Shame and blame: Secondary stigma among families of convicted sex offenders

2021 ◽  
pp. 174889582110173
Author(s):  
Douglas Evans ◽  
Adam Trahan ◽  
Kaleigh Laird

The detriment of incarceration experienced by the formerly incarcerated has been increasingly explored in the literature on reentry. A tangential but equally concerning issue that has recently received more research attention is the effect on family members of the incarcerated. The stigma of a criminal conviction is most apparent among families of convicted sex offenders, who experience consequences parallel to those of their convicted relative. Drawing from interviews with 30 individuals with a family member incarcerated for a sex offence in the United States, this study explores manifestations of stigma due to familial association. The findings suggest that families face negative treatment from social networks and criminal justice officials, engage in self-blame and that the media’s control over the narrative exacerbates family members’ experiences. Given the pervasiveness of criminal justice system contact, the rapid growth of the sex offender registry in the United States, and the millions of family members peripherally affected by one or both, justice system reforms are needed to ensure that family members are shielded from the harms of incarceration and registration.

Incarceration ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 263266632097780
Author(s):  
Alexandra Cox ◽  
Dwayne Betts

There are close to seven million people under correctional supervision in the United States, both in prison and in the community. The US criminal justice system is widely regarded as an inherently unmerciful institution by scholars and policymakers but also by people who have spent time in prison and their family members; it is deeply punitive, racist, expansive and damaging in its reach. In this article, we probe the meanings of mercy for the institution of parole.


Author(s):  
Corey Rayburn Yung

The American criminal justice system regarding sex is not just logically incoherent, it is also often morally bankrupt because it remains unexamined and poorly understood. This Article contends that there are actually common roots underlying the seemingly oppositional forces of social panic and denial, which explain why the United States has an endemic sexual violence problem. Both panic and denial reinforce the implicit, and sometimes explicit, desire to avoid substantive engagement with socially contentious issues related to sex. The use of residency restrictions and civil commitment fit the modern social goal of putting sex offenders out-of-sight and out-of-mind. Yet, those same desires also explain America’s unwillingness to believe victims of sexual violence and police failure to properly investigate criminal complaints. In this way, sex panic dovetails with sex denial—in both instances, American culture only permits a limited discussion and understanding of sex and sexual violence. The result is that our nation fails to take sex crime complaints seriously while overreacting to the few convictions that emerge from the hostile criminal justice system.


1993 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 371-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
RUDOLPH ALEXANDER

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that an individual who has been judged insane and committed to a mental facility and who has regained his sanity but remains dangerous cannot continue to be confined. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Kennedy stated that the majority's decision might have put in doubt the civil commitment of persons other than insanity acquittees. The author of this essay contends that the Court's decision indeed did so and argues that dangerous or predatory sex offenders cannot now be civilly committed to mental institutions. The author argues also that the criminal justice system, rather than the mental health system, is more appropriate for controlling sex offenders.


2001 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 256-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lyn Hinds ◽  
Kathleen Daly

This article explores the contemporary phenomenon of “naming and shaming” sex offenders. Community notification laws, popularly known as Megan's Law, which authorise the public disclosure of the identity of convicted sex offenders to the community in which they live, were enacted throughout the United States in the 1990s. A public campaign to introduce “Sarah's Law” has recently been launched in Britain, following the death of eight-year old Sarah Payne. Why are sex offenders, and certain categories of sex offenders, singled out as targets of community notification laws? What explains historical variability in the form that sex offender laws take? We address these questions by reviewing the sexual psychopath laws enacted in the United States in the 1930s and 40s and the sexual predator and community notification laws of the 1990s, comparing recent developments in the United States with those in Britain, Canada, and Australia. We consider arguments by Garland, O'Malley, Pratt, and others on how community notification, and the control of sex offenders more generally, can be explained; and we speculate on the likelihood that Australia will adopt community notification laws.


Author(s):  
Ingrid V. Eagly

After a sustained period of hypercriminalization, the United States criminal justice system is undergoing reform. Congress has reduced federal sentencing for drug crimes, prison growth is slowing, and some states are even closing prisons. Low-level crimes have been removed from criminal law books, and attention is beginning to focus on long-neglected issues such as bail and criminal court fines. Still largely overlooked in this era of ambitious reform, however, is the treatment of immigrants in the criminal justice system. An unprecedented focus on immigration enforcement targeted at “felons, not families” has resulted in a separate system of punitive treatment reserved for noncitizens, which includes crimes of migration, longer periods of pretrial detention, harsher criminal sentences, and the almost certain collateral consequence of lifetime banishment from the United States. For examples of state-level solutions to this predicament, this Essay turns to a trio of bold criminal justice reforms from California that (1) require prosecutors to consider immigration penalties in plea bargaining; (2) change the state definition of “misdemeanor” from a maximum sentence of a year to 364 days; and (3) instruct law enforcement agencies to not hold immigrants for deportation purposes unless they are first convicted of serious crimes. Together, these new laws provide an important window into how state criminal justice systems could begin to address some of the unique concerns of noncitizen criminal defendants.


Author(s):  
Robert A. Ferguson

This chapter addresses the question of whether Americans like to punish. The United States clearly punishes more heavily and for longer periods than other countries, with comparable social and political values. One can land in an American prison for life over minor offenses—a punishment not used for serious offenses in Western Europe. The leading comparativist on criminology, James Whitman, argues that a politics of dignity has instilled mercy and mildness in European systems, while leveling impulses, distrust of authority, and too much power in the people is said to have left the United States with a criminal justice system long in degradation and short on mercy.


Author(s):  
Gwladys Gilliéron

This chapter compares U.S. plea bargaining with plea-bargaining-type procedures and penal orders in Continental Europe, with reference to Switzerland, Germany, and France. It first considers consensual criminal procedures across jurisdictions and why they exist, focusing on plea bargaining in the U.S. criminal justice system and abbreviated trial procedures in European civil law systems. It then examines the extent to which abbreviated trial procedures in civil law systems differ from plea bargaining in the U.S. system, the problems inherent in consensual criminal procedures, and the question of whether there are any solutions. In particular, it explains how plea bargaining and penal orders may lead to wrongful convictions. Finally, it discusses prospects for reform of plea bargaining in the United States and in civil law systems in Europe.


2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (11) ◽  
pp. 2469-2484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharif Mowlabocus

This article reflects upon recent developments in sex offender tracking and monitoring. Taking as its focus a suite of mobile applications available for use in the United States, the author explores the impact and consequences of remediating the data held by State offender databases. The article charts the recent history of techno-corrections as it applies to this category of criminal, before then undertaking an analysis of current remediation of this legally obtained data. In doing so, the author identifies how the recontextualizing of data serves to (re)negotiate the relationship between the user, the database and registered sex offenders. The author concludes by arguing that the (mobile) mapping of offender databases serves to obscure the original intentions of these recording mechanisms and might hinder their effectiveness in reducing sex offending.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document