|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION EXPERIENCES OF FEMALE OFFENDERS IN FLORIDA By JENNIFER L. KLEIN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011
2 2011 J ennifer L. K lein
3 To my p ar ents Albert and Beverly Klein Thank You
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS many different individuals. First, I have to thank my committee members especially my chair, Dr. Lonn Lanza Kaduce. He was influential in putting together the survey instru ment and the development of this project. His guidance on this project and throughout my academic career has been phenomenal. Secondly, I have to thank Dr. Ron Akers who was one of my main reasons for completing this specific project. Taking his graduat e seminar in Criminological Theory was instrumental to this project and really developed my love of theory and theory competition. I also have to thank Dr. Lora Levitt for her guidance in the selection of my committee and in her honesty and encouragement. Her push for me to acknowledge my accomplishments in this project was very encouraging and very needed. This project would not have been as good without their help through every stage of development. My thanks have to go to the members of my cohort w ho provided a sounding board for me throughout the entire project particularly the beginning stages when I was trying to figure out how to complete something of this magnitude. I particularly want to thank Danielle Tolson for the many nights of open ear s and strong advice for the social pressure to finish this project and for her help in the final stages I have enjoyed every conversation and every struggle and frustration we have endured to get these projects completed. Thank you to Katheryn Zambrana who stayed up with me many nights discussing this project I could not have done any of this without her pushing me along and encouraging me to produce the best project I was physically capable of producing. Thank you to Joe Rukus who has been most sup portive in the paper writing process and throughout the defense of this project.
5 I have to thank some former colleagues of mine from a summer job, who provided me with a giant stack of journals that go back a few years. Thank to you Tad Parks for finding all the journals for me and thanks to my mom for delivering them all. Free literature is always appreciated and I was able to use a majority of it. Thank you to several research assistants who helped make this project possible. Thank you to Nicholas Sm ith and Anastasia Velikorostova for their initial help in the selection of eligible participants and criminal history research. Sara Hutton, Amanda Blakely and Ariana Paz were very helpful in entering data, researching address information and weeding thro ugh all of the qualitative data. Without these research assistants I would not have been able to get everything done as fast as I did. Finally, thank you to Olivia Sangermano who was stuck with an unfortunate task of managing many pages of criminal histo ry information. She was quick and efficient with the work and made that element of the project very manageable. Finally, I have to thank my parents for all of their help and encouragement. While my parents might not always understand what it is that I am trying to accomplish or why I am studying sexual offenders, I always know that they are behind me one hundred percent. I owe everything about me to them and everything I do is in attempt to make them proud of me. I like to think that I have accomplis Ph.D. just to make sure.
6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 19 Demographics of Female Sexual Offenders and Offending Styles ......................... 19 Past Research on Female Sex Offenders ................................ ............................... 22 Other Research on Female Sex Offenders ................................ ............................. 25 Sex Offender Registration ................................ ................................ ....................... 28 Tier System ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 31 Time Dimensional ity ................................ ................................ ............................... 32 Reintegrative Shaming Theory ................................ ................................ ............... 35 Defiance Theory ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 37 General Strain Theory ................................ ................................ ............................. 41 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ............... 46 Resear ch Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ............................. 46 Harassing Behaviors and Negative Experiences ................................ .............. 47 Reintegrative Shame Theory ................................ ................................ ............ 47 General Strain Theory ................................ ................................ ...................... 47 Defian ce Theory ................................ ................................ ............................... 47 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 48 Research Sample ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 50 Survey Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 52 Protection of Human Subjects ................................ ................................ ................ 54 Official Records ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 55 Operationalization ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 56 Dependent Variables ................................ ................................ ........................ 56 Societal ramifications ................................ ................................ ................. 56 Perception of shame ................................ ................................ .................. 57 Perceptions of stress and stra in ................................ ................................ 58 Defiance theory ................................ ................................ .......................... 59 Independent variable: duration spent on the sex offender registry ............. 61 Demographic and Control Variables ................................ ................................ 62 Qualitative Variables ................................ ................................ ........................ 63 Data A nalysis Plan ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 64
7 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 73 Participant Demographics ................................ ................................ ....................... 73 Quan titative Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ...................... 76 Hypothesis Testing and Qualitative Findings ................................ .......................... 78 Model 1: Societal Ramifications ................................ ................................ ...... 79 Model 2: Reintegrative Shaming Theory ................................ .......................... 84 Model 3: General Strain Theory ................................ ................................ ....... 87 Model 4: Defiance Theory ................................ ................................ ................ 90 Other Qualitative Data ................................ ................................ .......................... 100 Criminal Histories ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 101 5 DISCUS SION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ .... 104 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 104 Policy Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ 110 APPENDIX A INSTRUMENT ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 113 B CODI NG MANUAL ................................ ................................ ............................... 125 C REFERENCE TABLES ................................ ................................ ......................... 147 D QUALITATIVE DATA ................................ ................................ ............................ 150 E SURVEY COMMENTS ................................ ................................ ......................... 219 F INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL ................................ .................. 237 LIST OF REFE RENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 241 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 248
8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Negative Experiences as a Result of Registration Status ................................ ... 23 2 2 Negative Experiences Resulting from Registration Above and Below Median Sample Time on Registry ................................ ................................ ................... 24 2 3 Mean Responses to Attitudinal Items ................................ ................................ 25 2 4 Sex Offend er Tier Criteria (National Conference of State Legislature, 2008) .... 32 3 1 Housing Information for Non Participants. ................................ .......................... 51 3 2 Common Themes Developed From Qualitative Data ................................ ......... 65 3 3 Model 1: Registration Time Requirement Predicting Societal Ramifications ...... 69 3 4 Model 2: Registration Time Requirement Predicting Shame .............................. 70 3 5 Model 3: Registration Time Requirement Predicting Strain ................................ 71 3 6 Model 4: Registration Time Requirement Predicting Defiant Behaviors ............. 72 4 1 Participant Demographics: Offender Status, Race, Age, Marital Status (S) and Number of Children ................................ ................................ ..................... 74 4 2 Participant Demographics: Sexual Offenses as Listed on the Florida Sex Offender Registry ................................ ................................ ............................... 75 4 3 Frequency Data for Addresses of Participants ................................ ................... 76 4 4 Distribution of Registration Time Requirements ................................ ................. 78 4 5 Distribution of Time Requirement Ratios ................................ ............................ 79 4 6 Descriptive Statistics for Model 1 Dependent Variable Questions ...................... 80 4 7 Model 1: Registration Time Requirement Ratio Predicting Societal Ramifications ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 82 4 8 Model 1: Qualitative Data Analysis for Societal Ramifications ............................ 83 4 9 Descriptive Statistics for Model 2 Dependent Variable Questions ...................... 84 4 10 Model 2: Registration Time Requirement Ratio Predicting Shame ..................... 85 4 11 Model 2: Qualitative Data Analysis for Shame ................................ .................... 86
9 4 12 Descriptive Statistics for Model 3 Dependent Variable Questions ...................... 88 4 13 Model 3: Registration Time Requirement Ratio Predicting Strain ....................... 89 4 14 Model 3: Qualitative Data Analysis for Strain ................................ ...................... 90 4 15 Descriptive Statistics for Model 4A Dependent Variable Questions .................... 91 4 16 Model 4A: Registration Time Requirement Ratio Predicting Defiant Behaviors Unfair Sanctions ................................ ................................ ............................... 92 4 17 Descriptive Statistics for Model 4B Dependent Variable ................................ ..... 93 4 18 Model 4B: Registration Time Requirement Ratio Predicting Defiant Behaviors Poor Bonds ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 94 4 19 Descriptive Statistics for Model 4C Dependent Variable Questions ................... 95 4 20 Model 4C: Registration Time Requirement Ratio Predicting Defiant Behaviors Stigmatization of the Offender ................................ ................................ .......... 96 4 21 Descriptive Statistics for Model 4D Dependent Variable Ques tions ................... 97 4 22 Model 4D: Registration Time Requirement Ratio Predicting Defiant Behaviors Refusal to Acknowledge Shame ................................ ................................ ....... 99 4 23 Model 4: Qualitative Data Analysis for Defiant Behaviors ................................ ... 99 4 24 Qualitative Data for Registry Views ................................ ................................ .. 101 4 25 Returned Survey Participant vs. Non Participant Criminal Histories ................. 103
10 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION EXPERIENCES OF FEMALE OFFENDERS IN FLORIDA By J ennifer L. K lein May 2011 Chair : Lonn Lanza Kaduce Major: Criminology Law and Society Research conducted on sexual offenders up until now has primarily focused on males. The research on their female counterparts is very limited and focuses mainly on the perpetration of the sexual offenses. Even less research has focused on the mandatory registration on a sex offender registry that accompanies nearly every sex offense conviction. The current research builds on the limited previous r esearch and examines the perceptions of those women who are on the Florida Sex Offender Registry. A mail out survey was sent to every eligible female sex offender residing in Florida as of March, 2010. Questions were asked testing strain, reintegrative s haming and defiance theories. The proposed hypotheses predict that the longer a female sex offender remains on the registry, levels of strain will increase, the amount of shame felt will increase and levels of defiance felt will also increase.
11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In roughly the past 15 years, a virtual panic has swept the nation over the possibility that sexual offenders could be living in our neighborhoods, making parents currently incarcerated more than 234,000 it seems as though law enforcement has also perceived sexual offenders as a threat to society (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004; Holmes and Holmes, 2009). Because of the growing panic and due to several high profile c hild abductions, the sex offender registry was created to manage and supervise those who had been convicted of sexual offenses. The first act passed in 1994, The Jacob Wetterling Act, created the national registry for these convicted sex offenders (Michig an State Police, 2006). However, it took twelve years until the current sex offender registry was enacted. The Adam Walsh Act of 2006 would push the national sex offender registry to where it is today, but not without creating a variety of problems that will be discussed in detail later on (Calley, 2008; NCSL, 2008). Due to some of the high profile abductions of minors such as Jacob Wettlerling, Adam Walsh, Megan Kanka and others, states were anxious to adopt the registries across the nation. However, pr otection was not the only incentive for the state legislatures. Federal funding was at risk for those states who did not adopt the nationwide registries (Scott & Gerbasi, 2003). However, even though the states were financially encouraged to adopt the reg istries, they were also encouraged to modify them based on individual state laws (Jacob Wetterling Act, 1996; Scott & Gerbasi, 2003).
12 Traditionally, the sex offender registry was thought to protect the community from the violent offenders similar to those who were involved in the previously mentioned high profile abductions. Typically, these violent offenders tend to be male (Bunting, 2006; Fromuth & Conn, 1997; Johansson Love & Fremouw, 2006). Female sex offenders have been overlooked and rarely research ed as a result of their low numbers on the registries (Beech, Parrett, Ward & Fisher, 2009). In fact, female sex offenders are estimated to make up only roughly 4 5 % of the total sex offender populations (Fazel, Sjostedt, Grann & Langstrom; 2010; Cortoni & Hanson, 2005; Bunting, 2006; Fromuth & Conn, 1997; Johansson Love & Fremouw, 2006). Because of the small amount of research dedicated to female sexual offenders, this paper aims to fill in some of the gaps that are present in the literature. There is a large arena of information that could be found from a less publicized type of sexual offender and perhaps with the data collected here, some of that information will come to light. This study is a replicatio n and extension of a 2004 study in which Rich ard Tewksbury examined female sex offenders registered on the Indiana and Kentucky Sex Offender Registries (Tewksbury, 2004). In the Tewksbury study, survey instruments were sent out to female offenders to examine the experiences these women faced while r equired to register on the registries (Tewksbury, 2004). The results of that study showed that the longer the women stayed on the registry, the more shame they felt and the more harassed they became. Often the women would lose jobs, lose places to live a nd face ridicule from the public as a result of being on the registry (Tewksbury, 2004). These responses were based on the law that was in place in 2004.
13 Two years later, one major change to sex offender registration took place. The Adam Walsh Child Pr otection and Safety Act of 2006 increased the amount of time that sex offenders must register and added crimes that were worthy of registration (NCSL, 2008). The current study will look at Florida female sex offenders a state that has more female offend ers than Kentucky and Indiana combined (the originally studied states) and the conditions of the registry after the Adam Walsh Act was enacted (Tewksbury, 2004; FDLE, 2010). Although this study is indeed a replication of the Tewksbury study, the survey instrument developed for this study significantly extends what Tewksbury asked in h is study. Shame is still a focus of this study (Braithwaite, 1989 ), but additional variables are taken into account. Reintegrative Shaming Theory states that offenders ca n be brought back into a community through the process of reintegrative shaming or can be ostracized from the community through disintegrative shaming measures (Braithwaite, 1989; Akers and Sellers, 2009) such as publicly known sex offender registries (T e wksbury, 2004). Another focus introduced into this study is strain and stress which results from the registration status and harassing behaviors experienced due to adv ersity that causes stress and strain in life (Agnew, 1985; 2001b, 2006a, 2006b; Akers and Sellers, 2009). As a result of that stress and strain, individuals may act out in a criminal manner as a way of coping with that strain (Agnew, 1985; 2001b, 2006a, 2 006b; Akers and Sellers, 2009). Another focus is the issue of defiant behaviors that result from the imposed sentence of required re gistration (Sherman, 1993; 2006 ).
14 offend er registry. Do the sex offenders support the registry? Do they want to see things changed with the registry? This study add s to the literature because it examines more than just shame associated with the registry. The current study examines factors t towards the registry, (2) the shame present because of the required registration, (3) the stress and strain that is associated with required registration, (4) the defiant attitudes that result from the required r egistration, and (5) experiences associated with the registry such as harassment and other negative events. Because of the limited amount of research conducted on female sexual offenders, this study contribute s to the sexual offender, female offender and theoretical literature by examining the link between (1) amount of time spent on the registry and the amount of harassing behaviors experienced, (2) amount of time spent on the registry and the related amount of shame 3) amount of time spent on the registry and the To explain these objectives, crimino logical theory will be incorporated in order to make the connection clear. The first objective, towards the registry can be pursued by looking at how the participating sexual offenders feel about the registry. Th ese attitudes are measured qualitatively within the Themes were analyzed from the phone calls, emails and notes that the participants provided. Do the women think that it is good to have a sex offender registry? Do they feel that it is necessary to make modifications to the registry? Should it be abolished
15 completely? The second objective, examining the shame present because of the required registration can be pur shame and how they feel that their personal shame has affected their lives. Questions will be asked regarding how ashamed participants are of being on the registry and how ashamed participants are for hav ing committed a sexual offense. Also included will be questions regarding fear of being recognized as a sexual offender. The third objective, examining the stress and strain that is associated with required registration can be pursued through looking stress and how the participants cope with that strain. Questions will be asked that examine how stressed an individual is for having to register on the sex offender registry. Based on the reported stress levels, partici pants will also be asked to report how they cope with the stress. Coping mechanisms include the use of alcohol, illegal substances and violent actions. The fourth objective, examining the defiant attitudes that result from the required registration w ill be evaluated by examining what retaliatory actions the participant engages in as a result of being on the sex offender registry. This objective will be be asked con cerning the four elements of defiance theory unfair sanctioning, poor bonding strength, stigmatizing the offender not the offense and refusal to acknowledge shame (Sherman, 2006). Finally the fifth objective, examining experiences associated with the registry such as harassment and other negative events will be pursued by asking ten questions grouped together as Societal Ramifications [originally called attitudinal measures in the
16 Tewksbury study (2004) meaning which behaviors the participants are experiencing as a result of their sex offender status. For example, have the participants experienced job loss since registering? Have the participants lost housing or been forced to move since registering? How many times have the participants been assaulted or attacked since registering? These five objectives are important for the purposes of this study because they were not fully examined within the Tewksbury study conducted in 2004 hence the large ex pansion that takes place with this project. Some aspects of the study were registry and the ten questions listed in this study as Societal Ramifications Because Tewksbury did not go into great depth concerning these three aspects, the current study both replicates and elaborates on the foundation that the Tewksbury study provides. In addition, new elements of were used in the extension of the Tewksbury study. The use of Defiance Theory and Strain Theory are new additions but tie well into the study of female sexual offenders due to the potentially high amounts of stress being felt by the participants as well as the defiant behaviors that may exhibited by the participants. Since this study is an extension of the Tewksbury study, the study takes on more of an exploratory element than a predictive one. This means that the study will investigate the behaviors and views of the registered female sex offenders instead of predic ting their criminal behaviors and the sex offenses in general. With the lack of research on female sex offenders and the limitations provided by the Tewksbury study, this study is looking for information that has not been provided in the pas t. More quest ions were asked of the registrants than Tewksbury used in his project and qualitative data was
17 also obtained extends the findings in his study but on a larger scale than he was able to a ccomplish. The sexual offenders eligible for this study were asked questions relating to their personal attitudes towards the registry, their experiences with harassing behaviors and other negative events post conviction, the amount of shame present in an life and the current amount of stress and strain that results from the required sex offender registration. In order to explain the reasons for choosing these specific questions, this paper will first provide a review of the literature on (1) female sexual offenders, including previous research, (2) sex offender registration, (3) Reintegrative Shaming Theory, (4) Defiance Theory and (5) General Strain Theory. After the review of the literature, the research methodology is explained Next, Cha pter 4 present the analyses examining the (1) sex offender attitudes towards the registry, (2) shame variables, (3) stress and strain variables, (4) defiance variables and (5) harassing behaviors. Finally, the conclusion will summarize the results, explai n policy implications and offer suggestions for future research. At the end of the conclusion, an appendix includes the approval from the University of Florida Institutional Review Board, the survey instrument that was sent to the female sex offenders, th e informed consent, a letter of invitation to participate in the study and a follow up letter reminding the participants that the survey was mailed to them. This project adds to the current literature because it will show the connection between the registr ation laws and the societal reality associated with the registration lists. The registration laws are in effect to keep track of sex offenders, to let the community know about who is living in their neighborhoods and what sexual crimes
18 these offenders com mitted. When created, the sex offender registry laws were meant as a supervision tool to keep track of convicted sex offenders, but there have been some unexpected side effects of the legislation. Some of the most harmful side effects include the very li mited areas available for sex offenders to reside in (residency restrictions), job loss, loss of professional licensing and threats of violence. This project examines how much the current state of registration hinders the registered offender from reenteri ng society completely and tries to learn about any obstacles they may face as a result of the required registration.
19 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Demographics of Female Sexual Offenders and Offending Styles When someone thinks of the sex offender registry or of sex offenders in general, traditionally a violent male offender comes to mind (Bunting, 2006; Fromuth & Conn, 1997; Johansson Love & Fremouw, 2006). While males compose a majority of the sex offender population, there is a small population of females who have been convicted for sexual offenses (Fazel, Sjostedt, Grann & Langstrom; 2010; Cortoni & Hanson, 2005; Bunting, 2006; Fromuth & Conn, 1997; Johansson Love & Fremouw, 2006). Female sex offenders typically make up a small proportion of th e total population of sex offenders in a state. In Hawai i, female offenders make up 0.8% of the all registered offenders in the state (Tewksbury, 2004; Szymkowiak & Fraser, 2002). Of all the registered sex offende rs in the state of Iowa, only 3% of t hem are female, in Arkansas 2.4% are female, in Kansas 2.7% are f emales and 2% are female (Tewksbury, 2004). In Florida, there are 569 registered females that have an address listed with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE, 2010a). This number do es not include those female sex offenders who are incarcerated, have been deported, who have absconded or who have moved out of state. T he 569 females make up only 1.4% of the total number (40,522 total) of regis tered sex offenders in Florida (FDLE, 2010b ). Even though the numbers associated with female sex offenders are small, they are still a group of offenders worth researching. Their motivations, victim characteristics and offense characteristics are often different from those of male offenders. In s ome countries, females may be convicted as a sexual offender because they are engaging in prostitution. In countries like the Netherlands, where prostitution is legal, women can be
20 arrested if they engage in sexual acts in public or without a working perm it, but not because they are engaging in prostitution (Zaitch & Staring, 2007; Fazel, Sjostedt, Grann & Langstrom; 2010). For sex crimes that are not prostitution related, the female offenders are coercive like males but their methods of coercion are dif ferent. Men tend to use physical DeMichele, 2008; English, Pullen & Jones, 1997). Male offenders also tend to prefer strangers or acquaintance victims a victim who is not very close to the offender (Banning, 1989; Beech, Parrett, Ward & Fisher, 2009, Rudin, Zalewski, & Bodmer Turner, 1995). However, female offenders use their position as an authority figure or a caretaker, to teach their victims how to engage in se xual activities (Fazel, Sjostedt, Grann & Langstrom; 2010). Females use sexual activities as a teaching mechanism for their victims the female offender serves as the more experienced individual and the victim is typically more the innocent partner who c experience (Fazel, Sjostedt, Grann & Langstrom; 2010; Mayer, 1992; Nathan & Ward, 2002; Sarrel & Masters, 1982; Syed & Williams, 1996; Vandiver & Kercher, 2004). A classic example of the authority driven relationship is the hi gh school teacher engaging in a sexual relationship with a student (Johnson, 2010; Olsen, 1999). There are many of these teacher/student relationships, but none are more famous than that of Mary Kay Letourneau, who was convicted of statutory rape against her 13 year old student Vili Fualaau. While in prison for the rape of Fualaau, she gave birth to two of his children, but the couple eventually married in 2005 and are still together (Johnson, 2010).
21 In general, the chosen victims are also likely to have a relationship with the offender before the offense takes place. Previous research has found that victims are likely to be related to their female perpetrator. One study found that out of 6 7 female sex offenders, only 13% chose victims who were stranger s to them (Johansson Love & Fremouw, 2009; Mathews et al., 1997 ). Another study found that 68% of perpetrators were related to the victim (Johansson Love & Fremouw, 2009; Fromuth & Conn, 1997). Further research conducted in a clinical setting discovered that of the 85% of femal e sex offenders are mothers, 55% committed sexual offenses ag ainst her own children and 30% children (Johansson Love & Fremouw, 2009; Faller, 1995). A comparison study was conducted looking at both male and female sexual offenders. In this st udy, the results showed that 70% of females compared to 30% of males were related to their victims (Johansson Love & Fremouw, 2009; Miccio Fonseca, 2000). Female offenders do not often work alone in committing sexual offenses; more often than male sex offenders, females work with a co perpetrator (Beech, Parrett, Ward & Fisher, 2009; Kaufman, Wallace, Johnson & Reeder, 1995). When there is a co perpetrator, most often it is a male co perpetrator (Johansson Love & Fremouw, 2009; Grayston and De Luca 1999; Wakefield and Underwagner 1991). However, male sex offenders more often prefer to work alone (Johansson Love & Fremouw, 2009; Finkelhor and Williams 1988; Solomon 1992). Research shows that female sex offenders choose female victims more often than male victims, but males still get victimized too ( Johansson Love & Fremouw, 2009; Grayston and DeLuca, 1999) Based on the offenses committed and victim charact eristics, it cannot be said with
22 certainty that female offenders prefer to victimize one gender over the other, only that there is a slight preference for female victims when the perpetrator is also female ( Johansson Love & Fremouw, 2009). However, if the re are multiple victims, those victims are likely to be of both genders (Johansson Love & Fremouw, 2009; Vandiver & Kercher, 2004). Based on behaviors shown through prior research, there is speculation that female sex offenders feel more remorse and guilt over their offenses than male offenders (Beech, Parrett, Ward & Fisher, 2009; Ford, 2006; Saradjian, 1996). However, male sex offenders are more likely to admit their guilt in court than female sexual offenders ( Johansson Love & Fremouw, 2009; Allen, 199 1; Faller, 1995). Female sexual offenders also are likely to have histories of sexual victimization, similar to male offenders ( Johansson Love & Fremouw, 2009) However, female sex offenders tend to experience sexual and physical non sexual abuse at high er rates than male sex offenders. This may be due to the fact that females are overall more often victims of sexual abuse throughout societies (regardless of their own future offending behaviors) ( Johansson Love & Fremouw, 2009; Adshead et al. 1994; Allen 1991; Fromuth and Conn 1997; Grayston and De Luca 1999; Higgs et al. 1992; Hislop 2001; Kaplan and Green 1995; Kubik et al. 2002; Lewis and Stanley 2000; Lloyd 1987; Mathews et al. 1997; Miccio Fonseca 2000; Nathan and Ward 2002; Vick et al. 2002). Despi te the evidence that females constitute a small proportion of all sex offenders compared to male sex offenders, we know relatively little about female sex offenders. Past Research on Female Sex Offenders The amount of research on female sex offenders is quite small compared with the amount of research conducted on their male counterparts. In 2004, Tewksbury directed his research questions towards the required registration as well as the effects that occur
23 due to the registration status (Tewksbury, 2004). In the Tewksbury study, more questions have been asked to examine the experiences that the females experienced while on the registry but questions were also asked to examine their feelings about the regis try itself, registry related stressors and re entry issues. Tewksbury used a mail survey, which the current study also used as its survey methodology. Female sex offenders were surveyed in Kentucky and Indiana with an eligible sample of 227. Of that 227 40 surveys were returned and completed enough to use for data analysis (Tewksbury, 2004). The females were asked about individual experiences such as job loss, denial of promotion at work, loss of residence, rude treatment in a public place, whether the y were asked to leave a business, whether they lost a friend because of registration status, were harassed in person, were assaulted, received threatening telephone calls or received threatening mail (Tewksbury, 2004). Table 2 1 shows the prevalence of fe males who experienced th e previous behaviors. T he total percentage exceeds 100% because respondents reported experiencing multiple negative experiences. Table 2 1. Negative Experiences as a Result of Registration Status Experience (n=40) Total Percentage Loss of Job Denial of Promotion at Work Loss of Residence Rude Treatment in a Public Place Asked to Leave a Business Lost a Friend because of Registration Status Harassed in Person Assaulted Received Threatening Phone Calls Received Threatening Mail 42.1 10.5 31.6 31.6 2.6 39.5 34.2 10.5 10.5 15.8 Tewksbury also looked at the prevalence of these experiences based on the amount of time spent on the registry ( Table 2 2). He broke up the offenders into two
24 groups, the first group was required to register for 32 months or less and the second groups was required to register for more than 32 months. Thirty two months was the average amount of time spent on the registry (Tewksbury, 2004). Across all of the above actions, females who were required to register for more than 32 months repor ted experiencing these behaviors (sometimes at a percentage almost three times) more often than those who were required to register for less than 32 months (Tewksbury, 2004). Again, the percentages exceed 100% because so participants reported more than on e negative experience. The same kind of percentage extended to the questions that asked for attitudinal responses concerning the registry. Table 2 2. Negative Experiences Resulting from Regi stration Above and Below Median Sample Time on Registry Exper ience (n=40) 32 Months or Less Time on Registry (Percent) More than 32 Months on Registry (Percent) Loss of job Denial of promotion at work Loss/Denial of place to live Treated rudely in a public place Asked to leave a busin ess Lost a friend who found out about registration Harassed in person Assaulted Received harassing/threatening telephone Received harassing/threatening mail 38.9 0 27.8 22.2 0 27.8 22.2 5.6 5.6 5.6 45.0 20.0 35.0 40.0 5.0 50.0 45.0 15.0 15.0 25 .0 tudy also examined what he called questions asking about negative experiences that the females have encountered, on the registry longer, the amount of shame also increased. Table 2 3 shows five attitudinal measures surrounding the registry. The questions were measured on a 10 point scale ranging from 1 Disagree Completely to 10 Agree Completely and the means a re reported.
25 As T able 2 3 shows the longer the women spent on the registry, the more their responses to the shaming question increased, meaning they felt more shame the longer they were on the registry (Tewksbury, 2004) The same thing happened for the a voidance measure and the perception measure th at the registry is a good thing. Table 2 3. Mean Responses to Attitudinal Items Items (n=40) Total Sample* Shorter than Median Time* Longer than Median Time* that I am on the with me if they know I am on the Sex 8.20 7.50 7.53 5.28 6.45 7.74 7.74 8.16 4.95 6.21 8.62 7.29 6.95 5.57 6.67 Items measured on a 10 point scale ranging from 1 (Disagree Completely) to 10 (Agree Completely) **None of the measures were found to be statistically significant. Other Research on Female Sex Offenders In other research on female sex offenders, one study compared 93 female sexual offenders against 20,597 female non sexual offenders in Sweden (Fazel, Sjostedt, Gra nn & Langstrom; 2010). This is a large difference in sample sizes between female sexual and non sexual offenders. The researchers found that over the time period studied, 36.6% of female sexual offenders were admitted to a psychiatric hospital and 7.5% w ere discharged from a mental institution with a diagnosis of a psychotic disorder. However, sexual offenders were no more likely to suffer from mental disorders and enter mental institutions than non sexual offenders (Fazel, Sjostedt, Grann & Langstrom; 2 010). Because of these findings, the researchers determined that female sex offenders do not have a higher prevalence of mental illness, but instead the
26 researchers suggest that more mental health screening take place before conviction, when the cases are still at the trial level (Fazel, Sjostedt, Grann & Langstrom; 2010). In another study on child molestation, researchers in the United Kingdom aimed to find out whether or not the female child molesters made the same mental link between children and sex as male child molesters do (Gannon, Rose & Williams; 2009). Using the Implicit Association Test, or IAT, the researchers tested 17 convicted female child molesters to find out if they made the mental association linking children with sex. The Implicit Assoc iation Test is a visually presented word association test that ties these words to pleasant or unpleasant associations. In this test they used the child sex pairing as an experimental test of the association for female sex offenders and the flower insect pairing as a control group. Using the control IAT as an example, if the word presented was an insect or a flower, then the participant would be expected to place the image in the pleasant or unpleasant category using a computer (Gannon, Rose &Williams, 20 09). phrase methodological insect IAT as the control and the sexualization of children as the experimental IAT (Gannon, Rose & Williams, 2009: 57). The IAT has been shown to work best with groups of sex offenders not exceeding more than ten individuals to a group. Research has also shown good results among adult male child molesters that (Gannon, Rose & Williams, 2009 ; Gray, Brown, MacCulloch, Smith & Snowden, 2005; Mihailides, Devilly & Ward, 2004; Nunes, Firestone & Baldwin, 2007). In the Gannon, Rose & Williams study, the researchers looked at both female child molesters and convicted female offenders who were not convicted of sexual crimes but
27 who served as the control (2009). The female child molesters on average had victims who were younger than 16 and also committed the molestation with a male co perpetrator. Given the characteristics of the participants, the researchers then adapted the IAT test to a sexual scale. As stated before, there were two categories of words insect flower and the sexualization of children that would be associated to the pleasant and unpleasant categories. To mirror these categor ies, the researchers created four new categories (adult, child, sex and non sex), which were linked up to the previously stated ones (Gannon, Rose & Williams, 2009). Therefore, the categories were tested as adult/insect, child/flower, sex/pleasant and non sex/unpleasant (Gannon, Rose & Williams, 2009). The researchers established that the adult sex pleasant associations would represent the unusual category and the child non sex unpleasant associations would represent the usual category. Although the rese arch set out to distinguish a similarity between male and female child molesters, the results of the IAT were unable to show that female child molesters made the mental association between sex and children. Interestingly however, the IAT was also was unab le to make a distinction between the female child molesters and the non sexual offending females (Gannon, Rose & Williams, 2009). Gannon, Rose & Williams suggest based on their results that for female child molesters, there is no real sexual interest link ed to children, unlike their male counterparts (2009). However, they recognize that other researchers suggest the exact opposite that there is a sexual interest linked to children for the female child molesters (Beech et al., 2009; Gannon, Rose & Willia ms, 2009). Overall, the literature surrounding female sex offenders is quite limited. They are a group of offenders that are small in number and extremely rare compared with male
28 sexual offenders. Most studies conducted on female sex offenders do not have large sample sizes (sample sizes range from two participants to 112 participants) and are limited in the types of questions asked (Tewksbury, 2004; Peluso and Putnam, 1996; Rosencrans, 1997). This study will attempt to fill in some of the gaps in the literature concerning female sex offenders and will add to the research by increasing the number of participants surveyed beyond what has been sampled in the past. Sex Offender Registration Sex offender registration was initially proposed to keep a reco rd of all adult sex offenders throughout the United States; recording offender addresses, their occupations and offenses and making the information available to the public. In 1994, The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Registr ation Act (The Jacob Wetterling Act) was the first federal registration act passed into law, setting up the national registry for all convicted sex offenders. It applied to those offenders convicted of specific offenses against children and juveniles as w ell as those convicted of sexually violent offenses (Michigan State Police, 2006). passed, allowing for community notification. Also in 1996, The Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act was passed whic h established more requirements, including lifetime registration, for severe and repeat sex offenders. In 1998, the Appropriations Act for the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary of 1998 passed, making sex offender registration conti ngent on individual The Jeanne Clery Disclose of Campus Security Police and Cam pus Crime Act of 2000 made it mandatory for college campus to alert students and families about registered
29 sex offenders residing on campus and attending classes (Michigan State Police, 2006). As early as 1994, individual states were passing sex offender registration acts which required juveniles convicted of certain acts to register along with the adult offenders. For example, in Michigan, juveniles were required to register with local law enforcement if they committed an offense on or before October 1, 1995 (Michigan State Police, 2006). Nationally, juvenile sex offenders were not required to register until 2006, when the latest act was passed into law (the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006). The Adam Walsh Act created a better, more e fficient system of registration and required juvenile sex offenders who were 14 years old or older to register, provided that 1 (Calley, 2008). However, from the start adu lt men and women were required to register for their sexual offenses. The passage of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (The Act) provided an opportunity to create a national, cohesive and more systematic form of sex offender registra tion. Under this act, all states are required to create a sex offender registry that is compatible to the national database registry (NCSL, 2008). The creation of this law in effect, eliminated the statute of limitations for most sex offenses. Therefore convicted sex offenders who would not have to register in the past were now required to register, even though they never had to before (NCSL, 2008). The offenses included under the elimination of the statu t e of limitations are sexual abuse, sexual explo itation and other abuse of children, transportation for illegal sexual activity and 1 rce against that other person; or (2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, ser ious bodily injury, or kidnapping (Cornell Law School, 2010)
30 related crimes, kidnapping a minor and sex trafficking, in various degrees (NCSL, 2008; Baron Evans & Noonan, 2006). The Act also includes new provisions that increased t he restrictions on possession and distribution of child pornography, increased the conditions of pre trial release, allowed the government more freedom to access DNA from adjudicated sex offenders Evans & Noonan, 2006). The civil commitment rule was upheld recently by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Comstock (2010) defining a sex offender with a crime of sexual violence and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the person likely to engage in predato ry acts of sexual State, 2010). The law, in application, requires new sex offenders to start the registration process prior to release from imprisonment and further affects sex offenders in other ways. Sex offenders are required to start the registration process before release or within three days after release from imprisonment. Each sex offender must provide following the information: Social Security Number, all addresses that the offender may reside at, employer and business address, students must provide the school that the offender is license plate number if he/she owns a vehicle and description of that vehicle or any other vehicle that the offender may use, and any and all additional information that t he attorney general may require (NCLS, 2008). Law enforcement must also supply
31 Tier System The law also defi nes three types of sexual offender, with varying mandatory registration sentences for all three types. Tier I offenders are described as offenders who are not Tier II or Tier III. They are required to register for 15 years and must show up in person to l ocal law enforcement on a yearly basis (NCLS, 2008). Tier II offenders are those who have committed a sexual offense that is punishable by an incarceration sentence of more than one year and that is comparable to or more severe than several federal offens es, all of whi ch involve a minor Tier II offenders are required to register for 25 years and must report to law enforcement, in person, every six months (NCLS, 2008). Tier III offenders are considered the most severe sexual offenders. They have committ ed offenses that are subject to more than one year of incarceration and that are comparable to or more severe than sever al federal offenses (Table 2 4 ). Tier III offenders are required to register for life and report in person to local law enforcement eve ry three months. I ndividual states are also allowed to classify sex offenders how they wish. In Florida, there is no mention of a tier distinction. The only distinction made classifies sex registrants as either a sexual offender or a sexual predator (FD LE, 2010b) 2 One of the major ways in which the Adam Walsh Act affects registered sex offenders is in the area of the time requirement (NCSL, 2008). Now under the act, some registrants are eligible for lifetime registration meaning that for the rest of their 2 See Appendix C for definitions of sexual offender and se xual predator
32 natural life, these individuals are required to have their name and personal information This increased time requirement will serve as a starting point for this paper, asking how does this increased tim e requirement effect those individuals on the registry? Table 2 4 Sex Offender Tier Criteria (National Conference of State Legislature, 2008) Tier I All sex offenders who are not a Type II or Type III offender Must register for 15 years Must report in person to law enforcement every year Tier II All offenders other than a Tier I, with an offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. The offense must be comparable to or more severe than the following offenses involving a minor: Sex traffic king 3 Coercion and enticement Transportation with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity Abusive sexual contact 4 Offenses that involve use of a minor in a sexual performance Solicitation of a minor to practice prostitution Production or distribution of child pornography Must register for 25 years Must report in person to law enforcement every six months Tier III Sex offenses punishable by imprisonment for more than one year The offense must be comparable to or more severe than the following federal offenses: Sexual abuse 5 or aggravated sexual abuse 6 Abusive sexual contact against a minor less than 13 years old Offense involving the kidnapping of a minor (parent or guardian excepted) Any offense that occurs after one had been designated a Tier II offe nder Must register for Life. Must report in person to law enforcement every three months Tier System established as a result of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Sa fety Act of 2006 Time Dimensionality As explained earlier in the review of the Tewksbury project (2004), the amount of time spent on the sex offender registry can affect how the registrants are perceived by the public and how the registrants also view themselves. The effects that time have on nd perceptions of the registry can be li n ked to 3 me and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, or maintains by an y means a person knowing, or in reckless disregard of the fact, that means of force, threats of force, fraud, coercion or any combinati on of such means will be used to cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act, or that the person has not attained the age of 18 years and will be caused to engage in a commercial sex 4 knowingly engages in or causes sexual contact with or by another person, if so to do would violate subsection (a) or (b) of section 2241 (aggravated sexual abuse) of this title, section 2242 (sexual abuse) of this title, subsection (a) of section 2243 (sexual abuse of a minor or ward) of this title (Cornell Law School, 2010). 5 er person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear, or engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct or p hysically incapable of declining participa tion in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act (Cornell Law School, 2010). 6 st that other person; or (2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping (Cornell Law School, 2010)
33 the research completed by Donald Clemmer concerning the behavior modifications that take place when an individual is in prison. While registered sex offenders may or may not have experienced long term incarc eration, a behavioral comparison can be made experienced while on the sex offender registry (Clemmer, 1940). when an inmate first e nters prison he/she is in the beginning stages of their prison career (1940). The inmate must assimilate to the prison lifestyle and learn how to survive and how to function within the prison environment (Clemmer, 1940). Within the prison system, the in mates are not referred to as people but rather as numbers and as property of the state that is responsible for incarceration. In other words, a new identity must be adopted in order to survive (Clemmer, 1940). As the mid career approaches and the incarce rated inmate serves more of his/her sentence, the views toward the prison are different from when the inmate was initially incarcerated. The inmate knows how the prison is run and what is expected of him/her as an inmate. By the end of the incarceration sentence, the inmate knows how to function well within the prison system (Clemmer, 1940; Palermo, 2005). In the development of the prisonization process, Clemmer argues that the longer an inmate is incarcerated, the more developed the role as a prisoner b ecomes (1940). The most prisonized inmates are those who are serving life sentences (Clemmer, 1940). The inmate identity is well formed; however the transition back into society creates a new set of problems for the inmate. How does an inmate live as a free citizen after the extended period of time spent incarcerated? Now the inmate must learn to erase the inmate identity and renew his/her identity as a free citizen.
34 Drawing the parallel to sexual offenders who reside in the community, the first days of registration serve similarly to the first days of incarceration. The registered sexual offender must make the necessary adjustments to being publicly registered and must learn how to function under this new role. Similarly, the sexual offender is not seen as a person but only as a registered sexual offender someone who is potentially dangerous to society and who may recidivate very easily. By mid career as a registered sexual offender, the registrant knows what to expect from the community and has developed an identity a s a registered sexual offender. T o function in society, the sex offender knows how to behave, knows who to avoid and to remain as inconspicuous and he/she can to avoid the public stigmatization involved with the registration status. anticipates how to adapt to a life where registration is not a requirement. After years of being publicly identified as a sexual offender, how does the registrant learn to alter her identify as a sexual offender and see herself as a free citizen? The time dimensionality element of the research ultimately serves as an attempt to predict the three theories that are next presented. As time spent on the registry increases, the behaviors, attitudes and feelings associated with Reintegrative Shame, Strain and Defiance Theories should also increase The theories in turn will be used to explain the reactions of the registrants that occur at given times during their registratio n requirement. Duration spent on the sex offender registry was used as the independent variable because of the likelihood that certain events and behaviors increase, the longer that an individual remained on the registry. A more detailed explanation of t he independent variable is given in the methodology portion of the paper, but it i s
35 necessary to explain its use briefly to better explain the theories used. The theories therefore become the dependent variables serving as an explanation for the variation in registrant behaviors. There is also the question whether sex offenders feel a certain way at a certain point during their registration. In other words, is there a peak time during the registration process where negative feelings about the registry ar e at their highest? To find out where this peak time may occur, a time ratio is calculated by dividing the time spent on the registry by the amount of time required to register. Again, the process behind the time ratio will be further explained in the me th odology portion of the paper. Because a parallel can be drawn from the prisonization process that incarcerated inmates face to the similar process that registered sex offenders go though, the time requirements make for a good independent variable for th is study. Since there are essentially three stages to both a prison and registration career early career, mid career and later career the present study will be able to show how the viewpoints of the offenders and the events and behaviors they encounte r will fluctuate depending on which stage of the registration career an individual is currently in. The three theories to be used w ill next be explained in detail. They serve as ways to explore that may result from the time ratio. Reintegrative Shaming Theory In 1989, John Braithwaite proposed a theory that expounded on the tenants of labeling theory to include the stigmatizing effect that labels have on the offender that is labeled, leading to continued devian labeling theory centers on the question s: when does the applied label lead to further deviance and when does the application lead to deterring crime (Kubrin et al., 2009; Braithwaite, 1989). These ques tions lead to the formation of what is now known as
36 where the social disapproval is felt by the offender. This disapproval has condemnation by others who become awa Akers and Sellers, 2009, Kubrin et al., 2009). To separate this from the stigmatization Braithwaite argues that disintegrative shaming is somewhat counter productive Humiliation and villianizing the offender (not the offense), and allowing the offender status to take over as the master status are all examples of how disintegrative shaming is used by the community (Braithwaite 1989; Makkai & Braithwaite, 1994; Akers & Sellers, 2009). Disintegrative shaming is thought to backfire and increase the likelih ood for future deviance rather than act to minimize future deviance (Braithwaite, 1989; Akers & Sellers, 2009; Kubrin et al., 2009). Beyond the deviant behavior, another point proposed by Braithwaite is the idea that eventually the stigma involved with shaming will not work on the person being shamed. Eventually, shaming will stop working and instead deviance will continue (Kubrin et. al., 2009). In contrast, reintegrative shaming serves to reincorporate the offender back into society and forgive the offenses committed. Compared with disintegrative shaming, reintegrative focuses more on the offense rather than the offender (Akers & Sellers, 2009; Braithwaite, 1989; Kubrin et. al., 2009). The main focus of reintegrative shaming involves the collective approval of the community in forgiving or absolving the offender of the crime. The guilt associated with reintegrated shaming is used as a method to get
37 the offender to seek out the forgiveness of the victim. Through social gestures, a public act or a pr ivate meeting, the offender and victim reconcile and the offender is given the opportunity to escape the deviant role (Braithwaite, 1989; Kubrin et. al., 2009). For the purposes of this study, elements of reintegrative shaming theory were used to account for the experiences of female sex offenders who are required to register on the Florida Sex Offender Registry based on the sexual offense they committed. Items derived from reintegrative shaming theory will be used as a dependent variable to support the v ariations in behavior The public element of the registry creates a second punishment one separate from the incarceration period or sentence imposed by the courts. As the theory states, the sex offender registry makes the shame public and treats the of label their master status and not allowing them to be anything else but sexual offenders. An additional component to the shaming research in this project will extend to shame associated with the crime itse lf. Does committing a sexual offense result in a certain level of shame in the sex offender? Reintegrative shaming theory will be used to distinguish the shame involved with public registration from the offense itself and will serve as a tool to show how publicly stigmatizing the registry really is. Defiance Theory The issue of punishing offenders has long been debated among legal scholars. What level of punishment is enough to stop an offender from recidivating? What level of punishment is considered too much punishment for a given crime? Lawrence will increase after uments in developing the theory center around the recently increasing crime rates and the idea
38 from a sense of injustice associated with the given punishment and as a result, the individual increases his or her level of criminal activity (Freeman, Liossis, and David, prevalence, incidence or seriousness of future offending against a sanctioning community caused by a p roud, shameless reaction to the administration of a criminal the increased likelihood of further criminal behavior occur as a result of the offender being proud of the original crime co mmitted and feels that the punishment was unjust. However, the perceived injustice of the punishing sanction is just one element that Sherman proposes to be at work. Much like deterrence theory, Sherman delineates the differences between specific/indivi dual defiance and general defiance. Specific or individual defiance is the defiant action or actions that an individual person takes part in, in response to his or her own punishment (Sherman, 1993; Sherman, 2006). However, general defiance speaks of the collective group response to the punishment given to an individual within the group or to the entire group (Sherman, 1993; Sherman, 2006). So, an individual can react to his or her own punishment but there can also be a collective response to punishments. Sherman also makes the distinction between direct and indirect defiance. defiance a crime committed not against the sanctioning agent but against someone or something t hat represents the sanctioning agent (Sherman, 1993; Sherman 2006).
39 Al together, there are four elements that must be present for an individual to be defiant and increase his/her criminal activity as a result of the received sanction. The punishment was unwarranted given the crime that was committed (Sherman, 2006). Previous research has shown that when punishment is perceived to be fair enough punishment given to a crime, but not too much to make it seem like an undeserved amount then obedience to the law and that punishment is maintained (Freeman, Liossis, and David, 2006; Homel, 1988; Sherman, 1993). But if the punishment is deemed too excessive for the offense, then that obedience to the law is less likely to occur (Freeman, Liossis, and David, 2006; Homel, 1988; Sherman, 1993). The second ng that the offender does not feel united with the community because of the sanctioning agent s role in punishing the offender and therefore alienating him or her from his surroundings (Scheff and Retzinger, 1991; Sherman, 2006). This element is an extens ion of the social bonds that are explained in (Sherman, 1993). rejecting a person, not a lawbreaki by the offense that he or she committed that he or she as a person is being demonized, not the act that was committed (Sherman, 2006). The fourth and final element necessary for defiance to occur is,
40 the offender denies the shame associated with the offense and instead feels a sense of pride for what has occurred (Sherman, 1993; Sherma n 2006). This element is an extension of the shaming principles that Braithwaite explains in Reintegrative Shaming theory (Braithwaite, 1989; Sherman 1993, Sherman 2006). In the reintegrative shaming approach, practitioners try to shame the act committed and try to bring the offender back into the community (Braithwaite, 1989; Freeman, Liossis, and David, 2006). However, sometimes the offender refuses to acknowledge the shame involved with the offense something that is critical to the Braithwaite propo sed shaming plans (Freeman, Liossis, and David, 2006). In order for defiant behaviors to occur, Sherman argues that all four of these elements must be in place (Sherman, 2006). For the purposes of this study, elements of defiance theory were used to acc ount for the experiences of female sex offenders who are required to register on the Florida Sex Offender Registry based on the sexual offense they committed. Items derived from defiance theory were used as a dependent variable to support the variations i n behavior. Just like with Reintegrative Shaming Theory, the variables derived from Defiance Theory were used as a dependent variable to support variations in the behavior caused by the time ratio variable. Defiance theory will be used to explain experie nces with the Florida registry: Is it deemed unfair by those who are registered? Is it a device that alienates those who register? Does it label the sexual offenders as deviant? Is it unfair punishment? In addition, the study will determine whether the w omen feel shame for their offenses. Since the conviction, do the women feel alienated from their communities, families and friends? Because of their registry status, will people see them as anything other than a sex offender? Do the women feel ashamed
41 o f their sex offenses and of their registry status? Defiance theory directs our attention to the potential for defiant attitudes involved with public registration and with the offense itself and will serve as a tool to show how b ackfiring the registry real ly can be General Strain Theory Traditional anomie theories took a macro level approach to explaining crime. This approach was able to explain crime rates on a large group level; using anomie to explain the variation in criminal activities among neighb orhoods, communities and countries. In traditional or classic strain theory, people commit crime as a result of stress or strain that is placed upon them (Kubrin et al., 2009). These strains can come from a variety of sources economic deprivation or un stable family relationships are two examples. Most strains come from an inability to achieve legitimate goals through anomie/strain theory instead proposed a new micro l evel version of strain theory that could explain variations across individuals (Agnew, 1985; A kers & Sellers, 2009; Kubrin et al., 2009). His revisions stated that strain was a result of more than just economic deprivations (Agnew, 1985; Cul len and Wright 1997; Kubrin et al., 2009). However, Agnew does state that monetary success and middle class status may not be as important to adolescents as previously assumed (Agnew, 1985). Instead, those goals do not become important until the adolescent is older. So by this argument, there must be other sources of strain that cause juveniles to engage in criminal behavior at a young age. elements. The first, Failure to Achieve Positively Valued Goals refers in general to the stresses and strains that ultimately lead to criminal behavior. Specifically, this element
42 is broken down into three subtypes. The first subtype of failure proposes the tradition al 1985; Akers and Sellers, 2009: 199). This includes the inability to achieve an economic goal such as a high paying career, the inability to pay off debts or to purchase high status items. However, Agnew argues that this element can extend to noneconomic strains as well (Kubrin et. al., 2009). The second type of failure rests with the disjuncture between expectations and actual achievements (Agnew, 1985; Akers & Sellers, 2009). The third subtype comes from an and the actual outcome. If something is perceived as unjust but reality differs from that perception, then criminal activity becomes more likely (Agnew, 1985; Akers & Sellers, 2009). The second element proposed in General Strain Theory, Removal of Positively resulting in strain (Agnew, 1985; Akers & Sellers, 2009; Kubrin et al., 2009). This could include the end of a romantic r elationship, a death in the family, or school suspension (Akers & Sellers, 2009). The third and final element, Confrontation with Negative Stimuli, refers to experiencing negative actions that cause strain (Agnew, 1985; Akers & Sellers, 2009, Kubrin et al ., 2009). Negative stimuli could include threatening or harassing behaviors, physical or emotional abuse, and victimization (Agnew, 1985; Akers & Sellers, 2009; Kubrin et al., 2009). In experiencing strain as a result of any or all three elements propose d by Agnew, an individual may choose criminal behavior as an outlet in dealing with the strain. When an individual cannot escape the strain, anger
43 response to those events (Kubrin et al., 2009). Criminal behavior becomes more likely when individual s becomes angry over the strain placed on them (Akers & Sellers, 2009). This anger is most often directed at the societal and legal systems but is not directed at oneself (Akers & Sellers, 2009; Bernard, 1990). When individual s encounter strains in life, there are various ways that they can handle the strain. One way would be through healthy, productive coping mechanisms such as therapy, or support groups. The alternat ive would result in the individual s commit ting criminal or delinquent acts as a coping mechanism to deal with the strain (Agnew, 1985; 2001a; 2001b; 2006; Akers & Sellers, 2009). The anger, depression, guilt and frustration that is associated with strain results in an inability to cope with the situation s they are involved in (Agnew, 2006a; 2006b; Akers & Sellers, 2009). Research testing the elements of general strain theory concludes that delinquent acts serve as a coping mechanism to deal with strain (B rezina, 1996; Kubrin et al., 2009; Simons, Chen, Steward & Brody, 2003). Delinquent or criminal acts acting as a coping mechanism can result in many types of crime, including property or personal crime and violent crime. For the purposes of this project, elements of were used an explanatory variable in accounting for the connection between the Florida Sex Offender Registry and the strains that registration causes on the offender. Just like the other two theories, variables d erived from Strain Theory were used as a dependent variable to ratio. The law in its original form, states the sex offenders have to mandatorily register based on the offense c ommitted. However, the law does not provide any remedy to the
44 sex offenders who experience strains as a result of the mandatory registration. Such strains would include job loss and loss of residence both of which would be examples of removal of positi vely removed stimuli. Physical and emotional abuse, threatening letter or phone calls and public ridicule also serve as additional strains placed on the sex offenders these serve as examples of confrontation with negative stimuli. In general, mandatory registration may cause additional economic strains due to the job loss. There may be economic strains associated with restitution or with court fees that will direct att ention to how the sex offender registry might cause stress and strain to the registered sex offenders. It sensitizes us to difficulties faced by a registered sex offender. From the previous studies, variables were drawn out to used as dependent variables In the methodology portion of the paper, the logistics of the variables are explained, however elements from the theories were used to explain the variation in the ct the theories, this study used elements from the theory to predict the behavior based on the time dimensionality aspect of the registry requirement. This is somewhat of a backward usage of the theories compared to traditional theory testing, however it is important to use them in this manner because time spent on the registry serves as the predictive variable for project. It is important for this project to use all three of previously mentioned theories. Individually, each theory may be adequate to explain the variations in the behaviors, however for the amount of variation present in sexual offending, it would not do this
45 project justice to only use one of the three theories. In the original Tewksbury study, the survey instrument only briefly touched on some of the theoretical elements. Elements of reintegrative shaming theory, general strain and defiance theories are int erwoven so theoretically it is logical to include all three theories. For example, one element of general strain theory addresses anger and the coping mechanisms used to deal with that anger. Since the instrument addresses this anger element, defiance th eory must also be addressed since the four elements of defiance theory use emotions such as anger to justify why individual feel that a sanction may be unjust. The emotional element involved with sex offender registration makes it necessary to use as much theoretical explanation as possible. What people are feeling and experiencing as a result of their registration status cannot be contained to only one portion of their lives. This status carries over into all avenues of life personal relationships, wo rk environments, living situations and even how the registrants interact with the general public. Since their lives are now so broadly influenced by the registration status, there are multiple theoretical rationales for how these individuals are feeling. Therefore, because the three theories are so interwoven, it is necessary to use all three to support the variation in offending behaviors and participant responses.
46 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Research Hypotheses Based on the literature and previous research specifically the 2004 Tewksbury study four research hypotheses were developed. All four hypotheses were developed keeping the amount of time spent on the registry in mind as an independent variable. This was the independent variable that was used in the Tewksbury study. However, this independent variable was varied slightly from the one used in the Tewksbury study. The first hypothesis will address the associations between the hardships and adversity experienced and the requirement to regis ter on the list. The second hypothesis will to register on the Florida Sex Offender Registry. The third hypothesis will address the association between the stresses and mandatory registration requirement. The fourth hypothesis will address association between the level of defiance that the participants feel based on the four elements proposed in defiance theory and the re quirement to register. It must be noted that these hypotheses address an association rather than a direct relationship between variables based on the theoretical ideas presented in the literature review. The project is not using the three theories (shame strain and defiance theories) to predict the behaviors experienced by the female sex offenders. Instead it is using the theories to identify, Because of this move away from t raditional theory testing, the hypotheses can only at best e xamine an association between the behaviors and the theories especially since the research is cross sectional in design
47 Harassing Behaviors and Negative Experiences (1) How many harassing beha viors and how much adversity will the participants experience in proportion to their time spent on the Florida Sex Offender Registry? Hypothesis 1 : Experiencing adversity and harassing behaviors as a result of mandatory registration on the Florida Sex Off ender Registry will increase as the duration of registration increases. Independent Variable : Time Ratio ; Dependent Variable : Number of time the participant experienced the harassing behaviors and negative experiences Reintegrative Shame Theory (2) What l evel of shame with participants feel in relation to the amount of time spent on the Florida Sex Offender Registry? Hypothesis 2 : Shame associated with mandatory registration on the Florida Sex Offender Registry will increase as the duration of registratio n increases. Independent Variable : Time Ratio ; Dependent Variable : Amount of shame experienced by the participant General Strain Theory (3) What levels of strain and stress will participants feel in relation to the amount of time spent on the Florida Sex Offender Registry? Hypothesis 3 : Stress and strain associated with mandatory registration on the Florida Sex Offender Registry will increase as the duration of registration increases. Independent Variable : Time Ratio; Dependent Variable : Amount of strain experienced by the participant Defiance Theory (4) What level of defiance will participants feel in relation to the amount of time spent on the Florida Sex Offender Registry? Hypothesis 4: Defiant attitudes will increase as the duration of mandator y registration on the Florida Sex Offender Registry also increases. Independent Variable : Time Ratio; Dependent Variable : Amount of defiance felt by the participant
48 The shaming questions will look separately at the shame felt for being required to register and at the shame felt as a result of committing the sexual offense in question. Other shaming questions will look at feelings of ostracism/exile from the community and recognition from members of the community. The stress and strain questions will look at behaviors experienced as a result of being required. In other words, because the females are forced to register, they have experienced behaviors that they might not have encountered if they did not have to register. These behaviors make it difficult f or the registered offender to live life in a normal manner. The questions asking about hardships and harassments will look at things that the female offenders may have encountered in life since the start of their mandatory registration. Questions will in clude job loss, denial of promotion, housing loss, rude treatment, public harassment, harassing phone calls and harassing letters, mail and notes. Research Design The purpose of this study is to examine how female sex offenders view the mandatory registration that comes with a conviction of a sexual offense. As stated earlier, this stu dy is meant to be an extension of the 2004 study tested by Richard Tewksbury. That study used self report responses from 40 female offenders in Kentucky and Indiana (out of a possible 227). F emale offenders will again be used as the sample, but participants will come from the listing of female sex offenders in the state of Florida. As Tewksbury states in the article published about this study, little research has b een conducted on female sex offenders and that achieving a large sample is difficult because so little of the total registered offenders are female (Tewksbury, 2004; Peluso & Putnam, 1996; Rosencrans, 1997). The goal of this study is to try to at least re
49 surveys submitted through the mail do not generally have high response rates. Research has suggested that surveys administered th rough the mail have between a 9% and a 20% response rate (Collwel l, L.H., Miller, H.A., Miller, R.S & Lyons, Jr., P.M, 2006). However, if a follow up letter is sent out after the survey is mailed, the survey response rate increases to between 20 and 40% (Wyatt Nichol & Franks, 2009). In the current research, a follow up letter was sent out roughly one week after the survey was sent to the female offenders. Based on the registration list that was provided by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the contact information of 983 female offenders was made available. After removing all of the females who lived out of state, who were currently incarcer ated, who had absco nded, were deported and who had been civilly committed as a result of their sex offender status, an eligible group of 569 women were left for particip ation. Within the group of 569, groups of offenders w ere created to keep track of the surveys. The survey was sent out in five waves to groups of offenders four groups consisted of 114 randomly selected female sex offenders, but the fifth wave consists of 113 females. The waves were labeled A E. Beginning at the start of the compiled sex offender list the first offender selected was assigned to group A. The next offender selected was number 10. The selection process continued this way with every 1 0 th offender selected until 114 females have been assigned to the first wave. After wave A was completed, the process continued, only the offenders were assigned to wave B. This process continued until every offender had been selected and assigned to one of the waves. Then based on the order they were s elected, each offender was assigned a personal identification number. These numbers ranged from 1 114 for waves A D and
50 1 113 for wave E. For example, the identification numbers would be assigned as A61 or C37. These offenders all had a current Florida address and were registered under the Florida Sex Offender Registry, regardless of whether the offense took place in the state. The eligible offenders were then sent a handwritten envelope addressed to th em. The envelope contained a survey with a handwritten participant code written in red in the top right hand corner, an initial letter inviting the woman to participate that was personally signed and a copy of the informed consent. After two weeks a seco nd, handwritten addressed envelope was sent to the women, which contained a hand signed invitation to participate in the survey. There were 106 surveys returned out of the 569 surveys sent out, giving the study a response rate of 18.62% Research Samp le Participants chosen for this study came from the Florida Sex Offender Registration lists. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement provided the current list of female sex offenders who are currently living in the state, who at one time lived in the st ate, those who are currently incarcerated, who have absconded, and who have been deported. All of the participants on the Registry were eligible to participate in the study, provided that there was a current Florida address, so therefore the participants ranged across the various offenses committed no one particular offense is being analyzed. There were some offenders that were only required to register 15 years (Tier I offenders), 25 years (Tier II offenders) and some that were required to register fo r life (Tier III offenders), according to the national guidelines established in the Adam Walsh Act of 2006 (Baron Evans & Noonan, 2006; NCSL, 2008). However, depending on the time and the state in which the offense was committed, registration time requir ements varied.
51 The sample may be questioned for generalizability issues to see if the sample collected really can represent all of the offenders that were eligible for the survey. T able 3 1 shows the housing information that was collected at the start o f the project. This information shows that non participants are living similar lives as the participants in terms of housing costs, socio economic status and homeowner status. There are only slight differences found between the two groups. The results f or those who participated in the project will be explained in the results section of the paper. For the non participating registrants the data shows the average price of housing is $116,762 which is lower than those registrants who chose to participate. This average also places them between the $100,001 $150,000 price range and identifies them somewhere between the first and second classes (there are four total). For the non participants, their average socio economic status places them closer to the first class than to the second class (1.56 1=Class One, 2=Class Two ). Like the participating registrants, the non participating registrants are not likely to own the homes that they are living in (0.093 0=Not a homeowner, 1=Homeowner ) but rather, owners hip belongs to someone outside of the family or to someone who does not share the same last name as the non registered participant. Table 3 1 Housing Information for Non Participants. (n = 73) Mean Minimum Maximum Coding Structure Cost of Housing Price Range for Housing Socio Economic Status Level Home Ownership $116,762 2.84 1.56 0.093 $12,000 $0 $0 0 $294,000 $300,000 $400,000 1 1 = Class One 3 = Class Three 0 = No 1 = Yes Coding for the average price range: 1 ($0 $50,000) to 13 ($600,001 $650,000 Coding for the socio economic status: 1 ($0 $100,000) to 4 ($400,001 $650,000)
52 Survey Design The survey sent to all registered female sex offenders extends the Tewksbury survey used in the 2004 study on registered females in Kentucky and Indiana. Although it is a replication study, I have increased and expanded the instrument to widen the range of issues covered The survey ( Appendix A ) has been adapted to fit the Florida offenders and to fit the new registration guidelines of the Adam Walsh Act of 2006. All experiences while required to register. There are no questions asked specifically about the act committed but there will be questions asked abo ut the demographics of the victim (if there was a direct, physical victim). Questions also address if there was a co perpetrator; meaning was there someone else who helped these women commit their sexual offenses? If there was a co perpetrator, who was i t that help ed commit the offense? What were the co perpetrators demographics? There are questions asked recognition by the public and amount of contact with law enforcement Questions also ask about the shame associated with being required to register, their perceptions of the sex offender registry itself and how they are treated in society as known sex offenders. There are questions asked about the harassing behaviors and hardships associated with being on the registry, such as loss of job, loss of living space, public harassment, assault and attack, and harassing behaviors through phone calls, mail and notes. There are also questions concerning levels of defiance felt as a result of outside treatment of the participants as sex offenders. Finally, demographic questions are asked about the sex offenders themselves questions about age, race, marital status,
53 how many children the offenders have and whether or not these wom en have custody of their children. As stated earlier, study participants were mailed the survey instrument with sections replicated from the Tewksbury study and sections created specifically for the Florida female offenders. A four page survey, an inf ormed consent and a postage paid return envelope were sent in a survey packet to all female offenders listed on the Florida Sex Offender Registration list ( Appendix A ). Not all of the females on the compiled Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) se x offender list still live in Florida or even in the community. All of the participants are eligible to receive these survey packets, provided that they are living in Florida residences and are no longer incarcerated. However, even though there are addre sses listed on the registry, there may be problems with response rates and mailing the surveys to the correct addresses. Despite the fact that the law requires registered sex offenders to continuously update their address information, it does mean that al l of the sex offenders are currently living at the address provided. Fifty nine letters returned to sender meaning that only 10.3% of the sample did not have a proper address listed In addition to the mail out surveys, a second set of data was collected but was initiated by those participants who chose to make contact with me after the surveys were mailed out. Participants chose to call, email or write letters to me explaining their situations and the circumstances surrounding their convictions. I was n ot anticipating direct communication with the participants, but for those who chose to call I wrote notes during the phone calls and later transcribed the conversations. Email correspondence between myself and any participants was included verbatim into t he compilation of
54 qualitative data. The same goes for any letters or notes that participants included within their returned surveys. Protection of Human Subjects Boa rd (Proto col # U 520 2010) ( Appendix F ). Within the mail out survey, an informed consent form was included and participants were instructed to read before participating, but were not instructed to r eturn the informed consent ( Appendix F ). Also included in the surv ey packet was an initial letter that invited the participants to take part in the surv ey that was mailed to them ( Appendix F ). The informed consent summarized that participation in the study was completely voluntary and that nothing would happen to them i f they chose not to participant. Also, it was expressed that nothing could be gained from participating. Participants were told that they could choose not to answer specific questions and that they were allowed to stop taking the survey before they finis hed if so desired. All answers would remain confidential to the extent provided by law, and that law enforcement and court officials would have no knowledge of the ide ntity would be destroyed therefore eliminating any possible link between the answers provided and a specific participant. Participants were told of the minor risk involved in the study concerning those who were currently on probation when the study was conducted. This risk involved the who were currently on probation were asked not to participate. As stated earlier, the identity of all participants would be destr oyed so there would be no way to identify those who were currently on probation at the time. By completing the survey and returning it
55 in the pre paid envelope, participants provided their informed consent for research participation. Official Records Ev en though the Florida Department of Law Enforcement provided the sexual offenses that are listed on the sex offender registry, it was necessary to find the official records for all of the participants. Therefore, official records were found for the 106 participants who returned surveys. One hundred four sexual offenders who did not return surveys were randomly chosen to be a compariso n group. These official records have all of the offenses for which a conviction was made or for which a citation was issued, meaning that this includes traffic violations as well. The purpose of obtaining the official records was to compare participants against non participants to see how similar the two groups are in the sexual offenses committed. Are the participating sexual offenders more likely to respond to the survey because they have committed less serious offenses? Are the non participants not r eturning surveys because they feel their offenses are to o severe to be researched ? What are the differences between the participants and the non participants? The official records were coded into categories of offenses ranging from sexual offenses to tra ffic offenses. In total there are twelve categories of offenses the twelfth other eleven categories is featured within the other category. These offenses include obstruction of justice, resisting arrest, becoming a fugitive from justice and fleeing from the police. There were 68 criminal histories found for the non participating registered sex offenders and 98 of the 106 participant criminal histories were also f ound. A full coding list is included in the appendix of the paper.
56 Operationalization The study proposal attempts to examine several relationships, which will be explained through the statistical models that will be explained in detail later. The following will explain how the measures will be operationalized. Dependent Variables The fo llowing measures will be used as quantitative dependent variables in this study. Societal ramifications measures represent the Societal Ramifications that are a result of the publ ic knowing about the sex offender status of the participants. The behavior ramifications were imes r receive way to more than four times. These measures were taken from the Tewksbury study conducted in 2004. In the replication aspect of the study, these measures were asked as one of th e several dependent variable s These items examine what harassing
57 behaviors that sexual offenders may be encountering due to their publicly known statuses as sexual offe nders. These ramifications are a secondary result of the registration status. Because they were not intended consequences of the sexual offender registration laws, it is essential to determine how often registered sex offenders are experiencing harassing experiences of female sexual offenders. Therefore, I will explore whether these ramifications can be scaled or indexed to best analyze the data. Perception of s hame shame was operationalized by asking the following (question #30, original to the stud on #32, original to the study). All four questions were organized in the same way. They were measured on a scale from 1 These items measuring shame among the female sex offenders will serve as another set of dependent variable s to be tested against the independent variable of length of time spent of the registry. Shame is a salient variable for this study because there is a good chance that a participant may face ridicule from society due to the stigma associated with sex offenses. The duality of the shaming variable shame for the offense and shame for the registration allows for the offender s to express their feelings for the registry and for the offense separately. This duality is important since
58 many of the participants express that they were not responsible for the sexual offense that they were convicted of. Perceptions of stress and s train ress are operationalized through the stress, do you use any illegal substances mor 55, original to the study). All of these questions are measured through YES and NO answers. The aspect of the dependent variable s will address stress and strain associated with registration in relation to the amount of time spent on the sex offender regi stry. This aspect of the study was not included in the 2004 Tewksbury study, but the questions asked have been developed from the tena nts register, a certain amount of stra in may result. The registry is made available to the public which implies that at any time there could be an attack or retaliation against the sexual offender. Even if there are no retaliations, simply the knowledge that the entirety of the community kno w s your status as a sexual offender can place a large amount of strain on an individual. This strain will be tested asking about coping mechanisms and stress in daily life as described in the previously listed questions. The coping
59 mechanisms are importa nt to research because some of them are illegal behaviors and some of them may be violent in nature. It is essential that these behaviors be researched so we have a better understanding about what avenues sex offenders turn to when they experience these s trains. Defiance t heory The four elements of defiance theory were operationalized through the following (Sherman, 2006) is operationalized through three questions: 1) at the Florida Tewksbury, 2004). These three questions were measured on a scale from 1 10, with 1 being unfairly punished because of the sex offense committed. sanctionin that since I have registered on the Florida Sex Offender Registry, I have longer feel a part of my community because I am required to register as a sexual ion #27, original to the study). These three questions were measured
60 on a scale from 1 answered, the more isolated and al ienated the participant feels from her community. on the Florida Sex Offender Registry, I will never members do not treat me fairly once they find out that I am required to register as a measured on a scale fro m 1 answered, the more the participant feels in agreement with the idea that she as a person is being stigmatized as a sex offender not that the sex offender itself is being demonized. operationalized through two questi were measured on a scale from 1
61 answered, the less accepting the participant is of the shame that was experienced as a result of the sexual offense committ ed. To measure defiance theory, all four elements must be examined independently because the theory states that all four elements must be present in order for the participant to feel truly defiant. The individual elements are also important to analyze be cause even though there may not be identification will the complete defiance theory, there may be feelings associated with some of the elements. Feeling that the registration is an unfair sanction, that the registrant is alienated from society and that th e offender (not the offense) is being stigmatized may occur if the sex offender registry has a stigma attached to it and it effectively creates a barrier between the offender and the rest of society. The final element, not acknowledging the shame, might n ot have as much support as the other three since in the prior sections it is predicted that the participants will experience shame. Despite the fact that shame may not have support in the defiance theory variables, the separate elements are still importan t to look at for this study. I ndependent v ariable : duration spent on the sex offender r egistry The following measure will be used as a quantitative independent variable in the present study. Duration of time spent on the sex offender registry will be operationalized through #2, Tewksbury, 2004, adapted to the current study). The first ques tion is measured in measured through three answers fifteen years, twenty five years or lifetime registration. These answers were taken from the national registry req uirements enacted
62 under the 2006 Adam Walsh Act (NCSL, 2008). However, as responses were given for this question it was discovered that the participants were required to register for various amounts of time. Some participants were sentenced outside the s tate of Florida, where was measured as an open ended response, but still keeps the fifteen, twenty five years or lifetime requireme nts as response options. The independent variable use d is explained in the results section, however the two questions described above will be combined to create a time ratio variable that will be used to examine if there is a peak time when the behaviors are experienced most often. Because of this relationship, the longer a sex offender has been registered it is hypothesized that the amount of harassment and ridicule experienced should increase accordingly. Levels of shame and levels of stress and strain are also hypothesized to increase as the amount of time on the registry also increases. The reasons behind using the time requirement as the independent variable were discussed in the literature review of the paper. Again the time requirement is used to predict the behaviors of the registrants that are associated with Reintegrative Shame, Strain and Defiance Theory. The time requirement is not trying to predict the theories themselves, just the behaviors of the participants. The theories in turn are use d to identify the behaviors that should be relevant Demographic and Control V ariables Questions were asked about the demographic characteristics of the participants. These demographic variables serve d as the control variables. Age, race, marital status and number of children were included in the analysis. Age was measured a continuous variable and the information was obtained from the survey The races of the
63 participants were provided as public record by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and were coded as (0) black and (1) white. There is no information provided about ethnicity. Marital status was measured in the survey but living wi th a partner, (4) dating, (5) divorced, (6) widow. Initially the crime that was used for registration was going to be used as a control, but there was no way to determine which crimes the registrant was initially convicted of. Many of the registrants had multiple offenses. It would be possible to categorize these offenses but even if that was done the issue of the tier system comes into play. Based on the information provided by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the official records that were researched on each participant, it is impossible to place each participant within the proper tier. Therefore, the offender status (offender or predator) could be used as a control variable. Offender was coded as (1) and predator was coded as (0). Qualit ative Variables This study began solely as a quantitative study using a mail out survey to collect data from the female sex offender registered in the state of Florida. However, besides the surveys, I received a useful amount of qualitative data that the sex offenders voluntarily provided. Therefore, since I was not anticipating the collection of qualitative data, my study has taken on a new avenue to explore. Not much has been done with qualitative data collection with female sexual offenders. Therefo re, the study has taken on an exploratory element. There was no set method to how the qualitative data were collected, however themes were developed after the data were collected. Because I did not set out to collect qualitative data, I have looked for t hemes in the data that can be
64 tied into the theoretical constructs developed in the quantitative survey. For example, are there any harassing behaviors that the participant reports? Does the participant engage in substance abuse as a coping mechanism in dealing with strain? Does the participant feel that the required registration is too harsh a punishment after their initial sentence? Qualitative data have been collected through participant emails, phone calls and letters/notes that were included in the returned surveys. A total of 38 independent qualitative data pieces that can be used for analysis. These items provide a more in depth perspective about the issues researched in the survey, specifically perceptions of the registry, personal experiences and harassing behaviors. As the women would call or email me, I would let them speak and only ask questions to keep the conversation moving. The information is stored without identifiers. T here is no set structure to the conversations, nor do the women answer questions I designed for them to answer. A content analysis was conducted to analyze these participant conversations. Two research assistants and I went through the qualitative passages separately to look for the themes that were common throughout th e passages. Based on the three person examination the following themes were developed to find commonalities in the data Following each quantitative model a subsequent qualitative discussion is offered to keep the data organized. Direct quotations w ere used to illustrate the themes that the women volunteered. Table 3 2 shows the questions and themes that were developed. Data Analysis Plan The research conducted for this study has both quantitative and qualitative elements. The quantitative element use s the mail out survey responses for data purposes. The qualitative element use s phone calls and emails from the female sex
65 Table 3 2. Common Themes Developed From Qualitative Data 1. What is the registry listed offense? See offense coding sheet in Appendix B 2. Does the participant describe the offense committed? (0) NO (1) YES 3. Are the words (0) NO (1) YES 4. Is there mention of a co perpetrator? (0) NO (1) YES 5. Is there mention of a custody battle? (0) NO (1) YES 6. Is there mention of a divorce? (0) NO (1) YES 7. Is there mention of abuse history against the participant (participant is a victim)? (0) NO (1) YES 8. Is there mention of the sexual activity being consensual with the victim? (0) NO (1) YES 9. Is there mention of a student/teacher relationship? (0) NO (1) YES (0) NO (1) YES (0) NO (1) YES 12. Does the participant mention her own children? (0) NO (1) YES 13. Does the participant have custody of her children? (0) NO (1) YES 14. Does the participant mention anything about their views of the registry? (0) NO (1) YES 15. Does the participant agree with the registry? (0) NO (1) YES 16. Does the participant adamantly oppose the registry? (0) NO (1) YES 17. Does the participant offer suggestions for modifying the registry? (0) NO (1) YES (0) NO (1) YES 19. Does the participant mention if her employer knows about her sex offender status? (0) NO (1) YES 20. Is there mention of employment? (0) NO (1) YES 21. Is there mention of mandatory group therapy sessions? (0) NO (1) YES
66 Table 3 2. Continued 22. Does the participant know any other sex offenders? (0) NO (1) YES 23. Does the participant mention Halloween at all? (0) NO (1) YES 24. Did the offense take place in a state other than Florida? (0) NO (1) YES 25. Does the participant mention having to move repeatedly? (0) NO (1) YES 26. Is the participant in the process or intending to appeal? (0) NO (1) YES 27. Did the participant take a plea bargain? (0) NO (1) YES 28. Does the participant have any prior arrests or conviction? (0) NO (1) YES 29. Is there a differentiation made between a high and low risk offender? (0) NO (1) YES 30. Is there presence of a psychiatric illness in the woman? (0) NO (1) YES 31. Has media attention interfered with her life? (0) NO (1) YES 32. Does the participant mention engaging in illegal drug use? (0) NO (1) YES 33. Does the participant feel the registration requirement is too severe? (0) NO (1) YES 34. Does the participant feel ashamed of being on the registry? (0) NO (1) YES 35. Does the participant mention that she tries to hide her sex offender status from people? (0) NO (1) YES 36. Does the participant mention trying to hurt herself? (0) NO (1) YES 37. Does the participant mention any alienation from family members o r friends? (0) NO (1) YES offenders. Descriptive statistics are also performed to analyze the female sex regression, since I only have one independent variable, as identified in the hypotheses duration of time spent on the registry. T he demographic variables of age, race, marital status and number of children are used as the controlling variables in the OLS regression. There are multiple dependent variables within the study, so four models
67 have been developed in order to test each dep endent variable against the independent variable. The first model (T able 3 3) tests the relationship between the registration time requirements against the Societal Ramifications that result from the participants known status as a sexual offender. The am ount of time spent on the registry is used to predict variations in the Societal Ramifications that the participants face (ten items, loss of a job, denial of promotion, loss/denial of a place to live, harassment in public, assault or attack and harassing behaviors through the use of telephone calls, mail, flyers and notes). The items are scaled or indexed The model is listed at the end of C hapter 3 The second model (T able 3 4) will be used to predict the relationship between the required registration t ime and the amount of shame felt by participants. The questions encompass feeling shame for being on the registry and for committing the offense. These questions are scaled Also included are fears about being recognized as a sexual offender in public p laces. The model is listed at the end of Chapter 3 The third model (T able 3 5) uses the required time for registration to predict the determine if there is strain i mechanisms that an individual may use to deal with the strain such as drug use, alcohol use and violent actions. The items were scaled, so OLS regression will be used. The model is listed at the end of C hapter 3 The fourth and final model (T able 3 6) uses the registration time requirement to predict defiant behaviors and attitudes. Using defiance theory as the theoretical basis, four types of questions were asked: perceived unfair sanctions, poor bonds or alienation
68 refusal to acknowledge shame. These items were scaled or indexed. The model is listed at the end of Chapter 3 To analyze the phone calls and emails, a content analysis of 38 data pieces was conducted using information that the women have provided me with. Some of the women chose to email me the stories surrounding their conviction and the events that took place post conviction. These emails were edit ed to make sure all the information provided remained confidential. None of the facts were changed or edited beyond the steps taken to ensure confidentiality of the participants. Their statements were taken verbatim from their emails, again while protect ing for confidentiality. Other women chose to talk to me directly on the phone. For those women, I wrote notes as I went along and directly after the conversation, I wrote up a transcript of the phone conversations. Most everything is written based on t he notes that were taken during the conversations. The quotations came directly from the participant but were included into the transcript by myself.
69 Table 3 3. Model 1: Registration Time Requirement Predicting Societal Ramifications Research Question Independent Variable Dependent Variable Analytic Plan How many harassing behaviors and how much adversity will the participants experience in proportion to their time spent on the Florida Sex Offender Registry? Time spent on the registry: were you placed on the Florida Sex Open Response 15 years 25 years Lifetime Open Response Time will be measured in a ratio of time spent on the registry to time required to register. Societal Ramifications : asked to leave a business or friend because of your registration assaulted or received harassing or threatening received harassing or threatening Response Options: 0 times 1 time 2 times 3 times 4+ times OLS Regression Qualitative Variables Is there mention of harassing behaviors? (0) NO, (1) YES Does the participant mention having to move repeatedly? (0) NO, (1) YES Does the part icipant mention anything about their views of the registry? (0) NO, (1) YES Does the participant agree with the registry? (0) NO, (1) YES Does the participant adamantly oppose the registry? (0) NO, (1) YES Does the participant offer suggestions for modifying the registry? (0) NO, (1) YES
70 Table 3 4. Model 2: Registration Time Requirement Predicting Shame Research Question Independent Variable Dependent Variable Analytic Plan What level of shame will participants feel in relation to the amount of time spent on the Florida Sex Offender Registry? Time spent on the registry: on the Florida Sex Offender Open Response 15 years 25 years Lifetime Open Response Time will be measured in a ratio of time spent on the registry to time required to register. Perceptions of Shame: on the house because I am afraid that someone might recognize me as a because I am afraid of being All four questions were measured on a 1 10 scale. (2) (3) (4) (6) (7) (8) (9) Scale the dependent variables. OLS Regression Qualitative Variables Does the participant feel ashamed of being on the registry? (0) NO, (1) YES Does the participant mention that she tries to hide her sex offender status from people? (0) NO, (1) YES
71 Table 3 5. Model 3: Registration Time Requirement Predicting Strain Research Question Independent Variable Dependent Variable Analytic Plan What level of strain and stress will participants feel in relation to the amount of time spent on the Florida Sex Offender Registry? Time spent on the registry: on the Florida Sex Open Response 15 years 25 years Lifetime Open Response Time will be measured in a ratio of time spent on the registry to time required to register. Perceptions of Strain: Florida Sex Offender Registry has caused unnecessary stress in your feel that you act out in an unhealthy consume alcohol more than you did use any illegal substances more than ever tried to hurt your All six questions were measured using yes/no answers. (0) NO (1) YES OLS Regression Qualitative Variables Does the participant mention engaging in illegal drug use? (0) NO, (1) YES Does the participant mention trying to hurt herself? (0) NO, (1) YES
72 Table 3 6. Model 4: Registration Time Requirement Predicting Defiant Behaviors Research Question Independent Variable Dependent Variable Analytic Plan What level of defiance will participants feel in relation to the amount of time spent on the Florida Sex Offender Registry? Time spent on the registry: placed on the Florida Sex Offende r Open Response required to 15 years 25 years Lifetime Open Response Time will be measured in a ratio of time spent on the registry to time required to register. Defiance Theory: Unfair Sanctions: unfairly character Poor bonds/alienation: Sex Offender Registry, I have been ostracized from Stigmatizing of the offender, no t the offense: Offender Registry, I will never be seen as anything find out that I am required to register as a sexual offende fairly once they find out that I am required to register Refusal to Acknowledge Shame: (1) I feel ashamed that I am on the Florida Sex have committed a sexual All eleven questions were measured on a 1 10 scale. (2) (3) (4) (6) (7) (8) (9) Scale the dependent variables. OLS Regression Qualitative Variables Does the participant mention any alienation from family members or friends? (0) NO, (1) YES Does the participant feel the registration requirement is too severe? (0) NO, (1) YES Does the participant feel ashamed to be on t he registry? (0) NO, (1) YES
73 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The quantitative and qualitative data collected from the mail out survey and from the voluntary ph one calls, letters and notes were analyzed according the data analysis plan described in Chapter 3 The following sections will detail the four proposed analytical models and will discuss the findings derived from the data. Participant Demographics As previously discussed, 106 completed surveys were returned. The following tables illustrate the demographic features of those participants who returned surveys. In T able 4 1 th e participant demographics show that over 95% of the participants are classified as sexual offenders rather than sexual predators. The sample of participants was predominately white (n = 98, 92.5%) and had a minor for a victim (n = 92, 86.8%). The participants also were married (n = 36, 34.0%), we r e unmarried but living with a partner (n = 19, 17.9%) or were divorced (n = 22, 20.8%). Also, t he m ajority of the participants had children (n = 89, 84.0%) and were between the ages of 31 40 (n = 31, 29.3%) and 41 50 (n = 38, 35.8%). For the accomplice i nformation, 58 participants (54.7%) stated that they committed the offense alone but 48 (45.3%) stated that they committed the offense with someone else. Of those 48 participants who did not commit the offense alone, everyone identified that their co acco mplice was male but the relationship to that male differed across participants. 17 participants (35.4%) identified their co accomplice as a current or former spouse/partner, 6 participants (12.5%) identified their co accomplice as a relative, 10 participa nts (20.8%) identified their co accomplice as a friend and finally 15 participants (31.3%) identified their co accomplice
74 as someone who was not a spouse/partner, relative or friend but rather someone who Table 4 1. Part icipant Demographics: Offender Status, Race, Age, Marital Status (S) and Number of Children Variable and Coding in Parentheses Mean (n=106) St. Deviation Frequency (n=106) Percentages in Parentheses Status Predator (0) n = 5 (4.7%) Status Offender (1) 0.95 0.213 n = 101 (95.3%) Race Black (0) n = 8 (7.5%) Race White (1) 0.92 0.265 n = 98 (92.5%) Age: 20 30 (1) n = 18 (17.0%) Age: 31 40 (2) 2.61 1.109 n = 31 (29.3%) Age: 41 50 (3) n = 38 (35.8%) Age: 51 60 (4) n = 13 (12.3%) Age: 61 70 (5) n = 5 (4.7%) Age: 71 80 (6) n = 1 (0.9%) Minor Victim No (0) n = 14 (13.2%) Minor Victim Yes (1) 0.87 0.340 n = 92 (86.8%) MS: Married (1) n = 36 (34.0%) MS: Single (2) n = 14 (13.2%) MS: Unmarried but living with a partner (3) 3.24 4.646 n = 19 (17.9%) MS: Dating (4) n = 5 (4.7%) MS: Divorced (5) n = 22 (20.8%) MS: Widowed (6) n = 3 (2.8%) MS: Other (7) n = 5 (4.7%) Children No (1) n = 16 (15.1%) Children Yes (0) 0.17 0.448 n = 89 (84.0%) Commit the offense alone Yes (0) n = 58 ( 54.7 %) Commit the offense alone No (1) 0.32 0.468 n = 48 (45.3 %) Gender of the co accomplice All answered male n = 48 (100%) Relationship to the co accomplice Spouse/Partner (1) n = 17 (35.4%) Relationship to the co accomplice Relative (2) n = 6 (12.5%) Relationship to the co accomplice Friend (3) n = 10 (20.8%) Relationship to the co accomplice Other (4) n = 15 (31.3%) Table 4 2 shows the offenses that are listed under the entries. However, these offenses are listed as public information on the Florida Sex
75 Offender Registry. The FDLE information data base listed 87 separate offenses Of the 87 possible offenses, 32 offenses were committed by those who participated in the study. Of these 32 offenses, some highlighted offenses include failure to register with law enforcement (n = 9, 8.5%), lewd and lascivious battery against a victim under the age of 16 (n = 9, 8.5%), lewdly fondle on a person or in the presence of a person under 16 (n = 27, 25.5%), sexual activity with a minor (n = 9, 8.5%) and sexual activity with a person between the ages of 16 17 (n = 8, 7.5%). Table 4 2. Participant Demographics : Sexual Offenses as Listed on the Florida Sex Offender Registry Offense Frequency Sex Offense Against a child n = 3 (2.8%) Sexual Battery, minor under 16 n = 1 (0.9%) Sexual Battery, 12 or older, mental defects n = 1 (0.9%) Sexual Battery, 12 or younger n = 3 (2.8%) Sexual Battery, 12 or younger, with harm n = 1 (0.9%) Sexual Battery, injury to sexual organs, 12 or younger n = 2 (1.9%) Sexual Battery, no harm n = 1 (0.9%) Sexual Battery, coercion by an adult n = 1 (0.9%) Sexual Battery n = 1 (0.9%) Kidnapping n = 1 (0.9%) Failure to Register n = 9 ( 8.5%) Sexual Assault n = 1 (0.9%) Felonious Sexual Assault, age difference of 3 years n = 1 (0.9%) Lewd and Lascivious, minor less than 16 n = 3 (2.8%) Lewd and Lascivious battery, victim 12 15 n = 9 ( 8.5%) Lewd and Lascivious battery, victim under 16 n = 1 (0.9%) Lewd and Lascivious molestation, victim 12 15 n = 3 (2.8%) Lewdly fondle, under 16 n = 27 (25.5 % ) Aggravated child molestation n = 1 (0.9%) Aggravated sexual assault, child n = 1 (0.9%) Criminal Sexual Conduct n = 3 (2.8%) Intentionally masturbating, lewd and lascivious, person under 16 n = 1 (0.9%) Rape n = 1 (0.9%) Sexual Activity, with a minor n = 9 ( 8.5%) Sexual Activity, minor older than 15 n = 2 (1.9%) Sexual Activity, 16 17 n = 8 (7.5%) Unlawful sexual acts, minors n = 3 (2.8%) Obscene materials, minors n = 2 (1.9%) Possession child pornography n = 2 (1.9%) Sexual Exploitation, child pornography n = 1 (0.9%) Possession of representation of sexual conduct, child n = 2 (1.9%) Use of the internet for sex, child n = 1 (0.9%)
76 T able 4 3 shows demographic results for the data found regarding the addresses that the surveys were sent to for both participants and those who did not return surveys; non participants. These results showed that the average price of the home that the participants reside in is $133,901. This average places them within the $100 001 $150,000 average price range and also identifies them as somewhere between the first and second classes however, they are more closely identified with the second class socio economic status then they are with first class socio economic status (1.71). Finally, the participants are not very likely to own their own homes (0.027) and that ownership belongs to someone outside the family or to someone who does not share the same last name as the registered participant. The non participant address information is listed in Chapter 3 As a refresher, the differences between the two groups are minimal. This data shows that the participants are repres entative of the eligible sample Table 4 3 Frequency Data for Addresses of Participants (n = 65) Mean Minimum Maximum Coding Structure Cost of Housing Price Range for Housing Socio Economic Status Level Home Ownership $133,7901 3.18 1.72 0.027 $21,240 $100,001 $0 0 $558,000 $150,000 $250,000 1 1 = Class One 2 = Class Two 0 = No 1 = Yes Coding for the average price range: 1 ($0 $50,000) to 13 ($600,001 $650,000 Coding for the socio economic status: 1 ($0 $100,000) to 4 ($400,001 $650,000) **There are missing cases because of an inability to find the needed information about the homes of registered sex offenders. Quantitative Data Analysis Based on the hypotheses developed in the methodology section of the project, the following sets of data analysis were conducted. These analys es were completed based on the models described at the end Chapter 3 Each of the quantitative models uses a registration time requirement ratio as the independent variable. To create this
77 ratio, the amount of time already spent on the registry was calcu lated. For example, if a participant was first required to register in 1995, she would have spent 15 years on the registry as of 2010. This amount of time was then divided by the amount of time that a participant would be required to spend on the registr y. The following formula shows exactly how the time ratio was created. Time Requirement Ratio = Amount of time spent on the registry as of 2010 -------------------------------------------------------------------Time required to register on the FSOR This ratio was created to see if the there was a peak time when the hypothesized behaviors would be at their highest. Originally it was thought to only use the amount of time spent on the registry. However, using this time variable as the independent v ariable did not produce any statistically significant results for the analyzed models. More discussion about the use of the independent variable will be included in the results and discussion section. For the purposes of this paper and for the data analys is, the time ratio will be used as the independent variable. The majority of women have lifetime registration requirements (n = 96, 90.6%), which was coded as 99 years which would decrease someone who was required to register for only fifteen or twenty years. All ratios were between 0 and 1, meaning that for each participant a percentage of time has already been served for example, 0.38 means that 38% of a participants twenty five year r equired registration has been completed. This means that as the ratio increases, then the participant has been on the registry for a longer proportion of time to be served Table 4 4 shows that there is a large amount of participants required to register for life. This requirement was assigned the code number of 99 to keep consistent with the
78 other code assignments which represent the number of years required to register. The number 99 was chosen because of the length of time associated with the term li fetime. More than likely based on the ages of the registrants most of the parti cipants will not live past a 99 year lifetime registration, hence the reason for assigning the number to the lifetime registration. The large amount of participants that a re required to register for life skews the registration requirement. Therefore, the time ratio will also be skewed. Because of this bias, the following models were also run using only the amount of time that has already been served on the registry as an independent variable. Unfortunately, that analysis did not improve the results any, so the time ratio remains as the independent variable for the quantitative models. One other possible solution to correct the skewed distribution of the time ratio would be to create an alternative equation that takes the lifespan on the offender into account. This alternate equation was not used for the data analysis in this project, however the equation is explained in more detail in the future research portion of this paper. Table 4 5 shows the distribution of the time ratios based on amount of time required to register. Table 4 4 Distribution of Registration Time Requirements Amount of Time Required to Register Frequency Five Years n = 1 (0.9%) Ten Years n = 1 (0.9%) Fifteen Years n = 2 (1.9%) Twenty Years n = 1 (0.9%) Twenty Years n = 5 (4.75%) Lifetime Registration n = 99 (90.6%) Hypothesis Testing and Qualitative Findings The following tables show quantitative and qualitative data analysis conducted based on the models explained in the project proposal. Before each model is
79 explained, a descriptive table will be presented to sho w the distribution of the answers provided by participants. Each dependent variable is comprised of several questions that have been scaled together. The descriptive tables show the distribution of answers provided for each individual question. Table 4 5 Distribution of Time Requirement Ratios Amount of Time Required to Register Time Ratio Frequency Five Years 0.20 n = 1 (0.9%) Ten Years 0.60 n = 1 (0.9%) Fifteen Years 0.40 n = 1 (0.9%) 0.67 n = 1 (0.9%) Twenty Years 0.25 n = 1 (0.9%) Twenty Five Years 0.24 n = 1 (0.9%) 0.28 n = 1 (0.9%) 0.49 n = 1 (0.9%) 0.52 n = 1 (0.9%) 0.54 n = 1 (0.9%) Lifetime Registration 0.01 n = 3 (2.8%) 0.02 n = 13 (12.3%) 0.03 n = 5 (4.7%) 0.04 n = 6 (5.7%) 0.05 n = 8 (7.5%) 0.06 n = 9 (8.5%) 0.07 n = 7 (6.6%) 0.08 n = 4 (3.8%) 0.09 n = 5 (4.7%) 0.10 n = 8 (7.5%) 0.11 n = 5 (4.7%) 0.12 n = 2 (1.9%) 0.13 n = 2 (1.9%) 0.14 n = 5 (4.7%) 0.15 n = 4 (3.8%) 0.16 n = 1 (0.9%) 0.17 n = 4 (3.8%) 0.18 n = 2 (1.9%) 0.19 n = 1 (0.9%) 0.20 n = 1 (0.9%) 0.35 n = 1 (0.9%) Model 1: Societal Ramifications Hypothesis: Experiencing adversity and harassing behaviors as a result of the mandatory registration on the Florida Sex Offender Registry will increase as the time ratio increases.
80 Table 4 6 Descriptive Statistics for Model 1 Dependent Variable Questions Questions Mean St. Deviation Frequency How many times have you lost a job? 0 times 1.47 1.520 n = 38 (35.8%) 1 time n = 22 (20.8%) 2 times n = 19 (17.9%) 3 times n = 4 (3.7%) 4 + times n = 19 (17.9%) How many times have you been denied a promotion at work? 0 times 1.06 1.527 n = 61 (57.5%) 1 time n = 11 (10.4%) 2 times n = 10 (9.4%) 3 times n = 3 (2.8%) 4 + times n = 17 (16.0%) How many times have you lost a place to live? 0 times 1.84 1.760 n = 39 (36.8%) 1 time n = 17 (16.0%) 2 times n = 7 (6.6%) 3 times n = 7 (6.6%) 4 + times n = 35 (33.0%) How many times have you been treated rudely in a public place? 0 times 1.17 1.570 n = 59 (55.7%) 1 time n = 14 (13.2%) 2 times n = 8 (7.5%) 3 times n = 6 (5.7%) 4 + times n = 19 (17.9%) How many times have you been asked to leave a business or restaurant? 0 times 0.27 0.927 n = 94 (88.7%) 1 time n = 3 (2.8%) 2 times n = 1 (0.9%) 3 times n = 1 (0.9%) Table 4 8 Continued. 4 + times n = 5 (4.7%) How many times have you lost a friend because of your registration status? 0 times 1.35 1.670 n = 56 (52.8%) 1 time n = 9 (8.5%) 2 times n = 11 (10.4%) 3 times n = 5 (4.7%) 4 + times n = 24 (22.6%) How many times have you been harassed in person? 0 times 1.23 1.571 n = 57 (53.8%) 1 time n = 11 (10.4%) 2 times n = 11 (10.4%) 3 times n = 9 (8.5%) 4 + times n = 18 (17.0%)
81 Table 4 6 Continued Questions Mean St. Deviation Frequency How many times have you been assaulted or attacked? 0 times 0.37 1.012 n = 90 (84.9%) 1 time n = 3 (2.8%) 2 times n = 5 (4.7%) 3 times n = 3 (2.8%) 4 + times n = 5 (4.7%) How many times have you received harassing / threatening telephone calls? 0 times 0.83 1.497 n = 74 (69.8%) 1 time n = 11 (10.4%) 2 times n = 1 (0.9%) 3 times n = 3 (2.8%) 4 + times n = 17 (16.0%) How many times have you received harassing / threatening mail / fliers / notes? 0 times 0.96 1.593 n = 71 (67.0%) 1 time n = 9 (8.5%) Table 4 8 Continued. 2 times n = 4 (3.7%) 3 times n = 3 (2.8%) 4 + times n = 19 (17.9%) Table 4 7 shows an OLS Regression that was completed using the time requirement ratio as the independent variable to predict the Societal Ramifications that serve as the dependent variable. The dependent variable consisted of ten items asking participants how many times the following behaviors occurred in their lives including job loss, being forced to leave a public place, harassment in person and ha rassment through phone calls, mail and fliers. All ten questions were measured using a 0 4+ Likert scale (0 times, 1 time, 2 times, 3 times, 4+ times). The answer choices were then scaled in order to run the regression. Scaling these answer choices in volved adding the answers across the ten questions and then dividing them by 10. The scale was divided in order to return to the original value format in order to analyze the results based on the original Likert scale values. A reliability coefficient wa s run to determine how reliable
82 the measures used were in evaluating the construct of Societal Ramifications The found was 0.883 which means that the measures are reliable in measuring the Societal Ramifications The race, age and off ender status of the participant (offender v. predator) were used as controls in the model As shown in T able 4 7 using the time requirement ratio to predict the Societal Ramifications results in a positive relationship between the two variables. This sup ports the predicted hypothesis in terms of direction of the relationship, however it must be noted that the model does not bare statistical significance. Once again, the independent variable used is the time ratio, which was computed using time spent on t he registry divided by the total number of years spent on the registry. This time ratio only ranges from 0 to 1, meaning that there will never be a value larger than one associated with the time variable. Therefore, the unstandardized regression coeffici ent is reported as 1.178 and the standardized regression coefficient is reported as 0.141. Due to the fact that the variable is a ratio, the units of increase are only small units of change. T he time ratio variable was not a significant predictor in expl aining the Societal Ramifications Unfortunately, for the entire model only 3.6% of the model variance was square. Table 4 7 Model 1: Registration Time Requirement Rat io Predicting Societal Ramifications Variable Coefficient Std. Error Beta Time Requirement Ratio 1.178 0.852 0.141 Participant Race 0.282 0.411 0.069 Participant Age 0.103 0.101 0.104 Offender Status 0.035 0.481 0.007 Constant 1.475 0.673 F Statistic 0.898 R Square 0.036 **p < .10, ** p < .01, p < .05
83 Associated with quantitative model, a qualitative model has been developed to further elaborate the dependent variable of each model. For Model 1, the dependent variable is experiencing adversity and harassing behaviors while on the registry something t hat I call Societal Ramifications As stated before, questions were asked about how many times a certain behavior was experienced since first being required to register. Table 4 10 show s the qualitative results found within the letters, notes and phone c alls that the participants voluntarily provided me during the period of data collection. The questions were developed based on the previously developed survey to see if the participant provided qualitative data matched the quantitative survey data. As see n in the Table 4 8 of the 38 qualitative responses received, the majority of women did not report experience harassing behaviors (n = 29, 76.3%) and did not report having to move repeatedly (n = 35, 92.1%). Table 4 8 Model 1: Qualitative Data Analysis for Societal Ramifications Research Question Mean (N=38) St. Deviation Frequency (No) Frequency Percent (Yes) Is there mention of harassing behaviors? 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.24 0.431 n = 29 (76.3%) n = 9 (23.7%) Does the participant mention having to move repeatedly? 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.8 0.273 n = 35 (92.1%) n = 3 (7.9%) From the passages, some quotations were pulled to elaborate the sentiments that were provided in the participants answers. For the first qualitative question, did the treatment in a p
84 second question addressed having to repeatedly move residences. Regarding this here before the school w Model 2: Reintegrative Shaming Theory Hypothesis : Shame associated with mandatory registration on the Florida Sex Offender Registry will increase as the time ratio increases. Table 4 9 Descriptive Statistics f or Model 2 Dependent Variable Questions Questions Mean Std. Deviation Frequency I feel ashamed that I am on the Florida Sex Offender Registry. 1 = Disagree Completely n = 7 (6.6%) 2 = Unsure / Undecided n = 11 (10.4%) 3 = Agree Completely n = 88 (83.0%) I am ashamed that I have committed a sexual offense. 1 = Disagree Completely n = 13 (12.3%) 2 = Unsure / Undecided n = 7 (6.6%) 3 = Agree Completely n = 86 (81.1%) I am less likely to leave the house because I am afraid that someone might recognize me as a sex offender. 1 = Disagree Completely n = 67 (63.2%) 2 = Unsure / Undecided n = 16 (15.1%) 3 = Agree Completely n = 23 (21.7%) I avoid certain public places because I am afraid of being recognized as a sex offender. 1 = Disagree Completely n = 50 (47.2%) 2 = Unsure / Undecided n = 14 (13.2%) 3 = Agree Completely n = 42 (39.6%) Table 4 10 shows an OLS Regression that was completed using the time requirement ratio as the independent variable to predict the shame participants feel that serve as the dependent variable. The dependent variable consisted of four items asking participants about t he shame felt for being on the registry, for having committed a sexual offense, their likelihood of being recognized as a sex offender and whether or not they avoid public places for fear of being recognized as a sex offender. All four questions were measu red using a 1 10 Likert scale (1: Disagree Completely, 2, 3, 4, 5: Unsure/Undecided, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: Agree Completely). The answer choices were then
85 scaled in order to run the regression. Scaling these answer choices involved adding the answers across th e four questions and then dividing them by 4. The scale was divided in order to return to the original value format in order to analyze the results based on the original Likert scale values. A reliability coefficient was run to determine how reliable the measures used were in evaluating the construct of shame. The found was 0.667 which means that the measures are reliable in measuring shame. The race, age and offender status of the participant (offender v. predator) were used as contro ls in the model. As shown in Table 4 10 using the time requirement ratio to predict the shame results in a positive relationship between the two variables. This supports the predicted hypothesis in terms of direction of the relationship, however it must be noted that the model does not bare statistical significance. Once again, the independent variable used is the time ratio, which was computed using time spent on the registry divided by the total number of years spent on the registry. This time ratio o nly ranges from 0 to 1, Table 4 10 Model 2: Registration Time Requirement Ratio Predicting Shame Variable Coefficient Std. Error Beta Time Requirement Ratio 1.596 1.845 0.086 Participant Race 0.634 0.858 0.074 Participant Age 0.079 0.206 0.038 Offender Status 1.081 1.062 0.101 Constant 4.929 1.427 F Statistic 0.504 R Square 0.020 ***p < .10, ** p < .01, p < .05 meaning that there will never be a value larger than one associated with the time variable. Therefore, the unstandardized regression coefficient is reported as 1.596 and the standardized regression coefficient is reported as 0.086 Due to the fact that the vari able is a ratio, the units of increase are on ly small units of change. T he time ratio variable was not a significant predictor in explaining shame F or the entire model only
86 2.0 % of the model variance was explained by the time requirement ratio and the c As seen in the T able 4 11 of the 38 qualitative responses received, the majority of women did not report feel ing ashamed of being on the registry (n = 36, 94.7%) and did not mention that she has tried to hide her sex offender status (n = 35, 92.1%). These two results the proposed hypotheses However, the quantitative entries were analyzed to see if the women are speaking of shame. So while t hey may actually feel shame for being on the registry, they are just not voicing that feeling. Therefore, these two results must not override the quantitative results. Table 4 11 Model 2: Qualitative Data Analysis for Shame Research Question Mean (N=38) St. Deviation Frequency (No) Frequency Percent (Yes) Does the participant mention feeling ashamed of being on the registry? 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.08 0.273 n = 36 (94.7%) n = (5.3%) Does the participant mention that she tries to hide her sex offender status from people? 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.08 0.273 n = 35 (92.1%) n = 3 (7.9%) Several quotations were examined from the qualitative passages and comments written on the surveys to provide support for the quantitative data. The first theme that was developed was the idea that participants are ashamed of being on the registry. Participants were reluc tant to accept the shame that is associated with the registry not participants would try to hide their status from community members. Again, the participants were reluctant to accept the shame that accompanies their statuses as sex offenders. Participants stated that they would not disclose their sex offender status
87 afraid to identify themselves as Th ese quo tations and the qualitative datum presented show that even though shame is not being acknowledged by the participants, strain certainly is. The anger element that is included in their words show that the registry is creating stress in their lives. Participant B66 who stated that she was afraid of being shot is a perfect of not too many things are as stressful as fear of being shot. These qualitative passages are highly indicative of strain being is the next model that will be explained. Model 3: General Strain Theory Hypothesis : Stress and strain associated with mandatory registration on the Florida Sex O ffender Registry will increase as the time ratio increases. Table 4 12 shows the descriptive stati stics for the model. Table 4 13 shows an OLS Regression that was completed using the time requirement ratio as the independent variable to predict the strai n participants feel that serve as the dependent variable. The dependent variable consisted of six items asking participants if being registered has caused any unnecessary stress in their lives, if they act out in unhealthy ways, if they consume more alcoh ol then they did in the past, if they use illegal substances more than they did in the past, if they have ever tried to hurt themselves or if they if they ever tried to hurt someone else. All six questions were measured using a Yes/No dichotomous answer c hoice (0 = no and 1 = yes).
88 Table 4 12 Descriptive Statistics for Model 3 Dependent Variable Questions Questions Mean Std. Deviation Frequency Do you feel that being on the Florida Sex Offender Registry has caused unnecessary stress in your life? 0 = No 0.87 0.340 n = 14 (13.2%) 1 = Yes n = 92 (86.8%) Because of this stress, do you feel that you act out in an unhealthy way? 0 = No 0.32 0.469 n = 72 (67.9%) 1 = Yes n = 34 (32.1%) Because of this stress, do you consume alcohol more than you did in the past? 0 = No 0.25 0.432 n = 80 (75.5%) 1 = Yes n = 26 (24.5%) Because of this stress, do you use illegal substances more than you did in the past? 0 = No 0.12 0.330 n = 93 (87.7%) 1 = Yes n = 13 (12.3%) Because of this stress, have you ever tried to hurt yourself? 0 = No 0.28 0.453 n = 76 (71.7%) 1 = Yes n = 30 (28.3%) Because of this stress, have you ever tried to hurt someone else? 0 = No 0.06 0.232 n = 100 (94.3%) 1 = Yes n = 6 (5.7%) The answer choices were then indexed in order to run the regression. Scaling these answer choices involved adding the answers across the six questions and then dividing them by 6. The scale was divided in order to return to the original value format in order to analyze the results based on the original dichotomous values. A alpha was not found for this model because the questions were indexed rather than scaled The race, age and offender status of the participant (offender v. predator) were used as controls in the model. As sho wn in the T able 4 13 using the time requirement ratio to predict the strain results in a positive relationship between the two variables. This supports the predicted hypothesis in terms of direction of the relationship Once again, the independent variable used is the time ratio, which was computed using time spent on the registry divided by the total number of years spent on the registry. This time ratio only ranges from 0 to 1, meaning that there will never be a value larger than one associated with the
89 time variable. Therefore, the unstandardized regression coefficient is reported as 0.254 and the standardized regression coefficient is reported as 0.135 Table 4 13 Model 3: Registration Time Requirement Ratio Predic ting Strain Variable Coefficient Std. Error Beta Time Requirement Ratio 0.254 0.184 0.135 Participant Race 0.008 0.086 0.010 Participant Age 0.043* 0.021 0.205 Offender Status 0.000 0.106 0.000 Constant 0.406 0.142 F Statistic 1.492 R Square 0.056 ***p < .10, ** p < .01, p < .05 Due to the fact that the variable is a ratio, the units of increase are only small units of change. T he time ratio variable was not a significant predictor in explaining strain However, age of the offender is a statistically significant variable, at a .05 alpha level. It must be noted that age is not significant in the desired direction in this instanc e; age plays a role in a negative relationship with strain. The unstandardized regression coefficient is reported as 0.043 and the standardized regression coefficient is reported as 0.205. F or the entire model only 5.6 % of the model variance was explai ned by the As seen in the Table 4 14 of the 38 qualitative responses received, the majority of women did not mention that she was engaging in illegal drug use (n = 33, 86.8%) or that she was trying to hurt herself (n = 36, 94.7%). The results of the two qualitative questions do not show that participants are generating responses that are supportive of the proposed hypothesis. However, the quantitative entries were analyzed to se e if the women are speaking of strains that were present in their lives. So while they may actually feel a certain level of stress that is associated with being on the registry, they
90 are just not voicing that feeling. Therefore, these two results must no t override the quantitative results. Table 4 14 Model 3: Qualitative Data Analysis for Strain Research Question Mean (N=38) St. Deviation Frequency (No) Frequency Percent (Yes) Does the participant mention engaging in illegal drug use? 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.13 0.343 n = 33 (86.8%) n = 5 (13.2%) Does the participant mention trying to hurt herself? 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.05 0.226 n = 36 (94.7%) n = 2 (5.3%) In the surveys and through the qualitative entries, the participants talked about drug and alcohol use as well as the possibility that the stress may lead them to hurt stopp participant might consider hurting herself as an option, one participant stated that sh e Model 4: Defiance Theory Hypothesis : Defiant attitudes will increase as the time ratio associated with mandatory registration on the Florida Sex Of fender Registry also increases. The model four hypot hesis covers defiant attitudes in general, however, the model will be broken up into four sub models that each analyze the components of defiance theory: unfair sanctions, poor bonds and alienation, stigmatization of the offender not the offense, and refus al to acknowledge shame. Theoretically it makes more sense to break the theory up into four models than to run everything together. The theory states that all four elements must be in place in order for defiant behaviors to be manifest therefore, the m odels should be run separately in order to ensure that the four elements are present.
91 Table 4 15 shows the descriptive statistics provided for the questions making up the first of the four defiance theory elements, unfair sanctions. Table 4 15 Descripti ve Statistics for Model 4A Dependent Variable Questions Questions Mean Std. Deviation Frequency I feel I am being unfairly punished by being on the Florida Sex Offender Registry. 1 = Disagree Completely 2.66 0.631 n = 9 (8.5%) 2 = Unsure / Undecided n = 18 (17.0%) 3 = Agree Completely n = 79 (74.5%) I believe that having my picture on the Florida Sex Offender Registry is going too far. 1 = Disagree Completely 2.54 0.706 n = 11 (10.3%) 2 = Unsure / Undecided n = 26 (24.5%) 3 = Agree Completely n = 69 (65.1%) I feel that the Florida Sex Offender Registry has unfairly characterized me as a sex offender. 1 = Disagree Completely 2.74 0.557 n = 6 (5.7%) 2 = Unsure / Undecided n = 16 (15.1%) 3 = Agree Completely n = 84 (79.2%) Table 4 16 shows an OLS Regression that was completed using the time requirement ratio as the independent variable to predict the unfair sanctioning element of the defiant behavior that that serves as the dependent variable. The dependent variable consisted of three items asking participants if they feel they are being unfairly punished by being on the registry, if having their picture on the registry is going too far, and if the registry has unfairly characterized them as a sex offender. All three questions were me asured using a 1 10 Likert scale (1 = Disagree Completely, 2, 3, 4, 5 = Unsure/Undecided, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 = Agree Completely). The answer choices were then scaled in order to run the regression. Scaling these answer choices involved adding the answers acr oss the three questions and then dividing them by 3. The scale was divided in order to return to the original value format in order to analyze the results based on the original Likert scale values. A reliability coefficient was run to determine how relia ble the measures used were in evaluating the element of unfair sanctioning within the defiant behaviors construct. The found was 0.762 which means that the measures are reliable in measuring the level of unfair sanctioning. The race, ag e
92 and offender status of the participant (offender v. predator) were used as controls in the model. As shown in the T able 4 16 using the time requirement ratio to predict the unfair sanctions results in a positive relationship between the two variables. This supports the predicted hypothesis in terms of direction of the relationship For this model, two variables were significant the time ratio and the offender status. Once again, the independent variable used is the time ratio, which was computed usi ng time spent on the registry divided by the total number of years spent on the registry. This time ratio only ranges from 0 to 1, meaning that there will never be a value larger than one associated with the time variable. Therefore, the unstandardized r egression coefficient is reported as 3.843 and the standardized regression coefficient is reported as 0.209 Due to the fact that the variable is a ratio, the units of increase are only small units of change. Table 4 16 Model 4A: Registration Time Req uirement Ratio Predicting Defiant Behaviors Unfair Sanctions Variable Coefficient Std. Error Beta Time Requirement Ratio 3.843* 1.788 0.209 Participant Race 1.207 0.827 0.141 Participant Age 0.026 0.198 0.013 Offender Status 1.976*** 1.023 0.186 Constant 4.758 1.375 F Statistic 2.322*** R Square 0.084 ***p < .10, ** p < .01, p < .05 T he time ratio variable was a significant predictor in explaining the unfair sanctions, at a .05 alpha value The offender status is also statistically significant but at a .10 alpha level. T he unstandardized regression coefficient is reported as 1.976 and the standardized regression coefficient is reported as 0.186 Unfortunately, for the entire model only 8.4 % of the model variance was explained by the time requirement
93 but the overall model was statistically significant at the .10 level T able 4 17 shows the descriptive statistics for the poor bonds por tion of defiance theory. Just like in the other tables, the questions and coding schemes are described. Table 4 17 Descriptive Statistics for Model 4B Dependent Variable Questions Mean Std. Deviation Frequency People avoid being around or talking with me if they know I am on the Florida Sex Offender Registry. 1 = Disagree Completely 1.88 0.813 n = 42 (39.6%) 2 = Unsure / Undecided n = 35 (33.0%) 3 = Agree Completely n = 29 (27.4%) I feel that since I have registered on the Florida Sex Offender Registry, I have been ostracized from my community. 1 = Disagree Completely 2.12 0.813 n = 29 (27.4%) 2 = Unsure / Undecided n = 35 (33.0%) 3 = Agree Completely n = 42 (39.6%) I no longer feel a part of my community because I am required to register as a sexual offender. 1 = Disagree Completely 2.27 0.868 n = 29 (27.4%) 2 = Unsure / Undecided n = 19 (17.9%) 3 = Agree Completely n = 58 (54.7%) T able 4 18 shows an OLS Regression that was completed using the time requirement ratio as the independent variable to predict the poor bonds and alienation element of the defiant behavior that that serves as the dependent variable. The dependent variable consisted o f three items asking participants if people avoid being ostracized from their community since having to register and if they no longer feel a part of their community because of their registration requirement. All three questions were measured using a 1 10 Likert scale (1 = Disagree Completely, 2, 3, 4, 5 = Unsure/Undecided, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 = Agree Completely). The answer choices were then scaled in order to run the regressio n. Scaling these answer choices involved adding the answers across the three questions and then dividing them by 3. The scale was divided in order to return to the original value format in order to analyze the results based on the
94 original Likert scale v alues. A reliability coefficient was run to determine how reliable the measures used were in evaluating the element of poor bonds and alienation within the defiant behaviors construct. The found was 0.783 which means that the measures are reliable in measuring the level of poor bonds and alienation experienced. The race, age and offender status of the participant (offender v. predator) were used as controls in the model. As shown in the T able 4 18 using the time requirement ratio to pr edict the poor bonds results in a positive relationship between the two variables. This supports the predicted hypothesis in terms of direction of the relationship, however it must be noted that the model does not bare statistical significance. Once agai n, the independent variable used is the time ratio, which was computed using time spent on the registry divided by the total number of years spent on the registry. This time ratio only ranges from 0 to 1, meaning that there will never be a value larger th an one associated with the time variable. Table 4 18 Model 4B: Registration Time Requirement Ratio Predicting Defiant Behaviors Poor Bonds Variable Coefficient Std. Error Beta Time Requirement Ratio 2.970 2.256 0.130 Participant Race 0.675 1.049 0.064 Participant Age 0.173 0.251 0.068 Offender Status 1.738 1.298 0.132 Constant 2.733 1.745 F Statistic 1.060 R Square 0.040 ***p < .10, ** p < .01, p < .05 Therefore, the unstandardized regression coefficient is reported as 2.970 and the standardized regression coefficient is reported as 0.130 Due to the fact that the variable is a ratio, the units of increase are only small units of change. The time ratio variable was not a significant predictor in explaining the poor bonds. F or the entire
95 model only 4.0 % of the model variance was explained by the time requirement ratio and T able 4 19 shows the descriptive statistics for the stigmatization of the offender portion of defiance th eory. Table 4 19 Descriptive Statistics for Model 4C Dependent Variable Questions Questions Mean Std. Deviation Frequency Because I am registered on the Florida Sex Offender Registry, I will never be seen as anything other than a sexual offender. 1 = Disagree Completely 2.41 0.766 n = 18 (17.0%) 2 = Unsure / Undecided n = 27 (25.5%) 3 = Agree Completely n = 61 (57.5%) People do not treat me with respect once they find out that I am required to register as a sexual offender. 1 = Disagree Completely 2.14 0.856 n = 32 (30.2%) 2 = Unsure / Undecided n = 27 (25.5%) 3 = Agree Completely n = 47 (44.3%) I feel that community members do not treat me fairly once they find out that I am required to register as a sexual offender. 1 = Disagree Completely 2.33 0.801 n = 22 (20.8%) 2 = Unsure / Undecided n = 27 (25.5%) 3 = Agree Completely n = 57 (53.8%) Table 4 20 shows an OLS Regression that was completed using the time requirement ratio as the independent variable to predict the stigmatization of the offender element of the defiant behavior that that serves as the dependent variable. The dependent variable consi sted of three items asking participants if they feel that they will never be viewed as anything other than a sex offender because of the registration, if people treat them with respect once they find out that they are a registered sex offender, and if they feel that community members do not treat them fairly once they find out about their registered status. All three questions were measured using a 1 10 Likert scale (1 = Disagree Completely, 2, 3, 4, 5 = Unsure/Undecided, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 = Agree Completely) The answer choices were then scaled in order to run the regression. Scaling these answer choices involved adding the answers across the three questions and then dividing them by 3. The scale was divided in order to return to the original
96 value format in order to analyze the results based on the original Likert values. A reliability coefficient was run to determine how reliable the measures used were in evaluating the element of stigmatization of the offender within the defiant behaviors construct. Th e found was 0.850 which means that the measures are reliable in measuring the level of stigmatization of the offender experienced. The race, age and offender status of the participant (offender v. predator) were used as controls in the m odel. As shown in the T able 4 20 using the time requirement ratio to predict the stigmatization of the offender results in a positive relationship between the two variables. This supports the predicted hypothesis in terms of direction of the relationship. Table 4 20 Model 4C: Registration Time Requirement Ratio Predicting Defiant Behaviors Stigmatization of t he Offender Variable Coefficient Std. Error Beta Time Requirement Ratio 2.714 2.304 0.115 Participant Race 0.846 1.071 0.077 Participant Age 0.228 0.257 0.087 Offender Status 2.770* 1.326 0.203 Constant 2.331 1.781 F Statistic 1.724 R Square 0.064 ***p < .10, ** p < .01, p < .05 The Stigmatization of the Offender element of the Defiant Behaviors Variable is scaled from three items measured on a 1 10 Likert scale. The items were added and then divided to return the answers to fit within their originally measured scale. Once again, the independent variable used is the time ratio, which was computed using time spent on the registry divided by the total number of years spent on the registry. This time ratio only ranges from 0 to 1, meaning that there will never be a value larger than one associated with the time variable. Therefore, the unstandardized regression coefficient is reported as 2.714 and the standardized regression coefficient is reported as 0.115. Due to the fact that the variable is a ratio, the units of incr ease are
97 only small units of change. T he time ratio variable was not a significant predictor in explaining the stigmatization of the offender Offender status is a statistically significant variable in predicting stigmatization of the offender. T he unst andardized regression coefficient is reported as 2.770 and the standardized regression coefficient is reported as 0.203 and the variable is significant at a .05 alpha level. F or the entire model only 6.4 % of the model variance was explained by the time re quirement ratio and the The T able 4 21 shows the descriptive statistics for the refusal to acknowledge shame element of defiance theory. Table 4 21 Descriptive Statistics for Model 4D Dependent Variable Questi ons Questions Mean Std. Deviation Frequency I feel ashamed that I am on the Florida Sex Offender Registry. 1 = Disagree Completely 2.76 0.561 n = 7 (6.6%) 2 = Unsure / Undecided n = 11 (10.4%) 3 = Agree Completely n = 88 (83.0%) I am ashamed that I have committed a sexual offense. 1 = Disagree Completely 2.69 0.681 n = 13 (12.3%) 2 = Unsure / Undecided n = 7 (6.6%) 3 = Agree Completely n = 86 (81.1%) T able 4 22 shows an OLS Regression that was completed using the time acknowledge shame element of the defiant behavior that that serves as the dependent variable. The dependent va riable consisted of two items asking participants if they feel ashamed to be on the registry and if they are ashamed to have committed a sexual offense Both questions were measured using a 1 10 Likert scale (1 = Disagree Completely, 2, 3, 4, 5 = Unsure/Un decided, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 = Agree Completely). The answer choices were then scaled in order to run the regression. Scaling these answer choices involved adding the answers across the two questions and then dividing them by 2. The scale was divided in orde r to return to the original value format in order to
98 analyze the results based on the original Likert Scale values. A reliability coefficient was run to determine how reliable the measures used were in evaluating the element of refusal to acknowledge sham e within the defiant behaviors construct. The alpha was 0.494. Unlike the other models, the reliability coefficient is not very strong and does not do an adequate job of measuring the refusal to acknowledge shame element of the construct. How ever, one final reliability coefficient was run for the entire model examining the total construct of defiant behaviors. The coefficient found was 0.869 which shows that the entire construct was measured correctly and that the low coefficient associated w ith the refusal to acknowledge shame element does not drag down the entire model. The race, age and offender status of the participant (offender v. predator) were used as controls in the model. A s shown in the T able 4 22 using the time requirement ratio to predict the refusal to acknowledge shame results in a positive relationship between the two variables. This supports the predicted hypothesis in terms of direction of the relationship, however it must be noted that the model does not bare statistical s ignificance. Once again, the independent variable used is the time ratio, which was computed using time spent on the registry divided by the total number of years spent on the registry. This time ratio only ranges from 0 to 1, meaning that there will nev er be a value larger than one associated with the time variable. Therefore, the unstandardized regression coefficient is reported as 0.214 and the standardized regression coefficient is reported as 0.012 Due to the fact that the variable is a ratio, the units of increase are only small units of change. T he time ratio variable was not a significant predictor in explaining the refusal to acknowledge shame F or the entire model only .9 % of the model variance was
99 explained by the time requirement ratio and square. Table 4 22 Model 4D: Registration Time Requirement Ratio Predicting Defiant Behaviors Refusal to Acknowledge Shame Variable Coefficient Std. Error Beta Time Requirement Ratio 0.214 1.772 0.012 Participant Race 0.359 0.824 0.044 Participant Age 0.121 0.197 0.062 Offender Status 0.555 1.020 0.054 Constant 7.487 1.370 F Statistic 0.239 R Square 0.009 ***p < .10, ** p < .01, p < .05 As seen in T able 4 23 of the 38 qualitative responses received, the majority of women did not mention that they were alienated from family members (n = 31, 81.6%) or that she was ashamed to be on the registry (n = 36, 94.7%). However, the results were a little more divided f or whether or not the registration requirements are too severe. Twenty four women (63.2%) felt that the requirements were not too severe despite their own experiences on the registry compared to the fourteen women (36.8%) who thought the requirements were too severe. Table 4 23 Model 4: Qualitative Data Analysis for Defiant Behaviors Research Question Mean (N=38) St. Deviation Frequency (No) Frequency Percent (Yes) Does the participant mention any alienation from family members or friends? 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.18 0.393 n = 31 (81.6%) n = 7 (18.4%) Does the participant feel the registration requirement is too severe? 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.37 0.489 n = 24 (63.2%) n = 14 (36.8%) Does the participant feel ashamed of being on the registry? 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.08 0.273 n = 36 (94.7%) n = 2 (5.3%) The results of the qualitative questions do not show that participants are generating responses that are supportive of the proposed hypothesis, however it does not mean that the participants are not experiencing these items vocalizi ng them. So, the questions are asking if there is presence of shame within the
100 voluntary passages. This means that while they may actually feel a certain level of shameless that is associated with being on the registry, they are just not voicing that fee ling. Therefore, these two results must not override the quantitative results. The final model used qualitative data to further support the issues discussed within the quantitative survey results. One of the themes developed within Defiance Theory discu ss alienation and poor bonds that result, in this case from the sex offender status that is applied to an individual post conviction. Participants discuss ed these feelings of very requirements are too severe, participants state that they completely agree and th large amount of agreement that they are being unfairly punished in response to their convictions. Participants were reluctant to accept the shame that is associat ed with the shame was also established in Model 2, which elaborated on the shame felt as a result of the sex offender status. Other Qualitative Data The final qualitative data that were examined concludes on the opinions of the participants. In T able 4 24 the results are mixed in terms of how the participants felt about the registry itself. state is agreeable (n = 28, 73.7%), they also predominately did not adamantly oppose the registry altogether (n = 36, 94.7%). This last finding is important since this opinion is
101 coming from those who are actually on the registry. Despite the inconveniences that the registry may pose to their own lives, they are still in favor of its existence for various reasons. Table 4 24 Qualitative Data for Registry Views Does the participant agree with the registry? 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.26 0.446 n = 28 (73.7%) n = 10 (26.3%) Does the participant adamantly oppose with the registry? 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.05 226 n = 36 (94.7%) n = 2 (5.3%) Does the participant offer suggestions for modifying the registry? 0 = No, 1 = Yes 0.470 0.506 n = 20 (52.6%) n = 18 (47.4%) Participants also addressed whether or not they felt the registry was a good about m odifications to the registry for which one participant stated that the registration feel it is fair that depending on what county you are in you may have a much lighter sentence. The sentence should fit the crime. I feel my sentence was very fair for what I Criminal Histories The final data analysis conducted displays the distribution of offenses recorded on both the participant and non participant criminal histories. The two takes display twelve groups of offense ranging from sexual offenses to traffic offenses. Originally there were plans to look at each individual offense to see the distribution within the groups of offenses. However, the offenses were deemed too sporadic to list individually hence the need for the groupings. For example, 99 individual offenses were coded within the sex offense category alone. In total, there were 257 individually coded
102 offenses. As previously stated, the grouped o ffen ses are listed in the Table 4 25 and the complete list of coded offenses is listed in the appendix. Table 4 25 shows that of returned survey participant criminal histories, there were a total of 873 offense listed for the group of 98 participants, givi ng each participant an average of 8.91 crimes per person. This means that of the 106 returned surveys, eight criminal histories were unavailable during the period of criminal history research. The main offenses committed were sexual offenses (n = 594, 68 (n = 145, 16.61%). Within the other category, offenses such as public intoxication, resisting arrest, giving false information to the police and fleeing from a law enforcement official are included. Of all the remaining categor ies of offenses, drug crimes rank third in frequency (n = 38, 4.35%). Table 4 25 also shows that for 68 non participants, 796 crimes were committed. Even though there were less criminal histories found for the non participants then for the participants, t he average number of crimes per person was 11.71. This average was higher than the 8.91 average found for the participants. Using the averages as an estimate, if 98 non participant criminal histories would have been found then the estimated total of offe nses would have been 1,148. For the histories that were found, sexual offenses still occurred at the highest rate, making up 61.68% of the total number 16.58% of the tot al number of offenses (n = 132). The non participants differed from the participants in the category of drugs and in fraud. For participants, drug crimes ranked third and fraud ranked fifth in frequency. The non participants engaged in more fraud crimes ranking third, (n = 29, 3.52%) and in fewer drug crimes than the participants
103 ranking fifth, (n = 20, 2.51%). Overall the criminal histories are not too different in terms of the distribution in criminal behavior, however it is important to not e th a t on average non participants are engaging in more crimes than participants. Table 4 25 Returned Survey Participant vs. Non Participant Criminal Histories Offense Groups and Coding Frequency ( Participants) Frequency ( Non Participants) 1 = Sexual Offenses n = 594 (68.04%) n = 491 (61.68%) 2 = Battery / Assault n = 6 (0.69%) n = 16 (2.01%) 3 = Fraud n = 19 (2.18%) n = 28 (3.52%) 4 = Driving / Traffic Issues n = 35 (4.01%) n = 22 (2.76%) 5 = Prostitution n = 17 (1.95%) n = 20 (2.51%) 6 = Drugs n = 38 (4.35%) n = 18 (2.26%) 7 = Theft n = 9 (1.03%) n = 8 (1.01%) 8 = Burglary / Robbery n = 2 (0.23%) n = 17 (2.14%) 9 = Kidnapping n = 1 (0.11%) n = 24 (3.02%) 10 = Larceny n = 3 (0.34%) n = 4 (0.50%) 11 = Child Neglect n = 4 (0.46%) n = 16 (2.01%) 12 = Other n = 145 (16.61%) n = 132 (16.58%) Total Number of Offenses: n = 873 n = 796
104 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Discussion This research project started out hypothesizing that most behaviors and feelings related to the sex offender registry as measured by a ratio of time served over time sentenced on the sex offender registry. Instead, overall there has been a lack of support for these hypotheses. Although the direction of the relationship has remained consistent with the hypotheses positive relationships between the time ratio and the Societal Ramifications shame, strain and defiant behaviors only one of the models (Mod el 4A) showed a statistically significant relationship Using participant race, age and offender status (offender vs. predator) the time ratio was only able to explain a small amount of variance, despite the fact that most scales had acceptable reliabilit y coefficients. This means that the models measured the constructs of the Societal Ramifications and the three theories correctly but that there was no association found between these constructs and the time element used as the independent variable. In the Model 1 (T able 4 7 ), only 3.6% of the variance could be explained for the prediction of the Societal Ramifications Model 2 (T able 4 10 ) was able to explain only 2.0% of the variance for the prediction of parti cipant sha me levels. Model 3 (T able 4 13 ) was able to explain 5.6% of the variance in the prediction of participant repo rted strain levels. Model 4A (T able 4 16 ) only explained 8.4% of the variance in the prediction of the unfair sanctioning element o f defiance th eory. Models 4B (T able 4 18 ), 4C (T able 4 20 ) and 4D ( T able 4 22 ) were only able to explain 4.0%, 6.4% and 0.9% of the variance in predicting the poor bonding, stigmatization of the offender and refusal to acknowledge shame elements of defiance theory respectively.
105 The frequencies and the descriptive statistics show that there is evidence that the participants are experiencing the hypothesized behaviors. Although this section of the paper is not meant to exhaustively recap the results presented earlier, there are a few items that can b e highlighted For the Societal Ramifications 64 participants (62%) report ed that they lost a job at least one or more times Sixty Six (63%) participants reported that they lost a place to live at least one time or more. For the shaming models, 88 (83 %) participants agree that they are ashamed of being on the registry and 86 (82.1%) participants agree that they are ashamed of committing a sexual offense. The strain and defiance theory findings are similar in nature to the Societal Ramifications and shame findings. Ninety two (86.8%) participants identified that there has been unnecessary stress in their lives as a resu lt of their registration status. For the final model predicting defiance theory, the four elements were examined separately. F or the element of unfair punishment, 79 participants (74.5%) identified that they felt th ey were being unfairly punished. For poor bonds, 58 (54.7%) participants felt that they were no longer a part of their comm unities because of their status. The third element, stigmatization of the offender, 61 (57.5%) participants felt that they will not ever be seen as any thing other than a sex offender. The fourth element, refusal to acknowledge shame was not as widely supported as 88 participants (83%) state d that they were experiencing shame as a resu lt of their sex offender status. This brief review of the frequency results does show that participants are answering in the direction of the hypothesized relationships, however the fault in the relationship may lay with the independent variable of the time ratio. The time element used was based on the project conducted in the Tewksbury study conducted in 2004 that used a similar independent
106 variable. That study used only time spent on the registry, but this study d eveloped that variable further into the time ratio (time served divided by the time sentenced). Since the current study shows that the models are reliably constructed then it is logical to suggest that there is no support for the Tewksbury recommended ind ependent variable 7 This is something can be developed in future research and in future data analysis. Future research may benefit from using the scaled Societal Ramifications as the independent variable instead of the time requirement. The Societal Rami fications are the ten items asking about the number of times that the participant lost a job, was denied a promotion at work, lost a place to live, experienced rude treatment in public, were asked to leave a business or restaurant, lost a friend because of the registration status, were harassed in person, received threatening or harassing phone calls and received harassing or threatening mail, flyers or notes. Using a scale across participant responses as the independent variable would be able to show how much of the shame, strain and defiance theory behaviors are a result of the sex offender status. In other words, does experiencing the ten behaviors tested in this study then in turn effect shame, strain and defiance levels among participants? The Societ al Ramifications are a direct result of the known offender status. So, in relation to the theories, how does experiencing these behaviors affect the levels of shame, strain and defiance experienced? As shown in the previous results sections, there is eno ugh variation among the answers given for the ten items to use the Societal Ramifications as an 7 After the initial regression models were run, I reverted back to the original Tewksbury time var iable (time on the registry) and re ran the regression models. No significance was found with this time variable either.
107 independent variable. The lack of variation in the time ratio variable was one of the biggest criticisms that were established after the results were analyzed. By using the Societal Ramifications as the independent variable, that variation is present and allows for better prediction. Other research may include more in depth structured interviews with the participants. The qualitative data was unexpected and n ot collected in a consistent manner. However, there was still a good amount of information provided by the participants. In the future, in depth interviews with the 106 participants from this project could explain some of the responses that were provided within the quantitative survey instrument. Although the survey provided good information, by allowing the female registrants to speak about their experiences would tell a lot more about the effects of the registry rather than choosing a dichotomous answer choice. The qualitative data that was collected generated some support for the models but did not conclusively support or contradict the hypotheses proposed. Since there were no structured questions, the women were varied in the information that they su pplied. This means that for some of the themes, even though they were not discussing certain items it does not mean that those items are not present in their lives vocalized. Asking structured questions in the interviews a bout the theoretical models proposed in the quantitative instrument would help to back up the information gathered from the survey. More research should be conducted looking specifically at the General Strain Theory results. The anger element of strain th eory (anger results from the behavior and then participants find coping mechanisms to deal with that anger) is something that
108 could be further developed to see how anger is associated with being required to register. Are the participants angry because of their registration status and then manifesting that anger through drug use, alcohol use or other harmful behaviors? The physical actions that the participants are engaging in can be used as measure of the emotions that they are experiencing because of the registry status. The anger issue is something that could also be incorporated into the male and female registrant sample. Males and females often internalize anger and other emotions differently from one another, so their reactions may provide two disti nct sets of results. Since the project focused only on female registrants (the main focus of the Tewksbury study), future research could include adding male registrants to the sample. Often times there are gender differences among male and female registra nts in terms of what they are experiencing once they are required to register. These experiences, and their reactions to the experiences, could tell us more about the registry in general and more about individuals are experiencing in regards to their know n sex offender status specifically. Females comprise only a small portion of the total population of registered sex offenders, so this research is imperative to learning more about their experiences while being registered. However, now that some of the i nformation is available in regards to female registrants, having a male registrant comparison group would add greatly to the literature. In addition to the gender differences, there may be a great amount of information to be gathered comparing those who a re currently on the registry to those who have timed out. Examining the experiences of those who are not longer required to register would provide great insight into the prisonization effect that was proposed in this study. Because most of the participan ts are lifetime registrants, they
109 will never experience the reintegration elements that Clemmer proposed in his theory. However, for those who are no longer required to register, they may have indeed experienced the behaviors that Clemmer proposes. This other comparison group would also add a great deal to the literature surround the registry. In addition further data analyses may benefit from the revised time ratio equation that was briefly explained earlier in the paper. The equation that was used crea ted a skewed distribution because of the large amount of individuals that are required to register for life. As a reminder the equation used was as follows: Time Requirement Ratio = Amount of time spent on the registry as of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------Time required to register on the FSOR This equation produces a time ratio for all individuals who returned a survey. However, there is no variation in produced ratio which does not do an adequate job that is necessary for the independent variable. Therefore, an alternative equation must be developed which takes into account the life expectancy of the individuals on the registry. In the first equation, 99 years was used as the numerical equivalent to lifet ime registry requirement. However the use of the 99 year marker further skews the data because it makes all of the ratios smaller and adds to the lack of variability in the variable. At the time, the 99 year marker was used with the justification that no one will outlive the sentence. In re trospect, this was not an adequate reason for using the number. Working to correct this problem, future data analysis could put the following equation to use to see if it can correct the skewness issue found in the time ratio variable. Time Requirement Ra tio = Amount of time spent on the registry as of 2010 -------------------------------------------------------------------Average life expectancy Age at the time of registration
110 Participants provided qualitative information unexpectedly. This inform ation was not foreseen when the project was being developed. Based on the positive response of the participants, there may be some value in conducting the in depth interviews with the participants. Prior research explains some reasons for why female sexu al offenders are convicted of sexual offenses, but there may be other reasons for their convictions. This is not to suggest that all female sexual offenders have been falsely convicted but there could be underlying reasons for why these women were convict ed. The qualitative information showed that m ost of the females included in this study have been married or are currently married. T he accusations of the sexual offense could have come at the time of the divorce. Or if there was a custody battle over th accusations could have taken place in order for the father to obtain full custody of the children. While there are some of the participants who fully admit to the offenses, others are not so quick to admit to their responsibi lity. Perhaps there was a history of sexual abuse against the participant or perhaps the participant was addicted to illegal substances or had alcoholic tendencies. These problems could be contributing factors as to why the females committed the sexual o ffenses they were convicted for Policy Implications Based on the prior research conducted on sex offender registration, it has been shown that the offenders can experience registration negatively. T he registry creates a second sentence for those register ed the first being the court imposed sentence and the second being the stigma and hardships associated with being a registered sex offender. The prior literature on female sex offenders is sparse. However, this study add s to the literature by showing t he effects that the registration causes for these women. From the data collected (both qualitative and quantitative) it seems that women
111 are not committing the heinous crimes that the media associates with sexual offenders. The female sex offenders in th is study tend to be in custody battles, with a sex offense allegation resulti ng from the fight. There may also be a secondary player involved in the commission of the sexual offense or the women were engaged in a sexual relationship with a minor (mostly s tudents). These women, for the most part do not seem to be engaging in violent sexual crimes, however law enforcement and the present rules of the registry treat them as though they have committed violent sexual offenses. The law enacted, in its basic f orm, requires that sex offenders to register on the Florida Sex Offender Registration List. This law makes it mandatory for states to publish the information collected about sex offenders, however the societal reaction to the registration law is different from what the law originally intended. The societal reaction views these women only as sex offenders never to be trusted and people that must be exiled from the community. The amount of shame that follows this reaction makes it very difficult for se x offenders to reintegrate back into society, making reoffending more likely according to Reintegrative Shaming Theory. T he registration laws may seem to be the correct solution to many but the way the law is constructed may make it harder for sex offend ers to have a life once they live return to the community. The societal reaction to sex offenders is the reason why more research must be conducted on the side effects of the registration laws. If it can be determined that the sex offender registrations laws are doing more harm than good, then perhaps a new alternative can be produced to make the reintegration of female sex offenders more possible.
112 Another side effect of the registry and of the sex offender status shows up in terms of employment. Most of these women are not able to find employment because of their sex offender status. If they were simply convicted of a felony, they may have had a better chance of finding employment. However, because they were convicted of a felony sexual offense, the odds of these women finding employment are drastically reduced. The laws for the registry, in the current state provides safety and security to the general public letting families know that their children will be protected because the sex offenders are known and can be identified. However, because they can be identified, these offenders encounter hardships and harassing behaviors that were not intended to take place by law. While it would be difficult to argue that the sex offender registry should be abolished from public policy, perhaps it would be feasible to argue that some adjustments need to be made. Most women on the registry agree that it is in place for a reason and needs to be upheld, however modifications must be made if those on the regist ry are supposed to be able to live independently post conviction. In this instance, Because of this distinction, more research must be conducted to see whethe r the current system of registration i s not being as effective as it could be.
113 APPENDIX A INSTRUMENT For each question, please answer based on your personal experience, or how you feel about the issue. Your participation is completely voluntary. Please do NOT put your name anywhere on the survey; all responses are completely confidential. Thank you for y our participation! Please provide only one answer for each of the following questions unless instructed otherwise. The personal questions asked below are not enough to identify you over any other participant in this study. However, please remember to a nswer only according to the provided answers. Please do not provide any additional information. 1. When were you placed on the Florida Sex Offender Registry? ______________Month ________Year 2. How long are you required to register: ( Pleas e check only one answer) ____ 15 years ____25 years ____Lifetime 3. For the sexual offenses that you have been convicted of, is/are the victim(s): (please check all that apply) _____Female _____Multiple victims _____Male _____A relative _____Children/Minors 4. For the sexual offenses that you have been convicted of, did you commit the offense alone? _____ Yes _____ No a. If you answered No, what was the gender of the person you committed the offense with? _____ Ma le _____ Female b. Did you have a previous relationship with the person you committed the offense with? _____ Yes _____ No c. Who was the person you committed the offense with? _____ Spouse/Partner _____ Relative _____ Friend _____Other 5. Approximately what portion of your family, friends, co workers, and other people you consider a part of your life know about your sexual offense conviction(s)? _____Everyone _____Almost Everyone (90% or more) _____Most people (6 0% 90%) _____A lot of people (40% 60%) _____Some people (10% 40%) _____Only a few people (less than 10%) _____No one knows
114 6. Based on your listing on the Florida Sex Offender Registry, how often are you recognized in public as a conv icted sex offender? _____Daily _____A couple of times a week _____About once a week _____A couple of times a month _____About once a month _____A few times a year _____Once a year _____Never 7. How often do you have law enforc ement officers (police) or other government workers contact you, as a result of your placement on the Florida Sex Offender Registry? _____Daily _____A couple of times a week _____About once a week _____A couple of times a month _____About once a month _____A few times a year _____Once a year _____Never 8. Have you ever looked at your listing on the Florida Sex Offender Registry? _____Yes _____No For each of the following statements, please indicate whether you agree or d isagree with each statement. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely if they know I am on the Florida Sex 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree
115 Completely Undecided Completely ex Offender Registry is going too 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely more or less serious) on the Florida Sex Offender Registry, I wo uld contact someone to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely e to update my information 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely information is listed on the Florida Sex Offender 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely
116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely public because it makes life difficult for the people who are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely he public because it harms everyone registered and prevents me and other from turning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Complete ly Undecided Completely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agr ee Completely Undecided Completely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Ag ree Completely Undecided Completely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
117 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely The following questions ask you about your experiences with law enforcement, correctional and court officials. Please answer Yes, No or Does Not Apply to the following questions do not elaborate on your answers. Please remember that none of the information provided will be given to law enforcement, correctional or court officials. 34. At the time of your arrest, do you feel that law enforcement officials treated you fairly? _____ Yes _____ No 35. At the time of your arrest, did you feel that law enforcement officials treated you with respect? _____ Yes _____ No
118 36. During your trial or time spent in court, do you feel that the court officials treated you fairly? _____ Yes _____ No 37. During your trial or time spent in court, do you feel that the court officials treated you with respect? _____ Yes _____ No 38. While you were incarcerated, did the correctional staff treat you fairly? _____ Yes _____ No _____Does Not Apply 39. While you were incarcerated, did the correctional staff treat you with respect? _____ Yes _____ No _____Does Not Apply 40. While you were incarcerated, did you feel that the correctional staff was judgmental of your offense? _____ Y es _____ No _____Does Not Apply 41. While on probation, did you feel that that your probation office treated you fairly? _____ Yes _____ No _____Does Not Apply 42. While on probation, did you feel that your probation officer treated you with respect? _____ Yes _____ No _____Does Not Apply 43. While on probation, did you feel that your probation officer was judgmental of your offense? _____ Yes _____ No _____Does Not Apply 44. While on probation, did your probation officer give you ad vanced warning before making a home visit? _____ Yes _____ No _____Does Not Apply 45. While on probation, did your probation officer ever come by unannounced for a home visit? _____ Yes _____ No _____Does Not Apply 46. While on probation, did y our probation officer visit you at home on a regular basis? _____ Yes _____ No _____Does Not Apply 47. Do you feel that your probation officer visited you more often because you were convicted of a sexual offense? _____ Yes _____ No 48. Do you feel that your probation officer would not have visited you as often if you had been convicted of a non sexual offense? _____ Yes _____ No
119 49. Do you feel that you have been treated differently by law enforcement, corrections official or court offi cials based on your status as a sexual offender? _____ Yes _____ No 50. Do you feel that being on the Florida Sex Offender Registry has caused unnecessary stress in your life? _____ Yes _____No 51. Because of this stress, do you feel that you act out in an unhealthy way? _____ Yes _____ No 52. Because of this stress, do you consume alcohol more than you did in the past? _____ Yes _____ No 53. Because of this stress, do you use any illegal substances more than you did in the past? _____ Yes _____ No 54. Because of this stress, have you ever tried to hurt yourself? _____ Yes _____ No 55. Because of this stress, have you ever tried to hurt someone else? _____ Yes _____ No 56. Do you feel angry for having to register on the Flor ida Sex Offender Registry? _____ Yes _____No 57. Since registering on the Florida Sex Offender Registry, has your relationship with your significant other ended? _____ Yes _____ No 58. Since registering on the Florida Sex Offender Registry, have any relationships with family members ended? _____ Yes _____ No 59. Since registering on the Florida Sex Offender Registry, have you been physically abused by someone close to you? _____ Yes _____ No 60. Since registering on the Florida Sex Offe nder Registry, have you been emotionally or verbally abused by someone close to you? _____ Yes _____ No As a result of your placement on the Florida Sex Offender Registry, have any of the following ever happened to you? (Please circle the number that c orresponds with how many times the event occurred) 61. Lost a job 0 1 2 3 4+
120 62. Been denied a promotion at work 0 1 2 3 4+ 63. Lost (or denied) a place to live 0 1 2 3 4+ 64. Been treated rudely in a public place 0 1 2 3 4+ 65. Been asked to leave a business or restaurant 0 1 2 3 4+ 66. Lost a friend because of your registration status 0 1 2 3 4+ 67. Been harassed, in person 0 1 2 3 4+ 68. Been assaulted/attacked 0 1 2 3 4+ 69. Received harassing/threatening telephone calls 0 1 2 3 4+ 70. Received harassing/threatening mail/flyers/notes 0 1 2 3 4+ 71. Since being released, how many times have you had to change residences? _____ 0 times _____ 1 time _____ 2 times _____ 3 times _____ 4 times _____ 5 times or more 72. Is your current residence more than 2,500 feet away from a school? _____ Yes _____ No _____ Not sure 73. Have you ever been forced to move because your residence was located in an _____ Yes _____ No _____ Not sure 74. Were you ever informed that you could not live within a certain area close to a school, park or school bus stop? _____ Yes _____ No _____ Not sure 75. Have you found it difficult to find employment after your release? _____ Ye s _____ No _____ Not sure 75a. If you answered Yes, is this because your employer knew that you are a registered sex offender? _____ Yes _____ No _____ Not sure 76. Has your residence ever been attacked or violated? _____ Yes _____ No _____ Not sure 76a. If you answered Yes, how was it attacked or violated? _____ Arson _____ Robbery _____ Graffiti/Vandalism _____ Other
121 77. Do you feel that your current neighborhood is a last resort area for you (meaning that you only live ther e because the law has limited your other opportunities of residence)? _____ Yes _____ No _____ Not sure 78. How safe do you feel in your neighborhood? 1 2 3 4 5 Very Unsafe Somewhat Safe Very Safe The following questions a ddress activities that you may participate in within your community. Please answer one answer per question. 79. Do you attend a religious service of any kind on a regular basis? _____ Yes ______ No 80. Do you participate in religious activities within the church you belong to (anything that is not included in regular service)? _____ Yes ______ No 81. Do you seek out the support of a religious leader on a regular basis (rabbi, priest, _____ Yes ______ No 82. Do you take part in a support group within the community? _____ Yes ______ No 82a. If you answered Yes, is the support group designed specifically for sexual offenders? _____ Yes ______ No 83. Do you belong to any hobby groups or clubs? _____ Yes _____ No 84. Are you involved in any intramural sports organizations? _____ Yes _____ No 85. Do you feel like the activities in which you are involved help make you feel a sense of belonging to your community? _____ Yes _____ No 86. Are you in contact with any other registered sex offenders in your community? _____ Yes _____ No
122 The following questions ask about your identification as a sexual offender. Please answer the question based on how much you agree or disagree with the sta tement. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undec ided Completely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Complet ely Undecided Completely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree U nsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely
123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Disagree Unsure Agree Completely Undecided Completely The final questions are about you personally. Remember, all of your answers are anonymous and confidential. These items are simply to allow a better experiences. 98. Your age: _____ years 99. What is your relationship status? _____ Married _____ Single _____ Unmarried but living wit h a partner _____ Dating _____ Divorced _____ Widow 100. Do you have children? _____ Yes _____No 100a. If you answered Yes, are your children still minors? _____ Yes _____ No 100b. If you answered Yes, do you have custo dy of your children? _____ Yes _____ No 100c. If you answered No, who has custody/guardianship of your children? _____ Father _____ Grandparent _____ Aunt _____ Uncle _____ Older Sibling _____ Other Relative _____ Other
124 Thank you for your assistance! Please return your completed survey in the postage paid return envelope provided. If you have any questions, please contact Jennifer L. Klein, Department Sociology, Criminology and Law, University of Florida. Jennifer L. Klein can a lso be reached via email at: firstname.lastname@example.org.
125 APPENDIX B CODING MANUAL Florida Counties County Code County Code Alachua 1 Lee 35 Baker 2 Leon 36 Bay 3 Levy 37 Bradford 4 Liberty 38 Brevard 5 Madison 39 Broward 6 Manatee 40 Calhoun 7 Marion 41 Charlotte 8 Martin 42 Citrus 9 Miami Dade 43 Clay 10 Monroe 44 Collier 11 Nassau 45 Columbia 12 Okaloosa 46 DeSoto 13 Okeechobee 47 Dixie 14 Orange 48 Duval 15 Osceola 49 Escambia 16 Palm Beach 50 Flagler 17 Pasco 51 Franklin 18 Pinellas 52 Gadsden 19 Polk 53 Gilchrist 20 Putnam 54 Glades 21 Saint Johns 55 Gulf 22 Saint Lucie 56 Hamilton 23 Santa Rosa 57 Hardee 24 Sarasota 58 Henry 25 Seminole 59 Hernando 26 Sumter 60 Highlands 27 Suwannee 61 Hillsborough 28 Taylor 62 Holmes 29 Union 63 Indian River 30 Volusia 64 Jackson 31 Wakulla 65 Jefferson 32 Walton 66
126 Lafayette 33 Washington 67 Lake 34 Eligible Offenses Offenses taken from the FDLE Sex Offender Registry Offense Title (will be listed in SPSS as the following:) Offense Committed Coding Number Sex Offense Against a Child Sex Offense Against a Child 1 Sexual Misconduct with a Minor Sexual Misconduct with a Minor 2 Abuse of a child, sexual performance Abuse of a child and engaging in sexual performances 3 Conspiracy, abuse of a child, sexual performance Conspiracy to attempt the abuse of a child, engaging in sexual performances 4 Sexual Battery, minor under 16 Commits acts defined as sexual battery to a minor under 16 OR Sexual Assault against a child less than 16 years old 5 Sexual Battery 12 or older, no harm Sexual Battery of a victim 12 years or older, no serious harm committed Or Sexual Battery to a victim 12 years or older, not likely to commit serious injury 6 Sexual Battery 12 or older, physically helpless victim Sexual battery to a victim 12 years or older and the victim is physically helpless 7 Sexual Battery 12 or older mental defects Committed sexual battery to a victim 12 years or older with mental defects 8 Sexual Battery 12 or under Sexual Battery of a victim under 12 9 Sexual Battery 12 or under with harm Sexual Battery and/or injury of victim 12 years old or younger OR Sexual battery with a victim 12 years or older while threatening to use harmful force 10 Sexual Battery, injury to sexual organs, 12 or younger Commits sexual battery and/or injures the sexual organs of a victim less than 12 years of age 11 Sexual Battery, no harm Commits sexual battery and uses force not likely to cause harm 12 Sexual Battery, coercion authority Sexual Battery by coercion of authority 13
127 Sexual Battery, coercion adult Sexual Battery with the coercion of the child by an adult 14 Sexual Battery Sexual Battery in the 1 st degree OR Sexual Battery in the 2 nd degree OR Sexual Battery in the 3 rd degree OR Sexual Battery in the 4 th degree 15 Conspiracy, sexual battery, coercion child Conspiracy to commit sexual battery and coerce a child 16 Crimes Against Nature Crimes Against Nature 17 Endangering welfare, child Endangering the welfare of a child OR Endangering the welfare of children OR Endangering the welfare of a child/children in the 1 st 2 nd 3 rd or 4 th degree 18 Kidnapping, minor Kidnapping a minor against their will 19 Kidnapping Kidnapping 20 False imprisonment False imprisonment or confinement 21 Failure to Register Failure to comply with section requirements to report to Law Enforcement OR Failure to register with local Law Enforcement OR Failure to register in allotted time OR Failed to notify sheriff of relocation to another jurisdiction OR Sex offender registration violation 22 Commit a felony with a child under 16 Commit or Facilitate the commission of a felony with a child under 16 23 Sexual Assault, overcoming will 24 Sexual Assault, minor Sexual assault against a minor 25
128 Sexual Assault, child Sexual assault against a child OR Sexual Assault against a child 1 st degree OR Sexual Assault against a child 2 nd degree OR Sexual Assault against a child 3 rd degree OR Sexual Assault against a child 4 th degree 26 Sexual Assault Sexual Assault OR Sexual Assault, 1 st degree OR Sexual Assault, 2 nd degree OR Sexual Assault 3 rd degree OR Sexual Assault, 4 th degree 27 Deviate Sexual Assault Deviate Sexual Assault 28 Felonious Sexual Assault, age difference of 3 years Felonious sexual assault with a victim 13 or older and under 16, with an age difference of 3 years between the victim and the perpetrator 29 Employee Sex, juvenile Employee Sex with a juvenile offender 30 Indecent Liberties, child Indecent liberties with a child OR Indecent liberties with a child by custodian, abuse of child 31 Indecent assault and battery, victim over 14 Indecent assault and battery on a person over 14 years of age 32 Lewd and Lascivious, minor less than 16 Committing a lewd act upon a minor less than 16 years of age OR Lewd and lascivious conduct with a victim under the age of 16 33 Lewd and Lascivious, minor less than 16 and offender less than 18 Lewd and lascivious conduct with a victim under the age of 16 and an offender under the age of 18 34 Lewd and Lascivious battery, victim 12 15 Lewd and lascivious battery against a victim 12 15 years old 35
129 Lewd and Lascivious battery, victim under 16 Lewd and Lascivious battery causing the person under 16 to engage in a sexual act OR Lewd and Lascivious battery causing a sexual act with a victim under 16 36 Lewd molestation, elderly or disabled Lewdly molesting an elderly or disabled person 37 Lewd molestation Lewd molestation 38 Lewd and Lascivious molestation, victim 12 15 Lewd and Lascivious molestation of a victim between 12 15 years old 39 Lewdly fondle, under 16 Lewdly fondle or assault on or in the presence of a child under 16 40 Lewd and Lascivious exhibition, under 16 Lewd and lascivious exhibition of a victim under 16 years of age 41 Molestation, under 12 Molestation to a victim under the age of 12 42 Aggravated child molestation Aggravated child molestation 43 Aggravated sexual assault, child Aggravated sexual assault on a child 44 Aggravated criminal sexual abuse, victim 13 16 Aggravated criminal sexual abuse with a victim 13 16 years of age with bodily harm committed 45 Aggravated criminal sexual abuse Aggravated criminal sexual abuse 46 Sexual Abuse Sexual Abuse in the 1 st degree OR Sexual Abuse in the 2 nd degree OR Sexual Abuse in the 3 rd degree OR Sexual Abuse in the 4 th degree 47 Sexual Abuse, minor Sexual Abuse of a minor 48 Statutory Rape Statutory Rape 49 Sodomy Sodomy 50 Sodomy in the 3 rd degree, actor over 21, victim under 17 Sodomy in the 3 rd degree with the actor over 21 years of age and the victim under 17 years of age 51 Statutory Sodomy Statutory sodomy in the 1 st degree OR Statutory sodomy in the 2 nd degree OR Statutory sodomy in the 3 rd degree OR Statutory sodomy in the 4 th degree 52
130 Criminal sexual conduct Criminal sexual conduct in the 1 st degree OR Criminal sexual conduct in the 2 nd degree OR Criminal sexual conduct in the 3 rd degree OR Criminal sexual conduct in the 4 th degree 53 Criminal sexual conduct, victim 13 16 Criminal sexual conduct in the 4 th degree, victim between 13 16 years of age 54 Intentionally touching, lewd and lascivious, 12 15 Intentionally touching in a lewd and lascivious manner the breasts, genitals, genital area, or buttocks, or the clothing touching them, of a person 12 15, or forcing or enticing a person 12 to 15 to so touch the perpetrator 55 Intentionally touching, lewd and lascivious, person under 16 Intentionally touching a person under 16 years of age in a lewd and lascivious manner or soliciting a person under 16 to commit a lewd and lascivious act 56 Intentionally Masturbating, lewd and lascivious, person under 16 Inten tionally masturbating, exposing genitals in a lewd or lascivious manner, or committing any other sexual act with no physical or sexual contact in the presence of a person under 16 years of age 57 Attempted sexual conduct, minor Attempted sexual conduct with a minor 58 Carnal Knowledge Carnal Knowledge of a juvenile 59 Incest Incest in the 1 st degree OR Incest in the 2 nd degree OR Incest in the 3 rd degree OR Incest in the 4 th degree 60
131 Rape Rape in the 1 st degree OR Rape in the 2 nd degree OR Rape in the 3 rd degree OR Rape in the 4 th degree 61 Rape, 3 rd degree, victim under 17 and the perpetrator over 21 Rape in the 3 rd degree with a victim less than 17 years old and the perpetrator 21 years or older 62 Rape of a Child Rape of a child in the 1 st degree OR Rape of a child in the 2 nd degree OR Rape of a child in the 3 rd degree OR Rape of a child in the 4 th degree 63 Rape and abuse, child Rape and abuse of a child 64 Rape and abuse, child under 16 Rape and abuse of a child, under 16 years old 65 Solicitation of a minor Solicitation of a minor OR Solicitation of a child 66 Procuring for prostitution, 16 or under Procuring any person under the age of 16 for prostitution 67 Procuring for prostitution, 18 or under Procuring any person under the age of 18 for prostitution 68 Prostitution, other offenses, minor Prostitution and related offenses with a minor 69 Prostitution/Pandering Prostitution/Pandering 70 Knowingly Sexual Activity, minor Knowingly engaging in and attempting to engage in a sexual act with a minor 71 Sexual Activity with a minor Engages in sexual activity with a minor 72 Sexual Activity, minor 12 15 Sex with a victim 12 15 years of age 73 Sexual Activity, minor older than 15 Engages in sexual activity with a minor older than 15 years old 74 Sexual Activity, 16 17 Engages in sexual activity with a person who is 16 17 years old 75 Enticing a child Enticing a child for indecent purposes OR Enticing a child to enter for immoral purposes 76 Corruption of a minor Corruption of a minor 77
132 Unlawful sexual acts, minors Unlawful sexual acts with certain minors 78 Obscene materials, minor Provided obscene materials to a minor 79 Conspiracy, child pornography Conspiracy to produce child pornography 80 Possession child pornography Possession of child pornography 81 Sexual Exploitation, child pornography Sexual exploitation of children and activity related to child pornography 82 Induces child to sexually perform Induces, employs or authorizes child to engage in sexual performances 83 Possession of representation of sexual conduct, child Possession of photograph, film or other representation that knowingly includes sexual conduct by a child 84 Transmitting information, known minor Transmitting an image, information or data that is harmful to minors to an individual known to be a minor in this state 85 Use of the internet for sex, child Use of the internet to solicit or attempt to solicit a child for sex or lewdlessness 86 Communicating with a minor Communicating with a minor for immoral purposes 87 Criminal History Offenses Coding and Eligible Offenses 1 = Sexual Offenses SEX BAT BY ADULT/VCTM UNDER 12 (ATTEMPTED) ADULT ENGAGING IN SEX WITH A MINOR OVER AGE 15 (X1) FELONY SECOND DEGREE 0794.05.1 CARNAL INTERCOURSE WITH CHASTE PERSON UNDER 18 (X1) 0794.05.1 FELONY SECOND DEGREE ADLT SEX W/16 17 YR OLD F.S.794.05(1) UNLAWFUL SEX W/ MINOR (X3) CRIMINAL FELONY UNLAWFUL SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CERTAIN MINORS 16/17 YR OLD; F.S.794.05(1) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SEX OFFENDER (X1) S9430435(4) LEWDLY FONDLE OR ASSAULT, COMMIT OR SIMULATE SEXUAL ACTS ON OR IN PRESENCE OF A CHILD UNDER 16 IN LEWD, LASCIVIOUS OR INDECENT MANNER (X1) 0800.04 FELONY SECOND DEGREE
133 1 = Sexual Offenses L/L BATTERY V 12 15 YO 800.04(4) TX SEXUAL ASSAULT CHILD 22.011(A)(2) L/L CONDUCT V<16 OFF 18+ LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS EXHIBITION VICTIM UNDER 16 YOA OFFENDER 18 LEWD, LASCIVIOUS CHILD U/16 (F.S.800.04) FL. SX OFFNDR FAIL COMPLY PSIA SEX OFFENSE, OTHER STATE (SEXUAL ASSAULT) SEXUAL ACTIVITY (FAMILIAL/CUSTO) S794041(2)(B) (X2) SEXUAL BATTERY: DEF +18 VICT S794011(2) 1 L/L MOLEST V<12 OFF 18+ SEX BAT/COERCE CHILD BY ADULT 794.011(2)(B) GA SEXUAL BATTERY WPN OR FORCE PERSON 18 OR OLDER COMMITS SEXUAL BATTERY AND/OR INJURES SEXUAL ORGANS OF A VCTM LESS THAN 12 0794.011.2 (X1) COMMITS SEXUAL BATTERY; VICTIM 12 OR OLDER; OFFENDER COERCES VICTIME BY THREAT OF FORCE OR VIOLENCE (X1) 0794.011.4B FELONY LIFE SEX BAT/WPN. OR FORCE 794.011(3) SEX BAT/THREAT W/ DEADLY WPN. 794.011(1) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS BATTERY ON CHILD AGED 12 TO 15 (X1) F.S.800.04(4) LEWD ASLT/SEX BAT VCTM SEX BAT BY JUV/VCTM UNDER 12; F.S.794.011(2) SEXUAL BATTERY (FAMILIAL OR CU) (X2) S794011(8)(B) SEX OFFENDER FAIL TO NOT. SHERIFF; F.S.943.0435(7) EMPLOYEE SEX W/DJJ OFNDR; F.S.985.404591)(A)(X3)
134 1 = Sexual Offenses LEWDLY FONDLE OR ASSAULT, COMMIT OR SIMULATE SEXUAL ACTS ON OR IN PRESENCE OF A CHILD UNDER 16 IN A LEWD, LASCIVIOUS OR INDECENT MANNER (X1) 0800.04 COMMITS SEXUAL BATTERY; COERCES BY AUTHORITY (ENGAGES IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH A CHILD) (X1) F.S.0794041.2B FELONY FIRST DEGREE L/L MOLEST V12 15 OFF 18+ L/L INDEC.ASLT CHILD U/16 SEX OFFENSE, OTHER STATE (X3 SEXUAL ABUSE 1ST DEGREE SEX BAT/WEAP/SER INJ SEX BAT THREAT W/ DEADLY WPN. 794.011(3) SEX OFND/VIOL REGIST FELONY SEX BAT/WPN. OR FORCE; F.S.794.011(3) SEXUAL OFFENDER FAIL REGISTER AS A SEXUAL OFFENDER 943.0435(9) SEX BAT/PHYS RESIST;F.S.794.011(4)(A) L/L INDEC.ASLT.CHILD U/16 ABUSE OF CHILD, ENG SEX PERFM. 827.071(2) SEX OFFENSE AGAINST CHILD FONDLING MOLEST VIC LESS THAN 12YOA OFF 800.04 5B OBSCENE MATERIAL DISTRIB TO MINOR 847.0133 CRUELTY TOWARD CHILD USE OR ALLOW CHILD TO ENGAGE IN SEX 827.071. 2 LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS EXHIBITION, VICTIM UNDER 16, OFFENDER UNDER 18; F.S.800.04(7)C SEX.OFNDR. NOT NOTIF.SHERIFF 943.0435(7) ABUSE OF CHILD, ENG SEX PERFM. 827.071(2)
135 1 = Sexual Offenses LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS/ SENT 96.45 MONTHS DOC (X1) CRIMINAL FELONY SEX BAT/INJURY NOT LIKELY SEX BAT/PHYSICAL FORCE 794.011(5) ATTEMPTED SEXUAL BATTERY 794.011 1F THIRD DEGREE SEX PERF/CHILD/POSN POSS OF PHOTOS/PICTURES SHOWING SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD; F.S.827.071(5) ABUSE OF CHILD, ENG SEX PERF;F.S.827.071(2) SEX OFFENSE, OTHER STATE (SODOMY, 3RD DEGREE: ACTOR OVER 21, VICTIM UNDER 17 YEARS OF AGE) OK. LEWD MOLESTATION ATTEMPTED SEXUAL BATTERY 794.011 1F THIRD DEGREE LEWD/LASC EXHIBIT BY PERSON 18 YOA, VICT 16 YOA (800.04 7C 1) PROVIDE OBSCENE MATERIAL TO A F.S. 847.0133.1 FALSE IMPRISONMENT OF A CHILD UNDER 13 WHILE COMMITING AGGRAVATED CHILD ABUSE, SEXUAL BATTERY, I NDECENT ASSAULT, PROSTITUTION, OR EXPLOITATION X1 F.S.0787.02.3A PERSON 18 OR OLDER COMMITS SEXUAL BATTERY AND OR INJURES SEXUAL ORGANS OF A VICTIM LESS THAN 12 X1 F.S.0794.011.2 FELONY SECOND DEGREE COMMITS SEXUAL BATTERY; VICTIM 12 OR OLDER PHYSICALLY HELPLESS F.S. 0794.011.4A X1 FELONY SECOND DEGREE SEX ASSLT SOL SEX BATT ACT BY CUSTODIAN VICTM UNDER 18 YOA (STATUTE: 794.011(8A) AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL SEXUAL ABUSE/VICTIM 13 16 POSSESS PHOTOGRAPH, FILM OR OTHER REPRESENTATION THAT KNOWINGLY INCLUDES SEXUAL CONDUCT BY CHILD (OFFENSE CODE: 0827.071.5) FELONG THIRD DEGREE
136 1 = Sexual Offenses ABUSE OF CHILD,PHOTO SEX CONDT (OFFENSE CODE: 827.071(5) POSS OF PHOTO/PICTURE SHOWING SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD; F.S. 827.071(5) SEX ASSLT SOL SEX BATT ACT BY CUSTODIAN VICTM UNDER 18 YOA (STATUTE: 794.011(8A) SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRATION (NOT AN ARREST)/CONVICTED FELON REGISTRATION OFFENSE CODE: 775.13 ENGAGING IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH A PERSON 12 TO 1 OR ENCOURGING, FORCING, OR ENTICING A PERSON UNDER 16 TO ENGAGE IN SADOMA SOCHISTIC ABUSE, SEXUAL BESTIALITY, PROSTITUTION, OR ANY OTHER ACT INVOLVIN (OFFENSE CODE: 0800.04.4) PROMOTES SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD WHICH INCLUDES SEXUAL CONDUCT OFFENSE CODE: 0827.071.3 CARNAL INTERCOURSE WITH CHASTE PERSON UNDER 18 0794.05.1 VA. STATUTORY RAPE (OFFENSE CODE: 18.2 63) FELONY DIRECT PROMOTE SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY CHILD 827071 3 SECOND DEGREE CRUELTY TOWARD CHILD DIRECT PROMOTE SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY CHILD (827.071(9)) OBSCENE MATERIAL POSSESS POSS PHOTOGRAPH OF SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY CHILD (827.071(5)) ABUSE OF CHILD, ENG SEX PERFM. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SEX OFFENDER REPORTING REQ (X1) SEX BAT/MENTALLY DEFECTIVE INDUCES, EMPLOYS OR AUTHORIZES CHILD TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL PERFORMANCE, FELONY SECOND DEGREE F.S.0827.071.2 (X1) LEWDLY FONDLE OR ASSAULT, COMMIT OR SIMULATE SEXUAL ACTS ON OR IN PRESENCE OF A CHILD UNDER 16 IN LEWD,LASCIVIOUS OR INDECENT MANNER (X1) 0800.04 FELONY SECOND DEGREE F/VOP F/T REG SEX OFFENDER (PIP 94806) FELONY THIRD DEGREE
137 1 = Sexual Offenses SEX BATT/SOLICITATION OF CHILD SEX BAT BY ADULT/VCTM UNDER 12; F.S. 794.011(2) CRUELTY TOWARD CHILD DIRECT PROMOTE SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY CHILD (827.071(9)) ABUSE OF CHILD, PHOTO SEX CONDT (OFFENSE CODE: 827.071(5) COURT/TRAFFIC) OBSCENE MATERIAL POSSESS POSS PHOTOGRAPH OF SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY CHILD (827.071(5)) SOLICIT SEX MISD. (OFFENSE CODE: 796.07(2)(F) SEX OFFENSE, OTHER STATE (CHILD PORNOGRAPHY FEDERAL OFFENSE) LEWDLY FONDLE OR ASSAULT, COMMIT OR SIMULATE SEXUAL ACTS ON OR IN PRESENCE OF A CHILD UNDER 16 IN LEWD, LASCIVIOUS OR INDECENT MANNER OFFENSE CODE: 0800.04 LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS BATTERY (X1) F.S.800.04(4) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS EXHIBITION VICTIM UNDER 16 YOA OFFENDER 18 OR OLDER; F.S.800.04(6)(B) SEX BAT/COERCE CHILD BY ADULT 794.011(2)(B) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS BATTERY ON CHILD AGED 12 TO 15 (X1) F.S.800.04(4) ABUSE CHILD L/L INDEC.ASLT.CHILD U/16 LEWDLY FONDLE OR ASSAULT, COMMIT OR SIMULATE SEXUAL ACTS ON OR IN PRESENCE OF A CHILD UNDER 16 IN LEWD,LASCIVIOUS OR INDECENT MANNER (X1) 0800.04 FELONY SECOND DEGREE LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS VICTIM UNDER 16 YEARS OLD BY OFFENDER 18 YEARS OR OLDER; F.S.800.04(6)(B) 2 = Battery / Aggravated Assault MISDEMEANOR BATTERY (X1) 0784.03 MISDEMEANOR FIRST DEGREE
138 2 = Battery / Aggravated Assault BATTERY/AGGRAVATED, FELONY BATTERY LAW ENFORCEMENT 240.381(2) BATTERY/AGG/BOD HARM BATTERY ON PERSON 65 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER 78408 THIRD DEGREE AGGRAVATED BATTERY; VICTIM PREGNANT (X1) F.S.0784.045.1B BATTERY (DOMESTIC) (X2) F.S.S78403 1 AGGRAVATED ASSUALT; ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON WITHOUT INTENT TO KILL (X1) 0784.021.1A AGG ASSLT W/WPN NO INTENT TO K 784.021(1)(A) AGG BATTERY INTENDED HARM 784.045(1)(A)1 BATTERY LAW ENFORCEMENT 784.07(2)(B) BATTERY ON OFFICER 784.07 2B 3 = Fraud WILLYFULLY AND WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION FRAUDULENTLY USES, OR POSSES WITH INTENT TO FRAUDULENTLY USE, PERSONAL ID INFO CONCERNING AN INDIVIDUAL (FRAUDULENT USE OF PERSONAL ID) (X1) 0817.568.2 COUNTERFEITING A PAYMENT INSTRUMENT WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD OR POSSESSING ANY COUNTERFEIT PAYMENT INSTRUMENT (X1) 0831.28.2A FRAUD USE OF PERSONAL ID 817.568(2) COUNTERFEIT PAYMENT INSTR. 831.28(2)(A) FRAUD CREDIT CARD FAM.SERV.FRAUD.$200 OR MORE 414.39(2) FRAUD OTHER
139 3 = Fraud SELL GOODS WITH FAKE OR COUNTERFEIT LABEL (X1) 0831.05.1A RACKETEERING VIOLATION 89502 OBTAINING PROPERTY IN RETURN FOR W/L CHECK (X1) MISDEMEANOR WORTHLESS CHECK OBTAINING PR S83205(4)(A) 2 PASSING WORTHLESS BANK CHECK F.S.832.05 2B WORTHLESS CHECKS UTTERING FORGERY UTTERING A FORGED INSTRUMENT FORG2000 4 = Driving / Traffic Issues DRIVING WHILE LICENSE SUSPENDED (X1) S32234(1) DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (X4) S316193(1) NO VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE (X1) F.S.S32203 DRIVING WITH LICENSE SUSPENDED, REVOKED, CANCELED, OR DISQUALIFIED (X1) 0322.34 FL. DUI UNDER INFLUENCE OF ALCHO OFFENSE CODE: S316193(1) DRIVER'S LICENSE EXPIRED FOR M (X1) S32203(4) SPEEDING 85/70 STATUTE:012 SPEEDING 316.189(1) 2 EXPIRED REGIS 6 MONTHS OR LESS ACCIDENT FAIL TO SUBMIT PROOF OF INSURANCE DRIVING VEHICLE IN UNSAFE CONDITION FAILED/OBEY TRAFF. CONTROL DEV
140 4 = Driving / Traffic Issues CARELESS DRIVING DRIVING WHILE LICENSE SUSPENDED (X1) F.S.S32234 EXPIRED TAG MORE THAN 4 MONTHSF.S.320.07 3B STREET VIOLATION FAIL TO DISPLAY REGISTRATION; POSSESSION REQUIRED F.S.320.0605 UNLAWFUL USE OF A TEMPORTARY TAG F.S.320.131(3) RAN STOP SIGN UNLAWFUL SPEED NO OR IMPROPER LAMPS BICYCLE 88/70 SPEED STATE ROAD OR INT NO HEADLIGHTS C/0371ATS 4 NO MTR.VEH.REGIST. 32002 MISDEMEANOR SECOND DEGREE I/0372ATS 5 NO PROOF/INSURANCE 316646 DRIVE WHILE LICENSE SUSPENDED OR REVOKED 322.34(2A) OPEN STORAGE OF PROHIBITED VEHICLE FAILED TO STOP AT INOPERATIVE TRAFFIC LIGHT 316.1235 IMPROPER TAG; F.S.S320261 (X1) PERMIT UNAUTHORIZED PERSON TO DRIVE MOTOR VEHICLE F.S.322.36 5 = Prostitution PROSTITUTION LEWDNESS OR ASSIG (OFFENSE CODE: 796.07.2E) SOLICIT SEX MISD. (OFFENSE CODE: 796.07(2)(F)
141 5 = Prostitution DERIVING SUPPORT FROM PROSTITUTION (OFFENSE CODE: 79605) THIRD DEGREE PROSTITUTION LIVE OFF EARNINGS OF (OFFENSE CODE: 79605) THIRD DEGREE SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION 79607 SECOND DEGREE PROSTITUTION 79607 PROSTITUTION PIMPING LEWD INCECENT ACT LOITERING FOR PROSTITUTION (X1) LOITERING OR PROWLING (X1) F.S.S856021 PROCURING FEMALE UNDER 16 (X2) F.S.S79603 PROCURING A PERSON UNDER AGE OF 18 FOR PROSTITUTION F.S.796.03 SOLICITING FOR PROSTITUTION, MISDEMEANOR SECOND DEGREE 0796.07.2F (X1) 6 = Drugs DANGEROUS DRUGS DELIVER TO MINOR OR HIRE AS AGENT IN SALE OR DELIVERY MARIJUANA LSD, SYNTHETIC NARCOTIC, ETC. F.S.0893.13.4B X1 POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBST (X1) F.S.S893147(1) SALE OF MARIJUANA CRIMINAL FELONY SALE OF CLONAZEPAM CRIMINAL FELONY SALE OF OXYCODONE CRIMINAL FELONY POSS OXYCODONE CRIMINAL FELONY MARIJUANA POSSESS NOT MORE THAN 20 GRAMS F.S.893.13(6B) REMANDED FOR POSSESSION OF COCAINE
142 6 = Drugs MARIJUANA SALE/MANUF/DEL OTH.DRUG SALE/MANUF/DELIV INT POSS CONTR SUBST BY PER NOT REG CONSPIRE MANUF/DEL/POSS/W INT MANUF OR NARCOTIC EQUIP POSS OR USE 893.147.1 POSSESSION OF CRACK COCAINE (X2) FELONY THIRD DEGREE POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA (X2) MISDEMEANOR FIRST DEGREE COCAINE POSSESSION 893.13(6)(A) POSSESSION (X1) FELONY THIRD DEGREE SALE OR DELIVERY OF CANNIBIS T F.S. 893.13.4B SYN.NARC SALE/DELIV. MINOR FS/PROHIBITED HARVEST MISDEMEANOR SECOND DEGREE 7 = Theft GRAND THEFT $5K L/$10 K 812.014(2)(C1) PETIT THEFT MISDEMEANOR SECOND DEGREE (X1) 0812.014.3A CRIMINAL MISCHIEF OVER $200 BUT L/T 1,000 F.S.806.13.1B2 GRAND THEFT $300 LESS $20,000 CREDIT CARD THEFT OFFENSE CODE: 18.2 192 FELONY RETAIL THEFT, SECOND DEGREE (STATUTE: 812014) GRAND THEFT 812.014 2D GRAND THEFT, $100 BUT LESS THAN $300 FROM DWELLING 0812.014.2D (X1) PETIT THEFT; PROPERTY NOT SPECIFIED IN F.S. 812.014 (3RD SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE) 0812.014.2D (X1)
143 7 = Theft PETIT THEFT/3RD CONVICTION 812.014(2)(D) RETAIL THEFT/SHOPLIFTING 812.015(2) 8 = Burglary / Robbery BURG/UNNOC.STRUCT/CONVEY 810.02(4)(A) BURGLARY/ASSLT/ARMED BURGLARY ASSAULT ANY PERSON BURGLARY OF A STRUCTURE (X1) FELONY THIRD DEGREE ROBBERY/ARMED/WEAPON ROBBERY WITH OTHER WEAPON 812.1392)(B) ROBB.WPN NOT DEADLY ROBBERY N/FIREARM OR D/WEAPON 812.13(2)C 9 = Kidnapping KIDNAPPING/WEAPON KIDNAP;COMM.OR.FAC.FELONY KIDNAP; HOLD RANSOM OR HOST. KIDNAP; COMM.TO.FAC.FELONY 787.01(1)(A)2 KIDNAP MINOR FOR RANSOM;F.S.787.01(1)(A)1 KIDNAP MINOR AGAINST WILL;F.S.787.01(1)(B) 10 = Larceny PETIT LARCENY (X1) 5513
144 LARC OVER 300 DOLLARS UNDER 20000 F.S.812.014(2C) 812.014(2C1) LARC THEFT IS 300 OR MORE BUT LESS THAN 5000 DOLS 817.60(2) LARC LOST OR DELIVERED BY MISTAKE CREDIT CARD 11 = Child Neglect INTERFERES WITH CUSTODY/CHILD UNDER 17 F.S.0787.03.1 ENDANGER WELFARE CHILD DUTY CHILD ABUSE/NO HARM CHILD ABUSE INJ/NEGLECT CHILD ABUSE NEGLECT F.S.82703(3)(B) NEGLECT CHILD 12 = Other PRESIST OR OBSTRUCT OFFICER WITHOUT VIOLENCE 843.02 RESISTING OFFICER WITHOUT VIOLENCE (X1) 0843.02 MISDEMEANOR FIRST DEGREE COUNTY VIOLATION (X1) FL. FELON/FAILED TO CHANGE ADDRESS ON ID W/I 48 HR FL. FUGITIVE WANTED OTHER JURISD OFFENSE CODE: S941 MISDEMEANOR PUBLIC INTOXICATION (X1) 0856.011 MISDEMEANOR SECOND DEGREE VICTIME BY THREAT OF FORCE OR VIOLENCE (X1) 0794.011.4B FELONY LIFE INJ/LILL PD/FD/SAR ANIMAL 843.19 NC REGISTERED AS A RESULT OF OUT OF STATE CONVICTION (LIFETIME)14 208.6.4.B.2 RESIST OFF W/O VIOL MISDEMEANOR
145 12 = Other FALSE REPORT/CRIME MISDEMEANOR BREACH OF PEACE OR DISORDERLY CONDUCT 877.03 RESIST RETAIL MERCHANT OFFICER FARMER 812.015 6 FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR MISDEMEANOR (843.15(1B)) RESIST OFFICER OBSTRUCT WHO VIOLENCE (843.02) FLEEING OR ELUDING A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 316.1935(2) BAIL SECURED BOND FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR FELONY OFFENSE 843.15(1A) FALSE IMPRISONMENT CONTRI DELINQ MINOR MISDEMEANOR PUBLIC DRUNK SALE OF CIGERETTES WRAPPERS F.S.859.06 GIVING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE TO M F.S. 562.11.A B GOV. WARRANT/AUTH.ARREST OUT OF COUNTY WARRANT; HOLD FOR SANTA ROSA CITY ZONING VIOLATION FELON/FAILED TO CHANGE ADDRESS ON ID W/I 48 HR HARBORING FUGITIVE ACESSORRY AFTER FACT F/U SENT (FSP) OFFENSE CODE: 91905 FELONY FUGITIVE WANTED OTHER JURISD OFFENSE CODE: S941 BAIL SECURED BOND FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR FELONY OFFENSE (843.15(1A)) VIOLATION OF 2500 FT ORDINANCE FUGITIVE WARRANT
146 12 = Other DUMPING OR LITERING 403413 4 TAMPERING WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FALSE REPORT LAW/OFF ACCESSORY AFTER FACT REMANDED FOR TAMPERING WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE GIVE FALSE INFO TO POLICE F.S.316067 TRESPASS PROP OTHER THAN STR(X1) F.S.S81009 BOOKED PER ADM ORDER 2.068; MUST 1ST APPEAR WRIT HABEUS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM (X1) VIOLATION OF INJUNCTION FOR PR (X1) F.S.S784047
147 APPENDIX C REFERENCE TABLES Florida Sex Offender Registry Definitions: Sexual Predator vs. Sexual Offender (FDLE Sex Offender Registry, 2010b). Sexual Predator Any person who is convicted for a qualifying and Capital, Life, or First degree felony sex offense committed on or after 10/1/1993 OR is convicted for any felony or attempt thereof for a qualifying offense committed after 10/1/1993 in addition to a prior conviction for any felony violation or attemp t thereof for a qualifying offense OR A written court finding designating the individual a sexual predator. OR Regardless of whether an individual meets or does not meet the criteria listed above, anyone civilly committed under the Florida Jimmy Ryce Sexua lly Violent Predator Act must register as a sexual predator.
148 Sexual Offender There are several ways for a person to be classified as a sexual offender. They are: 1) Be convicted of committing, or attempting, soliciting, or conspiring to commit, any of the crimes specified in Chart 1* below, or of similar offenses in another jurisdiction (or any similar offense committed in this state which has been redesignated fro m a former statute number to the one specified) AND a. Be in the custody or control of, or under the supervision of, the Florida Department of Corrections, or be in the custody of a private correctional facility, on or after October 1, 1997, as a resu lt of the above conviction(s) OR b. On or after October 1, 1997, be released or have been released from the sanction(s) imposed for the above conviction(s). ( ) 2) Establish or maintain a residence in this state and have no t been designated as a sexual predator by a court of this state but have been designated as a sexual predator, as a sexually violent predator, or by another sexual offender designation in another state or jurisdiction and as a result of such designation, a re subjected to registration or community or public notification, or both, or would be if a resident of that state or jurisdiction; 3) Establish or maintain a residence in this state and be in the custody or control of, or under the supervision of, any oth er state or jurisdiction as a result of a conviction for committing, or attempting, soliciting, or conspiring to commit, any of the specified criminal offenses listed below (or any similar offense committed in this state which has been re designated from a former statute number to the one specified). 4) Be adjudicated delinquent for committing, or attempting, soliciting, or conspiring to commit on or after July 1, 2007, any of the crimes specified in Chart 2** below when the juvenile was 14 years of age or older at the time of the offense. *Chart 1 can be found in the Appendix, Table X. **Chart 2 can be found in the Appendix, Table X.
149 FDLE Chart 1, Qualifying Adult Convictions. (FDLE, 2010b). Commissio n of OR Attempt, Solicit, or Conspire to Commit s. 787.01* Kidnapping Where the victim is a minor and the defendant is not the victim's parent or guardian s. 787.02* False imprisonment Where the victim is a minor and the defendant is not the victim's parent or guardian s. 787.025(2)(c) Luring or entic ing a child Where the victim is a minor and the defendant is not the victim's parent or guardian s. 794.011** Sexual Battery; ** excluding subsection (10) s. 794.05 Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors s. 796.03 Procuring a person under the age o f 18 for prostitution s.796.035 Selling or buying of minors into sex trafficking or prostitution s. 800.04 Lewd/lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of persons less than 16 years of age s. 825.1025 Lewd/lascivious offenses committed upon o r in the presence of an elderly person or disabled adult s. 827.071 Sexual performance by a child s. 847.0133 Protection of minors; prohibition of certain acts in connection with obscenity s. 847.0135 Computer pornography, excluding subsection 847.0135(4) s. 847.0137 Transmission of child pornography by electronic device/equipment s. 847.0138 Transmission of material harmful to minors to a minor by electronic device/equipment s. 847.0145 Selling or buying of minors (for portrayal in a visual depiction engag ing in sexually explicit conduct) s. 985.701(1) Sexual misconduct prohibited Or A violation of a similar law of another jurisdiction FDLE Chart 2, Qualifying Adjudication of Delinquency Offenses (FDLE, 2010b). Commission of OR Attempt, Solicit, or Conspire to Commit s.794.011* Sexual Battery; *excluding subsection (10) s. 800.04(4)(b) Lewd/lascivious battery where the victim is under 12 or the court finds sexual activity by the use of force or coercion s. 800.04(5)(c)1 Lewd/lascivious molestation, victim under 12, where the court finds molestation involving unclothed genitals s. 800.04(5)(d) Lewd/lascivious molestation, victim under 16 but more than 12, where the court finds the use of force or coercion and unclothed ge nitals Or A violation of a similar law of another jurisdiction
150 APPENDIX D QUALITATIVE DATA Participant A21 Story, State of Florida vs. [Name Removed], Case # [Case Removed]. The following is the letter that was sent, typed verbatim. a executive clemency process in order to be relieved of the requirements imposed by F.S.943.0435 for registered sex offenders. These requirements place an unnecessary burden on me, my wife of 33 years, my grown children, my grandchildren, my neighbors and the [County Removed] education on behalf of persons living with HIV and different sexual orientations or gender identity. The following paragraphs tell my side of the stor y of my arrest, the an unknown Internet predator, which I naively downloaded onto the hard drive of my personal computer at home before realizing that it contained at least one image of probably child pornography. At the time, late in 1998 and early 1999, I was role playing (profiling ) as a 14 year old girl in an adult Internet chat room. I am now a fully transitioned post operative male to female transsexual woman and at the time was computer into a lo cal repair shop after the power supply failed. The technician discovered the existence of the electronic image(s) and reported the discovery to the
151 local police. I had forgotten that the image was on the computer, but remembered it when the police confro nted me. I naively assumed that we would work together to find the perpetrator. Apparently there was a second image associated with the download file, which was a collage of six images of what appeared to be a teenage girl engaged in sexual acts with an adult male. The police pushed this at me during the interview but I had not been previously aware of its existence. The [name removed] City Police were not interested in my story or in pursuing the real culprit. They assumed that I was part of a larger child pornography ring. I was taken to the [name removed] County jail and other illegal material whatsoever. Even after finding absolutely no evidence of any involvement in child porn other than this since incident, the prosecuting attorney, [Name removed], refused to meet with me and chose instead to prosecute me to the fullest extent of the law in order to further his ambition t o become a county judge. He was election as [name removed] County Judge and became a defense attorney. He was later found guilty on several counts of conspiracy and fraud by the United States District number removed] were one count possession of child pornography and six counts of promo ting sexual performance by a child. I subsequently lost my job [job removed], my ministry (as an ordained deacon in the Roman Catholic Diocese [Diocese removed])
152 and the respect of many in the community due to the notoriety caused by the publication of th stressful trial and the possibility of a long prison term (I was transgender and living with AIDS). I later learned that [name removed] encouraged all of his clients to agree to plea bargains rather than argue their cases before a jury. [Name removed] never informed me that I would be designated a sex offender and su bjected to applicable legislatively mandated restrictions. He also told me that my record would be wiped clean upon completion of my sentence and that I would be free to travel anywhere I needed or desired during my period of probation. Even so, my intui tion and desire was to declare myself innocent of any real crime and to argue my case in court. The judge [name removed] threatened my with at least five years in state prison if I did not agree to this plea bargain and was subsequently found guilty by a jury. According to my defense attorney, the state would only have to show that I knew that an image of child porn existed on my computer hard drive to gain a guilty verdict (a fact that I had already freely admitted). Judge [Name removed] recently commit ted suicide. In my opinion, there was a strong hint of collusion between the prosecuting attorney, my defense attorney and the presiding judge at the time of my hearing. I also feel that these individuals were biased against me because of my being transg ender and living with supervised probation for five years without adjudication of guilt. He did not declare me
153 had submitted letters from my wife, mental health professionals, family members and community leaders attesting I was not a true sex offender and never have been. To my surprise and horro r, when I reported to my probation officer I learned that the governing statutes relating to any violation of F.S.827.071 mandated my and placed me under a host of mandated restrictions per F.S.847.0145, which apply equally without For example my probation officer informed me that I was not allowed to travel outside of [name removed] County without explicit written permission, I was placed under a stric t curfew, I could not live in my house (since it was within 1,000 feet of a home with children), I could not site, which is accessibly by polygraph examinations mandated by F.S.847.0145, Para(b)1 and was released from the sex offender treatment program requir ed by Para.3 of that same statute. Judge [name removed] did ultimately grant me some relief via court ordered modifications especially related to living in my home and the ability to travel for necessary purposes including medical care. None of this, how ever, was able to affect the way that the Florida Department of Corrections treated me. Our lives were shattered, our health jeopardized and the financial drain continues to be severe. I was pushed close to the
154 17, 2003. Relief of sex offender registration restrictions can only be pursued by being granted a full pardon through the executive clemency process. Under current rules I cannot apply for executive clemency for over three more years without first requesting a waiver of these rules, which I am doing with this submission. In the meantime I face e from local vigilantes. New restrictions have been placed on me by the recent passage of the [Name removed] County deputies come to my home at least once every month to ensure that I am physically present at my address of record (we have lived in the same house for 30 years and do not intend to move or to be driven out!). My sex offender design ation, photograph and address and other personal information are easily available via the nteer with many state agencies or other service organizations that have contractual relationships with state agencies. For example, I am not allowed to volunteer as an HIV/AIDs test counselor or to teach HIV/AIDS survival skills to others diagnosed with t his still potentially fatal disease. I am still heavily involved in GLBT education and advocacy, HIV/AIDS spirituality, and HIV
155 patient care planning at the local, regional and state levels. I am also heavily involved in fighting for civil liberties for The letter that was sent back to me from Participant A21 was a copy of the Participant A45 Participant A45 called me to ask a few questions about the survey that I sent to her. She could not speak too much in terms of sexual offenses since she was in the car with her two children. A45 was convicte d in Michigan slightly before her 18 th birthday, she was convicted of. Unfortunately, she never outright said what she was convicted of, rd rd ual conduct in the third degree if the person engages in sexual penetration with another person and if any of the following Section 750.520d Criminal sexual conduct in the third degree; felony. Michigan Legislature (2010). a) That other person is at least 13 years of age and under 16 years of age. b) Force or coercion is used to accomplish the sexual penetration. c) The actor knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally incapable, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless d) That other person is related to the actor by blood or affinity to the third degree and the sexual penetration occurs under circumstances not otherwise prohibited by this chapter.
156 e) That other person is at least 16 years of age but less than 18 years of age and a student at a public school or nonpublic school and either of the following applies: (i) The actor is a teacher, substitute teacher, or administrator of that public school, nonpublic school, school district, or intermediate school dist rict. This subparagraph does not apply if the other person is emancipated or if both persons are lawfully married to each other at the time of the alleged violation. (ii) The actor is an employee or a contractual service provider of the public school, nonp ublic school, school district, or intermediate school district in which that other person is enrolled, or is a volunteer who is not a student in any public school or nonpublic school, or is an employee of this state or of a local unit of government of this state or of the United States assigned to provide any service to that public school, nonpublic school, school district, or intermediate school district, and the actor uses his or her employee, contractual, or volunteer status to gain access to, or to esta blish a relationship with, that other person. f) That other person is at least 16 years old but less than 26 years of age and is receiving special education services, and either of the following applies: (i) The actor is a teacher, substitute teacher, adm inistrator, employee, or contractual service provider of the public school, nonpublic school, school district, or intermediate school district from which that other person receives the special education services. This subparagraph does not apply if both pe rsons are lawfully married to each other at the time of the alleged violation. (ii) The actor is a volunteer who is not a student in any public school or nonpublic school, or is an employee of this state or of a local unit of government of this state or of the United States assigned to provide any service to that public school, nonpublic school, school district, or intermediate school district, and the actor uses his or her employee, contractual, or volunteer status to gain access to, or to establish a rela tionship with, that other person. (2) Criminal sexual conduct in the third degree is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years. Despite her conviction and her own status on the registry, A45 felt as though the registry is something that should be in place to keep track of sexual offenders. She feels as though 90% of sex offenders should be on the registry. Not those who are extre mely low risk, but those who are molesting and who are raping. She feels as offenders. They have served their sentence but now they are serving a second one by
157 being on the registry. A45 chose to accept a plea bargain which resulted in her status as a sexual offender. Her husband begged her not to take the plea deal since she did not commit the offense, but she took it anyway because she could not afford to go to trial. She feels as though her case file is full of contradictions and that there were samples, but that they went missing before the case was brought to court. After spending 60 da ys in jail (she was denied bond), she finally got to see the judge. Her case made statewide news in Michigan, which included her past sexual experiences and the time she spent growing up in foster care. A45 said that she was removed from her biological p arents care because her father was a habitual sexual offender and she failure to report While in foster care, she was roomed with another girl who came from an abusive house hold. A45 and her roommate did not get along well at all, leading A45 to spend as much time as she could away from offense took place while she was still in residence at the foster home. Her roommate knew to local law enforcement and later pro vided testimony to the prosecutor. The roommate testified on the promise that the prosecutor would be able to make sure she could go home to her family, which is exactly what happened. However, as time went ble witness and her testimony did not
158 make much sense. Apparently even the judge was confused by her testimony. Nevertheless, A45 was convicted of the sexual offense but she was still a minor at the time of the conviction. In Michigan, she was not required to register as a sexual offender because she was a minor when she was convicted. She moved to Florida 10 years after her conviction and was pulled over in a routine traffic stop. Her license was run through the system bu t her status as a sexual offender did not show up. Later on, A45 had a dispute with her neighbor and as a result, the neighbor called DCF (Department of Child and Family Services) on A45. DCF came to the home and did not find anything unusual in the home but through conversation with the DCF agent, her sexual offending status system They instead found her in the archives. They then pulled her case and reopened it, making her active within the system again. So, she was originally closed not listed as an active case and is required to register as a sex offender. Participant A55 Participant A55 included a letter in her returned survey envelope. Her letter writes the following: to you could benefit
159 Now, add in my abusive husband, that Out of jealousy of a friendship. On the other side an alcoholic mother and father on the showed up drunk and testified for the restitution. Oh! I would like to add it was a voting year and my judge was up for the next seat or that they were in such a rush to send me s place in my life for many reasons. I life by school and teachers ith you Participant A62 Participant A62 called me and left a message. She then sent me an email in regards to the survey since she did not get me on the phone. Her email reads:
160 to touch base I am probably one of the few offenders that will send the survey back and fill it out. Honestly, the entire court system from start until today has actually been very good to me. Most of the corrections people I have had contact with over t he last 18 years have all stated that I should have homes because of it and that unf ortunately gives them plenty of time to figure out how to reoffend and not get caught. Basically it makes them worse and more dangerous to It keeps them from reenter had daughters and I wanted to learn. It would make you physically ill if you could sit in on some of the group sessions I did. I was one of the last offenders that was "Graduated" from my program. The biggest losers in all of this were my children, 3 of which were not even born at the time of my crime. The crime occurred in 1989. I was sentence in 1993 (I bought out) it cost me ten grand but I didn't do a day. So as far as the legal system goes it was a joke. I had a gag order due to being the first woman in the county ever arrested for L&L behavior. I was on the front page of the local paper, 48 hours was coming to sit on my f ront lawn and Montel Williams was calling me. I sent my oldest daughter to live with her father in another state. She was in school at the time and I wanted to save her the embarrassment. My 2nd daughter was not school age so I kept her with me. I was i n a bad marriage and choose to hang with the teenagers in the neighborhood to make myself feel important and needed. Yes there
161 was drugs and alcohol involved, there always is. The young man actually went on to rob a bank and murder the teller. Very sad. He is doing life in prison. We still write embarrassed my children Flyers posted on the local nail salons wall where my daughter went and they published others) because we lived within a 1 mile radius. I have had a bus stop in my front yard for all that time. I have had the county change mor e than one bus stop so that it was closer to my house because my child was the only child at the bus stop. LOL go figure paranoid or have nothing else t o do. I think most of the population forgets that misdemeanor offenders are not on the site. Flashers, stalkers and most offenders get their charges reduced so just because you can see that your neighborhood doesn't have a "Registered offender" doesn't m ean anything. I understand the Justice system and money wasted on a few people that had a chance to grandstand their plight. Please don't misunderstand I think chi ld molesters should be put away and when their Ryce, a 10 year old boy who was abducted in 1995 from a bus stop in Florida. He was sodomized by Juan Carlos Chavez. Jimmy tried to escape Chavez but he shot the young boy in the back and later dismembered the body. (Jimmy Ryce Center, 2010)]
162 my daughter he died in prison. He was sick and incurable. He did not deserve therapy, it would have changed nothing. So in my opinion unless the system takes the time to evaluate offenders and categorize them properly us and our children will never be truly safe. It may appear that they are but then that is the fantasy the justice system has created. At this stage my kids don't care and it never bothered me. All along when I meet someone new if they have children or their children play with mine, I h ave disclosed my offense. Sometimes we see them again sometimes we don't. That is their choice, not mine. It has never stopped me and I have never been embarrassed. I walk the park near my residence ever been stopped or anything. I just another thing to create a false sense of security. NONE of my friends are afraid to have me around their children with or withou t them. This is just the highlights..... Please feel free to contact me with any more questions you may have. I have been interviewed on television and have no problem telling you how I feel and what transpired. I think your questionnaire is a little to honest. Hope this helps. Participant B1 Participant B1 called me to talk about her status as a s exual offender on the registry. She was willing to share her court paperwork and she also offered me the opportunity to speak to her attorney if I so desired. I declined that offer but I did agree to listen to her story. She stated that she is writing a book about her circumstances, but
163 due to privacy rights she changed some of the names within the story. She currently asked that her college remain confidential so th at she could complete her studies in peace. I gladly assured her that it would. In 1993, her husband accused her of sexual offenses against her three children during a custody battle while they were in the process of divorcing. At the time she did have t he money to hire an attorney but was convicted of the sexual offense with the t he current process of appealing the conviction based on court errors and errors on the part of the district attorney. Participant B1 spoke of a group that she is involved with where she works with other sexual offenders who feel they were wrongfully convic ted of their crimes. She said that the group is similar to the Innocence Project but specifically is aimed towards sexual offenders. She also shared with me the names of others who were convicted under circumstances similar to her own. Along with those names, she also guided me towards some court cases that were similar to her own case as well as some custody cases that resulted in accusations of sexual offending. She stated that when people are accused of sexual offenses, they try to become experts on the areas of law that are relevant to their case. B1 was very respectful towards my survey and my research endeavors and I was happy to listen to her story and her knowledge on the subject. Participant B4
164 Participant B4 included a letter, written to m e, in her returned survey packet. Her letter was somewhat incoherent and did not make much sense overall. However, she did write about her concerns and feelings regarding the registry. Her letter reads: e with you, may be the ones that know who that sex offender is because of the verbal attacks I will not give specific ing the law changed for the first time offenders. Registration for 5 10 years should be plenty enough to know if they are Participant B22 Participant B22 returned her survey and added a note to the bottom of the final page. Her note reads the following: take me off the sex offender [registry] Participant B27 Participant B27 emailed me in regards to the probation status requirement of the survey. She was eager to share her story and her experi ences with registration. She states that she must re register twice a year in January and July and it is a frustrating process for her because she feels that the law enforcement officials only repeat the same questions every session and she always gives t he same answers. She stated
165 that she was a school teacher who made a very poor decision in life but she is an educated woman who knows that what she did was a mistake. She is registered for ers like her deserved a second chance in life and that for what she was convicted of, she will pay for it for the rest of her life. I send participant B27 a follow up email to invite her to share her story and to participate in the survey. Participant B2 up email reads the following: I totally forgot about doing the survey. I just finished it & will be mailing it tomorrow. I hope it's not too late. I've been super busy with work, & my sister came to visit me a few weeks ago some of them REQUIRED (in my opinion & from what I've been through) additional information. I hope I didn't eliminate my answers due to If you need any more information, feel free to contact me. I do not have to be anonymous either. After dealing with this for over 10 yrs. now, I feel somewhat comfortable discussing my situation, especi ally if I can help others in my same situation. I feel very strongly in the state of FL going to some sort of classifying system with the registry, as New Jersey already has, & Iowa is in the process. I think it is extremely unfair that I am grouped (my victim was 4 mos. Participant B37 On her returned survey, Participant B37 wrote a short note at the bottom of the am a sex offender once I
166 explain what happened. I was in a bar and met someone. Dated her for 5 months and Participant B58 On her returned survey, Participant B58 wrote a short note at the bottom of the final page. Her note r clear my name. My sons accused me but they were forced to, so if you can help me please contact me at [phone number removed]. Thanks Participant B58. Participant B66 On her returned surve y, Participant B66 wrote a short note at the bottom of the guilty of the accusations they were charged with. I was falsely accused and am NOT GUILTY I accepted a plea bargain o probation a new law came into affect requiring me to register on the sex offender list. I Participant B74 On her returned survey, Particip ant B74 wrote a short note at the bottom of the Participant B76 On her returned s urvey, Participant B76 wrote a short note at the bottom of the left alone. The media should know the difference between the offender and predator and get it straight. T
167 Participant B89 Participant B89 called me to speak about what I will use her information for in my would compare her information against other surveys that were returned by other sex offenders. B89 asked me if I knew any people in Gainesville who could help her with her charges and if I could explain to her why no one told her that she would be classified as a sexual offender because of h er conviction. I advised B89 that I was not a lawyer and I could not give her legal advice, but I encouraged her to find a lawyer to explain her situation to her. I asked B89 what she was charged with and she stated that being able to help the girls who turned to prostitution to help with their drug problems. Her father would take the girls in off of the streets and help them clean up. B89 claimed that her father would ne just another statistic to him. If the girls needed help, then he would help them get clean However, B89 said that her father did not discourage the girls from prostituting themselves. B89 said that prostitution brings in good money and the work is not difficult to do. Instead, if the girls were still interested in working, B89 and her father would help the m find Johns and teach them how to work the men soliciting the girls. B89 stated that her father, even though he would help the girls get sober, loved prostitutes and was a frequent customer of the girls that he helped out. Her father was a married man a nd
168 Even though she worked in the sex industry, working as a madam or as a pimp, depending on who she was talking to, B89 did not fee l what she was convicted of was a sex crime. For her, sex was viewed differently in her home. Her father was molested by his father when he was a small child. B89 was molested by her own father as a young girl. She has memories of running down the stre et crying out for help because her father raped her nightly. However, her father did not think that was a bad thing and over time she stated that she also did not think that was a bad thing. The two carried on an incestuous relationship for a while and h er father even brought his daughter clients. B89 stated that she began her own career as a prostitute at age 14. She remembers her father bringing her to parking lots where the two would meet up with a John. She would ask her father what to do if the Jo hn wanted to have sex with her. Her father sex as a means of support and as a way to get by. She did not know the rules that went along with sex, including what was and was not against the law. The first time that B89 was arrested for prostitution, she was 17 years old. She was arrested in a hotel along with her John, who was a police officer arrested for soliciting a prostitute. However, the police officer claimed tha t B89 forced him into physical contact with her and that she forced his hand down her shirt. In the court room the presiding judge asked B89 how asked in court. She told t considerably stronger than a 17 year old girl, so if he wanted to remove his hand he had the capabilities to do so. B89 did not tell me if she was convicted of the prostitution charge.
169 About 1 0 years before her sex offense conviction, B89 stated that she began to run her escort service. She would run the service through a local newspaper, using a business permit that she obtained for $50 in Jacksonville. The ads would cost $5 per day and she would charge that $5 to the girl that corresponded to the advertisement. The ads would have information about the girls, but would never mention names. They The John would then contact Participant B89 and she would set up the appointment for the John with a specific girl. B89 would not meet with a John in person, but rather did all the scheduling over the phone. The girls were not permitted to meet their Jo house or wherever the girl would be staying. B89 stated that she had contacts with the police department, as well as customers, who would provide her information as to when raids would be occurring, when undercover operations would be happening and when set ups would be taking place. Until she got the all clear from her police contact, she would keep her girls out of sight, would not post ads in the newspaper and would not allow the girls to work. Because of this contact, B89 stated that she had a very low arrest rate for all of the girls under her employ. At the time of her arrest, B89 was called out to the house of one of her Johns. One of the girls under her employ c alled her up and asked her to come out to the house same charge. B89 told th e police that the entire business was run through her and her
170 against her father. After she was arrested, the girls working for her and her father turned on B89. They started to claim that she forced them into prostitution and got them all addicted to crack cocaine. The prosecutor got statements against B89 from almost father were to them and how much they suffered because they did not want to work as prostitutes. Participant B89 also spoke to the deal that the prosecutor offered her. The prosecutor agreed t o drop some of the charges, in exchange for B89 to give up some of the names of her Johns. B89 told me the names of those men she turned into the prosecuting attorney. However, in the interest of confidentiality, I will not be revealing those names. She also told me the professions of the Johns. I am not able to share the professions of some of the men since the case was high profile. However, she did tell me that she had multiple college professors, multiple judges, a public defender, several police o fficers and one man who owns several well known businesses. She was able to prove that some of these men were clients because they chose to pay her by personal check. B89 knew the routine of one John so well, that she was able to take law enforcement to his home. She pointed out that he liked to drink a certain type of alcohol every night with dinner and other routine activities that he did nightly. She even had files on that particular man that helped her case against the Johns. She did not state if there were any legal ramifications for the Johns once she turned her information over the prosecutor, but she did state at the time of her arrest, the Johns present were fined
171 $200. Part of her plea bargain stated that she would be sentenced post incarcer ation to regular probation. She did not receive notice that she would be characterized as a sex offender until she was almost out of prison. She stated that if she knew that the conviction would result in her current sex offender status, then she never w ould have taken all of the blame for the escort service. She stated that as a result of her high profile case, a city ordinance was established in the city where she was convicted, banning the use of newspapers to advertise for escorts. I cannot state wh at the ordinance is called because it contains her last name. When she talked about how the registry has affected her life, she spoke of how people are not educated enough about the differences in sex offenders. The Florida Registry delineates between s exual offender and sexual predator. The differences between sexual offender and sexual predator can be found in the Appendix, Table X. She stated that education on the subject would help sex offenders out in terms of employment, housing and other areas o f life. While she was incarcerated, B89 offenders to be employed there because of the childr en that are present. Some of the other areas of her life that have been affected include housing. She was evicted from her apartment and now lives with her mother in a city other than the one she was convicted in. She has children and has experienced ha rdship concerning them. Her son was raped by a boyfriend of hers once and when B89 took him to the hospital, she was not permitted to be in attendance when the ER staff performed a rape kit because of her sex offender status. The same thing occurred when her daughter was molested
172 the ER staff examined her daughter. B89 stated that she is very open with her status as a sexual offender. She tells people about her case and since it was so high profile, she feels as though there is nothing left for her to hide. She even spoke to me on the phone when her youngest son wa s in the room. I could hear him speak to B89 and she would respond to him while I was still on the phone. Since her charge was a prostitution related charge, she was allowed to maintain custody of her children. She wished me luck on the project and aske d again that if I knew anyone who could help her out with her case, to please let her know. I reiterated that I was not an attorney and did not know any, but I wished her luck in finding someone to help her out. Participant B94 Participant B94 called me with a few concerns about the survey that I sent her in the mail. She stated that all of my questions were very general and did not touch on the individual differences among sex offenders. There are different types of offenders on the registry and she i low risk and has no intention of ever recidivating. Therefore, she wanted to speak to me to understand what kind of person that I was and how I was using the data that she would provide i n taking the survey. B94 stated that she was an alcoholic most of her life due to a diagnosis of bi polar disease. Instead of taking the prescribed medication that was given to her, she self medicated with alcohol. The problem with the self medication i s that she eventually became prone to blackouts. During one blackout, she was told
173 does not remember anything that she was accused of. The prosecutor told B94 that th e boy was let into the house by B94. She told me that was entirely possible as she would home. However, on this instance she was told that she had sex with the boy when no one else was home. The boy was seen by neighbors leaving her house late at night when no one else was around. The prosecutor offered B94 a plea bargain and she accepted, receiving no jail time but instead received 10 year of probation and the requi red registration time. She said if she had known what she was signing herself up for (being on the registry), then she would have gone to trial and not taken the plea bargain. However, since she did not know what had happened with the 16 year old boy, sh e felt that she had to be a responsible adult and accept the charges that were against her. She said that the prosecutor had no concrete proof that anything had occurred beyond the testimony of the 16 year old. She did admit that when she woke up from th e blackout that she did B94 stated that she is v ery confused about everything that took place and the blackouts left her very much in the dark. She has since stopped drinking and has been sober for 8 years. She works as a sponsor for other women who are alcoholics and she presses upon them how they ar e responsible for things that happen to them while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The main thing that B94 was upset about was that the courts convicted her on a crime where there was no intent present. She used the
174 example of killing someone wh ile in an automobile in an accident compared to shooting someone with a gun because you wanted to see them dead. Because there was no intent on her part to commit the crime, she feels as though she should not have been Even though the registry has made her life harder than she ever thought possible, she feels that the registry should exist. It is a way to keep track of those offenders who commit violent sexual crimes. But it is not meant for those off enders who are very low risk and not in danger of recidivating. The registry has affected every aspect of her life she said, but fortunately the people in her neighborhood know that she is not someone to be afraid of. They are aware that she had problems with alcohol and that she would never intentionally hurt anyone; especially since she herself was abused when she was 5 years old. She said after experiencing that kind of abuse, she would never lay a violent hand on anyone. B94 has also experienced bul imia throughout her teenage years as well as her adulthood. The bulimia has gotten bad since she was placed on the registry and she has lost a considerable amount of weight. She asked me if I knew anyone who had ever gotten their record expunged from a someone out there has not gotten their record expunged. B94 also asked me if I could help her with that process. I told her that I am not an attorney and I cannot hel p her with anything legally. I encouraged her to find an attorney if that is what she would like to pursue. She said that she wished she would have known what was involved with a plea deal compared to a full trial, but before this she was never in troubl e with the law. Her main concern now is the life she has ahead of her. Her three sons are at an age where
175 grandchildren will be coming soon. So, she wonders how her grandchildren will react when they find out about her registration status. She stated t hat she is still undecided if she will turn in the survey but she was appreciative of the time I spent talking with her. She felt that no one has ever talked to her about her status or allowed her to speak her mind about things related to the registry. S he also asked if other women were getting in touch with me to share their stories. She hopes that there will be some sort of reform to the registry one day, but until then she said she is just going through life trying to keep her status to herself. Par ticipant B96 Participant B96 emailed me about the project with concerns about how to answer specific questions regarding the survey. She stated that she would like to tell me her story and the circumstances surrounding her conviction, but only if she woul d remain anonymous and her place of employment remains confidential. I assured her of both aspects and she was willing to share her story. She emailed me back and gave me the following information concerning her offense and the circumstances surrounding it. Aside from changing a few details to keep things confidential, I have kept her words as they were sent to me. She states: My victim was 14. I was friends with his mom. We taught together for years. It was a fr iendship based on alcohol and drug use. She would have her son around with us while we were drinking and smoking he became a peer. He did not attend the school I taught at. I was engaged to be married. I was in a very mentally abusive relationship. My victim's mom and my fiance became very close and ended up "hooking up" kissing, etc a few times. I would hang out with my victim
176 while this happened. It was not a secret. It wasn't okay or discussed though. Bottom line, my victim and I had consensual vaginal sex two times and oral sex once. I was also arrested for sending him 15 pornographic pictures off the internet (not pictures of helped pay for her abortion. He was also our marijuana supplier. Since his mom June of 2003. My victim continued to make contact through ph one calls and emails. Eventually his father figured it out by having their computer looked at by detectives. his [the victim] younger sister who was 12 at the time. T hey needed her out of the house so the police could talk to my victim. I did not know this of course. I also did not having sex. Whe n I said no one...they had me. I was arrested walking home from class. I had already quit teaching and was going to college again to get my degree in police offi cers. The media was the worst! I stopped reading the articles and watching the news when I bonded out. That is one area that is terrible. The way the media distorts and twists the story. At one point it was being reported that I was 30 and he was 12. In reality I was 26 he was 14. I was charged with having sex with him 18 times. It
177 dropped down to 3 and then they charged me for the 15 pictures separately as distribution of harmful materials to a minor. Geraldo Rivera contacted my lawyer for an inte where he went for drug rehab. He was treated for several drugs all of which I was accused of introducing to his life. I have never done/seen any drug besides marijuana. I also paid the family $30,000.00 to cover their family counseling. My husband left me immediately. Never to see him again. in my 5 th year of the probation with 2 years to go. In other counties you can apply for ]. The judge situation. My new husband, who I met just before going to jail, and his family are amazing. 100% suppor tive. My immediate family is also wonderful. I have not told most of my aunts and uncles or cousins what happened. Most people I think know. Same with old friends from High School and College. They know. Some have reached out and we are still friends No one has ever said to me that they are not friends with me because of my offense. lucky compared to other registered sex offenders. When I walked out of jail I had a condo to live in, a wonderful boyfriend(now my husband), a car, a job(not the one I have
178 now, but my boss had held my job), and 2 supportive parents and brother. On my survey I said I lost 2 jobs because of my offense. 1 was my teaching license no big deal s ince I hated it and had quit before I was even arrested. The other was my job at Cracker Barrel which I held before going to jail. I found out about a month before jail that they were going to let me go once I was sentenced and I would not be hired back. I found another job for the month before jail and they saved me a position. I worked offending. My one victim was my only victim, and I will not have anymore. The hard part is having a 10pm curfew, avoiding all contact with anyone under 18 even my relatives. Also, keeping a detailed driving log, taking polygraphs 4 times a year, having probation come by the house 2 times a month, having probation and the city police search your house a couple times a year, not going to any place where children might gather, having to go to court to get permission to travel for work or to visit my family in CT and paying for it every time I need to outside or raped a 3 year old, you are in the same class and category. I ended up being the only woman in my class at one point. I was harassed by another member of the group. He cornered me outside of group one day and would show up at my work. He was a 55 year old man that had raped several 14 17 year old girls. I reported it to probation. They moved me to another class out of town (all female class). I couldn't get a restraining order against the guy because I needed to have the dates and times of at
179 least 5 incidences that he harassed me. My new class was better, but it was an hour drive each way and was in another county. I was given the longest sentence of all the woman. The grandmother that sexually molested her 5 and 7 year old grandchildren was given 30 days in jail and 2 years probation. The 50 year old woman that continued seeing her 16 year old victim after she did 6 months in jail was punished by wearing an ankle monitor. I do not feel it is fair that depending on what county you are in you may have a much lighter sentence. The sentence should fit the crime. I feel my sentence new rules need to be put in place all the time. But those who have been sentenced offended. There are some rules that I am grandfathered under, others have been added. One rule that REALLY bothers me is having to tape a fluorescent sign to your door on Halloween night that reads locked, no Halloween decorations outside and all lights off. That was fine. No one came to my door. Now kids see this sign and think it's a joke! They want to knock and see if there really isn't any candy here. The police also come by 3 times during the night on Halloween to check our house inside and outside. Last year I was married on Halloween. Of course my husband and I were in the house by 10pm curfew, lights out. T he police had to come by and do their checks. The last one at 12:45am. Most kids There are still so many t hings to discuss such as society's thinking that it is alright to
180 joke about older females with young boys. You see it on TV. There was a Clearasil commercial with a mom getting all turned on by her son's friend who washed his face with Clearasil. It 's constantly the theme in many movies and TV shows, it's always no big deal. The victim is never portrayed as a victim. Even people in my life who know my story joke about it in front of me, then realize I am there and living it and it is NOT OK and it According to my group therapy he is most likely a dysfunctional adult that will never succeed due to our relationship. I do believe I affected him terribly, but ruined his l ife in a whole different light. Right now I am just focusing on my next court date. I have to pay a lot of money to have the state of Fl allow me to be around my own child when he or she is born in January. I will be off probation in 2 years before my child attends school, but I worry about that day all the time. I will not be able to volunteer in my child's class, go on field trips, etc. Whe n my kid has a birthday party who knows if any parents will let their children attend. I can live with my punishment. I am harder on myself everyday about what happened than any court could be. It's the punishment that my family has to go through daily Participant B106 Participant B106 called me with concerns since she is currently on probation and did not know if she should participate or not. I told her that if she was uncomfortable
181 answering the questions about probation she could leave those blank, but I would not know if she is currently on probation since the questions are worded in the past tense. deal. She said that she was forced into the p lea by her co defendant. His father was a criminal defense attorney who had a reputation in the town she lived in. She believes he had a hand in forcing her to take the plea as well. He was an individual who frequently had sex with teenagers and when he and B106 started dating, she was not aware of his sexual preferences. He did however ask her to participate and she admits that she knew about what he was involved in, but says that she never took part in the activity. She eventually left her co defenda nt and before this conviction was never in trouble with the law. She feels that from day one, she was treated badly by law enforcement and by correctional staff. The intake officers at the jail were rude, belittled her and treated her in a forceful manne r. She is not currently living in the town where she was arrested and convicted. At the time of the arrest, there were three charges against B106 and her co defendant for having sexual relationships with minors. The three girls that were involved all to ld different stories about what had happened. B106 intended to go to trial, but on the advice of her defense attorney took the plea bargain since it looked like her co cla im that she was more involved than was previously thought. B106 is currently on probation serving a 5 year supervision sentence, with all 5 years being on electronic monitoring. She has currently served 3 years of that sentence. During this time she h as appealed to the court to receive visitation privileges
182 required to take multiple polygraph tests and take a risk assessment. She did both items all of her polygraphs truth in that she did not commit the offense) and her risk assessment showed that she was not a danger for recidivating. The risk assessment cost her $1200. In addition she received letters of rec ommendation from a psychiatrist she had been voluntarily seeing for two years which stated that she had not emotional disturbances and was not a danger to anyone. Her probation officer sent the judge a letter stating that B106 was a She filed a motion and sent the documentation to the court and the judge denied her a hearing. Upon receiving the denial, B106 wrote to the judge her that she has n ever had a motion receive a denial of a hearing in her legal career. She has not tried to file anymore motions due to a lack of money to keep her attorney. B106 mentioned that she is going to try to file with the Florida Clemency Board to see if she can get her record expunged. She also has thought about working her way up the appeals courts but again due to a lack of money, that will be difficult. Her final option she said is to just wait out the last 2 years of her probation sentence and move on with her life. Participant C19 Participant C19 contacted me to talk about various aspects of the survey that I did not include in my instrument. She was not aware of every angle that I wanted to cover in my research, but she recommended that I look into the impact a sexual offense conviction had upon the children of the convicted sexual offender. Upon a conviction,
183 depending on the offense committed, children of the offender are often taken away from the offender. Custody is given to a spouse, the other par ent or relatives. For those who get to maintain custody of their children, there are aspects of life that are forever functions, field trips, birthday parties or any other ac tivity where minors under 18 may be present. She says that it is not a hardship for her to not interact with individuals under the age of 18, but it is a hardship on her daughter since she is missing out on activities as a mother. C19 also questioned if I was interested in the hardships presented to other parents, spouses and partners of the convicted offender. Since the convicted must pick up the slack left behind While it may not be a hardship for the other parent to partake in these activities, it is a lot to ask for the non convicted parent to do the work of two parents. Participant C19 also spoke about the difficulties that are involved in finding employment She has had jobs where other employees found out about her sex offender status. She states that those employees made copies of her registry information and posted it throughout the factory. It made her time there very uncomfortable and she experienced heckling, harassment and other behaviors. Due to the harassment, she was forced to quit that job and has been unemployed for roughly 15 years. She has had the odd job every now and then but overall, C19 has not been able to maintain employment. She sta tes that she is now legally blind and because of this she will have an even harder time finding employment. She has tried to find work in the food service industry, but people bring their children to restaurants. She cannot be
184 a teacher, she cannot work at a hotel, she cannot work in an amusement park and she cannot work in retail because these are all areas in which children and teenagers may be present. In order to solve the problem of employment, she is currently enrolled in college to complete her Ba programs that she is enrolled in confidential so things are not made harder for her. That was not an issue at all for me to comply with since C19 was very open and willing to help out i n this project. She questioned whether or not I had considered the issue of sex offenders returning to school, since they must report their presence to the university, the college and the program that they are enrolled in. For her, the university issue w as not too much of an issue since she takes most of her classes online. Because of the blindness, she is able to take her tests at a disability center. Therefore, she does not have much contact with anyone on campus very often. However, she stated that there may be a large contingent of sexual offenders who are in the same position as C19 trying to obtain a college degree to help press past the unavailability of employment for convicted sexual offenders. Participant C19 has not had an easy time post conviction beyond the employment issues she has faced. She spoke of turning to drugs at one point to cope with the stress and the harassment that she experienced. But after the first time trying drugs (she would not tell me which drug she chose to use) she realized that if she continued to use drugs, then there is the increased possibility that she could be arrested for possession of the drug she was using.
185 Even though C19 has spoken about how difficult it has been for her post conviction, she also voi ced her opinion about the need for the registry in the first place. She agreed that the registry should exist, but she also stated that some changes need to be made. One idea that she voiced was the necessity of individualizing the registry and basing th e requirements on a case by case basis. The current rules for registration are a blanket cover for all convicted sex offenders, but it has no leeway for those who elaborate during our phone conversation the exact circumstances surrounding her offense; however she did state that she was considered very low risk. In her home state of Wisc onsin, law enforcement officials were amazed at how low risk of an offender she was, yet she was still required to register in a similar manner to someone who was very high risk. C19 said that in Wisconsin, the registry is broken up into risk levels rang ing from low to high risk offenders. Florida does not break registration down into risk levels the only distinction that is made is between predator and offender. A sexual predator is committing a sexually oriented offense(s) and who is likely to commit additional sexually oriented (Holmes and Holmes, 2009: 4). In contrast there are two types of sexual ined by the sentencing court to have previously convicted of or plead guilty to one or more sexually convicted of, or plead guilty to, committing a sexually oriented offen
186 Holmes, 2009: 4). So therefore, a predator is someone who is likely to commit another sexual offense in the future, but an offender is someone who has been convicted of one or more sexual offenses, but is not deemed a treat for future offe nding. Since Florida only makes a distinction between predator and offender, Participant C19 makes an argument for Florida to adapt a registry similar to the one found in Wisconsin. C19 believes that there is no way for the registry to disappear completel y, but she does think that the modifications she suggested could make things better for those who are currents on the registry. One suggestion that C19 made concerning the risk levels would be to screen convicted sexual offenders with personality profilin g. C19 stated that she voluntarily went through the process and the expert she met with deemed her extremely low risk and very unlikely to recidivate with another sexual offense. However, the expert is unwilling to make that testimony in a court of law s ince there is always a chance for any convicted sexual offender to recidivate. Court ordered sex offender therapy is also a recommendation of Participant C19. I asked if she was court ordered to participate in therapy and she answered that she was indeed court ordered. Through this research I have seen that most sexual offenders seem to be court ordered to therapy sessions. But what Participant C19 recommends is that there be therapy ordered to everyone and the therapy sessions be both individualized (o ne offender and one therapist) as well as in groups. The group sessions would be with other offenders who are all on the same risk level. Participant C19 was very gracious in answering my questions and was very willing to help out in this study. She is currently trying to save money to work on an appeal to her case, but she was quoted a $15,000 starting fee for the process. Since
187 she offended in Wisconsin and now lives in Florida, she would need to retain a lawyer in both states which adds to that $15, 000 starting fee. However, C19 would like to attempt to appeal her case and possible get her name removed from the registry altogether. Participant C32 Participant C32 was the second participant to contact me in response to my survey. She also wanted r eassurance as to why I was collecting data on female sexual offenders. She asked me specific questions about how she should answer the survey since she did not have a direct victim in her case of sexual offending. Over 20 years ago, participant C32 was c onvicted of prostitution in Louisiana, where prostitution is considered a sexual offense, worthy of registration. At present, participant C32 had been convicted of not registering again with the state of Florida. She is currently registered and is trying to appeal her conviction. She did not state on what grounds she was trying to appeal her conviction but was very happy to tell me her story. She agreed that there was a need for the registry, but not for an individual such as herself because she was only engaging in prostitution. The conversation was short but she restated that she would be sending the survey back into me soon. Participant C48 Included in her returned survey, participant C48 included a letter informing me of her situation. The letter reads as follows: hear this a lot but I am innocent of the charges. I have documents supporting this from trial testimony, to two sex offender evaluations, to the denial polygra ph and the risk
188 probation (sex offender) when I had only completed less than 9 months of this ction but I paperwork with their students and see how or if this can be overturned? I would be willing to meet wit Participant C52 On her returned survey, Participant C52 wrote a short note at the bottom of the final page. H should have to register, but not identified to the world on the internet, especially when the smal Participant C60 On her returned survey, Participant C60 wrote a short note at the bottom of the There are many different classifications of a sexual offender. With consent, w Participant C80
189 Participant C80 was very eager to speak to me and tell me about the circumstances surrounding her conviction. In 1980, she was involved in a custody battle in Tennessee with her current ex husband. She stated that she and her ex husband were both accused by an outside party of child molestation against her three children who were 4,5, and 9 at the time She is categorized in th e registry for the husband plead out for a sex offense that was not worth of registration but she fought the charges. C80 was issued a public defended and stated that she believes she was convicted because she could not afford an attorney on her own. She spent 10 years in federal prison and after that served her probation sentence but did not say how long she was supervised for. She said that she has not spoken to or seen her children since the co nviction. Participant C80 became quite emotional when talking about her children and the registration requirements that she must follow. Currently she is required to report twice a month at an office in northern Florida. When she reports, she states tha t she cries in the parking lot before entering and cries through the whole meeting with the law enforcement official that she meets with. Participant C80 is looking for a pro bono attorney who would be willing to take her case and work on her appeal. Sh e does not have money for the appeal but hopes for a change one day since she believes that she was falsely convicted. She understands the need for a sex offender registry but also believes that it needs to be enforced on a case by case basis. She stated that her status as a sex offender has ruined her life and has forced her to relocate several times. She has experienced several attacks on her own person and on her personal property. Her current fiance has also experienced
190 attacks by neighbors because he is engaged to a registered sex offender. C80 stated that she was thankful that I am completing this research and sent me a follow up email thanking me a second time and also apologized for being emotional over the phone. Participant C84 Participant C84 emailed me to let me know that she would not be participating in my survey. However, she did write about the circumstances surrounding her offense and some of her positions concerning the registry as well. C84 is listed on the registry the following: I wanted to send you this email to explain why. I understand the importance of your T when it comes to the "Sexual Offender" program. Every person has their own set of circumstances and every person should be "judged" according to those circumstances. But that is not how things work. Every person that is labeled a "Sexual Offender" is Ten years ag o, I was married to a man who was abusing me when I met a family on a vacation who happened to live in Florida, but several hours away. We became good friends (or so I thought). I spent many weekends with this family, getting away from my husband, who kn ew what he was doing. I thought they were my safe haven. My husband had not touched me intimately in 2 years and I was completely depressed and
191 very lonely. This family had a 17 year old son who the mother kept pushing us together having me bring him to baseball practice or pick him up, giving me money to take him to the movies, or out to eat I could go on and on. After a while, we got very close and he paid so much attention to me (something I hadn't had in quite a while). One thing led to another and what happened was completely consensual. I fully understand that he was not of legal age and that I do take responsibility for. I know what I did was wrong. I tried to explain to the mom before anything happened, that maybe it wasn't such a good ide a for her son & I to spend so much time alone and she only encouraged it ever existed. She wanted money! My, now ex husband was pretty wealthy and apparently she thought she could get some of that. Little did she know, he couldn't care less what happened to me and basically told me I was on my own. So, yes, I plead guilty, because I was. But the mother never allowed the son to testify (her right because he was a minor) of house arrest and 10 years probation. After doing some research, I learned that my sentence was more harsh than someone who was charged with attempted murder. Is this right? I say no. Are murders' or attempted murders' pictures on the internet on a special public site? I was released from house arrest after 10 months and released from t the officers or probation officials treated me fairly or with respect? Most of the time yes. Just by looking at me (4ft 11in 103lbs) people usually know that
192 I'm not some "career criminal". Also, the probation officers that I had, once they got to k now me, were very fair with me. They did show up to the house unannounced a couple times, but it was not a problem. how I am label ed. I am also ashamed of what I did and am extremely remorseful. But I am not a threat to society. This is something that will NEVER again happen with me. Since then, I have met the most wonderful man, who I have been together with since just after this happened, and we have been married for the past 7 years. I have a wonderful daughter who is 23 and going to college full time and working full time and I have been employed by the same company for the past 4 years. Only once during my current employment did someone go to my employer to notify him that they "knew who I was because they saw my picture". My employer told her "She is one of my best employees and she is not going anywhere. If you are not comfortable with that, then I suggest you find somewh ere else to take care of your needs." We have lived in the same house/neighborhood for the past 8 years and ALL of my neighbors know about me and despite that, they all love and respect me. We all get together for street picnics and everyone is very ca I live my life just like anyone else and usually don't think about my past unless I receive something in the mail from someone who is asking questions for their Master's Thesis :) Yes, I would give ANYTHING to be off of that list, but really, it doesn't affect me to the point where I'd hire an attorney to see what my options are. Maybe there aren't any, maybe there are. Someday, I will do my research and find out. But until then, I am one very ha ppy woman who knows that if I
193 didn't go through what I did, I would have never met the man of my dreams and would never have had the most wonderful life that I have now. Just thought I would share this with you and this is why everyone's individual circum Participant C88 Participant C88 called me with concerns that I would be sharing her survey with her probation officer. In fact, she even stated that she had called her probation officer and asked for advice. Her probation o fficer told C88 to call me and ask some questions about what I was trying to find with my survey. C88 is the mother of two daughters and stated that her ex husband set her up with law enforcement, getting her in trouble as a form of punishment. She did n ot state why he felt the need to punish her, but she did say he used law enforcement as an alternative to beating her so he would not get in trouble with law enforcement himself. C88 is listed on the registry for the offense a one time offender and would not even be a one time offender if not for her ex husband setting her up. She did not state whether the child in question was one of her own children, but since she still has custody of her daughters, I would guess that the offense was not against one of her own. Participant C88 was sentenced to ten years probation (post incarceration) and for the entirety of that sentence; she must be on electronic monitoring. S he has currently been on electronic monitoring for five years and states that it is an incredible nuisance. She must report everywhere that she is going to her probation officer and she must remain at home if she does not report that she is leaving. C88 lives with her
194 Despite the close proximity, she is allowed to live in the home since it is one foot beyond the 1,000 boundary rule of closeness to a school. However, she i s not allowed to enter that zone or her electronic monitor will go off. One problem with her monitor beyond the inconvenience of it all is that she cannot take her children to the park or to any school functions. She cannot even take her children to thei lives within the 1,000 foot radius of a school zone. One of her parents must shuttle for her to go with her children is SeaWorld they have bee n there 7 times in the month of July. Before her conviction, C88 worked as a paralegal, but she says one of her probation conditions is that she is not allowed to be employed. So she has been unemployed for roughly five years according to her probation t erms. C88 also stated that she is currently on medications for mental illness. She never had any problems before her conviction, but the stress of everything has caused her to have mental issues. I asked participant C88 about her perceptions of the re gistry and I was surprised by her answer. She said that even though the registry has caused her problems in her personal life and has limited her involvement with her own children, she appreciates the security that the registry provides her. After asking her to elaborate, she stated that if a child goes missing, the first group that law enforcement investigates is the convicted sex offenders. Due to her electronic monitoring and the fact that they know her address, she can be ruled out of the investigati on. If the child went missing at 10pm and her monitor states that she was in her home at 10pm, where she is supposed to be, then
195 with law enforcement. Participant C88 agreed to talk to me further if there were any other questions that I had and stated that she would return the survey very quickly. She said that as the conversation went on, she felt more at ease with my project and that was why she offered to suppl y more information. Participant D41 Participant D41 emailed me after receiving the survey packet in the mail. She states that she has never encountered any harassing behaviors or problems because of her registration status but she has heard stories abou t other sex offenders. The following stories were told to participant D41 from other convicted sex offenders that are members of a sex offender therapy group with participant D41. In Citrus County, Florida there was a sign posted that featured all of the with the community. In Marion County, Florida, a developmentally challenged man committed suicide in 2009 over a sign that was posted in his ne ighborhood, which showed his sex offender status. Participant D41 told me about a rumor that she had heard concerning a double murder in the state of Maine where the killer knew of the w true that was, but I researched the story and found that the double murder did indeed happen. One of the two men killed was required to register after being convicted of having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend when he was 19 years old himself. The other sexual offender was 57 years old at the time of the shooting and was registered for indecent assault and battery on a child and rape of a child. The shooter then killed himself later on the day of the two murders (Ellement & Smalley, 2006).
196 Partic ipant D41 also told me about incidents that happened in the county where she was convicted (Citrus County). One such incident included a bar owner who would post pictures of registered sex offenders in his bar. This bar owner was known to be a friend of Mark Lunsford, who is known for being the father of Jessica Lunsford. Jessica was abducted from her home in Homosassa, Florida in February 2005 by John Couey. Couey, a previously convicted sexual offender, lived nearby the young girl and upon abducting h er; he raped and murdered Jessica, who was nine years old at the time. The case was well documented and followed very steadily by the media in Florida and passed in 2006 wh ich calls for heavier supervision of sexual offenders and includes mandatory electronic monitoring for some offenders (Jessica Lunsford Foundation, 2010). Participant D41 also told me about a local Halloween tradition that takes place in the county she was convicted in (Citrus County). Every Halloween a local General Dollar Store posts a sign that shows the community all of the sex offenders that reside in the area. D41 stated that one Halloween she took her teenage son to the store where he saw the signs Participant D41 noticed in one Mobil gas station that someone is publishing a book made up of listings from the sex offender registry. The gas station owner and employees are a part of selling the bo ok and allowing it to be sold in the store to customers. D41 expressed her anger over people making money off the registry and that her information was included in the book, despite it being public information. As an end to her email D41 agreed to alert her fellow sexual offenders that my survey may be
197 in route to them. She stated that she would encourage these women to participate in my study since all the information I can gather will be beneficial to my thesis. D41 stated that she appreciates what th is project is attempting to discover since it is this type of information that will be useful in attempts to change legislation. Individualized registration is necessary in the future, but she understands that there is a need to keep the registry to prote ct citizens from the severe sex offenders that are present in the community. D41 states that the registry cannot be a one size fits all solution to a very diverse problem. Each case is different and an overarching registry is not the best fix for the se relationship with a student of hers when she was a high school teacher. She is listed on 15 years of through sex offender group therapy she understands why she did not stop the relationship. However, even though she realizes that she committed a crime and has paid for that crime, she feels as though she is being punished a second time because she is being equated to some very destructive and very violent sex offenders. She does not believe that she is sex offender in the same way that some other sex offenders are viewed. D determine which sex offenders are high and low risk offenders. She also believes that there are currently more low risk offenders on the registry than high risk offenders. Also, the high risk offenders are not being caught because they are family members that are going undetected from law enforcement.
1 98 Participant D53 On her returned survey, Participant D53 wrote a short note at the bottom of the very open about my charge. Please contact me if Participant D63 Participant D63 called me in order to get a better feel for who I was as a person and why I was conducting this type of research. S he stated that she is very active in the sex offender community and would not participate if she felt as though I was not sincere in my intentions. I explained to her my reasons and she felt as though those reasons were falling in line with her personal g oals for sex offender research. Being active in the sex offender community, she said that she is very aware of all the legislation being passed in regards to sex offenders and is up to date on the academic research that is being conducted. She stated her disgust over the recent Supreme Court decision in regards to civil commitments for sexual offenders. By simply civilly committing them, the courts and the practitioners are not making any effort to get into the minds of sex offenders. Participant D63 als o told me about her offense. She is listed on the registry for husband is to blame for her sex offender status, but she did not state if he was a co defendant in he r case. Since her conviction, she has twice tried to reinstate her civil liberties but has failed to do so. She has attended sex offender psychotherapy sessions where she has been deemed to be an extremely low risk offender. However low risk she may be, she has still encountered harassment and hardships. Her ex
199 current wife printed out her FDLE flyer and distributed it throughout the city. After confronting his wife, a joint restraining order was issued against D63 and her ex t wife. She has also been forced to move multiple times due to her status. She did lose multiple jobs and now works at an entry level with low pay. She states that her employer does not know about her status and she is not volunteering that information either. She feels that there is a lack of education among the general public in regards to her opinion, is a waste of government money and provides to resolution for what it is trying to accomplish. She asked at what point is it alright for the public to go on a witch hunt for sexual offenders? She also gave me the names of organizations that are trying to provide education to the general public about the differences in sex offenders. One group is called SOSEN (Sex Offender Solutions and Education Network) and it works out of Ohio. Every year they host a conference for convicted sexual offenders who believe they were falsely convicted to meet and get resources to help t heir cases. A second group is just starting with a similar goal in mind, but is exclusively for female sex offenders. This group is WAR (Women Against the Registry). At the end of our phone call, D63 was still unsure if she would be participating in my survey. She told me that she would email me no matter how she decided. She recently sent me an email to confirm that she would be participating. Her email states: I will be sending i t back to you Monday. Please keep me informed at the results. From time to time I will be forwarding you information that may be helpful and interesting. As a
200 matter fact I will send you the contact information of the researchers that spoke at the 2010 C Participant D73 On her returned survey, Participant D73 wrote a short note at the bottom of the site unless I reoffend. I know why I did what I did and it Participant D98 I received a phone call from participant D98 and she indicated that she did not appreciate that I sent her the survey. She did not indicate that she was upset that I was asking about her sexual offense, but rather that I had designed the survey towards a state sex offender and that she was a federal sex offender. The registry lists her as stated that her offense was different from all other sex offenders because she was the victim rather than the offender but since she was the adult in the situation she was charged for the crim e. She did not elaborate as to what occurred that made her the victim within the situation. Participant D106 Participant D106 was the first to contact me in response to the survey. This was one day after I had sent out the surveys. At first, D106 was sl ightly reluctant to speak to me as she believed that I was a law enforcement official, even though she was the one who made the phone call. After I assured her that I was not involved with law enforcement, she began to ask me questions about my legal back ground and requested
201 that I look into her case to see if I could help her. After I told her that I also was not a lawyer, D106 began to tell me her story. She was convicted of sexual activity with a 16 17 year old according to the FDLE website. In her own words, D106 explained that she was arrested along with her ex husband (current husband at the time of the arrest) on suspicion of child molestation against her own children. She has 2 children who were both under the age of 10 at the time of the arres t. Participant D106 was offered a plea bargain and was convicted as a of their two children and she has not seen them since. D106 is trying to appeal her conviction, but at present time does not have the funds to hire an attorney. However, even though D106 was told that I am not an attorney, I think she got confused and believed that I was. I received a phone call from the cur rent husband of D106 asking me for help with the appeal. I again told him that I am not an attorney but he was adamant about telling me the story that the participant adama nt that I could help the couple with their case. Throughout the entire conversation I reiterated that I am not a licensed attorney and I could not take their case. I did however advise them to find a pro bono attorney who may be willing to take their cas e. from the prosecuting attorney. He also stated that he has firsthand knowledge that this particular prosecutor has a political agenda against sex offenders and those who a re
202 involved in gun crimes. He repeatedly asked me if it was legal for a prosecutor to go after sex offenses more harshly than other offenders. I advised him to ask his attorney that question. The husband relayed the circumstances surrounding the cases and their experiences post conviction. At the time of the offense, D106 was engaged in sexual intercourse with her boyfriend (her husband and she were separated) when her son walked into the room and saw the two having sex. The son was young (7 years ol d) enforcement that D106 was intentionally disrobing in front of her son and was m aking sexually suggestive remarks to him. After the initial arrest of D106, she spend 3 months in jail because there was no one with enough money to get her released on bond her current husband included. ital relationships that were present at the time of the offense, but he did state that he was not the boyfriend that D106 was having sex with when her son walked in. The 3 months that D106 spent in jail was the only time she spent incarcerated. However, she was sentenced to 4 years probation husband voiced his frustration over the fact that she must be on electronic monitoring for the entirety of her probation sentence. He also voiced frustration over the fact that he cannot live in the same house as his wife since he has a young daughter. He said that D106 at many points has been depressed and suicidal over her conviction. She has been to therapists and counselors many times and has been clinically diagnosed as
203 what I can do in contacting a lawyer for him and his wife. Before the conversation ended, I reiterated that I am not a lawyer a nd it is not my responsibility to find him one. I do not think that her husband completely understand of what I was telling him, but if he calls me back then I will again tell him what I have told him previously. Participant E12 Participant E12 emailed me in response to the survey that I mailed to her. She was adamant about her name and location remaining confidential because city she resides is small and a big vacation spot. Therefore, she cannot afford to have any problems arise as a result of her na me being made public. In the response email, I ensured E12 that her identity and her place of employment would remain confidential. information from the email that cou ld identify Participant E12. The email that she sent to me reads: I am glad that someone is actually taking notice of the idea of the Registry itself. Please understand, I do not wan t my name mentioned but I have several things I would love to share with you as a female who was thrown into this whole fiasco without knowing what it actually entailed. in the registry and I might be able to give you a different perspective for your thesis. I have been grouped together as a label and placed at the bottom of the horrible people list. Even below those who have killed others or broken into homes and beaten people
204 within an inch of their life do not have to answer to the world the way our label does. I do not feel it is fair to group us as such. During the civil rights era, they used to say that some were placed at the back of the bus. Well, I tell my husband all the time, that I do tied and passionate about the extreme stigma given to our label as a whole and I would love to speak to you about it if that is something you where I work with anyone because I cann ot handle any more problems associated with In the response email, I invited her to share as much as she wanted to about her experiences, her offense and other items that she may to make known. She wrote a second email to me and promises to write a third. In the second email, she relates that there is so much that she wants to say about her offense. The email states: comprehensive however, it assumes that you are guilty. Some of the questions say "did you commit this crime..." There are many people on the registry that are there because they felt they had no other option except to either plead "no lo" or guilty beca use many, many, many years ago lawyers advised their clients to do this because the system was going through a phase where they would always side with the "kid/victim" regardless of truth just to make a point. There was no registry back then or the ridicu lous hoop jumping we are made to do today. Those clients, back then, had nothing to lose except a possible small
205 jail term which was a whole lot better than risking a massive jail term and losing your own kids. People made decisions on what was the lesser of the two evils even if they did not, in reality, deserve either. Today, a lawyer would not give that kind of advice to a client. I am sure that many of those "older" offenders would fight for the truth rather than compromise for what they believed to b e the best route if they had known what they would have to go through in the future just to get through the day with this scarlet exposed to on a daily basis. It assumes, and therefore, directly or indirectly accuses and formulates a predicted outcome, that of...if you are on the registry you are automatically guilty. the survey because if you asked the question... are you guilty...I believe that many people probably would say "no" whether it be true or not. And, even if you are not guilty, no one ever really believes you. So what is the point, the truth is actually i rrelevant. I guess the on the registry are so far off I can't even imagine where they came from. I refuse to look at it because I guarantee you that after I throw up, cry, rant and rave I will be depressed for quite awhile. I can't do that to myself anymore so I ignore it and just plod on. I try to keep that "out of sight, out of mind" attitu de. It is what gets me through the day until something happens and I get blind sided again.
206 you, no one has ever cared. Thank you for b eing there, even if it is for a school thing As previously stated, Participant E12 promised to write a third email, specifically detailing everything she has to say. However, I responded to her second email expl aining some of the issues she brought up concerning my survey and why I wrote things the way that I did. My email to her stated: however. As far as the survey goes, I understand t hat there are a lot of people on the registry who were falsely accused, who took the plea deal as "the lesser of two evils" or because their lawyers advised them to do so. In my research and the research of my colleagues, we see this trend not only with those on the registry, but with those convicted of murder, burglary or basically any other type of crime. In fact, there are so many of these convictions taking place that people have dedicated themselves to reversing this trend and to help those who wer There is a group in New York called the Innocence Project who works to help out those who were convicted of murder. They have exonerated close to 300 individuals from death row because there is DNA evidence somewhere that can clear them of their convictions. Some of their work is incredible! They reopen cases that have been ignored for years and they find some sort of DNA evidence that exonerates them for their crimes. So not make any less of the registry convictions, but people are arrested
207 convicted. So even though the circumstances may have forced them into their plea through the rea sons you spoke of before, there was still a conviction. Therefore, according to previous research, you ask the questions to people phrased in that way. I personally am not making any judgments of anyone because I wrote the questions that way. I had to w rite them that way because of how previous research requires it to be. Plus as you stated, if I wrote the questions asking people are you guilty, then I probably would have gotten a lot more responses stating No, even if they were guilty. So again, I did not mean any offense by the wording and I know that everyone is not guilty, despite the conviction. However, since the conviction exists, I have to write the survey is study being mandatory. Part of the requirement for me to achieve my Master's Degree it to write and conduct research for a Master's Thesis. However, there is a lot of academic freedom in choosing what you would like to study. So for my thesis, I chos e the topic of sex offenders and the registry. I created the survey with help of my supervising professor. So I just wanted to let you know that this topic of study was not mandatory little bit more about me and why I chose to study the registry and those on it. And also why I chose to write the survey the way I did. I appreciate that you brought those issues up though. I don't want anyone to think that I just assume that everyone o n the registry is guilty. If you have anything else like that
208 discuss with me, I would love to hear your concerns. Thank you again for bringing them Her response to my email states the following: d guessing you. I have just been on the defensive for so long, that the wall automatically goes up. I truly apologize if I gave you the wrong impression. I actually feel that you are not the type of person who is accusatory or judgmental because you wou ldn't have chosen this topic if you were. I believe it was an excellent survey and as I mentioned very comprehensive. Your questions were well thought out and touched on things that even I had not considered or realized could happen to others in my situat ion because I had not I never meant to make any less of their circumstances, but I can only speak of mine and since (thank God) I have never been accused of anything else, I cannot and should not speak of person who goes around nit picking on things people say or semantics. I am really a very easy going person and tend to avoid confrontation of any kind to the point where Participant E14 Participant E14 contacted me with questions about the survey. She stated that she wanted to learn a bit more before she completed the survey. I thought she would have concerns about what I was going to do with her information, but she was just
209 confused about how to answer the questions considering that she had not committed a crime against another person. E14 stated that she received an email from a boyfriend when she was 20 years old which contained a picture of his erect penis. Her boyfriend was an adult, but she did not say how old he was. In the email, her boyfriend was trying to convince E14 to have sex with him and send the picture of email was received by law enforcement but she did say that the prosecutor told her that n flaccid, then there would be no reason to charge her with anything. She did not say whether or not her boyfriend was charged with a sexual E14 did not have the mone y to hire an attorney, so she accepted a plea deal for the 2 years probation, but says that her status as a sexual offender was not revealed to her during the plea bargain. Participant E14 was sentenced to 2 years of probation and is required to registe r on the sex offender registry. However, E14 was not aware of how long she was required to register for. She asked me how she would find out that information. I told her that upon her conviction, most likely at the sentencing phase, she would have been told that she was required to register for a certain amount of years. She did know that Florida. The first time she reported to the sheriff, the officer that she saw asked her why
210 Before her conviction, E14 was in the fire academy to become a Fire One fire fighter. She was also training to get her EMT license. Through a friend who was also in the academy with her, E14 met the boyfriend who sent the email to her. E14 son caught his mother and her boyfriend having sex. The child was terrified and ran into a closet to hide. E14 found the child in the closet after hearing the door slam and coaxed the child out, telling him that his mother was alright and that her boyfri end was not hurting her, they were just wrestling. Even though the child was young enough to believe E14, she feels that the mother did more damage to her son than E14 did with en. Not because it was court ordered, but because her friend did not want a sex offender in the presence of her children. Participant E14 was also not allowed to remain in the fire academy and was not allowed to finish her EMT training. She had currentl y been unemployed since 2008. Since her conviction came before the changes in the sex offender registry laws, E14 was grandfathered into her neighborhood, even though it may breach the boundaries of proximity to schools, bus stops and daycares. She has t wo children of her own now that were fathered by her current boyfriend. He lives seven houses down she is not allowed to loiter there unnecessarily. She said that if it were not for her two Being on the registry has not been easy for her and now that her children are approaching school age, she is afraid that she will not be able to att end their school
211 functions or attend birthday parties the way other mothers can. She has not yet told her children about her sex offender status. Because of how low risk her offense makes her, was the murderer of Jessica Lunsford). E14 states that the registry needs to set up a tier system like the one present in Colorado. She says that works out better because more emphasis is given to the high risk offenders and those wh o are low risk like herself are not in the spotlight as much. Participant E14 was very generous with her explanations and stated the need for this information to be made public. Not every offender of the registry is a high risk offender and through proje cts like this one, E14 feels that the truth will come out and hopefully changes can be made to the registry. Participant E19 Participant E19 returned her survey and added a note to the bottom of the final page. Her note reads the following: overturn this record. Can you help me? I will be contacting you really Participant E56 stated that he was calling becaus e E56 violated her probation, was violated and is currently in jail for the violation. Her boyfriend stated that E56 does not have a job but she was trying to gain employment through her uncle. Her boyfriend stated that E56 was associating with a group of illegal aliens, however she is not an illegal herself. When the group of illegals were found and were charged for their illegal entry, they set up E56 by claiming that she was sleeping with a
212 scivious molestation victim 12 she did not have the money for her bond. However, her boyfriend claims that she did now if she pled for a probation sentence only or if she was incarcerated as well. However, she is currently on probation and is on electronic monitoring as part of her sentence. Since she is unemployed, she does not have money for an attorney at this tim e. Her boyfriend mistakenly thought that I am an attorney. I told him that I could not help him on her case and that I am not an attorney. However, I did recommend for him to do an internet search of attorneys who are doing pro bono work in his area and possibly might be willing to take her case. Participant E82 the letter it seems that E82 is back in custody, so the letter was written by the s: saw the survey you sent to her and I am returning it because she will not. I would like to talk to you and get your prospective/advice on her case. I would like to know if there is no avail. This attorney told her to just say yes to whatever the judge said. Also, on her plea day the atto rney had told her that she did not need to be there but he did not show
213 anything you can recommend. Sincerely, [name removed]. Participant E94 Included in her returned survey packet, Participant E94 included several documents concerning her case. She included documentation proving her certification as a paralegal, the test scores surrounding her paralegal training, a letter from a correctional staff psychol ogist clearing E94 of any mental illness, an inmate informational detail sheet from the Florida Department of Corrections showing the of Law Enforcement Investigation Re port for her convicted offense, a complete psychological history of E94, and a letter written by E94 herself explaining the circumstances surrounding her conviction. The letter she wrote states the following: placed on the list because a person who I had befriended and invited into my home. He had just gotten out of prison on probation from his 5 th so I only have a limited income. Now, he was in [city name removed] staying with his friend, when Hurricane Opal hit our beaches. I called him to help me and my lady I worked for so he could lcomed and stayed for some time and he did clean up the mess that Opal made. My large storage shed was damaged and had to be
214 hauled off. He worked really well and he was a big help to me and the lady I worked for that he did NOT have the permission from his probation officer to come to [county name removed] County!! When the officer put the pressure on him and was about to violate him and he would have had to serve his 20 year term from prison. He knew all the t ricks of the trade so he went through my private bedroom and STOLE 3 or 4 pictures of my granddaughter. She was nude and he called though t anyone could be put in prison for what was done to me by a person who had been in prison five different times. He painted me as a sexual person who would harm children. When I went to court the judge gave my 97 months in a federal prison. I was 66 yea I also lost my homestead and my check from Social Security. I really do need someone to help me get off the computer because I AM NOT A SEX OFFENDER!!! Since you mailed me this literature it may help me to get to the right person to get help. I am sure there are many more on the list that are innocent also. I hope you can let know if you was in prison I took a paralegal course and I also studied constitutional law with a person that knew the law of the constitution. She was in my cube and she taught constitutional law on Saturdays. I had 60 hours of that and I had 4 or 5 courses
215 in Batt court. Had I known then what I know now, I would have taken my chances with the courts. Polar Manic Depression that I was me Service made a deal to take my homestead and sell it and split the money between them. I did not know what assured me that he that he was healing me of my depression and I could see it leaving me at that time and I went to the Doctors and told them I wanted to s top taking the 20mg of Prozac that I was on. They told me if I was alright in 3 months they would take is N OT at all it is supposed to be. After I got in prison I know of several others that were not guilty of what they were charged with either. I have notarized statements of my good character in our community however the U.S. Attorney told the judge that I w as a threat to my community and NOT to grant me bail so I was denied bail even thought I
216 had property in Florida and should have been granted release on my own because of elp me get off that computer. I will be leaving on Saturday to stay with my elder son in Georgia for two weeks so if you write, give me time to answer. I am listing my home Participant E110 Pa rticipant E110 returned the survey that I sent to her and included a letter somewhat rambling manner. Nonetheless, it reads as follows: brother [name removed] and his wife [name removed] accused me of being a sex offender. I am not a sex offender. I never was. I was supposed to go to trial and take a polygraph test. The polygraph test me removed], [name removed] and [name removed] did not want me to go on trial because they did not want Judge [name removed] or Tallahassee to know about the moonshine. My step sister died from the moonshine. My step sister and I was drunk and we past ou t. I have been accused of that and now this. My step sister [name removed] did this to me. I have never been to
217 born. 2004 I was locked up. I promise you I am not a sex off removed] he told me that [name removed] was there in Orlando. He told me that he his. My th be on parole anymore. I want my freedom back. [Name removed] she said that I can I want my own s along with [name removed] and [name removed] for accusing me of being a sex offende r. Mrs. Jennifer can you help me with my own place, a job, money, a pickup truck? I want my drivers license back. Mrs. Jennifer I have cookware, clothes that I need to sell so that I can take [the polygraph test] to prove that I am not a sex offender. I want my freedom back, my family gave [name removed] my step sister money for crack over best to keep
218 the money for the polygraph test to prove that I am not a sex offender. I promise I am not for the Grace of God on Jesus Cross. I am asking for help. Thank you, [name name be [name re Well she need to stay away from him and stop calling him. I have cookware, a care and clothes for sell so I can live wherever I want to, I can have my freedom back. $250. As I stated before, the letter is very incoherent and written in a rambling manner. she wrote the following words:
219 APPENDIX E SURVEY COMMENTS Question 1: Question 2: have never been told. May be able to file for Question 3: Question 4 you commit the offense alone?
220 Question 4a you Question 4b Question 4c Participant A107: Question 5: workers, and other people you consider a part of your life know about your sexual offense Qu estion 6 Participa
221 Question 7: government workers contact you, as a result of your placement on the Florida Question 8: Question 9: Question 10: Question 11: Question 12
222 Question 13 : Offender Registry Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Registry page wa s of someone else, I would contact someone to have it Question 17 r which I was convicted were incorrect (listed as more or less serious) on the Florida Sex Offender Registry, I
223 Question 18 Participant Question 19 Florida Sex Offender Registry I am less likely to commit another sexual offense in past and I would not want to repeat that kind of thing ever again and I will not ever again Participa woman anymore; I have undergone a physic change thanks to AA and the grace of
224 because I have learned from my choices. It was something I did not something I am. Question 20 Participa Question 21 Registry has limited my efforts to reenter back into my community cannot Question 22 : rld, but not with God because God Question 23 : available to the public becaus e it makes life difficult for the people who are registered
225 Question 24 : available to the public because it harms everyone registered and prevents me and ot her s Question 25 : Question 26: required Question 27: register as a sexual offe Question 28 :
226 Question 29: Question 30: Particip Question 31: eave the house because I am afraid that
227 Question 32: Question 33: dangerous offe Question 34: Question 35: nforcement Question 36: officials treated you fairly? removed] did not want the Judge in Tallahassee to know about the moonshine. Question 37: Question 38: While you were incarcerated, did the correctional staff treat you fairly?
228 Participant E45 Question 39: While you were incarcerated, did the correctional staff treat you with respect? Question 40: While you were incarcerated, did you feel that the correctional staff was judgmental of your offense? Question 41: While o n probation, did you feel that that your probation office treated you fairly? st PO in Gainesville I felt treated me unfairly. My Tampa Question 42: While on probation, did you feel that your probation o fficer treated you with respect? Question 43: While on probation, did you feel that your probation officer was judgmental of your offense? Question 44: While on probation, did your probation officer give you advanced warning before making a home visit?
229 Question 45: While on probation, did your probation officer ever come by unannounced for a home visit? Question 46: While on probation, did your probation officer visit you at home on a regular basis? Question 47: Do you feel that your probation officer visited you more often because you were convicted of a sexual offense? Question 48: Do you feel that your probation officer would not have visited you as often if you had been convicted of a non sexual offense? Question 49: Do you feel that you have been treated differently by law enforcement, corrections official or court officials based on your status as a sexual offender? They have come in the middle of the n ight for no reason. If they miss us on other Question 50: Do you feel that being on the Florida Sex Offender Registry has caused unnecessary stress in your life? Part
230 Question 51: Because of this stress, do you feel that you act out in an unhealthy way? Question 52: Because of this stress, do you consume alcohol more than you did in the past? Question 53: Because of this stre ss, do you use any illegal substances more than you did in the past? Question 54: Because of this stress, have you ever tried to hurt yourself? Question 55: Because of this stress, have you ever tried to hurt someone else? Question 56: Do you feel angry for having to register on the Florida Sex Offender Registry? Participant B66: Question 57: Since registering on the Florida Sex Offender Registry, has your relationship with your significant other ended?
231 defendant was my ex husband. I since rema rried and he Question 58: Since registering on the Florida Sex Offender Registry, have any relationships with family m embers ended? Question 59: Since registering on the Florida Sex Offender Registry, have you been physically abused by someone close to you? Question 60: Since register ing on the Florida Sex Offender Registry, have you been emotionally or verbally abused by someone close to you? Question 61: Lost a job customers tell us they will not deal with us because of the implications that come with Question 62: Been denied a promotion at work Question 63: Lost (or denied) a place to live Participant C Question 64: Been treated rudely in a public place
232 Question 65: Been asked to leave a business or restaurant Question 66: Lost a friend because of your registration status Question 67: Been harassed, in person Question 68: Been assaulted/attacked Question 69: Received harassing/threatening telephone calls Question 70: Received harassing/threatening mail/flyers/notes Question 71: Since being released, how many times have you had to change residences? Question 72: Is your current residence more than 2,500 f eet away from a school? Question 73: Have you ever been forced to move because your residence was Participant E110: Question 74: Were you ever informed that you could not live within a certain area close to a school, park or school bus stop? Question 75: Have you found it difficult to find employment after your release? Partic
233 Question 75a: If you answered Yes, is this because your employer knew that you are a registered sex of fender? Question 76: Has your residence ever been attacked or violated? Question 76a: If you answered Yes, how was it attacked or violated? Question 77: Do you feel that your current neighborhood is a last r esort area for you (meaning that you only live there because the law has limited your other opportunities of residence)? Question 78: How safe do you feel in your neighborhood? Question 79: Do you attend a religious service of any k ind on a regular basis? Question 80: Do you participate in religious activities within the church you belong to (anything that is not included in regular service)? Question 81: Do you seek out the support of a religious leader on a regular basis
234 Que stion 82: Do you take part in a support group within the community? Question 82a: Question 83: Do you belon g to any hobby groups or clubs? Question 84: Are you involved in any intramural sports organizations? Question 85: Do you feel like the activities in which you are involved help make you feel a sense of belonging to your community? Question 86: Are you in contact with any other registered sex offenders in your community? Question 87: Participant Question 88: local law enforcement sends Question 89: Question 90: disclose my status as a sex
235 Question 91: Question 92: to Question 93: ause I feel Question 94: Question 95: Question 96: Par Question 97: Question 98: Your age? Question 99: What is your relationship status?
236 Question 100: Do you have children? Question 100a: If you answered Yes, are your children still minors? Question 100b: If you answered Yes, do you have custody of your children? Question 100c: If you answered No, who has custody/guardianship of your children?
237 APPENDIX F INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL IRB Approval Letter
238 IRB Approved Informed Consent
239 IRB Approved Initial Letter
240 IRB Approved Follow up Letter
241 LIST OF REFERENCES Adshead, G., Howett, M., & Mason, F. (1994). Woman who sexually abuse children. Journal of Sexual Aggression 1, 45 56. Agnew, R. (1985). A revised strain theory of delinquency. Social Forces 64 ( 1 ) 151 167. Agnew, R. (2001a). Juvenile Delinquency: Causes and Control Los Angeles: Roxbury. Agnew, R. (2001b). Building on the foundation of general strain theory: Specifiying the types of strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38 319 361. Agnew, R. (2006a). Pressured Into Crime: An Overview of General Strain Theory. Los Angeles: Roxbury. Agnew, R. (2006b). General strain theory: current status and directions for further research. pp. 101 123 in Francis T. Cullen, John Paul Wri ght and Kristie R. Blevins (eds.), Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory. Advances in Criminological Theory. Vol. 15. New Brunswick, NJ.: Transaction. Akers, R. & Sellers, C. (2009). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation and appl ication. Fifth Edition. New York: Oxford University Press. Allen, C. M. (1991). Women and men who sexually abuse children: A comparative analysis. Orwell: Safer Society. ms of the criminal justice system: A review of the literature. Social Problems, 23 (3) 350 357 Banning, A. (1989). Mother son incest: Confronting a prejudice. Child Abuse and Neglect 13 563 570. Baron Evans, A. & Noonan, S. (2006). The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 -Part I. Retrieved: January 15, 2010, from http://www.fd.org/pdf_lib/Adam Walsh MemoPt 1.pdf Barnes, H.E. & Teeters, N.K. (1959). New horizons in criminology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Beech, A.R., Parrett, N., Ward, T. & Fisher, D. (2009). Assessing female sexual Psychology, Cri me & Law, 5, ( 2/3 ), 201 216. Criminology 28 73 96.
242 Block, H.A. & Geis, G. (1962). Man, crime and society. New York: Random House. Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegr ation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Brezina, T. (1996). Adapting to strain: An examination of delinquent coping responses. Criminology, 34 39 60. Bunting, L. (2006). Females who sexually offend against children: Responses of the ch ild protection and criminal justice systems. Executive summary. London: NSPCC. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2004). Criminal Offender Statistics. Washington, DC: Retrieved August 9, 2010 file://localhost/from http/::www.ojp.usdoj.gov:bjs:crimoff.htm sex Calley, N.G. (2008). Juvenile sex offenders and sex offender legislation: Unintended consequences Federal Probation 72 ( 3 ), 37 41. Cavan, R.S. (1962). Criminology. New York: Crowell. Clemmer, D. (1940). The prison community Boston: The Christopher Publishing House. Collwell, L.H., Miller, H.A., Miller, R.S & Lyons, Jr., P.M. (2006). U.S. police knowledge regarding behaviors indicative of deception: Implications for eradicating erroneous beliefs through training. Psychology, Crime & Law, 1 2 ( 5 ), 489 503. Cornell Law School. (2010). Legal Information Institute U.S. Code. Retrieved Oct ober 11, 2010 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ Cortoni, F., & Hanson, R. (2005). A review of recidivism rates of adult female sexual offenders. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada. Cullen F. T. & Wright, J.P. (1997). Liberating the anomie strain paradigm: Implications from social support theory. Pp. 187 206 in The Future of Anomie Theory, ed. Nikos Passas and Robert Agnew. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Department of Corrections Wash ington State. (2010). Civil Commitment of Sexual Predators. Retrieved August 27, 2010 from http://www.doc.wa.gov/community/sexoffenders/civilcommitment.asp Ellement J.R. and Smalley, S. (2006). Sex crime disclosure questioned: Maine killings refuel debate over registries. Retrieved August 8, 2010 from http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2006/04/18/sex_crime_disclosure_que stioned/
243 English, K., Pullen, S. & Jones, L. (1997). Managing adult sex offenders in the community: A containment approach. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justic e. Faller, K. C. (1995). A clinical sample of women who have sexually abused children. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 4 (3), 13 30. Fazel, S., Sjostedt, G., Grann, M. & Langstrom, N. (2010). Sexual offending in women and psychiatric disorder: A national case control study. Archives of Sexual Behavior 39 161 167. Finkelhor, D., & Williams, L. (1988). Perpetrators. In D. Finkelhor, L.Williams & N. Burns (Eds.), Nursery crimes: Sexual abuse in day care Newbury Park: Sage. Florida Department of Law En forcement (FLDE). (2010a). Complete list of female sexual offenders. Unpublished Listing. Retrieved March 22, 2010. Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FLDE). (2010b). Florida Sexual Predators and Offenders. Retrieved August 11, 2010 from http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/homepage.do Ford, H. (2006). Women who sexually abuse children Chichester: Wiley Freeman, J., Liossis, P. and David, N. (2006). Deterrence, Def iance and Deviance: An Reported Offending Behaviours. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 39 ( 1 ), 1 19. Fromuth, M.E., & Conn, V.E. (1997). Hidden perpetrators: Sexual molestation in a nonclinical sample of college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 12 456 465. Gannon, T.A., Rose, M.R, Williams, S.E. (2009). Do female child molesters implicitly associate children and sex? A preli minary investigation. Journal of Sexual Aggression 1 5 ( 1 ), 55 61. Grayston, A. D., & De Luca, R. V. (1999). Female perpetrators of child sexual abuse: a review of the clinical and empirical literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior 4 ( 1), 93 106. Gra y, N. S., Brown, A. S., MacCulloch, M. J., Smith, J. & Snowden, R. J. (2005). An implicit test of the association between children and sex in pedophiles. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 114 304 308. Higgs, D. C., Canavan, M. M., & Meyer, W. J. (1992). C linical notes, moving from defense to offense: the development of an adolescent female sex offender. Journal of Sex Research 29( 1), 131 139.
244 Hislop, J. (2001). Female sex offenders: What therapists, law enforcement and child protective services need to know Ravensdale: Issues. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Holmes, S.T. and Holmes, R.M. (2009). Sex Crimes: Patterns and Behaviors. SAGE Publications, Inc.: Californ ia. Homel, R.J. (1988). Policing and punishing the drinking driver. A study of specific and general deterrence. New York: Springer Verlag. Jacob Wetterling Act. (1996). General Final Guidelines for the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act. Federal Registration 16 15110 02. Jessica Lunsford Foundation. (2010). Retrieved August 8, 2010 from http://www.jmlfoundation.org/ Jimmy Ryce Center. (2010). Inc rease Public Awareness of Sexual Predators and Predatory Abductions. Retrieved August 23, 2010 from http://www.jimmyryce.org/JimmysKidnapping.html Johansson Love, J., & Fremouw, W. (2006). A critique of female sexual perpetrator research. Aggression and Violent Behaviour 11 12 26. Johansson Love, J., & Fremouw, W. (2009). Female sex offenders: A controlled comparison of offender and victim/crime characteristics. Journal of Family Viole nce, 24 367 376. Johnson, T.S. (2010). Crossing the line: When pedagogical relationships go awry. Teachers College Record 112 ( 8 ), 2021 2066. Kaplan, M. S., & Green, A. (1995). Incarcerated female sexual offenders: a comparison of sexual histories with eleven female nonsexual offenders. Sexual Abuse 7 (4), 287 300. Kaufman, K.L.,Wallace, A.M., Johnson, C.F., & Reeder, M.L. (1995). Comparing female Journal of Interpersonal Violence 10 322 333. Kubik, E. K., Hecker, J. E., & Rightland, S. (2002). Adolescent females who have sexually offended: comparisons with delinquent adolescent female offenders and adolescent males who sexually offend. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 11 (3), 63 83.
245 Kubrin, C.E., Stucky, T.D., & Krohn, M.D. (2009). Researching theories of crime and deviance. New York: Oxford University Press. Lewis, C. F.,& Stanley, C. R. (2000).Women accused of sexual offenses. Behavioral Sciences & t he Law 18 73 81. Lloyd, C. (1987). Working with the female offender: a case study. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 50 (2), 44 46. Mihailides, S., Devilly, G. J. & Ward, T. (2004). Implicit cognitive distortions and sexual offending. Sexual Ab use: A Journal of Research and Treatment 16 333 350. Makkai, T. & Braithwaite, J. (1994). Reintegrative shaming and compliance with regulatory standards. Criminology, 32 361 386. Mathews, R., Hunter, J. A., & Vuz J. (1997). Juvenile female sexual offenders: clinical characteristics and treatment issues. Sexual Abuse 9 (3), 187 199. Mayer, A. (1992). Women sexual offenders Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications. Miccio Fonseca, L. C. (2000). Adult and adolesce nt female sex offenders: experiences compared to other female and male sex offenders. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality 11 (3), 75 88. Michigan State Legislature. (2010). 750.520d Criminal sexual conduct in the third degree; felony. Retrieved Aug ust 16, 2010, from http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(wcegeym1zofxdpq2r5hpw1e0))/mileg.aspx?page=Get Object&objectname=mcl 750 520 d Michigan State Police. (2006). Sex offender registry: Summary of legislation. Retrieved January 13, 2010 from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/SOR_Legislation_Sum mary_122883_7.pdf Nathan, P., & Ward, T. (2002). Female sex offenders: Clinical and demographic features. Journal of Sexual Aggression 8 5 21. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). (2008). Adam Walsh child protection and safety act of 200 6. Retrieved January 15, 2010 from http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/CivilandCriminalJustice/HR4472AdamWalshChild P rotectionandSafetyAc/tabid/12699/Default.aspx Nunes, K. L., Firestone, P. & Baldwin, M. W. (2007). Indirect assessment of cognitions of child sexual abusers with the Implicit Association Test. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34 454 475.
246 Olsen, G. (1999 ). If Loving You Is Wrong. Palermo, G.B. (2005). Prisonization and sexual offenders: A compounded problem. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 4 (9 6 ), 611 613. Payne, B.K. & DeMichele M. (2008). Warning: Sex offenders need to be supervised in the community. Federal Probation 72 ( 1 ), 37 42. Peluso, E. & Putnum, N. (1996) Case study: Sexual abuse of boys by females. Journal of the American Academy of Adolescent Psychiatry 35 ( 1 ), 51 54. Reckless, W.C. (1961). The crime problem. New York: Appleton Century Crofts. Rosencrans, B. (1997). The Last Secret: Daughters Sexually Abused by Mothers. Orwell, VT: Safe Society Press. Rudin, M.M., Zalewski, C., & Bodmer Turner, J. (1995). Cha racteristics of child sexual abuse victims according to perpetrator gender. Child Abuse and Neglect 19 963 973. Saradjian, J. (1996). Women who sexually abuse children: From research to clinical practice Chichester: Wiley. Sarrel, P.,&Masters, W. (1 982). Sexual molestation of men by women. Archives of Sexual Behavior 11 117 131. Scott, C.L. and Gerbasi, J.B. (2003). Sex offender registration and community notification challenges: The Supreme Court continues its trend. Journal of American Academi c Psychiatry and Law, 31 494 501. Scheff, T. and Retzinger, S.M. (1991), Emotions and Violence: Shame and Rage in Destructive Conflicts. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Sherman, L.W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the crimin al sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30 ( 4 ), 445 473. Sherman, L.W. (2006). Defiance Theory. pp. 286 293 in Francis T. Cullen and Robert Agnew (3 rd ed.), Criminological Theory: Past to Present (Essential Readings). California: Roxb ury Publishing Company. Simons, R.L., Chen, Y., Stewart, E.A., & Broidy, G.H. (2003). Incidents of discrimination and risk for delinquency: A longitudinal test of strain theory with an African American sample. Justice Quarterly, 20 ( 4 ) 827 854. Solomon, J. C. (1992). Child sexual abuse by family members: A radical feminist perspective. Sex Roles 27 473 485.
247 Syed, F., & Williams, S. (1996). Case studies of female sex offenders in the Correctional Service of Canada. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada. Szymkowiak, K. & Fraser, T. (2002). Registered Sex Offenders in Hawaii. Honolulu: Department of the Hawaii Attorney General. Tewksbury, R. (2004). Experiences and attitudes of registered female sex offenders. Fe deral Probation 68 ( 3 ), 30 33. Vandiver, D., & Kercher, G. (2004). Offender and victim characteristics of registered female sexual offenders in Texas: A proposed typology of female sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 16 121 137. Vick, J., McRoy, R., & Matthews, B. M. (2002). Young female sex offenders: assessment and treatment issues. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 11 (2), 1 23. Wakefield, H., & Underwagner, R. (1991). Female child sexual abusers: a critical review of the literature. The American Journal of Forensic Psychology 9 (4), 43 69. Aggression and Violent Behaviour 5 491 507. implicit theories. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 14 821 838. Wyatt Nichols, H. & Franks, G. (2009). Ethics training in law enforcement agencies. Public Integrity, 12 (1) 39 50. Zaitch, D. & Staring, R. (2007). Trends and policies on women traffic king in the Netherlands. Crime and Justice International, 23 ( 101 ) 15 22.
248 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jennifer L. Klein summa cum laude graduated from the University of Florida in 2009 with a Bachelor of the Arts in criminology and a minor in h istory. She graduate d in May 2011 with a Master of Arts in criminology, law and s ociety.