Shame and blame: Secondary stigma among families of convicted sex offenders
| Author | Douglas Evans,Adam Trahan,Kaleigh Laird |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/17488958211017391 |
| Published date | 01 February 2023 |
| Date | 01 February 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958211017391
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2023, Vol. 23(1) 78 –97
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/17488958211017391
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
Shame and blame: Secondary
stigma among families of
convicted sex offenders
Douglas Evans
Fairleigh Dickinson University, USA
Adam Trahan
University of North Texas, USA
Kaleigh Laird
Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA
Abstract
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.
Keywords
Criminal justice contact, family members, incarceration, secondary stigma, sex offender
Corresponding author:
Douglas Evans, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Teaneck, NJ 07666, USA.
Email: devans@fdu.edu
1017391CRJ0010.1177/17488958211017391Criminology & Criminal JusticeEvans et al.
research-article2021
Article
Evans et al. 79
Introduction
Certain features and actions of individuals are so denigrated that others beyond the stig-
matised individual experience the repercussions of their action. Goffman (1963) theo-
rised ‘courtesy stigma’ as an association with a stigmatised person that leads mainstream
society to treat the associate(s) as an extension of the stigmatised. Significant others of
those criminally stigmatised are blamed for their kinship and continued support of a
wrongdoer (Condry, 2007; Lickel et al., 2003). Not only does the public blame families
of offenders for perceived flaws in genetics or parenting practices, the legal system can
hold parents accountable for their adolescent’s problem behaviour. Goffman coined this
‘courtesy stigma’, but this study uses ‘secondary stigma’ (Condry, 2007:Furst and Evans,
2015) to remove the implication of politeness and denote the predominantly negative
consequences of stigma by association. Secondary stigma due to criminal justice system
involvement can contaminate families and intimate others, particularly when it accom-
panies a sex offence conviction, altering their identities to become, as found in the cur-
rent study, parents or partners of a sex offender. Stigma by association can extend to
those who have a meaningful relationship to, voluntarily associate with, or are in close
proximity to a stigmatised person (Pryor et al., 2012).
As the literature on secondary stigma from criminal justice system contact develops,
cross-cultural discussion of its manifestations across different countries becomes more
paramount. Considering how differences in formal legal punishments across countries
influence the vicarious experiences of families following a member’s criminal involve-
ment will enhance the understanding of the broader consequences of the systematic
application of the criminal label. The current study, conducted in the United States,
focuses on the family members of convicted sex offenders, arguably the most stigma-
tised sect in American society (Evans, 2012). Although several countries maintain regis-
tries of convicted sex offenders, the United States is the only country to release this
information to the public. This state-sanctioned public shaming augments the stigmatic
experience of registrants and their families, particularly those who share a registered
address. This study drew from interviews with family members of persons currently or
formerly incarcerated for sex offences to explore how families and significant others are
affected by their loved one’s conviction and/or incarceration for a sex offence. Condry’s
(2007) work on secondary stigmatisation of families of serious offenders in the United
Kingdom provides a foundation. While the lives of many of her respondents were
upended following the conviction and incarceration of their kin, strict US policies target-
ing convicted sex offenders may produce even more severe collateral consequences for
family members.
Impact of the criminal justice system on families
Victims and offenders tend to be the focus of post-crime interventions, leaving family
members largely on the periphery. While support generally is available for crime vic-
tims and various treatment programmes exist for offenders, families, especially those of
convicted sexual offenders, are mostly left to deal with any ensuing trauma on their own
(Loucks and Loureiro, 2018). Even in research, although families have long been the
To continue reading
Request your trial