The science examining institutional and community-based responses to sexual offending has been well documented. The responses to this form of criminal behavior include penal incarceration followed by civil commitment, community notification, and sex offender registration. To date, evidence-based findings report that these correctives and/or curatives yield limited effectiveness sufficient to justify their continued maintenance as statewide or even national criminal justice and mental health policy prescription. One official systems-level way that policy receives legitimacy is through the Courts. Interestingly, the precedent-setting sex offender case law indicates that current policy prescriptions are constitutionally permissible and therefore justifiable as regulatory practices, notwithstanding the empirical evidence that challenges their soundness. This article summarizes the science regarding sex offender policy from the point of imprisonment to reentry, recounts the relevant case law that judicially sanctions such institutional and community practices, and explains how the driver for sex offender law and policy is legal moralism grounded in and advanced by utilitarian reasoning and duty-based logic. This article concludes by suggesting how judicial reliance on legal moralism could further the interests of public safety and civil liberties if insights from virtue jurisprudence informed the analysis.
