“Frightening and High”

Ira Ellman and Tara Ellman 

This article examines the empirical research relied upon by the U.S. Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe, particularly research concerning sex-offender recidivism. The authors argue that the Court's treatment of certain recidivism evidence overstated what the underlying research demonstrated.

Reference: Ellman, I., & Ellman, T. (2015). “Frightening and High”: The Supreme Court's Crucial Mistake About Sex Offender Recidivism. Constitutional Commentary, 30, 495.

“A Crooked Picture: Reframing the Problem of Child Sexual Abuse”

Eric S. Janus (2009) 

Professor Eric Janus uses the metaphor of people rescuing babies from a stream to illustrate the difference between responding to harm after it occurs and addressing the conditions that contribute to the harm in the first place.

The work encourages readers to examine prevention strategies and consider whether resources are being directed toward the underlying causes of child sexual abuse.

“Collateral Damage: Family Members of Registered Sex Offenders”

Jill Levenson, Ph.D., and Richard Tewksbury, Ph.D. 

This research examines the experiences of family members of people required to register. The study identifies employment disruption, financial hardship, housing difficulties, stigma, threats, and harassment among the issues reported by participating families.

The experiences of family members are an important part of understanding the broader effects of registration and notification policies.

“Ashamed and Alone: Comparing Offender and Family Member Experiences with the Sex Offender Registry”

Danielle J. S. Bailey and Jennifer L. Klein 

This study examines shame, social isolation, and perceptions of registration among registrants and their family members. The authors discuss how social stigma and legal sanctions may affect reintegration and informal social support. 

“Shooting the Messenger: How Expert Statements on Stigmatized Populations Negatively Impact Perceived Credibility”

Jason Rydberg, Kelly M. Socia, Christopher P. Dum, and Katrina Cole (2025) 

This study examines public reactions to expert statements concerning policies regulating individuals convicted of sexual offenses. The authors report that experts advocating less punitive, evidence-based approaches were perceived differently by participants and that this perception could affect judgments of their credibility on unrelated topics.

Citation: Justice Quarterly, 42(1), 64–89.

“Why Call Someone by What We Don't Want Them to Be? The Ethics of Labeling in Forensic/Correctional Psychology”

Gwenda M. Willis, University of Auckland 

This paper examines the ethical implications of labeling people according to past convictions and considers how terminology may affect dignity, rehabilitation, and reintegration.

The author discusses the potential value of moving toward language that recognizes the person rather than reducing an individual to a past offense or legal status.

“Victims' Attitudes Toward Sex Offenders and Sex Offender Legislation”

Sarah Schaaf 

This research examines attitudes toward treatment, rehabilitation, and sex-offender legislation among sexual-abuse victims and non-victims. The study explores the relationship between personal experience, knowledge, and attitudes toward public policy.

Research such as this demonstrates why assumptions about what victims universally believe about criminal-justice policy should be examined rather than taken for granted.