597693

research-article2015
CADXXX10.1177/0011128715597693Crime & DelinquencyMancini and Budd

Article
Crime & Delinquency
1­–23
Is the Public Convinced © The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
That “Nothing sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0011128715597693
Works?”: Predictors of cad.sagepub.com

Treatment Support for

Sex Offenders Among
Americans

Christina Mancini1 and Kristen M. Budd2

Abstract
It is presumed that public opposition to sex offender treatment derives from
the “nothing works” philosophy. However, few studies have systematically
unpacked perceptions about sex offender treatment. Drawing on national
poll data, this study uses multinomial logistic regression to identify predictors
of treatment views. Results indicate that misperceptions about sex crimes,
particularly the belief in “stranger danger” and offense amplification, reduce
support for treatment. Parents with children under age 17 were less likely
to approve of treatment efforts, because they did not believe the treatment
research. Separately, belief in high sex offender recidivism was associated
with a greater likelihood of not sure responses about treatment. In contrast,
desiring more information about how to prevent sexual offending increased
support for interventions. Implications are discussed.

Keywords
public perceptions, rehabilitation, sex offenders, treatment

1Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, USA

2Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA

Corresponding Author:
Christina Mancini, Assistant Professor, Virginia Commonwealth University, L. Douglas
Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, 923 West Franklin Street, Richmond, VA
23284-2028, USA.
Email: cnmancini@vcu.edu

Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 7, 2015

2 Crime & Delinquency 

Introduction
Historically, public opinion about crime and justice issues has fallen under
the “nothing works” and “get tough” mantra that has pervaded the United
States since the fade of the rehabilitation era, especially for those who have
committed sexually based crimes (Wright, 2014). But, as Cullen, Fisher, and
Applegate (2000) observed, the perception of a punitive public has been
driven largely by disproportionate empirical attention given toward under-
standing “get tough” attitudes as opposed to those aligned with rehabilitation.
That assessment is apt 15 years later, particularly concerning attitudes and the
language used toward sexual offenders as “monstrous others” and “sexual
predators” (Lynch, 2002; Pickett, Mancini, & Mears, 2013). Sex offender
public opinion research has been dominated by queries on punishment and
community social control, but relatively little research has focused on
unpacking public attitudes toward sex offender rehabilitation among the gen-
eral public (see, for example, Brown, 1999; Katz Schiavone & Jeglic, 2009;
Mears, Mancini, Gertz, & Bratton, 2008; Payne, Tewksbury, & Mustaine,
2010). This emphasis is troubling in light of research that shows specific
types of treatment programs have the potential to reduce long- and short-term
recidivism for medium and even high-risk sexual offenders (Duwe &
Goldman, 2009; Oliver, Wong, & Nicholaichuk, 2008). To shift the focus
from gauging punitive attitudes toward sexual offenders, this research evalu-
ates community members’ attitudes toward sex offender treatment, an assess-
ment of rehabilitative attitudes toward the sex offender population.
Given the disparate attention toward understanding punitive attitudes
toward sexual offenders, studies that seek to identify predictors of treat-
ment views are important for several reasons. First, research focusing on
views of rehabilitation has the potential to provide a more balanced assess-
ment of public opinion (Cullen et al., 2000). Second, according to scholars,
public opinion has been a driving impetus in policy creation and additional
sex offender restrictions (Meloy, 2014; Sample & Kadleck, 2008; Zgoba,
2004). Yet, as the current state of scholarship is centered on punitive atti-
tudes, there is little to be gleaned—one way or another—about public per-
ceptions regarding the amenability for sex offenders to be reformed through
the use of treatment.
The current study contributes to discussions and debates concerning percep-
tions of sex offenders by addressing a key research gap. Specifically, the pres-
ent investigation draws on national poll data to analyze public opinion on
sexual offenders’ rehabilitation amenability. We first examine whether support
for treatment is influenced by prominent myths about sex offenders—“stranger
danger,” high sexual recidivism, perceptions of offense amplification, and

Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 7, 2015

Mancini and Budd 3

belief in the continuity of sex offending. Second, we evaluate individuals who

are “not sure” of sex offender treatment. Virtually no studies attend to those
individuals who are uncertain about sex offender policy or rehabilitative devel-
opments. Public views are nuanced and identifying predictors of uncertain
responses could reveal important insights regarding those who are undecided
concerning the treatment amenability of sex offenders.

Background
Sex Offender Treatment
Generally, research shows that treated offenders are significantly less likely
to commit additional crime (Duwe & Goldman, 2009; Oliver et al., 2008). A
comprehensive meta-analysis of more than 20 studies evaluated as “high
quality” demonstrated that sex offenders who received a treatment interven-
tion sexually recidivated less, at approximately 11% recidivism, versus
untreated offenders, at approximately 19% recidivism (Hanson, Bourgon,
Helmus, & Hodgson, 2009). A similar pattern emerged for general recidi-
vism; approximately 32% of treated sex offenders committed another non-
sex offense compared with approximately 48% of offenders who received no
intervention. Comparable findings have been reported in other meta-
analyses. For example, Lösel and Schmucker (2005) analyzed 69 studies
involving more than 20,000 offenders and found that compared with controls,
treated offenders showed 37% less sexual recidivism and 31% less general
recidivism. Their study is distinct from prior investigations as it also evalu-
ated the impact of the type of treatment on sexual recidivism. Cognitive
behavioral therapy and organic interventions, such as surgical and chemical
castration, were shown to be the most effective interventions.

Public Perceptions on Sex Offender Treatment

How does the public perceive treatment efforts for sex offenders? Providing
an answer is difficult given that a majority of public opinion studies have
centered on examining approval for various sex offender laws—such as reg-
istries and community notification (Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, & Baker,
2007), residence restrictions (Mancini, Shields, Mears, & Beaver, 2010),
chemical castration (Comartin, Kernsmith, & Kernsmith, 2009), child por-
nography legislation (Mears et al., 2008), and civil commitment (Pickett,
Mears, Stewart, & Gertz, 2013). Far fewer studies have centered on unpack-
ing public perceptions1 of treatment and rehabilitation for sex offenders with
two exceptions.

Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 7, 2015

4 Crime & Delinquency 

Payne et al. (2010) sampled 746 residents from Norfolk and Virginia
Beach, Virginia, to investigate whether demographic, victimization, and
community-level factors were predictive of public views about sex offender
rehabilitation. Although few significant predictors emerged, being a victim
of corporal punishment as a child and using force against a partner were
associated with the perception that rehabilitation was not possible for sex
offenders. In addition, minority respondents compared with Whites were
significantly more pessimistic regarding rehabilitation for those convicted
of sex crimes.
The study also highlighted divides in public support for rehabilitation.
Fifty-two percent of the sample strongly agreed or agreed that it was “impos-
sible to rehabilitate or reform a sex offender,” whereas 36% strongly dis-
agreed to disagreed with that statement. A sizable minority, 12%, were unsure
about rehabilitation efforts. The study was not originally designed to capture
views about sex offenders beyond rehabilitation and so could not speak to the
relationship between sex offender myth endorsement, such as “stranger dan-
ger,” and its influence on rehabilitation perceptions. As a result, Payne et al.
(2010) called for future work to focus on capturing “broader factors” (p. 584)
possibly related to sex crime rehabilitation views—such as these mispercep-
tions about sexual offenders.
In a more recent study, Pickett, Mancini et al. (2013) looked at stereotype
endorsement of sex offenders and its influence on assessments of sex offender
treatment. They found that two perceptions—sex offenders are “unreform-
able” and have an “immoral character”—were associated with reduced treat-
ment support. The study however did not evaluate predictors of “unsure”
respondents and did not specifically examine other myths such as continuity
in offending over time. In addition, it did not control for media influence on
perceptions that may serve as an important control due to the media’s atten-
tion on atypical sex crimes, such as sexual assaults that end in murder (Federal
Bureau of Investigation, 2013; Fox, 2013; Lancaster, 2011). The authors rec-
ommend that future work test a range of competing theories on diverse sam-
ples to continue to assess perceptions of sex offender treatment.
In short, although numerous studies examining public attitudes toward
individuals convicted of sex crimes have been published, only a small handful
have investigated treatment perceptions. The current study extends the focus
of this underdeveloped scholarship on public perceptions of sex offender treat-
ment amenability. Drawing on national public opinion data, we evaluate
whether myth endorsement—stranger danger, high recidivism, amplification
of deviance, and continuity in offending—affects treatment perceptions. In
contrast to prior scholarship, we also assess “unsure” responses. This line of
inquiry can inform efforts to educate the public regarding treatment

Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 7, 2015

Mancini and Budd 5

interventions for sex offenders with the goal to breakdown misperceptions

that sex offenders are “unreformable.”

Current Study
Public opinion toward crime is complex (Cullen, Pealer, Fisher, Applegate, &
Santana, 2011; Mancini et al., 2010; Payne et al., 2010; Pickett, Mancini
et al., 2013). One of these nuances involves the realization that although
Americans strongly favor punitive measures to address crime, they do not
simultaneously discount efforts to rehabilitate and treat offenders (Cullen
et al., 2011). At the same time, perceptions related to the nature and extent of
crime and offending likely shape and contour public views toward rehabilita-
tion and treatment (Cullen et al., 2000). This point bears emphasis when the
focus is on sex offending given the numerous misperceptions surrounding
sex crimes, such as the myth of “stranger danger,” the perception of abnor-
mally high sexual recidivism, relative to other serious offenders, offense
amplification, and continuity in offending (e.g., Levenson et al., 2007; Logan,
2009).
Despite the image of the predatory stranger offender so often propagated
by the media (Dowler, 2006), most sex offenders—nearly 75%—are known
to their victims (Greenfeld, 1997). Separately, although heterogeneity exists
in offending patterns, the vast majority of individuals convicted of a sex
crime will not reoffend; according to experts, the rate of sexual recidivism
among those with a prior sex crime conviction is relatively low (Durose,
Langan, & Schmitt, 2003; Hanson & Bussière, 1998; Sample & Bray, 2003).
Even so, it is a perception consistently linked with sex offenders (Quinn,
Forsyth, & Mullen-Quinn, 2004). The related impression, that sex offenders
inevitably progress to more serious and predatory sex offenses, also appears
prominently communicated in news accounts and serves as the underpinning
for “get tough” sex offender laws (Jenkins, 1998). Still though, it is one with-
out solid empirical backing (Sample, 2006).
Finally, there is the myth of “continuity” among sex offenders. Although a
generally understudied aspect of sex offending, at least three published stud-
ies indicate little support for the assumption that juvenile sex offenses are
predictive of later adult sex crime. Zimring, Jennings, Piquero, and Hays
(2009) analyzed the Second Philadelphia Cohort Data (N = 13,160 males and
N = 14,000 females) and reported that 92% of adult sex offenders had no
prior history of sex offending as juveniles (see earlier, Zimring, Piquero, &
Jennings, 2007). In addition, in a separate investigation, Piquero, Farrington,
Jennings, Diamond, and Craig (2012) analyzed a cohort of South London
males participating in the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development

Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 7, 2015

6 Crime & Delinquency 

(CSDD; N = 411). Their results demonstrated strikingly similar findings to

Zimring et al. (2009, 2007)—specifically, the researchers concluded that
“there was no continuity in sex offending from the juvenile to adult periods
and very few recidivist sex offenders” (p. 412, emphasis added).
Ascribing to such myths is likely consequential in shaping public atti-
tudes. Scholars have argued that they activate certain stereotypes among the
public (Harris & Socia, in press); that is, their endorsement makes it difficult
for the public to extend any positive attributes to sex offenders, including, as
we argue, their potential to desist as a result of treatment interventions
(Mancini & Pickett, in press). Under that theoretical backdrop, we ask the
following research questions:

Research question 1: Does myth endorsement predict treatment views?

Research question 2: What factors are associated with “unsure” responses
among the public?

In particular, we test four hypotheses concerning treatment perceptions.

Hypothesis 1: Endorsement of the “stranger danger” logic will be associ-

ated with reduced treatment support.
Hypothesis 2: Perceiving that sex offenders have high sexual recidivism
will decrease the likelihood of treatment approval.
Hypothesis 3: Individuals who feel sex offenders have a tendency to
progress to more serious sex offending over time will have reduced odds
of supporting sex offender treatment (i.e., offense amplification).
Hypothesis 4: Those who believe that sex offenders are continuous in
their crime patterns (i.e., continuing to sexually offend from youth into
adulthood) will be significantly more likely to oppose treatment efforts.

Recall that another avenue of inquiry of our study is to explore predictors

of “unsure” responses. Most prior research has excluded this category. As a
result, we have little theoretical basis to anticipate what factors may be asso-
ciated with uncertain views. For this reason, we do not present specific
hypotheses regarding this group but rather simply test our second research
question concerning uncertain responses.

Data and Methods

Sample
The study draws on responses from a national poll (N = 1,005) commissioned
by the federally funded Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM). The

Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 7, 2015

Mancini and Budd 7

CSOM disseminates information about sex crime and victimization to the

public and policymakers. The survey was specifically designed to capture
public opinion concerning knowledge of sex crimes, beliefs about sex offend-
ers, and policy perceptions. In particular, it includes measures that permit us
to tap into misperceptions of sex crimes and policy preferences, including
treatment support. Our analysis is one of the first to capitalize on this data
source. This approach advances scholarship given that some prior related
investigations have relied on surveys that were not originally intended to
capture perceptions of sex crimes and offenders (e.g., Mancini et al., 2010;
Payne et al., 2010). Individuals with expertise in sex offending and public
opinion research assisted with the creation of the survey items and pre-test-
ing. An internationally recognized polling firm, Zogby International, admin-
istered the poll to a randomly selected national sample, relying on techniques
that ensured the selection probabilities were proportional to population size
within area codes and exchanges. The margin of error of the poll was calcu-
lated to be plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Measures
Dependent variable. The dependent variable of interest involves treatment per-
ceptions. In particular, the survey has a unique measure of treatment support.
The specific item used in the survey asked, “Some research demonstrates that
treatment designed specifically to prevent sexual reoffending can be effective.
Given this, which of the following statements do you agree with most?”
Response categories were designed to tap nuances in support views: “1 = I
support treatment for sex offenders, if the research shows it can be effective in
preventing repeat sex offenses”; “2 = I do not support treatment for sex offend-
ers, even if the research shows that it can be effective in preventing repeat sex
offenses”; “3 = I do not believe the research about treatment for sex offend-
ers”; and “4 = not sure/other.” Given that few studies have evaluated “unsure”
responses, we chose to retain the nominal measurement of these categories.
The use of this measure improves on prior research and follows the trend
in capital punishment public opinion literature (McGarrell & Sandys, 1996;
Radelet & Borg, 2000), where additional context is given regarding the
criminal sanction (e.g., its costs, potential unintended effects, deterrence
impact). The end result is that respondents can better evaluate their levels of
support in light of factual information regarding the specific initiative. In
addition, the response categories of the treatment measure allow for investi-
gation into the precise reasons for non-support (e.g., skepticism of research
findings). Finally, by including “unsure” individuals, it is possible to study
factors associated with individuals who have not yet formed an opinion
about treatment.

Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 7, 2015

8 Crime & Delinquency 

Independent variables. Given prior accounts identifying prominent misper-

ceptions about sex crimes, the study examined four independent variables of
interest: “stranger danger,” the perception of substantial sexual recidivism,
offense amplification, and continuity in offending. In measuring “stranger
danger” endorsement, the survey asked, “Which of the following statements
about sex offenders who victimize children do you think is most true?” Cat-
egories included, “1 = Most sex offenders victimize children who are well
known or related to them,” “2 = Most sex offenders victimize children who
they do not know,” or “3 = Most sex offenders victimize children who they
have met, but do not know well.” The first and third categories (measuring
familiar/acquaintance perceptions) were combined and coded as “0.” The
second choice, emphasizing unknown perpetrators, was categorized as “1.”
Unsure or don’t know responses were dropped.
Assessments of sexual recidivism were gauged continuously using this
item: “What percentage of sex offenders do you think repeat their crimes
after they are convicted?” Response options were “1 = less than 25%,” “2 =
between 25% and 50%,” “3 = between 50% and 75%,” or “4 = 75% or more.”
Uncertain responses were excluded.
Offense amplification, in contrast, was operationalized in the following
manner: “Which of the following statements do you think is most true about
sex offenders who reoffend?” The response choices were as follows: “1 = If
they reoffend, sex offenders are most likely to commit a non-violent, non-
sexual offense”; “2 = If they reoffend, sex offenders are most likely to commit
another, similar sex offense”; or “3 = If they reoffend, sex offenders are most
likely to commit an offense that is more serious and violent.” The three choices
were dichotomized with the latter category, indicative of stronger amplifica-
tion views, coded as “1” and other responses as “0.” Unsure responses were
not included.
Finally, perceptions of continuity in sex offending were measured contin-
uously by asking the following: “Which of the following statements about
teenagers who commit sex offenses do you think is most true?” Respondents
could indicate, “1 = less than 25% of these teenagers will go on to commit sex
offenses as adults,” “2 = between 25% and 50% of these teenagers will go on
to commit sex offenses as adults,” “3 = between 50% and 75% of these teen-
agers will go on to commit sex offenses as adults,” and “4 = more than 75%
of these teenagers will go on to commit sex offenses as adults.” Respondents
who admitted being “unsure” were dropped from analysis.

Controls. The analysis also accounted for the effects of two specific controls
that may confound the myth–treatment support relationship. The survey
instrument included an item tapping the extent to which Americans rely on

Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 7, 2015

Mancini and Budd 9

the media to form opinions about sex crime and offenders. Some have argued
that news media coverage (Dowler, 2006) has a tendency to emphasize
bizarre and atypical sex crime cases. The survey asked, “From what source
have you received most of your knowledge about sex offenders?” Response
categories were “news media,” “your state’s sex offender registry,” “family
members,” “community members,” “professionals who work in the areas of
sexual assault, criminal justice, and related fields,” or “your own search for
information on the Internet.” For the media reliance variable, those who
reported “news media” were coded as “1” and all others as “0.” In addition,
respondents were also asked “To what extent do you agree or disagree with
the following statement . . . I want more information than I have now about
the ways that sex offending can be prevented in my own community.” It fol-
lows that individuals who desire greater knowledge about sex crimes are dis-
tinct from those who feel they have a solid understanding of the issue. The
variable, want more information, was coded as follows: 1 = strongly agree,
2 = somewhat agree, 3 = somewhat disagree, and 4 = strongly disagree.
Beyond these two specific confounders, we included several other con-
trols shown to be important in prior sex crime research (Payne et al.,
2010; Pickett, Mancini et al., 2013). Age was measured continuously
(range = 19-91). In the survey, education was recorded as follows: 1 = less
than high school, 2 = high school graduate, 3 = some college, and 4 = col-
lege degree or graduate degree. Income was estimated by asking partici-
pants to report their annual income coded as 1 = less than US$25,000, 2 =
US$25,000 to $35,000, 3 = US$35,001 to US$50,000, 4 = US$50,001 to
US$75,000, 5 = US$75,001 to $100,000, and 6 = more than US$100,000.
Conservatism was measured continuously from 1 = extremely liberal to 9 =
extremely conservative. The survey asked respondents if they lived in a
city, suburb, or rural area. Dichotomized variables were created and “sub-
urb” was used as the omitted comparison category. Marital status was mea-
sured dichotomously, “0 = not married” and “1 = married.” Three separate
dummy variables were used to capture race: “White,” “Black,” and “Other.”
“Other” was used as the omitted comparison category. Parental status was
also coded as two separate categories, “0 = not a parent of child younger
than 17” and “1 = parent of child 17 or younger.” Finally, sex was recorded
by the interviewer, “1 = female” and “0 = male.”

Analytic Plan
To answer our research questions and corresponding hypotheses, we used
multinomial logistic regression. Multinomial logistic regression was the pre-
ferred method of analysis because the outcome variable, or dependent

Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 7, 2015

10 Crime & Delinquency 

variable, is unordered. With this type of regression model, the probability of

membership in each of the other response categories was compared with the
probability of membership in the reference, or base, category (Long & Freese,
2006). For this analysis, “I support treatment for sex offenders, if the research
shows it can be effective in preventing repeat sex offenses” is the reference,
or base, category. Because the multinomial logistic regression model pro-
duces log odds that have no substantive meaning, we transformed the log
odds into odds ratios (ORs) for ease of interpretation. In addition, because of
the complex output of the model, we discuss significance between different
outcome categories. These results2 are not included in the tables, as the tables
only report results for the above base category.
For clarity, ORs are only presented for variables that are statistically sig-
nificant in comparison with the reference category.

Results
Going against the assumption that the public is overwhelmingly punitive,
survey results shown in Table 1 indicate that nearly three out of four people
support treatment for sex offenders. Even so, more than 25% do not extend
their support to treatment efforts. Of this proportion, 8% oppose treatment
even if research demonstrates that it can be effective in preventing sex crime.
Nearly 18% report not believing research related to effectiveness and so, for
this reason, do not support treatment efforts. Two percent of the public are
unsure about treatment.
Moving beyond descriptive differences, in line with our hypotheses,
inspection of the multivariate analysis results in Table 2 indicates that
myth endorsement was associated with pessimism toward sex offender
treatment efforts. Hypothesis 1, that endorsement of stranger danger will
be associated with reduced treatment support, was supported. Believing
that sex offenders victimize strangers increased the odds of not supporting
treatment by 2.31 times relative to supporting treatment, holding all other
variables constant (p ≤ .05). This pattern also extended to those who do not
believe the research on treatment. Believing that sex offenders victimize
strangers increased the odds of not supporting treatment by 3.48 times
relative to not supporting treatment due to non-belief in the treatment
research, holding all other variables constant (p ≤ .05).
Hypothesis 2, that perceiving sex offenders to have high sexual recidivism
will decrease treatments, was not supported. Unexpectedly, buying into the
high recidivism myth was associated with a significantly higher probability
of being “unsure” regarding the benefits of treatment. Believing that sex
offenders have high recidivism rates increased the odds of being unsure by

Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 7, 2015

Mancini and Budd 11

2.82 times relative to supporting treatment, holding all other variables con-
stant (p ≤ .05).
Hypothesis 3, that individuals who believe in offense amplification will
have reduced odds of supporting sex offender treatment, was supported.
Believing that sex offenders progress in their offending over time increased
the odds of not supporting treatment due to non-belief in the treatment
research by 2.17 and 5.18 relative to supporting treatment or being unsure,
holding all other variables constant (p ≤ .001, p ≤ .05). Said differently, mem-
bers of the public who believed in sex offense amplification had increased
odds of not believing the research on treatment efficacy and therefore not
supporting treatment relative to those who support treatment or are unsure.
The fourth hypothesis proposed that those who endorsed the “continuity in
offending” perception, that juvenile sex offenders will go on to sexually
offend in adulthood, would be significantly less likely to favor treatment. It
was not supported. There were no significant results pertaining to this myth.
Two control variables were significant predictors of whether there was
treatment support: parental status and the desire for more information on pre-
venting sexual offenses. Parents with children below the age of 17 had a
higher likelihood of not supporting treatment, because they did not believe
the treatment efficacy research. Specifically, the odds of not believing
research demonstrating treatment efficacy and therefore not supporting treat-
ment relative to supporting treatment were 1.84 times higher for individuals
with children below the age of 17 (p ≤ .05). If individuals desired more infor-
mation about how sex offending can be prevented in their community, the
likelihood of supporting treatment increased. The odds of supporting treat-
ment relative to not supporting treatment increased by 2.19 if more informa-
tion was desired about how to prevent sex offending, holding all other
variables constant (p ≤ .05).

Discussion
Nearly four decades ago, Martinson’s “Nothing Works” doctrine began to
shape what scholars have designated the “punitive era” in the United States.
(Phelps, 2011, p. 33; also Cullen et al., 2000; Lynch, 2000). As part of this
shift, “get tough” reforms—such as mass incarceration, penal austerity, and
“invisible” post-incarceration sanctions—were favored over efforts to treat
and rehabilitate offenders (Logan, 2009). Although research indicates that
treatment can be effective in reforming offenders, the perception that the pub-
lic is unreceptive to treatment interventions pervades crime policy discus-
sions (e.g., Cullen et al., 2000). We unpacked this latter assumption about
treatment by focusing on a criminal population deemed to be the “worst of

Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 7, 2015

 12
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics (N = 658).

Does not
Does not believe
Supports support research Not sure

Minimum Maximum M SD M SD M SD M SD
Myth endorsement
Stranger danger
  Yes 0 1 0.083 0.277 0.188 0.394 0.060 0.240 0.076 0.277
Percent of sex crime recidivism 1 4 3.056 0.846 3.150 0.885 3.321 0.853 3.615 0.650
Amplification of deviance
  Yes 0 1 0.329 0.470 0.339 0.478 0.556 0.498 0.230 0.438
Continuity in sex offending 1 4 2.253 1.000 2.396 1.006 2.495 1.087 2.461 1.198
Control variables
Media reliance
  Yes 0 1 0.746 0.435 0.792 0.409 0.669 0.472 0.692 0.480
Want more information
  Yes 0 1 0.861 0.345 0.773 0.422 0.817 0.388 0.846 0.375
Age 19 91 57.22 14.82 59.433 14.279 59.652 15.831 58.153 13.471

Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 7, 2015

Education 1 4 3.283 0.831 3.094 0.814 3.086 0.884 3.384 0.960
Income 1 6 3.748 1.723 3.283 1.779 3.365 1.607 4.461 1.898
Conservatism 1 9 5.637 2.093 5.698 2.366 5.956 2.157 6.461 1.898
(continued)
 Table 1. (continued)
Does not
Does not believe
Supports support research Not sure

Minimum Maximum M SD M SD M SD M SD
Place of residence (ref. = suburban)
  City 0 1 0.484 0.500 0.509 0.504 0.513 0.502 0.230 0.438
  Rural 0 1 0.257 0.434 0.320 0.471 0.208 0.408 0.384 0.506
Marital status
  Married 0 1 0.643 0.479 0.622 0.489 0.608 0.490 0.692 0.480
Race (ref. = other)
  White 0 1 0.767 0.422 0.698 0.463 0.739 0.441 0.846 0.375
  Black 0 1 0.136 0.343 0.169 0.379 0.130 0.338 0.076 0.277
Parental status
   Parent of child <17 0 1 0.203 0.402 0.264 0.445 0.252 0.436 0.384 0.506
Sex
  Male 0 1 0.392 0.488 0.490 0.504 0.417 0.495 0.307 0.480

Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 7, 2015

Note. SD = standard deviation.

13
 Table 2. Multinomial Regression of Perceptions of Support for Sex Offender Treatment, Reference Category: Support (N = 658).

14
Does not believe
Does not support research Not sure

Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient

SE OR SE OR SE OR
Myth endorsement
Stranger danger 0.836 2.307* −0.409 0.071
0.405 0.439 1.091
Recidivism 0.124 0.200 1.037 2.820*
0.192 0.148 0.513
Amplification −0.002 0.775 2.177* −0.870
0.331 0.230 0.698
Continuity 0.115 0.117 0.021
0.156 0.113 0.303
Control variables
More information −0.786 0.455* −0.618 0.538* −0.357
0.376 0.296 0.839
Media reliance 0.085 −0.480 0.125
0.374 0.246 0.655
Age −0.015 0.016 0.025
0.011 0.008 0.027

Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 7, 2015

Education −0.153 −0.221 −0.107
0.189 0.141 0.417
Income −0.113 −0.083 0.395
0.112 0.082 0.243
(continued)
 Table 2. (continued)
Does not believe
Does not support research Not sure

Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient

SE OR SE OR SE OR
Conservatism 0.002 0.025 0.136
0.070 0.052 0.150
Place of residence
  City 0.347 −0.025 −0.921
0.417 0.267 0.793
  Rural 0.576 −0.366 0.226
0.448 0.318 0.706
Married 0.183 −0.061 −0.714
0.364 0.261 0.774
Race
  White −0.425 −0.345 0.155
0.474 0.353 1.108
  Black −0.120 −0.344 −0.092
0.568 0.437 1.472
Parent of child <17 0.735 0.607 1.835* 1.349

Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 7, 2015

0.401 0.298 0.729
Female 0.443 0.337 −0.430
0.305 0.226 0.666

Note. SE = standard error; OR = odds ratio.

15
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001; statistical tests use “supports” as the reference category.
16 Crime & Delinquency 

the worst” in the eyes of the public (e.g., Pickett, Mancini et al., 2013)—sex
offenders. Overall, results support this view, but also offer evidence to the
contrary.
With respect to the latter, nearly three out of four Americans indicated
their approval for treatment efforts for those convicted of sex crimes. Notably,
the percentage for support is higher than those reported in previous work
(e.g., Payne et al., 2010). The disparity is likely driven by our unique opera-
tionalization of treatment support. Our version specified the extent of
approval if research demonstrates the efficacy of treatment. We took this
approach for two reasons. First, building off capital punishment support lit-
erature (McGarrell & Sandys, 1996; Radelet & Borg, 2000), prefacing with
this information provides context for respondents to better evaluate their lev-
els of support. As mentioned earlier, prior scholarship has indeed demon-
strated that treated sex offenders are significantly less likely to reoffend
sexually and generally (i.e., commit non-sex crimes) than those offenders
who receive no treatment (Duwe & Goldman, 2009; Hanson et al., 2009;
Lösel & Schmucker, 2005; Oliver et al., 2008). Second, it would seem pru-
dent to understand nuances in non-support and unsure responses. Most prior
research has not explored the specific rationales underlying non-support for
rehabilitation and treatment, and none that we could identify tapped into
“unsure” responses. For this reason, our dependent measure specified the
conditions under which the public would not favor treatment (i.e., due to
disbelief of research indicating efficacy or simply not endorsing support,
even if the research is credible) and also retained the “unsure” category.
Indeed, a non-trivial percentage of Americans are unsupportive or unsure.
In particular, 8% do not endorse their support, even if research demonstrates
treatment efficacy. Almost 17% express not believing the research, and so, on
this basis, do not extend their support. About 2% of the public are uncertain
about treatment efforts—remaining unsure of sex offenders’ ability to be
rehabilitated through treatment. In short, a much smaller proportion of the
American public, approximately one quarter, are dubious of treatment efforts,
whereas, a substantial majority indicate support for treatment, given prior
research demonstrating its efficacy in reforming sex offenders.
Still though, there is evidence that a punitive public exists if punitive
attitudes are embedded in myths about sexual offending. In line with prior
research examining punitive attitudes (Pickett, Mancini et al., 2013),
myth endorsement—particularly believing in stranger danger and also
offense amplification—was associated with a reduced likelihood of sup-
porting treatment interventions for sex offenders. Concerning the conti-
nuity in offending myth, the lack of significant findings may derive from
the measurement of continuity. Few prior studies existed to guide our

Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 7, 2015

Mancini and Budd 17

conceptualization of continuity and so perhaps the measure is incomplete.

Alternatively, perhaps this myth affects other perceptions of sex offenders
but not treatment support.
Pertaining to stranger danger and offense amplification, a possible expla-
nation of these myths influencing perceptions of treatment effectiveness in
light of research evidence derives from the application of subconscious pro-
cesses or heuristics (e.g., Harris & Socia, in press). Ascribing to distorted
perceptions of the nature of sex offending obscures affording any positive
traits to those who have committed sex offenses in the past—including the
potential for reform and desistance. In particular, the stranger danger myth
was associated with a greater likelihood of indicating no support for treat-
ment even if the research is credible. Separately, endorsing the offense pro-
gression perception (i.e., believing sex offenders amplify sexual deviance
over time) was linked with not believing prior research and so not extending
support to treatment efforts. In contrast, evaluating sex offenders to be at high
risk of recommitting sex crime was the most salient predictor of unsure
beliefs. Collectively, these findings indicate the nuanced effects of myth
endorsement—certain myths appear to shape particular beliefs concerning
treatment. It may be that views about sex offenders, as we found, are more
likely to be shaped by what Payne and colleagues (2010) have characterized
as “irrational cognitive processes” (p. 584), or a complementary perspective
supported with this research, a long-standing and publicly engrained endorse-
ment of sex offender myths.
Only one social and demographic factor, having children, was associated
with decreased support, specifically, a disbelief of research indicating effi-
cacy of treatment. Notably, other research examining sex crime opinion have
revealed a similar pattern, namely observing few social and demographic
divides of opinion related to sex crime policy (Mancini & Mears, 2010;
Payne et al., 2010). Parental status divides may derive from a number of fac-
tors. One relevant explanation is that parents, given their obligation to ensure
their children’s well-being and safety, may be especially unwilling to believe
research suggesting that sex offender rehabilitation is effective. In short, they
may have a felt need to discount such evidence as the concern for their chil-
dren tempers any recognition that sex offenders can be effectively treated to
the extent they no longer pose threats.

Limitations
Although this study reveals new insights concerning public perceptions of
sex offender treatment, it is not without its limitations. One involves general-
izability concerns. The study, conducted by the federally funded CSOM

Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 7, 2015

18 Crime & Delinquency 

adhered to best practices in the administration of the survey; the instrument

was also pre-tested by experts in the field and efforts were made to garner a
nationally representative sample. Even so, as is typical with survey sampling,
women and those who are older were overrepresented. Therefore, generaliza-
tions from these findings may be somewhat limited in scope. In addition, we
did not have the opportunity to follow-up with respondents to probe why they
supported treatment, why they did not support treatment, why they were
skeptical of the research demonstrating treatment efficacy, or why they were
unsure. Of particular interest is gaining more insight to those who do not sup-
port treatment because they do not believe scientific literature that treatment
has the potential to rehabilitate, or said differently, to decrease the risk of
recidivism, for sex offenders. Future research should investigate these
nuanced aspects of public perceptions pertaining to treatment, especially if a
segment of the public is resistant to “buying into” sex offender treatment that
is supported empirically to decrease recidivism.

Conclusion
When evaluating these research findings, and findings on public opinion on
sex offenders and sex offender policy as a whole, there is support that the
public’s perceptions about these offenders and the laws used to control or
rehabilitate them are built upon faulty perceptions. Therefore, myths play a
powerful role in not only punitive crime policy but also rehabilitative crime
policy in the sense that they may be derived from “irrational cognitive pro-
cesses” (Harris & Socia, in press). Although evidence is presented here that a
sizable majority of the public wants more information about sex offenders, the
question remains how this information will be processed and understood and
if it will influence, what seems to be, negative stagnant views on sex offender
management and crime policy that are based on distorted perceptions.
To continue to understand rehabilitative views on sex crime policy and
about sex offenders themselves, carefully designed surveys and polls that are
national in scope and consistently administered are sorely needed. It is rare
for a survey such as this one, specifically designed to capture perceptions
about sex offenders and sex offender policy, to be administered to the public.
We have argued that it is superior to prior investigations given its scope and
inclusion of nuanced measures of treatment as well as theoretically relevant
predictors of these views. Even still, it was administered at one point in time
and thus cannot capture how views might change over time or in response to
celebrated cases or changes in policy. The same recommendation holds for
understanding practitioner perceptions of sex offender treatment. Correctional
officers, community corrections officials, and other professionals who work

Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 7, 2015

Mancini and Budd 19

with and supervise sex offenders may differ from the public in their views
about treatment. There may even be nuances in judgments across these
groups (e.g., prison officers vs. probation officers). Some work has recently
begun to tap into views among these understudied populations (generally,
Mustaine, Tewksbury, Connor, & Payne, 2015; Tewksbury, Mustaine, &
Payne, 2012). However, no scholarship that we are aware of has systemati-
cally compared and contrasted treatment views across these professional
groups and the general public.
Ideally, future research will continue to investigate treatment effects for
sex offenders. Although sex offenders who complete treatment pose less of a
threat to public safety than those who receive no treatment, it is equally true
that some treatment modalities are less effective than others (Hanson et al.,
2009). This finding thus suggests the need for robust research designs—care-
fully controlled meta-analyses and experiments—that evaluate which treat-
ment methods are most effective in reducing sexual recidivism and under
which conditions (e.g., prison vs. community treatment, across offender
“types”). This suggestion leads to another relevant implication. To the extent
that treatment effects vary by intervention, it would seem prudent to assess
which treatments the public endorses the most and least support for and why
these perceptions might vary. Hormonal interventions and cognitive behav-
ioral therapy, for example, have shown significant promise in reducing sexual
recidivism (Lösel, & Schmucker, 2005). However, virtually no research that
we identified has examined treatment perceptions by intervention.
Finally, concluding comments surround policy. Public awareness and edu-
cational campaigns to advance understanding of the reality of sex offending,
although often cited, cannot be discounted. The public has clearly had tre-
mendous influence on the national proliferation of “get tough” sex crime
laws and restrictions (Meloy, Curtis, & Boatwright, 2013). The current study,
which found nearly three out of four Americans expressing treatment support
for sex offenders, suggests that it is possible for Americans to simultaneously
support both punitive and rehabilitative efforts. The challenge then for poli-
cymakers is to disseminate information about sex crimes in a fair and bal-
anced manner. Under this perspective, social media campaigns, polls
conducted by agencies assessing levels of public knowledge and awareness,
and evaluations of such efforts are worthwhile investments to consider and
implement.

Authors’ Note
The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Center for Sex Offender Management
or Zogby International.

Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 7, 2015

20 Crime & Delinquency 

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

Notes
1. Some scholarship has examined rehabilitation and treatment views of college
students (e.g., Rogers, Hirst, & Davies, 2011) and in other countries (Brown,
1999; Viki, Fullerton, Raggett, Tait, & Wiltshire, 2012). However, our focus is
on evaluations of the general public in the United States. Given the differences
between the samples used in these studies and the general U.S. population, we
draw on prior studies that include state or national populations in the United
States as opposed to college or university student or international samples.
2. Findings detailing the other comparison outcomes and corresponding results are
available by request.

References
Brown, S. (1999). Public attitudes toward the treatment of sex offenders. Legal and
Criminological Psychology, 4, 239-252.
Comartin, E. B., Kernsmith, P. D., & Kernsmith, R. M. (2009). Sanctions for sex
offenders: Fear and public policy. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48, 605-619.
Cullen, F. T., Fisher, B. S., & Applegate, B. K. (2000). Public opinion about punish-
ment and corrections. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research
(pp. 1-79). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Cullen, F. T., Pealer, J., Fisher, B., Applegate, B., & Santana, S. (2011). Public sup-
port for correctional rehabilitation in America: Change or consistency? In J. V.
Roberts & M. Hough (Eds.), Changing attitudes to punishment: Public opinion,
crime, and justice (pp. 128-147). New York, NY: Routledge.
Dowler, K. (2006). Sex, lies, and videotape: The presentation of sex crime in local
television news. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 383-392.
Durose, M. R., Langan, P. A., & Schmitt, E. L. (2003). Recidivism of sex offenders
released from prison in 1994. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Duwe, G., & Goldman, R. (2009). The impact of prison-based treatment on sex
offender recidivism: Evidence from Minnesota. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of
Research and Treatment, 21, 279-307.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2013). Crime in the United States, 2013. Washington,
DC: Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Retrieved from http://www.
fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-
known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_
table_10_murder_circumstances_by_relationship_2013.xls

Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 7, 2015

Mancini and Budd 21

Fox, K. J. (2013). Incurable sex offenders, lousy judges and the media: Moral panic
sustenance in the age of new media. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38,
160-181.
Greenfeld, L. A. (1997). Sex offenses and offenders: An analysis of data on rape and
sexual assault. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Hanson, R. K., Bourgon, G., Helmus, L., & Hodgson, S. (2009). The principles of
effective correctional treatment also apply to sexual offenders a meta-analysis.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 865-891.
Hanson, R. K., & Bussière, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sex-
ual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
66, 348-362.
Harris, A. J., & Socia, K. (in press). What’s in a name? Evaluating the effects of the
“sex offender” label on public opinions and beliefs. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of
Research and Treatment. Doi: 10.1177/1079063214564391.
Jenkins, P. (1998). Moral panic: Changing concepts of the child molester in modern
America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Katz Schiavone, S., & Jeglic, E. L. (2009). Public perceptions of sex offender social
policies and the impact on sex offenders. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53, 679-695.
Lancaster, R. N. (2011). Sex panic and the punitive state. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Levenson, J. S., Brannon, Y. N., Fortney, T., & Baker, J. (2007). Public perceptions
about sex offenders and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues
and Public Policy, 7, 137-161.
Logan, W. A. (2009). Knowledge as power: Criminal registration and community
notification laws in America. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent vari-
ables using Stata (2nd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.
Lösel, F., & Schmucker, M. (2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offend-
ers: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1,
117-146.
Lynch, M. (2000). Rehabilitation as rhetoric: The ideal of reformation in contempo-
rary parole discourse and practices. Punishment & Society, 2, 40-65.
Lynch, M. (2002). Pedophiles and cyber-predators as contaminating forces: The lan-
guage of disgust, pollution, and boundary invasions in federal debates of sex
offender legislation. Law & Social Inquiry, 27, 529-557.
Mancini, C., & Mears, D. P. (2010). To execute or not to execute? Examining public
support for capital punishment of sex offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38,
959-968.
Mancini, C., & Pickett, J. T. (in press). The good, the bad, and the incomprehensible:
Typifications of victims and offenders as antecedents of beliefs about sex crime.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Doi: 10.1177/0886260514555373.
Mancini, C., Shields, R. T., Mears, D. P., & Beaver, K. M. (2010). Sex offender
residence restriction laws: Parental perceptions and public policy. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 38, 1022-1030.

Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 7, 2015

22 Crime & Delinquency 

McGarrell, E. F., & Sandys, M. (1996). The misperception of public opinion toward
capital punishment: Examining the spuriousness explanation of death penalty
support. American Behavioral Scientist, 39, 500-513.
Mears, D. P., Mancini, C., Gertz, M., & Bratton, J. (2008). Sex crimes, children,
and pornography: Public views and public policy. Crime & Delinquency, 54,
532-559.
Meloy, M. L. (2014). You can run but you cannot hide: GPS electronic surveillance
of sex offenders. In R. G. Wright (Ed.), Sex offender laws: Failed policies, new
directions (2nd ed., pp. 165-179). New York, NY: Springer.
Meloy, M. L., Curtis, K., & Boatwright, J. (2013). The sponsors of sex offender
bills speak up: Policy makers’ perceptions of sex offenders, sex crimes, and sex
offender legislation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 438-452.
Mustaine, E. E., Tewksbury, R., Connor, D. P., & Payne, B. K. (2015). Criminal
justice officials’ views of sex offenders, sex offender registration, community
notification, and residency restrictions. Justice System Journal, 36, 63-85.
Oliver, M., Wong, S., & Nicholaichuk, T. P. (2008). Outcome evaluation of a high-
intensity inpatient sex offender treatment program. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 24, 522-536.
Payne, B. K., Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2010). Attitudes about rehabilitat-
ing sex offenders: Demographic, victimization, and community-level influences.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 580-588.
Phelps, M. S. (2011). Rehabilitation in the punitive era: The gap between rhetoric and
reality in U.S. prison programs. Law & Society Review, 45, 33-68.
Pickett, J. T., Mancini, C., & Mears, D. P. (2013). Vulnerable victims, monstrous
offenders, and unmanageable risk: Explaining public opinion on the social con-
trol of sex crime. Criminology, 51, 729-759.
Pickett, J. T., Mears, D. P., Stewart, E. A., & Gertz, M. (2013). Security at the expense
of liberty: A test of predictions deriving from the culture of control thesis. Crime
& Delinquency, 59, 214-242.
Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., Jennings, W. G., Diamond, B., & Craig, J. (2012).
Sex offenders and sex offending in the Cambridge study in delinquent develop-
ment: Prevalence, frequency, specialization, recidivism, and (dis) continuity over
the life-course. Journal of Crime & Justice, 35, 412-426.
Quinn, J. F., Forsyth, C. J., & Mullen-Quinn, C. (2004). Societal reaction to sex
offenders: A review of the origins and results of the myths surrounding their
crimes and treatment amenability. Deviant Behavior, 25, 3, 215-232.
Radelet, M. L., & Borg, M. J. (2000). The changing nature of death penalty debates.
Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 43-61.
Rogers, P., Hirst, L., & Davies, M. (2011). An investigation into the effect of respon-
dent gender, victim age, and perpetrator treatment on public attitudes towards
sex offenders, sex offender treatment, and sex offender rehabilitation. Journal of
Offender Rehabilitation, 50, 511-530.
Sample, L. L. (2006). An examination of the degree to which sex offenders kill.
Criminal Justice Review, 31, 230-250.

Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 7, 2015

Mancini and Budd 23

Sample, L. L., & Bray, T. M. (2003). Are sex offenders dangerous? Criminology &
Public Policy, 1, 59-82.
Sample, L. L., & Kadleck, C. (2008). Sex offender laws: Legislators’ accounts of the
need for policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 1, 40-62.
Tewksbury, R., Mustaine, E. E., & Payne, B. K. (2012). Community corrections pro-
fessionals’ attitudes about sex offenders: Is the CATSO applicable? Criminal
Justice Studies, 25, 145-157.
Viki, G. T., Fullerton, I., Raggett, H., Tait, F., & Wiltshire, S. (2012). The role of
dehumanization in attitudes toward the social exclusion and rehabilitation of sex
offenders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 2349-2367.
Wright, R. G. (2014). Sex offenders: Failed policies, new directions (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Springer.
Zgoba, K. M. (2004). Spin doctors and moral crusaders: The moral panic behind child
safety legislation. Criminal Justice Studies, 17, 4, 385-404.
Zimring, F. E., Jennings, W. G., Piquero, A. R., & Hays, S. (2009). Investigating
the continuity of sex offending: Evidence from the Second Philadelphia Birth
Cohort. Justice Quarterly, 26, 58-76.
Zimring, F. E., Piquero, A. R., & Jennings, W. G. (2007). Sexual delinquency in
Racine: Does early sex offending predict later sex offending in youth and young
adulthood? Criminology & Public Policy, 6, 507-534.

Author Biographies
Christina Mancini, PhD, is an assistant professor at Virginia Commonwealth
University’s L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs. She
received her doctoral degree from Florida State University’s College of Criminology
and Criminal Justice in 2009. Dr. Mancini has published several articles in
Criminology, Crime & Delinquency, the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,
and other crime and policy journals. Her current research examines sex offender pol-
icy, public opinion, race and perceptions about offending, and violent victimization.
She is the author of Sex Crime, Offenders, and Society: A Critical Look at Sexual
Offending and Policy (2014, Carolina Academic Press). Her second book, Campus
Crime and Safety (Kendall Hunt), was published in 2015.
Kristen M. Budd, PhD, is an assistant professor of sociology at Miami University in
the Department of Sociology & Gerontology. Her research examines sexual violence,
sex offenders, and sexual victimization with a current focus on public perceptions
about sex offenders and sex offender policy and female sexual offending behavior.
Her publications have appeared in Social Psychology Quarterly, International Journal
of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, and the Journal of Family
Violence.

Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 7, 2015