatment impact and other myths that drive public policy, at least in the United States. While this information is important, it simply highlights what is already too evident. That is, public policy in the United States regarding sexual offenders is based on misinformation and fear, and ignores what we know about sexual offenders and sexual crimes.Sex offender registries first came into existence in 1994. This law was enacted after the abduction of an 11 year old boy in rural Minnesota. Later that year, a 7-year old New Jersey girl was sexually assaulted and murdered in the home of a convicted sex offender in the neighborhood in which she lived. This resulted in the first community notification law being enacted in New Jersey (Levenson & D’Amora, 2007). Sexual Predator Laws, which allow for the civil commitment of sexual offenders after completion of their prison terms, if they meet certain requirements, began with the State of Washington in 1990. Again, the law was enacted in response to a heinous crime, the sodomizing, stabbing and mutilation of a 7-year old boy by a released sex offender with a long history of sexual violence (LaFond, 2005). The common theme is that these laws, which form the basis for sex offender management in most states in the United States, were not enacted after careful consideration and empirical investigation. Nor were they enacted after considering what the empirical research available in the mid to late 1990’s told us about sexual crimes and the effectiveness of sexual offender treatment. They were enacted to respond to public outcry following terrible, but anomalous, incidents. In fact, while each new law was justified by the high risk posed by repeat sex offenders, the empirical data indicated that at the time these laws were enacted, the rates of child sexual abuse were declining in the United States (Finkelhor & Jones, 2006) and the risk posed by convicted, identified sexual offenders was, and curren