C enter For S ex O ffender M anagement

Public Opinion and the Criminal Justice System:

Building Support for Sex Offender Management Programs

April 2000

Introduction

Public fear about sex offenders presents a unique

challenge to leaders working to establish or improve

policies related to supervising and treating sex

offenders in the community. Public sentiment that the

criminal justice system should do more to safeguard the

community from sex offenders has led to the enactment

of a host of measures in recent years, such as sex

offender registration, community notification, and

involuntary civil commitment for some sex offenders. 

Numerous statutes have also been passed that reflect

the public’s belief that violent criminals, including sex

offenders, should be incarcerated for longer periods of

time. Despite such laws, however, most convicted sex

offenders will be released into the community at some

point – whether directly following sentencing, or after a

term of incarceration in jail or prison. The criminal

justice system has the responsibility to manage these

offenders without unduly risking victim and public

safety or undercutting the offender’s habilitation1 or

successful reintegration into society. While the sex

offender management field is fairly well united in the

belief that the responsible management of sex offenders

includes rigorous community supervision and sex

offender-specific treatment, public opinion can influence

whether such initiatives will be supported or accepted

in a jurisdiction.

Public opinion has the power to shape legislation,

funding decisions, and the political landscape related to

the community supervision of sex offenders. Given

this, those working in the field of sex offender

management must understand public sentiment about

their work, provide citizens with accurate information,

and recognize the public as a legitimate partner in

deciding how to effectively manage sex offenders, in

order to prevent future victimization. However, many

 

1

 Habilitation helps sex offenders develop thinking, skills, and behaviors

not previously in their repertoire. (David D’Amora and Gail Burns-Smith,

“Partnering in Response to Sexual Violence: How Offender Treatment

and Victim Advocacy Can Work Together in Response to Sexual

Violence,” Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 11

(1999): pp. 293-305.)

practitioners have implemented mandated sex offender

legislation and developed specialized supervision and

treatment programs without considering the impact of

public opinion on these new laws or practices. This

brief draws on the experiences of jurisdictions that

have incorporated public opinion into their response to

sex offenders, as well as lessons learned from

jurisdictions that have utilized public opinion to

influence other criminal justice system policies and

practices. It will address three areas of interest:

• why the public’s perspective is important;

• how leadership in different states has benefited

from studies of public opinion about crime and

criminal justice issues; and

• why it is essential that the criminal justice system

view the public as a partner rather than an

adversary or simply a group of consumers.

Why the Public’s Perspective Is

Important

There are three primary reasons why the public’s

perspective is critical to the criminal justice system:

1. public opinion creates the boundaries within which

the community will support, or least accept, policy;

2. public opinion about criminal justice is at times

misinformed, and largely as a result of those

misperceptions, the public has low levels of

confidence in the criminal justice system; and

3. after learning about a criminal justice issue and

having a chance to deliberate over it, the public is

much more open to change than conventional

wisdom would suggest.

Established in June 1997, CSOM’s goal is to enhance public safety by preventing further victimization through improving the management of adult and

juvenile sex offenders who are in the community. A collaborative effort of the Office of Justice Programs, the National Institute of Corrections, and the State

Justice Institute, CSOM is administered by the Center for Effective Public Policy and the American Probation and Parole Association.
2

Megan’s Law in New Jersey

Seven-year-old Megan Kanka was raped and murdered in

1994 by Jesse Timmendequas, a twice-convicted child

molester who lived on her block in Hamilton, New Jersey.

Megan’s parents believe that if they had known that a

pedophile lived near by, the crime never would have

happened. Megan's death gave new momentum to the

concept of community notification: that residents be warned

when a sex offender moves into their neighborhood.

Residents of Megan’s community held rallies and signed

petitions in support of community notification. Megan's

parents served as leaders to the cause and began a highly

public campaign to protect children. In 1995, this campaign

led to the enactment of community notification legislation in

New Jersey, known as “Megan’s Law.” New Jersey

politicians helped carry the issue to a national level. President

Clinton signed Megan’s Law in May 1996, adding the

community notification requirement to the Jacob Wetterling

Act.

The Boundaries of Political Permission

The public’s perspective establishes what social

psychologist Daniel Yankelovich calls “the boundaries

of political permission;” the limits or borders within

which policy will be actively supported or acquiesced

to by the public.

In a democratic society, leadership is ultimately

accountable to the will of the people. Regardless of the

subject, leaders who make policy outside of these

boundaries of permission may see the public repudiate

that policy, and advocate to replace it with a radically

different approach. Over the past few years, ideas

such as term limits, tax cuts, and a patient’s bill of

rights have each been driven by public opinion that

was dissatisfied with status quo. In each case, shifting

public opinion led to a changed political landscape and

new boundaries of permission. Public disenchantment

with the criminal justice system in general, and its fear

of sex offenders in particular, has led to the passage of

an array of statutes, including sex offender registration,

community notification, and involuntary civil

commitment and lifetime supervision for some sex

offender groups.

Misperceptions

Public opinion about criminal justice issues stems from

beliefs that are strongly influenced by misperceptions

such as the ones listed below.

• Misperception: Crime is not decreasing. The crime

rate either continues to increase or it is as high as

it was five years ago. For example, in a 1999

Vermont study, 47 percent of survey respondents

believed crime was increasing; 40 percent thought

it was the same as it was five years ago; and only

7 percent thought was decreasing.2 The fact is

Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in the

nation, and the crime rate nationally has been

decreasing for several years.

• Misperception: Those convicted of the most

serious violent crimes are often not sent to prison.

In the Vermont study discussed above, 31 percent

of respondents said there was no more than a

50/50 chance that an offender convicted of

committing rape while holding his victim at

knifepoint would be incarcerated upon conviction.

But in Vermont and the rest of the country, the

fact is that such an offender would most likely be

incarcerated for many years.

• Misperception: Most of those convicted of violent

crimes do not serve their full sentence. For

example, 68 percent of respondents in a 1995

North Carolina survey said that most offenders

convicted of a violent crime using a gun or knife

would serve no more than half the sentence

handed down by the judge.3 The fact is that in

North Carolina and most jurisdictions, violent

offenders usually serve at least their minimum

sentence.

• Misperception: Most of those convicted of violent

crimes do not serve even the minimum sentence

imposed by the judge. For example, only 21

percent of respondents in a 1998 New Hampshire

survey said that all or almost all violent offenders

who are sent to prison serve at least their minimum

sentence.4 The fact is that all violent offenders in

that state serve at least their minimum sentence.

• Misperception: Many violent offenders are released

early to ease prison overcrowding. For example,

63 percent of Vermonters surveyed in 1999

agreed that “because of prison overcrowding,

many offenders who committed a violent crime

using a gun or a knife are being released early,

before serving their complete sentence.”5 The fact

is that violent offenders in Vermont are almost

never released early because of overcrowding.

 

2 Doble Research Associates, Attitudes Towards Crime and Punishment

in Vermont: An Experiment with Restorative Justice (Washington, D.C.:

National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, July 1999).

3 Doble Research Associates, Crime and Corrections: The Views of the

People of North Carolina (Raleigh, NC: the North Carolina State-Centered

Project and the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, October 1995).

4 Doble Research Associates, Crime and Corrections: The Views of the

People of New Hampshire (Concord, NH: Interbranch Criminal Justice

Council, State Department of Justice, July 1998).

5 Doble Research Associates, Attitudes Towards Crime and Punishment

in Vermont.
3

Civil Commitment in Washington State

In May 1987, Earl K. Shriner, a mentally retarded man with a long criminal record, completed a ten-year sentence in Washington for

kidnapping and assaulting two teenage girls. Two years after his release, he raped and strangled a seven-year-old boy, severed his penis,

and left him in the woods to die. The Shriner case came to public attention one year after a young Seattle businesswoman was kidnapped

and murdered by an inmate on work release. Gene Raymond Kane had been placed on work release after serving a 13-year sentence for

attacking two women. In another incident in 1989, Wesley Allen Dodd was apprehended during an attempted abduction of a six-year-old

boy from a movie theater in southwest Washington. Following an investigation, Dodd confessed to the killings of two young boys who

had been riding their bikes in a park and the kidnapping and murder of a four-year-old boy he had found playing in a school yard.

In response to significant public outcry from these crimes, a Task Force on Community Protection was appointed by the Governor and

asked to recommend changes to state law. The task force held public hearings throughout the state and considered numerous ways to

strengthen laws concerning sex offenses. The group's recommendations became an omnibus bill to the 1990 Legislature, outlining

sweeping changes in the penalties for sex offenses. The task force's most controversial recommendation called for a civil commitment

statute authorizing the state to confine and treat in mental institutions a small group of high-risk sex offenders whom otherwise would

be released to the community at the conclusion of their sentence.

From: Lieb, Roxanne. Washington's Sexually Violent Predator Law: Legislative History and Comparisons with Other States. Olympia,

WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 1996.

Such misperceptions help explain why the public has a

low level of confidence in the criminal justice system.6

These misperceptions and the resulting low public

confidence holds true across the country and apply to

all demographic groups.7

Public Opinion Before and After People Learn

more About an Issue

Conventional wisdom holds that when it comes to

criminal justice, the boundaries of political permission

established by public opinion are narrow and

circumscribed, and that the public just wants to “lock

offenders up and throw away the key.” However,

numerous studies have shown that this is a serious

misreading of the public’s perspective. Most people

are open to innovative ideas, especially if they have the

opportunity to consider and have input into the issue.

For instance, surveys in many states have found broad

political permission to use non-incarcerative,

community-based, or alternative sentences with an

array of nonviolent offenders, including offenders who

have multiple convictions, and a number of carefully

selected violent and sex offenders.8 In states as

 

6

 The only two exceptions to this pattern are the police and juries made

up of average citizens; public confidence in these entities is universally

strong.

7

 This result has been confirmed in numerous studies of public opinion,

including more than a dozen studies conducted over the past 15 years by

the Council of State Governments; Public Agenda, a nonpartisan research

organization founded by Cyrus Vance and Daniel Yankelovich; and Doble

Research Associates.

8

 In the case of sex offenders, probation officers typically collect

information and conduct interviews during pre-sentence investigations in

order to make informed and appropriate recommendations to the court

regarding whether or not an offender should be released into the

community, and if so, under what supervision conditions. 

Recommendations are based on factors such as the police record of the

offense; the offender’s personal and sexual history; an evaluation of the

offender’s amenability to specialized treatment; his access to potential

victims; victim impact statements; formal assessment of reoffense

probability; and resources available to support the ability of the criminal

justice system to effectively manage the risk posed by the offender in

diverse as Vermont, North Carolina, New Hampshire,

and Oregon, Doble Research Associates found

consensus-level support for using non-incarcerative

sanctions with many different types of offenders.9

Studies in Alabama, Delaware, and Pennsylvania

produced similar results.10

Despite public support for the use of alternative

sentences, criminal justice policymakers have at times

found that such sentiments are easy to overlook. 

Because there is so much general public discontent

with the criminal justice system, policymakers may shy

away from seeking public opinion about this issue due

to a fear of a reactionary response and demand for a

different approach. However, this same discontent can

actually fuel support for using community-based

sanctions. For instance, when asked whether

incarceration makes offenders less or more dangerous,

people said that prison sentences make offenders more

dangerous because they are exposed to hardened

criminals.11 In light of such findings, it is not

surprising that some members of the public support

using non-incarcerative sanctions with a wide array of

mostly nonviolent offenders.

Conventional wisdom about criminal justice (that the

public favors incarcerating offenders for longer periods

of time rather than utilizing community-based or

 

the community.

9

 See Doble Research Associates, Attitudes Towards Crime and

Punishment in Vermont; Crime and Corrections: The Views of People of

North Carolina; and Crime and Corrections: The Views of the People of

New Hampshire; and Doble Research Associates, Crime and Corrections:

The Views of People in Oregon (Oregon State-Centered Project and the

Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, April 1995).

10 See John Doble and Josh Klein, Punishing Criminals: The Public’s

View, An Alabama Survey, An Analysis of Public Opinion (Prepared by

the Public Agenda Foundation for the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation,

1989); John Doble, Stephen Immerwahr, and Amy Richardson,

Punishing Criminals: The People of Delaware Consider the Options

(Prepared by the Public Agenda Foundation for the Edna McConnell Clark

Foundation, October 1991); and Public Agenda Foundation, Punishing

Criminals: Pennsylvanians Consider the Options (1993).

11 Doble Research Associates, The Views of the People of North Carolina.
4

alternative sanctions) may seem unmistakably accurate

when it comes to sex offenders and other violent

criminals. Yet, public opinion may be more complex

and differentiated when people learn more and

deliberate over the topic. A preliminary study using

focus groups in Vermont suggests this is the case.12

For example, when asked questions about community

notification of sex offenders, focus group participants

favored a modest notification strategy that did not

involve newspapers or the use of posters or yard signs.

 Moreover, people overwhelmingly favored increased

treatment for sex offenders, including those who are

incarcerated and involved in community-based

sanctions.

How Studies of Public Opinion

Have Been Used

Jurisdictions have used studies of public opinion about

crime and criminal justice for several purposes. For

instance, information about public sentiment can be

used to inform, guide, and influence local and state

leaders and lawmakers as they create or amend policies

and laws. These studies also can be used to gauge

citizens’ awareness and support of various criminal

justice initiatives and to help develop practices that will

be accepted by the public.

To Inform, Guide, and Influence Leaders and

Lawmakers

Public opinion studies can be indispensable in

educating lawmakers who create or amend legislation

and influencing decision-makers who develop criminal

justice system policies. These studies also can inform

criminal justice leaders of citizens’ attitudes and

reactions to enacted legislation or implemented policies.

 Below are examples of how public opinion studies

have been utilized by different jurisdictions to inform,

guide, and influence leaders and policymakers.

• In the fall of 1998, the Sex Offender Treatment

Program in the Vermont Department of Corrections

was charged with developing a community

notification law to be introduced in the state

legislature. A preliminary study of public opinion

using a series of focus groups was conducted for

the program, in collaboration with the Center for

Sex Offender Management (CSOM).13 Vermont

policymakers and CSOM wanted to explore what

people knew about the issue of sex offenders,

what they believed about recidivism and other

 

12 Doble Research Associates, Public Opinion about Sex Offenders and

Community Notification in the State of Vermont (Silver Spring, MD: The

Center for Sex Offender Management, December 1998).

13 Doble Research Associates, Public Opinion about Sex Offenders and

Community Notification in the State of Vermont.

related topics, and the extent to which their beliefs

or perceptions were misinformed. The study also

explored what Vermonters wanted in terms of a

community notification process and how they felt

about treatment for sex offenders. As mentioned

earlier, focus group participants indicated that they

thought a discreet approach to notification –

alerting schools, daycare centers, and nearby

neighbors of sex offenders living in the area –

would be most effective. These and other study

results were used to inform policymakers as they

drafted legislation.

• In Delaware, the Sentencing and Accountability

Commission (SENTAC) was developing policy

related to the use of alternative sentences and

other criminal justice reforms. SENTAC

commissioned a study to explore how people felt

about some of the issues under consideration.14

There was broad support for a number of

proposals, including efforts to reduce juvenile

crime. After review by SENTAC members, the

results were released to the public at a statewide

press conference where the governor described

SENTAC, endorsed its work, and talked about

public opinion. Briefings were arranged for key

state legislators and other leadership groups,

including the editorial board of the state’s largest

newspaper.

• Under a grant from the Edna McConnell Clark

Foundation, the North Carolina State-Centered

Project commissioned a 1995 study of public

opinion about community-based punishments and

a series of recently enacted measures, including

structured sentencing and truth-in-sentencing.15

The study found solid public support for both

reforms. North Carolinians supported truth-insentencing, even if it meant some offenders would

serve shorter sentences (e.g., if a judge imposes a

sentence of two to four years, the offender should

be required to serve at least two years). Upon

completion of the study, the editorial boards of the

state’s largest newspapers were provided with an

in-depth briefing of the study’s results. The

officials conducting the briefings had no policy

agenda. Instead, they described the changes that

had been enacted, along with the rationale behind

those changes, and discussed public sentiment,

including the fact that state citizens supported the

initiatives.

 

14 John Doble, Stephen Immerwahr, and Amy Richardson, Punishing

Criminals: The People of Delaware Consider the Options.

15 Doble Research Associates, Crime and Corrections: The Views of the

People of North Carolina.
5

Using Public Opinion to Increase Awareness

In mid-1999, the community correction agency of Jackson

County, Oregon, conducted a public opinion survey to

determine initial public awareness and understanding of local

sex offender management programs, as well as other

selected county criminal justice programs. Community

corrections staff felt that there was little support for the

county’s sex offender management program, despite its

national recognition.

The agency mailed out 2,400 surveys to county voters;

approximately 500 were returned. Survey results indicated

that residents had a limited understanding of sexual offender

issues; knew little about community corrections; supported

prevention and treatment efforts; were divided on the issue

of community notification; believed crime was increasing; and

supported alternative sentencing for non-violent sexual

offenses. These findings will be used to educate and involve

the public in community corrections, with the hope that

citizens will begin to view themselves as participants in

effectively managing sex offenders in the community.

Using Public Opinion to Evaluate Policy

In 1990, the Washington State Legislature enacted the

Community Protection Act, which included a registration and

community notification law requiring that convicted sex

offenders register with local law enforcement, and officials

notify the public when dangerous sex offenders are released

into the community. As part of the Community Protection

Act, the Legislature directed the Washington State Institute

for Public Policy (WSIPP) to evaluate the law’s effectiveness.

As part of WSIPP’s evaluation, a telephone survey soliciting

public opinion among Washington State adults about the

state's community notification law was conducted. Over the

summer of 1997, approximately 400 residents from both

rural and urban regions of eastern and western Washington

State were surveyed. The results of the survey indicated an

overwhelming majority of respondents were familiar with the

law and believed it was very important. In addition, nearly

three-fourths of the respondents reported they had learned

more about sex offenses and how sex offenders operate

because of community notification. The vast majority also

felt safer knowing about convicted sex offenders living in

their communities.

To Determine How to Gain Public Support for

Policies and Practices

Some jurisdictions use studies of public opinion to gain

a sense of citizen awareness of, and confidence and

satisfaction in, the local or state criminal justice system

and its many programs. This information can assist

leaders in determining what needs to be done to gain

increased citizen support. Other jurisdictions have

utilized public opinion studies to assess whether

citizens would support various proposed criminal

justice initiatives. Examples are provided below.

• The New Hampshire Interbranch Criminal Justice

Council commissioned a study in 1998 to learn

how citizens felt about the various components of

the criminal justice system.16 The council also

wanted to document the extent to which the public

understood how the system functioned. While the

study revealed that public confidence in the

criminal justice system was low compared to other

governmental sectors, the respondents had higher

regard for the system and its components than did

people in other states with comparable data.17 The

study also identified areas where the public was

misinformed and discovered that when people learn

more about the criminal justice system and develop

an accurate understanding of how it functions,

their confidence in the entire system increases

dramatically.

 

16 Doble Research Associates, Crime and Corrections: The Views of the

People of New Hampshire.

17 Public confidence in New Hampshire was higher than in an array of

other states surveyed over the past decade, including Vermont, North

Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Alabama.

• The Vermont Department of Corrections (DOC)

decided in 1994 to “test market” the idea of

implementing a statewide system of reparative

boards that would oversee and determine options

for community-based sanctions for nonviolent

offenders. Two DOC officials wrote, “We began

the experiment [of establishing the reparative

boards] in the traditional manner, dreaming up new

program ideas in a relative vacuum. But before we

implemented, we did something rather unique: We

did market research. We asked Vermonters what

they thought of the new program ideas.”18 The

results of the DOC statewide study of public

opinion about restorative justice19 and the

reparative boards were extraordinarily clear: 92

percent of Vermonters favored the idea of using

reparative boards with an array of nonviolent

offenders. Realizing that it had a public mandate,

the DOC launched the idea. Today, there are 44

reparative boards in the state with over 300

trained volunteers serving as board members. The

boards usually convene biweekly, meeting with

offenders and victims (if the victim chooses to

participate) in each case to determine an

appropriate sentence and to ensure that the

sentence is carried out.

 

18 Lynn Walther and John Perry, “The Vermont Reparative Probation

Program,” Community Justice Concepts and Strategies (Lexington, KY:

The American Probation and Parole Association, 1998).

19 A retributive justice model (one that focuses on offenders and their

punishment) has dominated the American justice system. However, this

model does not address the fact that many offenders, including sex

offenders, will be released into communities from prison, if they go to

prison. Restorative justice is an evolving model that focuses on repairing

the harm to the victim and the community as the result of a damaging

act, as well as improving the pro-social competencies of the offender.
6

The Public Rallies for Increased Investigative Resources for

Sex Crime Cases

In October 1989, 11-year-old Jacob Wetterling was abducted

by a masked man at gunpoint near his home in St. Joseph,

Minnesota. Neighbors, friends, and strangers rallied to the

Wetterling family's aid and worked 24-hours-a-day, sevendays-a-week, searching the area and distributing flyers across

the country. That outpouring of support led to the

establishment of a nonprofit foundation to focus national

attention on missing children and their families.

In 1991, the Jacob Wetterling Foundation recommended a

legislative initiative resulting in the passage of Minnesota’s

sex offender registration act. Prior to this act, law

enforcement had no resources to identify known sex

offenders residing in the state to assist with investigating

these types of crimes. The Wetterling Foundation also

worked to have this initiative passed on the federal level. In

1994, the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sex

Offender Registration Act was enacted by Congress. The bill

mandates that each state create a program to register sex

offenders.

Viewing the Public as a Partner

The Public as an Adversary

In recent years, public opinion about crime and

corrections has, time and again, exploded onto the

public agenda. For example, it dramatically affected the

presidential election in 1988 and caused abrupt

changes in policy, such as three strikes laws and

mandatory minimum sentencing. As a result of such

explosions, some criminal justice policymakers have

come to think of the public as an adversary or an

obstacle to developing sound and humane policy. 

According to this perspective, the public favors a

nearly reactionary, “lock them up and throw away the

key” approach toward crime and criminal justice. This

view holds that the best route to sound policymaking is

to keep a low profile of public visibility and enact

measures about which experts have reached

consensus.

The Public as a Group of Consumers

Another perspective is that the best way to deal with

the public is to treat them as a group of consumers and

use a “tell-and-sell” approach when implementing

policies. This view holds that experts know best when

it comes to policy; leadership’s job is to build public

support by telling people about a policy and its

rationale and then selling it on its merits. According to

this view, the public needs to be persuaded that the

policy developed by experts is sound and sensible.

The problem with both approaches is that they provide,

at most, only short-term public consent for initiatives. 

The “low-profile” approach may enable officials to

enact policy without public scrutiny or serious criticism

for a time. But if the public comes to believe that an

approach is fundamentally wrong or learns that a policy

puts innocent people at risk, their reaction is liable to

be swift and overwhelming. Indeed, public pressure to

enact Megan’s Law is only the most recent example of

citizens learning about a practice and demanding that

the policy be changed.

Instead of seeing the public as sovereign and the group

to which government officials are ultimately

accountable, the “tell-and-sell” approach envisions the

public as the passive recipients of government services.

 This approach assumes a top-down policymaking

posture in which experts know best. “Tell-and-sell”

politics will be effective only as long as the public

assumes a passive posture. But a public that becomes

alarmed will be anything but passive. And an alarmed

(and, perhaps, badly misinformed) public may, with

speed and decisiveness, repudiate a policy it was “told

about” and seemingly “sold on.”

The Public as a Partner

A third way to envision the public is as a potential

partner. According to this view, the primary function

of the criminal justice system is to serve and protect

the people. Such a view may require a public

engagement strategy in which leadership understands

and respects public opinion and takes the public’s

concerns seriously. According to this approach, the

public is a resource that has the capacity and the

willingness to help develop and execute sound criminal

justice policy, rather than a reactionary adversary to be

ignored, or a group of misinformed consumers that

needs to be sold on an idea.

There are a number of jurisdictions that have taken

steps in this direction. The State of Connecticut, for

example, has developed a program of high-profile

community service in which offenders are engaged in

activities easily seen by the people in that state, such

as working at the Special Olympics or along the

highway cutting brush and picking up litter. Such a

policy is responsive to the public’s sense that

community service should be arduous and meaningful,

instill good work habits, and give something of value

back to the community while simultaneously teaching

an offender a skill that will be useful in the future.

The State of Oklahoma, in conjunction with the Study

Circle Resources Center, implemented an innovative

way to reconnect the public to the criminal justice

system. In collaboration with the League of Women

Voters and other nonpartisan groups, officials

organized a statewide effort to convene discussion

groups in which average Oklahomans met several times

to learn and discuss criminal justice issues in their
7

Soliciting Input on Standards for Managing Sex Offenders

In 1991, the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, in conjunction with the Department of Corrections, the Department of Health and

Human Services, Division of Youth Corrections, the Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, and the Judicial Department, drafted language

for a law designed to create statewide standards for the management of sex offenders. In July 1992, the law passed and a committee

charged with developing the standards was appointed, with members from various government agencies and victim organizations. In

addition to appointed members, many additional individuals – victims, polygraph examiners, penile plethysmograph examiners, treatment

providers, and probation and parole officers – took part in open discussions on proposed guiding principles for the standards. The

discussions produced the substantive text for the standards and solidified its focus on protecting and supporting past and potential

victims of sexual violence.

After the basic document was drafted, public hearings to obtain further input were held in four regions of the state. The committee

found the hearings most useful, as there were a significant number of misunderstandings – and outright opposition

to – various components of the draft standards. Feedback obtained from the hearings was brought back to committee members and

other interested individuals for further discussion. Each policy was reexamined and rewritten as needed. After formal voting, the

document was published for the first time in January of 1996. The same collaborative process was repeated to develop revised

standards, published in September 1998, and to expand the document to include standards for lifetime supervision and the management

of developmentally disabled sex offenders in June 1999.

state. The materials used in the effort frame the topics

to be deliberated and encourage citizens to speak about

subjects pertaining to crime, corrections, and

sentencing policies in the state.

As noted earlier, the State of Vermont has delegated a

significant portion of the criminal justice system’s

functions to citizen volunteers who serve on reparative

boards that determine and oversee the sentences of

many nonviolent offenders. Vermont is now

considering implementing a similar set of volunteerbased organizations to work with the Department of

Corrections on other issues, including community

notification of sex offenders and furloughed offenders.

Studies have found that the public has confidence in

only two components of the criminal justice system –

the police and juries made up of average citizens.20

The public has great confidence in the capacity of

ordinary people to deliberate about serious crime

issues. Thus, the crisis in public confidence facing the

criminal justice system might be addressed, in part, by

turning over to average people, with appropriate

training and oversight, some of the core decisionmaking responsibilities of the criminal justice system.

The above jurisdictions provide examples of how to

envision and engage the public as a partner that has

legitimate concerns, understandable opinions, and a

reasonable set of expectations. Such efforts may begin

to reconnect the public to the criminal justice system,

which garners lower public confidence than any other

governmental service. Reconnecting the public may

restore the public’s feeling of participation and thereby,

perhaps, restore public trust and confidence in the

criminal justice system.

 

20 In 1999, 76 percent of Vermonters said juries do a good job, a rating

even higher than that given to police (Doble Research Associates,

Attitudes Towards Crime and Punishment in Vermont).

Conclusion: Implications for

Sex Offender Management

Favorable public opinion is critical to the development

and continuance of community supervision and

treatment programs for convicted sex offenders. Sex

offender management programs that overlook the

importance of public sentiment about their work could

face dire consequences. These programs may avoid

short-term public scrutiny or criticism if they develop

policies about which experts have reached consensus.

In the long-term, however, a disenchanted, uninformed,

and/or uninvolved public that believes more should be

done to protect the community from sex offenders may

call for swift systematic changes (e.g., demand policies

be altered, funding be cut, or key personnel be

dismissed), which ultimately may not serve the public

interest.

Citizens and leaders may be more willing to support

community supervision and treatment initiatives for

convicted sex offenders when:

• they understand that it is not feasible to incarcerate

all sex offenders indefinitely;

• misconceptions they may hold about sex crimes

and offenders are replaced with facts;

• they are given an opportunity to learn more about

how supervision and treatment can foster

successful and safe reintegration of sex offenders

into society and prevent future sexual

victimization;

• they are offered qualitative and quantitative data

that help demonstrate how supervision and

treatment programs are effective in protecting the

community from convicted sex offenders;

• their opinions on the topic are sought out and

incorporated into policy decisions;

• their concerns are taken seriously; and
8

• they are given an opportunity to be involved in the

implementation of their jurisdiction’s sex offender

management program, to the extent possible.

Sex offender management programs can be proactive in

gaining public support when they understand and

address citizens’ needs for accurate information and

invite the public to participate in making decisions

about how convicted sex offenders will be managed in

their community. The public’s demand for safety, and

the criminal justice system’s commitment to provide it,

are harmonious goals that serve as an effective building

block in a community safety partnership.

Acknowledgements

The Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM)

would like to thank Doble Research Associates, a

nonpartisan, public interest consulting firm, for

principal authorship of this brief. Kristin Littel edited

the document.

Resources

Center for Sex Offender Management

8403 Colesville Rd., Suite 720

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Phone: (301) 589-9383

Fax: (301) 589-3505

E-mail: askcsom@csom.org

Internet: www.csom.org

Doble Research Associates

375 Sylvan Ave.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632

Phone: (201) 568-7200

Fax: (201) 568-5474

E-mail: doble@carroll.com

Internet: www.dobleresearch.com

Jackson County Community Corrections

123 West 10th St.

Medford, OR 97501

Phone: (541) 774-4925

Fax: (541) 770-9484

The Jacob Wetterling Foundation

32 1st St. NW

St. Joseph, MN 56374

Phone: (320) 363-0470

Fax: (320) 363-0473

Email: jacob@uslink.net

Internet: www.jwf.org

Sex Offender Management Board

Division of Criminal Justice

Colorado Department of Public Safety

700 Kipling St., Suite 1000

Denver, CO 80215-5865

Phone: (303) 239-4447

Fax: (303) 239-4491

Washington State Institute for Public Policy

P.O. Box 40999

110 East Fifth Ave., Suite 214

Olympia, WA 98504-0999

Phone: (360) 586-2677

Fax: (360) 586-2793

Email: institute@wsipp.wa.gov

Internet: www.wa.gov/wsipp

This project was supported by Grant No. 97-WT-VX-K007, awarded by the Office of Justice Programs,

U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily

represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.