Section 3: SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM (pdf)
Data at a Glance
• 3.55% of sex offenders on parole with CDCR had committed new sex offenses by the time the conclusion of their three-year parole period.
• A ten-year follow-up study of 879 sex offenders in the state of Ohio reported that when using sex offense conviction as the outcome measurement, of 34 % of sex offenders who have re-offended, only 8 % were re-committed for a new sex crime, plus 3 % for a technical violation judged to be related to a potential new sex crime, while the other 22% reoffended for non-sexual offenses.
Solid information about the recidivism of sex offenders is one of the key building blocks for good policy and effective practice in sex offender management. If it were not for the concern that an identified sex offender may offend again in the future and create another victim, the questions about how to best manage sex offenders living in California communities would not be of such intense interest. Knowing how likely it is that an individual sex offender or a certain type of sex offender might re-offend can drive many decisions. Similarly, knowing what interventions actually reduce the chances that a sex offender will re-offend is also extremely important.
Existing data indicates that the majority of sex offenders do not re-offend sexually over time (Harris & Hanson, 2004). Additionally, research studies over the past two decades have consistently indicated that recidivism rates for sex offenders are, in reality, lower than the re-offense rates for most other types of offenders. In a longitudinal study that followed 4,742 known sex offenders over a period of 15 years, 24% were charged with or convicted of, a new sexual offense (Harris & Hanson, 2004). The U.S. Department of Justice found that 5% of 9,691 sex offenders released from prisons in 1994 were re-arrested for new sex crimes within three years. Recent research data from California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation indicate that fewer than 4% of the convicted sex offenders released to parole in 2003 were returned for a new sex offense over the course of a three year period of living in the community under parole supervision (CDCR Research, 2007).
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Sex Offender Housing Restrictions
Kansas Deparment of Corrections
Twenty Findings of Research on Residential Restrictions for Sex Offenders and the Iowa Experience with Similar Policies
1. Housing restrictions appear to be based largely on three myths that are repeatedly propagated by the media: 1) all sex offenders reoffend; 2) treatment does not work; and 3) the concept of “stranger danger.” Research does not support these myths, but there is research to suggest that such policies may ultimately be counterproductive. Sex offender residence restrictions. A Report to the Florida Legislature, October 2005, Jill S. Levinson, Ph.D.
2. Research shows that there is no correlation between residency restrictions and reducing sex offenses against children or improving the safety of children. Iowa County Attorneys Association
3. The resulting damage to the reliability of the sex offender registry does not serve the interests of public safety. Iowa County Attorneys Association
4. There is no demonstrated protective effect of the residency requirement that justifies the huge draining of scarce law enforcement resources in the effort to enforce the restriction. Iowa County Attorneys Association
5. Many prosecutors have observed that the numerous negative consequences of the lifetime residency restriction has caused a reduction in the number of confessions made by offenders in cases where defendants usually confess after disclosure of the offense by the child. In addition, there are more refusals by defendants charged with sex offenses to enter plea agreements. Plea agreements are necessary in many cases involving child victims in order to protect the children from trauma of the trial process. Iowa County Attorneys Association
6. Recommendation 1: Shared Living Arrangements appear to be a frequently successful mode of containment and treatment for higher risk sex offenders and should be considered a viable living situation for higher risk sex offenders in the community…. Recommendation 2: Placing restrictions on the location of correctionally supervised sex offender residences may not deter the sex offender from re-offending and should not be considered as a method to control sexual offending recidivism. Report on Safety Issues Raised by Living Arrangements for and Location of Sex Offenders in the Community; Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal justice, Sex Offender Management Board
7. ....the number of sex offenders who are unaccounted for has doubled since the law went into effect. Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault
8. There is no accommodation in the current statute for persons on parole or probation supervision. These offenders are already monitored and their living arrangements approved. Iowa County Attorneys Association
9. [This policy] is contrary to well-established principles of treatment and rehabilitation of sex offenders….These goals are severely impaired by the residency restriction, compromising the safety of children by obstructing the use of the best known corrections practice. Iowa County Attorneys Association
10. The sex offender residency restriction was a very well intentioned effort to keep the children of our communities safe from sex offenders. It has, however, had unintended consequences that effectively decrease community safety. Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault
11. ….some offenders are attempting to comply by providing descriptions of where they are actually living….”under the 7th street bridge,” “truck near river,” “rest area mile marker 149,” “Flying J, in truck,” “in tent, S side of I-80,” “RV in old K-Mart parking lot,” “I-35 rest area,”….Two listed Quick Trips…. For the first time, sex offender treatment providers tell us, sex offenders are absconding in larger numbers. Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault
12. When a brutal sexually violent crime occurs, such as the one that occurred in Iowa last year, our societal tendency is to focus all our resources and energy on stopping offenders. The long-term solutions to eradicating sexual violence from our society, however, do not lie in measures taken to stop re-offense, but rather in preventing sexual violence from happening in the first place. Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault
13. … the Board of the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault joined the Iowa County Attorneys Association in stating that these unintended consequences warrant replacing the residency restriction with more effective measures. Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault
14. Housing restrictions have passed in most localities with little resistance. Child safety is rightly the primary concern when sex offender restrictions are imposed. It seems to make sense that decreasing access to potential victims would be a feasible strategy to preventing sex crimes. There is no evidence, however, that such laws are effective in reducing recidivistic sexual violence. On the other hand, such laws aggravate the scarcity of housing options for sex offenders, forcing them out of metropolitan areas and farther away from the social support, employment opportunities and social services that are known to aid offenders in successful community re-entry. Sex offender residence restrictions. A Report to the Florida Legislature, October 2005, Jill S. Levinson, Ph.D.
15. Despite overwhelming public and political support, there is no evidence that proximity to schools increases recidivism, or, conversely, that housing restrictions reduce reoffending or increase community safety. Sex offender residence restrictions. A Report to the Florida Legislature, October 2005, Jill S. Levinson, Ph.D.
16. Based on the examination of level three re-offenders, there were no examples that residential proximity to a park or school was a contributing factor in any of the sexual re-offenses noted… Enhanced safety due to proximity restrictions may be a comfort factor for the general public, but it does not have any basis in fact…it appears that a sex offender attracted to such locations for purposes of committing a crime is more likely to travel to another neighborhood on order to in secret rather than in a neighborhood where his or her picture is well known. Level Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues, 2003 Report to the Legislature, Minnesota Department of Corrections
17. Having such restrictions in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul would likely force level three offenders to move to more rural areas that would not contain nearby schools and parks but would pose other problems, such as high concentration of offenders with no ties to the community; isolation; lack of work, education and treatment options; and an increase in the distance traveled by agents who supervise offenders. Again, no evidence points to any effect on offense rates of school proximity residential restrictions. Level Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues, 2003 Report to the Legislature, Minnesota Department of Corrections
18. Since blanket proximity restrictions on residential locations of level three offenders do not enhance community safety, the current offender-by-offender restrictions should be retained. Proximity restrictions, based on circumstances on an individual offender, serve as a valuable supervision tool…Most of these supervision proximity restrictions address the issue of the offender associating or interacting with children or minors, rather than where the offender resides. Level Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues, 2003 Report to the Legislature, Minnesota Department of Corrections
19. A significant number of offenders have married or have been reunited with their victims; and, in those cases, the residency restriction is imposed on the victims as well as the offenders. Iowa County Attorneys Association…
20. A tight web of supervision, treatment and surveillance may be more important in maintaining community safety than where a sex offender resides. Report on Safety Issues Raised by Living Arrangements for and Location of Sex Offenders in the Community; Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal justice, Sex Offender Management Board
Twenty Findings of Research on Residential Restrictions for Sex Offenders and the Iowa Experience with Similar Policies
1. Housing restrictions appear to be based largely on three myths that are repeatedly propagated by the media: 1) all sex offenders reoffend; 2) treatment does not work; and 3) the concept of “stranger danger.” Research does not support these myths, but there is research to suggest that such policies may ultimately be counterproductive. Sex offender residence restrictions. A Report to the Florida Legislature, October 2005, Jill S. Levinson, Ph.D.
2. Research shows that there is no correlation between residency restrictions and reducing sex offenses against children or improving the safety of children. Iowa County Attorneys Association
3. The resulting damage to the reliability of the sex offender registry does not serve the interests of public safety. Iowa County Attorneys Association
4. There is no demonstrated protective effect of the residency requirement that justifies the huge draining of scarce law enforcement resources in the effort to enforce the restriction. Iowa County Attorneys Association
5. Many prosecutors have observed that the numerous negative consequences of the lifetime residency restriction has caused a reduction in the number of confessions made by offenders in cases where defendants usually confess after disclosure of the offense by the child. In addition, there are more refusals by defendants charged with sex offenses to enter plea agreements. Plea agreements are necessary in many cases involving child victims in order to protect the children from trauma of the trial process. Iowa County Attorneys Association
6. Recommendation 1: Shared Living Arrangements appear to be a frequently successful mode of containment and treatment for higher risk sex offenders and should be considered a viable living situation for higher risk sex offenders in the community…. Recommendation 2: Placing restrictions on the location of correctionally supervised sex offender residences may not deter the sex offender from re-offending and should not be considered as a method to control sexual offending recidivism. Report on Safety Issues Raised by Living Arrangements for and Location of Sex Offenders in the Community; Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal justice, Sex Offender Management Board
7. ....the number of sex offenders who are unaccounted for has doubled since the law went into effect. Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault
8. There is no accommodation in the current statute for persons on parole or probation supervision. These offenders are already monitored and their living arrangements approved. Iowa County Attorneys Association
9. [This policy] is contrary to well-established principles of treatment and rehabilitation of sex offenders….These goals are severely impaired by the residency restriction, compromising the safety of children by obstructing the use of the best known corrections practice. Iowa County Attorneys Association
10. The sex offender residency restriction was a very well intentioned effort to keep the children of our communities safe from sex offenders. It has, however, had unintended consequences that effectively decrease community safety. Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault
11. ….some offenders are attempting to comply by providing descriptions of where they are actually living….”under the 7th street bridge,” “truck near river,” “rest area mile marker 149,” “Flying J, in truck,” “in tent, S side of I-80,” “RV in old K-Mart parking lot,” “I-35 rest area,”….Two listed Quick Trips…. For the first time, sex offender treatment providers tell us, sex offenders are absconding in larger numbers. Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault
12. When a brutal sexually violent crime occurs, such as the one that occurred in Iowa last year, our societal tendency is to focus all our resources and energy on stopping offenders. The long-term solutions to eradicating sexual violence from our society, however, do not lie in measures taken to stop re-offense, but rather in preventing sexual violence from happening in the first place. Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault
13. … the Board of the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault joined the Iowa County Attorneys Association in stating that these unintended consequences warrant replacing the residency restriction with more effective measures. Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault
14. Housing restrictions have passed in most localities with little resistance. Child safety is rightly the primary concern when sex offender restrictions are imposed. It seems to make sense that decreasing access to potential victims would be a feasible strategy to preventing sex crimes. There is no evidence, however, that such laws are effective in reducing recidivistic sexual violence. On the other hand, such laws aggravate the scarcity of housing options for sex offenders, forcing them out of metropolitan areas and farther away from the social support, employment opportunities and social services that are known to aid offenders in successful community re-entry. Sex offender residence restrictions. A Report to the Florida Legislature, October 2005, Jill S. Levinson, Ph.D.
15. Despite overwhelming public and political support, there is no evidence that proximity to schools increases recidivism, or, conversely, that housing restrictions reduce reoffending or increase community safety. Sex offender residence restrictions. A Report to the Florida Legislature, October 2005, Jill S. Levinson, Ph.D.
16. Based on the examination of level three re-offenders, there were no examples that residential proximity to a park or school was a contributing factor in any of the sexual re-offenses noted… Enhanced safety due to proximity restrictions may be a comfort factor for the general public, but it does not have any basis in fact…it appears that a sex offender attracted to such locations for purposes of committing a crime is more likely to travel to another neighborhood on order to in secret rather than in a neighborhood where his or her picture is well known. Level Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues, 2003 Report to the Legislature, Minnesota Department of Corrections
17. Having such restrictions in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul would likely force level three offenders to move to more rural areas that would not contain nearby schools and parks but would pose other problems, such as high concentration of offenders with no ties to the community; isolation; lack of work, education and treatment options; and an increase in the distance traveled by agents who supervise offenders. Again, no evidence points to any effect on offense rates of school proximity residential restrictions. Level Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues, 2003 Report to the Legislature, Minnesota Department of Corrections
18. Since blanket proximity restrictions on residential locations of level three offenders do not enhance community safety, the current offender-by-offender restrictions should be retained. Proximity restrictions, based on circumstances on an individual offender, serve as a valuable supervision tool…Most of these supervision proximity restrictions address the issue of the offender associating or interacting with children or minors, rather than where the offender resides. Level Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues, 2003 Report to the Legislature, Minnesota Department of Corrections
19. A significant number of offenders have married or have been reunited with their victims; and, in those cases, the residency restriction is imposed on the victims as well as the offenders. Iowa County Attorneys Association…
20. A tight web of supervision, treatment and surveillance may be more important in maintaining community safety than where a sex offender resides. Report on Safety Issues Raised by Living Arrangements for and Location of Sex Offenders in the Community; Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal justice, Sex Offender Management Board
Monday, May 12, 2008
Does Residential Proximity Matter? A Geographic Analysis of Sex Offense Recidivism
LINK
by Grant Duwe
Minnesota Department of Corrections, GDuwe{at}co.doc.state.mn.us
William Donnay
Minnesota Department of Corrections
Richard Tewksbury
University of Louisville
In an effort to reduce sex offense recidivism, local and state governments have recently passed legislation prohibiting sex offenders from living within a certain distance (500 to 2,500 feet) of child congregation locations such as schools, parks, and daycare centers. Examining the potential deterrent effects of a residency restrictions law in Minnesota, this study analyzed the offense patterns of every sex offender released from Minnesota correctional facilities between 1990 and 2002 who was reincarcerated for a new sex offense prior to 2006. Given that not one of the 224 sex offenses would have likely been prevented by residency restrictions, the findings from this study provide little support for the notion that such restrictions would significantly reduce sexual recidivism.
by Grant Duwe
Minnesota Department of Corrections, GDuwe{at}co.doc.state.mn.us
William Donnay
Minnesota Department of Corrections
Richard Tewksbury
University of Louisville
In an effort to reduce sex offense recidivism, local and state governments have recently passed legislation prohibiting sex offenders from living within a certain distance (500 to 2,500 feet) of child congregation locations such as schools, parks, and daycare centers. Examining the potential deterrent effects of a residency restrictions law in Minnesota, this study analyzed the offense patterns of every sex offender released from Minnesota correctional facilities between 1990 and 2002 who was reincarcerated for a new sex offense prior to 2006. Given that not one of the 224 sex offenses would have likely been prevented by residency restrictions, the findings from this study provide little support for the notion that such restrictions would significantly reduce sexual recidivism.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
80% of the worst of the worst will not reoffend
Sex offender recidivism rates below expectations: more than 80% of sex offenders who underwent treatment did not reoffend. (15-Year Prospective Study)
Author: Finn, Robert
More than 80% of sex offenders who have undergone treatment do not reoffend within 15 years, according to preliminary results of a 15-year prospective study of 626 individuals reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
The study did not examine the efficacy of various forms of treatment, but it did find that sexual offenders who were compliant with their treatment were less likely to reoffend than those who were noncompliant.
The results of the study were reported by Dr. Fred Berlin, who is director of the National Institute for the Study, Prevention, and Treatment of Sexual Trauma, Baltimore, and by Gerard J. McGlone. Ph.D., a clinical fellow at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
The results are "a far cry from what people often think is occurring, particularly with a group of patients who are this serious, people with multiple prior offenses, people with pedophilia," Dr. Berlin said. "The notion that most of these people would quickly be back into trouble was simply not true."
The preliminary 15-year data update the group's 5-year study of the same individuals (Am. J. Forensic Psychiatry 12[3]:5-28, 1991). That study found an overall 9.7% recidivism rate.
The estimated rate of additional recidivism for the following 10 years was 9.3%, for a total of 19% over 15 years.
Both studies followed 626 individuals treated at the Johns Hopkins sexual disorders clinic between 1978 and 1990. Of those, 406 were pedophiles, 111 were exhibitionists, and 109 were characterized as "sexually aggressive," with most diagnosed as "paraphilic disorder not otherwise specified" or antisocial personality disorder.
The patients underwent a variety of treatments at the clinic, including individual, group, and family therapy. Approximately 40% of the patients received an-tiandrogenic drugs in an effort to lessen their sex drive.
Investigators examined three local and national databases for evidence of recidivism in the 5-year study.
Anyone who was charged with a sexual crime was included; conviction was not necessary.
For the 15-year follow-up, investigators have so far examined only Maryland state databases and have not yet examined national databases.
The 5-year study showed that 7.4% of pedophiles, 4.6% of sexual aggressives, and 23.4% of exhibitionists reoffended sexually. The 15-year study added an additional 8.6% of pedophiles (total 16%), 10% of sexual aggressives (total 14.6%), and 10.8% of exhibitionists, (total 34.2%), the investigators said.
For the 15-year study, investigators have not yet reported recidivism rates for compliant vs. noncompliant patients. These data were reported at the 5-year follow-up.
For pedophiles, 2.9% of the treatment compliant and 11.1% of the noncompliant reoffended sexually. For sexual aggressives, 2.8% of the compliant and 8.1% of the noncompliant reoffended sexually
And for exhibitionists, 12.5% of the compliant and 32.6% of the noncompliant reoffended sexually
On the issue of exhibitionists, Dr. Berlin observed, "Even with treatment, this is a very driven, compulsive disorder. The good news, though, is that in almost every instance where there was recidivism, it was a non-hands-on offense.
"These people were not recidivating by doing other things. With very few exceptions they were exposing. ... The more dangerous patients, the ones who had been sexually aggressive or who were pedophiles, had the lowest recidivism rates.
Nonsexual recidivism rates were considerably higher in all groups. At the 5-year follow-up, 9.2% of compliant pedophiles and 26.2% of noncompliant pedophiles were charged with a nonsexual offense such as burglary. Among sexual aggressives, the rates were 14% of compliant patients and 29.7% of non-compliant patients. And among exhibitionists the rates were 10.4% of compliant patients and 4 1.9% of non compliant patients.
The study's results have important public policy implications, Dr. Berlin said.
Over the years, for example, legislatures in all 50 states and the District of Columbia have passed numerous laws involving the civil commitment, registration, and community notification of sexual offenders.
In addition, a federal law that took effect recently requires the states to notify the public about sexual offenders who are enrolled or working at college campuses.
The idea behind these registries and public notifications is the notion that sexual offenders are difficult to rehabilitate and have a particularly high rate of recidivism. (See related story page 5.)
But the data show that sexual offenders actually have a lower rate of recidivism that those who commit other kinds of crimes.
And some experts speculate that these new laws just might have the unintended consequence of actually increasing the risk of recidivism.
"We think that many of the people who seem to be doing well in our treatment program have done well because they could get jobs," Dr. Berlin said. "They could fit into their community.
"We now have these registries. Are [sexual offenders] who have been punished and released going to be able to get housing? Are they going to be able to get work? Are we inadvertently actually going to make it more difficult for some of these people?"
Author: Finn, Robert
More than 80% of sex offenders who have undergone treatment do not reoffend within 15 years, according to preliminary results of a 15-year prospective study of 626 individuals reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
The study did not examine the efficacy of various forms of treatment, but it did find that sexual offenders who were compliant with their treatment were less likely to reoffend than those who were noncompliant.
The results of the study were reported by Dr. Fred Berlin, who is director of the National Institute for the Study, Prevention, and Treatment of Sexual Trauma, Baltimore, and by Gerard J. McGlone. Ph.D., a clinical fellow at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
The results are "a far cry from what people often think is occurring, particularly with a group of patients who are this serious, people with multiple prior offenses, people with pedophilia," Dr. Berlin said. "The notion that most of these people would quickly be back into trouble was simply not true."
The preliminary 15-year data update the group's 5-year study of the same individuals (Am. J. Forensic Psychiatry 12[3]:5-28, 1991). That study found an overall 9.7% recidivism rate.
The estimated rate of additional recidivism for the following 10 years was 9.3%, for a total of 19% over 15 years.
Both studies followed 626 individuals treated at the Johns Hopkins sexual disorders clinic between 1978 and 1990. Of those, 406 were pedophiles, 111 were exhibitionists, and 109 were characterized as "sexually aggressive," with most diagnosed as "paraphilic disorder not otherwise specified" or antisocial personality disorder.
The patients underwent a variety of treatments at the clinic, including individual, group, and family therapy. Approximately 40% of the patients received an-tiandrogenic drugs in an effort to lessen their sex drive.
Investigators examined three local and national databases for evidence of recidivism in the 5-year study.
Anyone who was charged with a sexual crime was included; conviction was not necessary.
For the 15-year follow-up, investigators have so far examined only Maryland state databases and have not yet examined national databases.
The 5-year study showed that 7.4% of pedophiles, 4.6% of sexual aggressives, and 23.4% of exhibitionists reoffended sexually. The 15-year study added an additional 8.6% of pedophiles (total 16%), 10% of sexual aggressives (total 14.6%), and 10.8% of exhibitionists, (total 34.2%), the investigators said.
For the 15-year study, investigators have not yet reported recidivism rates for compliant vs. noncompliant patients. These data were reported at the 5-year follow-up.
For pedophiles, 2.9% of the treatment compliant and 11.1% of the noncompliant reoffended sexually. For sexual aggressives, 2.8% of the compliant and 8.1% of the noncompliant reoffended sexually
And for exhibitionists, 12.5% of the compliant and 32.6% of the noncompliant reoffended sexually
On the issue of exhibitionists, Dr. Berlin observed, "Even with treatment, this is a very driven, compulsive disorder. The good news, though, is that in almost every instance where there was recidivism, it was a non-hands-on offense.
"These people were not recidivating by doing other things. With very few exceptions they were exposing. ... The more dangerous patients, the ones who had been sexually aggressive or who were pedophiles, had the lowest recidivism rates.
Nonsexual recidivism rates were considerably higher in all groups. At the 5-year follow-up, 9.2% of compliant pedophiles and 26.2% of noncompliant pedophiles were charged with a nonsexual offense such as burglary. Among sexual aggressives, the rates were 14% of compliant patients and 29.7% of non-compliant patients. And among exhibitionists the rates were 10.4% of compliant patients and 4 1.9% of non compliant patients.
The study's results have important public policy implications, Dr. Berlin said.
Over the years, for example, legislatures in all 50 states and the District of Columbia have passed numerous laws involving the civil commitment, registration, and community notification of sexual offenders.
In addition, a federal law that took effect recently requires the states to notify the public about sexual offenders who are enrolled or working at college campuses.
The idea behind these registries and public notifications is the notion that sexual offenders are difficult to rehabilitate and have a particularly high rate of recidivism. (See related story page 5.)
But the data show that sexual offenders actually have a lower rate of recidivism that those who commit other kinds of crimes.
And some experts speculate that these new laws just might have the unintended consequence of actually increasing the risk of recidivism.
"We think that many of the people who seem to be doing well in our treatment program have done well because they could get jobs," Dr. Berlin said. "They could fit into their community.
"We now have these registries. Are [sexual offenders] who have been punished and released going to be able to get housing? Are they going to be able to get work? Are we inadvertently actually going to make it more difficult for some of these people?"
Thursday, April 3, 2008
The Safe Return of Offenders to the Community Statistical Overview April 2005
The Safe Return of Offenders to the Community Statistical Overview April 2005 (Canada) (HTML) (PDF)
As a proportion of all crimes reported in the 2003 Uniform Crime Reporting survey, released federal offenders re-admitted with a new conviction were therefore responsible for just over 1 of every 1,000 federal statute offences reported to police in 2003, including:
* 1.3 of every 1,000 violent offences;
* 0.6 of every 1,000 sexual offences;
* 1.0 of every 1,000 drug offences;
* 0.9 of every 1,000 property or other federal statute offences.
As a proportion of all convictions, released federal offenders re-admitted with a new conviction were responsible for about one percent of criminal convictions in Canada.
B1a. Homicide Offences
* Homicides account for less than 1% of all violent crime in Canada and have decreased significantly since 1991 - there were 754 homicides in 1991 versus 548 in 2003.6
Homicide in Canadian and American Cities
Despite having incarceration rates that are 5 to 6 times higher, American cities are much more dangerous than comparable Canadian cities. Seven U.S. and Canadian cities were selected to compare homicide and violent crime rates. Cities were matched for general similarity in size and/or geographical location.
* In all cases, the homicide rates of the American cities are all higher than their Canadian neighbors, and this would generally be true for any sample of larger American versus Canadian cities.
* Between the matched pairs in the study, the difference in homicide rates is usually quite large (e.g., between Chicago - 20.6 per 100,000 - and Toronto - 1.8 per 100,000).
Homicide rates (per 100,000),2003.......Population......Rate
Vancouver...............................................2,126,111.......2.1
Seattle....................................................576,296.........5.9
Calgary..................................................1,023,666.......1.1
Denver...................................................565,905.........11.1
Winnipeg................................................688,746.........2.6
Minneapolis............................................378,602.........12.1
Toronto..................................................5,118,992.......1.8
Chicago..................................................2,898,374.......20.6
Ottawa-Carleton......................................866,621.........1.1
Whashington DC......................................563,384.........44.0
Montreal..................................................3,586,221.......1.6
Philidelphia..............................................1,495,903.......23.3
Halifax.....................................................377,932.........0.8
Norfolk.....................................................242,077.........16.5
Canada....................................................31,629,677......1.7
United States............................................290,809,777.....5.7
Source: Uniform Crime Reporting Survey, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada. Uniform Crime Reports, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Note: Crime data are based on reports for municipal police forces, not the wider Census Metropolitan Area populations. (p
As a proportion of all crimes reported in the 2003 Uniform Crime Reporting survey, released federal offenders re-admitted with a new conviction were therefore responsible for just over 1 of every 1,000 federal statute offences reported to police in 2003, including:
* 1.3 of every 1,000 violent offences;
* 0.6 of every 1,000 sexual offences;
* 1.0 of every 1,000 drug offences;
* 0.9 of every 1,000 property or other federal statute offences.
As a proportion of all convictions, released federal offenders re-admitted with a new conviction were responsible for about one percent of criminal convictions in Canada.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Should Sex Offenders Have Civil Rights?
An in-depth NPR audio report, about 50 minutes long, is available here.
Overview
New laws give government significant powers to track and penalize defendants convicted of sex crimes, even after they have served their time. In some states, offenders can be committed to mental hospitals after they are released from jail if the state believes they are likely to commit further crimes. Other laws require offenders to register with local police or publicize where ex-offenders live, presumably to safeguard young children who live nearby. Join us on this edition of Justice Talking as we talk about the rights of those convicted of sex crimes.
Interview with John LaFond
Host Margot Adler talks with lawyer John LaFond about how the justice system and individual communities have dealt with sex offenders throughout history.
John LaFond is a lawyer, researcher and scholar in mental health law and criminal law. He is co-author of Back to the Asylum: The Future of Mental Health Law and Policy in the United States, and co-author of Criminal Law: Examples and Explanations. He is also co-editor of the forthcoming Sexually Violent Offenders: Law, Science and Policy.
Report from Florida
Reporter Judith Smelser reports on the unintended consequences of sex offender registries - how they can hurt the families and friends of people who have been convicted of such crimes - with the story of the Pratt family in Rocklitch, Florida.
Debate on the Issue
Law professor Bruce Winick debates professor Ernie Allen on the effectiveness of current laws affecting sex offenders and what should be done to prevent future abuse.
Bruce J. Winick is Professor of Law and Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, FL. Winick has authored numerous books, the latest of which are Civil Commitment: A Therapeutic Jurisprudence Model, Judging in a Therapeutic Key: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Courts and Protecting Society from Sexually Dangerous Offenders: Law, Justice, and Therapy.
Ernie Allen is President and Chief Executive Officer (and co-founder) of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children - www.missingkids.com. . The Center's CyberTipline, called “the 911 for the Internet,” has handled 300,000 reports of child pornography and sexual exploitation, resulting in the arrest and prosecution of hundreds of adult predators.
During the debate, Mary Catherine Roper, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Philadelphia, speaks about a current case where a newborn baby was taken from his mother because his father, who doesn't live with them, was convicted of a sex offense 23 years ago.
Also joining the debate, Staci Haines, founder and executive director of Generation Five, an organization dedicated to ending child sexual abuse within five generations, speaks about how her approach differs from that of the criminal justice system. Staci has been organizing and educating in the area of child sexual abuse since 1985. She is the author of The Survivor's Guide to Sex, a how-to book offering a somatic approach to recovery from sexual trauma and to developing healthy sexual and intimate relationships.
Finally, Kellie Greene, founder and director of Speaking Out About Rape, Inc. (SOAR) and a rape survivor, talks from a victim's rights point of view about how society should deal with sex offenders. She was a co-author of the Florida Sexual Predator Prosecution Act of 2000.
Interview with Steve Bogira
Stepping back for a broader look at how criminal justice is administered in one of the nation's busiest precincts, host Margot Adler speaks with author Steve Bogira about his new book.
Steve Bogira graduated from Northwestern University and has been a prizewinning writer for the Chicago Reader since 1981. He is a former Alicia Patterson Fellow. His most recent book is Courtroom 302, which tells the story of one year in Chicago's Cook County Criminal Courthouse, the busiest felony courthouse in the country.
Overview
New laws give government significant powers to track and penalize defendants convicted of sex crimes, even after they have served their time. In some states, offenders can be committed to mental hospitals after they are released from jail if the state believes they are likely to commit further crimes. Other laws require offenders to register with local police or publicize where ex-offenders live, presumably to safeguard young children who live nearby. Join us on this edition of Justice Talking as we talk about the rights of those convicted of sex crimes.
Interview with John LaFond
Host Margot Adler talks with lawyer John LaFond about how the justice system and individual communities have dealt with sex offenders throughout history.
John LaFond is a lawyer, researcher and scholar in mental health law and criminal law. He is co-author of Back to the Asylum: The Future of Mental Health Law and Policy in the United States, and co-author of Criminal Law: Examples and Explanations. He is also co-editor of the forthcoming Sexually Violent Offenders: Law, Science and Policy.
Report from Florida
Reporter Judith Smelser reports on the unintended consequences of sex offender registries - how they can hurt the families and friends of people who have been convicted of such crimes - with the story of the Pratt family in Rocklitch, Florida.
Debate on the Issue
Law professor Bruce Winick debates professor Ernie Allen on the effectiveness of current laws affecting sex offenders and what should be done to prevent future abuse.
Bruce J. Winick is Professor of Law and Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, FL. Winick has authored numerous books, the latest of which are Civil Commitment: A Therapeutic Jurisprudence Model, Judging in a Therapeutic Key: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Courts and Protecting Society from Sexually Dangerous Offenders: Law, Justice, and Therapy.
Ernie Allen is President and Chief Executive Officer (and co-founder) of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children - www.missingkids.com. . The Center's CyberTipline, called “the 911 for the Internet,” has handled 300,000 reports of child pornography and sexual exploitation, resulting in the arrest and prosecution of hundreds of adult predators.
During the debate, Mary Catherine Roper, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Philadelphia, speaks about a current case where a newborn baby was taken from his mother because his father, who doesn't live with them, was convicted of a sex offense 23 years ago.
Also joining the debate, Staci Haines, founder and executive director of Generation Five, an organization dedicated to ending child sexual abuse within five generations, speaks about how her approach differs from that of the criminal justice system. Staci has been organizing and educating in the area of child sexual abuse since 1985. She is the author of The Survivor's Guide to Sex, a how-to book offering a somatic approach to recovery from sexual trauma and to developing healthy sexual and intimate relationships.
Finally, Kellie Greene, founder and director of Speaking Out About Rape, Inc. (SOAR) and a rape survivor, talks from a victim's rights point of view about how society should deal with sex offenders. She was a co-author of the Florida Sexual Predator Prosecution Act of 2000.
Interview with Steve Bogira
Stepping back for a broader look at how criminal justice is administered in one of the nation's busiest precincts, host Margot Adler speaks with author Steve Bogira about his new book.
Steve Bogira graduated from Northwestern University and has been a prizewinning writer for the Chicago Reader since 1981. He is a former Alicia Patterson Fellow. His most recent book is Courtroom 302, which tells the story of one year in Chicago's Cook County Criminal Courthouse, the busiest felony courthouse in the country.
Monday, March 24, 2008
California Study
AN ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OF ADULT SEX OFFENDERS IN CALIFORNIA - INITIAL REPORT - JANUARY 2008 (link)
KEY CITES:
Section 3: SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM
KEY CITES:
Section 3: SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM
Data at a Glance
• 3.55% of sex offenders on parole with CDCR had committed new sex offenses by the time the conclusion of their three-year parole period.
• A ten-year follow-up study of 879 sex offenders in the state of Ohio reported that when using sex offense conviction as the outcome measurement, of 34 % of sex offenders who have re-offended, only 8 % were re-committed for a new sex crime, plus 3 % for a technical violation judged to be related to a potential new sex crime, while the other 22% reoffended for non-sexual offenses. (p 9)
• The impact on victims of sex crimes from community notification efforts (passive and active) is unknown. To develop recommendations for ways in which the needs of sex crimes victims can be balanced with the public’s right to know about dangerous offenders in their communities, a study of sex crime victims is necessary. (p 20)
The most recent California comprehensive review of the literature regarding the impact of residency restrictions on sex offenders and correctional management practices was published in August, 2006 (Nieto and Jung, 2006). Marcus Nieto, Senior Research Specialist for the California Research Bureau and Professor David Jung of Hastings Law School reviewed the above literature and concluded that little evidence supports the rationale that residency restrictions reduce the likelihood of reoffending by sex offenders.
The researchers criticized the Arkansas study as lacking researched-based evidence to support their conclusion. Nieto and Jung concluded that the Arkansas study merely speculated as to the intentions of the sex offender’s choice to live near where children congregated, and the study did not actually track recidivism.
SUMMARY
What is certain is that the public does not want a sex offender living near where their children congregate. What is also certain is that sex offenders are less likely to reoffend if they are successfully reintegrated into our community. Residency restrictions appear to severely limit the housing options for and support for reintegration of sex offenders. The number of sex offenders who have declared themselves as transient or have absconded has increased dramatically since the implementation of Jessica’s Law. Whether residency restrictions increase community safety is uncertain. (p 132)
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Sex Offenders Who Live Among Us
Sex Offenders Who Live Among Us In Northeast Florida (link)
An Abstract
Executive Summary
Data for this study were complied from the files of 230 northeast Florida sex offenders. Of the total cohort of 230 offenders, all were sentenced and/or referred for participation in a sex offender treatment program. 115 sex offenders graduated from the treatment program; 115 did not graduate.
The offenders who did not graduate were either transferred out of this program, were terminated from the program, returned to incarceration after a probation violation, completed probation, or are currently missing or deceased.
The data presented here seek only to abstract some of the salient characteristics of area sex offenders. This abstract does not intend to draw or establish conclusions regarding the past, current or future behaviors (the likelihood of repeat offenses) for the 230 offenders represented.
In summary, the sex offenders who live among us can be characterized as follows:
Offender use of drug and/or alcohol
Offenders current status
Offenders relationship to their victim
Non-graduates with victims nine years of age or younger
An Abstract
Executive Summary
Data for this study were complied from the files of 230 northeast Florida sex offenders. Of the total cohort of 230 offenders, all were sentenced and/or referred for participation in a sex offender treatment program. 115 sex offenders graduated from the treatment program; 115 did not graduate.
The offenders who did not graduate were either transferred out of this program, were terminated from the program, returned to incarceration after a probation violation, completed probation, or are currently missing or deceased.
The data presented here seek only to abstract some of the salient characteristics of area sex offenders. This abstract does not intend to draw or establish conclusions regarding the past, current or future behaviors (the likelihood of repeat offenses) for the 230 offenders represented.
In summary, the sex offenders who live among us can be characterized as follows:
Offender use of drug and/or alcohol
Graduates 66% - Have major drug and/or alcohol use
Non-graduates 74% - Have major drug and/or alcohol use
Offenders current status
Graduates 4 out of 115 are currently incarcerated
Non-graduates 43 out of 115 are currently incarcerated
Offenders relationship to their victim
Out of 230 individuals only 10 were strangers to their victims
Non-graduates with victims nine years of age or younger
100% were known to offender either by a family member or friend
100% have either major drug or alcohol use or both.
97% did not graduate high school
87% have been married and/or have children
67% are currently incarcerated
60% reported to being sexual abused as juveniles
40% have major mental health issues
FAILURE TO PROTECT
America's Sexual Predator Laws and the Rise of the Preventive State (link)
Eric S. Janus
Most crimes of sexual violence are committed by people known to the victim—acquaintances and family members. Yet politicians and the media overemphasize predatory strangers when legislating against and reporting on sexual violence. In this book, Eric S. Janus goes far beyond sensational headlines to expose the reality of the laws designed to prevent sexual crimes. He shows that “sexual predator” laws, which have intense public and political support, are counterproductive. Janus contends that aggressive measures such as civil commitment and Megan's law, which are designed to restrain sex offenders before they can commit another crime, are bad policy and do little to actually reduce sexual violence. Further, these new laws make use of approaches such as preventive detention and actuarial profiling that violate important principles of liberty.
Janus argues that to prevent sexual violence, policymakers must address the deep-seated societal problems that allow it to flourish. In addition to criminal sanctions, he endorses the specific efforts of some advocates, organizations, and social scientists to stop sexual violence by, for example, taking steps to change the attitudes and behaviors of school-age children and adolescents, improving public education, and promoting community treatment and supervision of previous offenders.
Janus also warns that the principles underlying the predator laws may be the early harbingers of a “preventive state” in which the government casts wide nets of surveillance and intervenes to curtail liberty before crimes of any type occur. More than a critique of the status quo, this book discusses serious alternatives and how best to overcome the political obstacles to achieving rational policy.
Reviews
"Janus makes a persuasive case that by throwing vast resources at a few offenders while hiding the true scope of sexual violence, sexual predator laws do more harm than good. Not only is the public not much safer than it was before civil commitment became widespread, he writes, but we've unleashed a political monster."—Minneapolis/St. Paul City Pages
"Nowhere in Failure to Protect does the author minimize the damage done by criminals . . . . The problem, Janus says, is that extreme offenders have been incorrectly cast as the archetypal sex criminal. The result has been laws that reflect and reinforce a distorted view of sexual violence, remove resources from more effective policies, and are the signs of a constitutionally questionable 'preventive state.' Janus argues that sexual predator laws reflect a conservative backlash against hard lessons learned from the feminist movement about the systematic nature of sexual violence in society. and the fact that most sexual offenses are committed by a member of the victim's family or social circle. He identifies misconceptions about recidivism and questions 'actuarial' approaches that assign a static risk rating to an individual and ignore changes from treatment, aging, or altered circumstances."—Chronicle of Higher Education
"Eric S. Janus explores sexual predator laws from three perspectives: public safety, civil liberties, and effective government. He moves beyond the quick and easy arguments used both to defend and attack these laws, seeking policy solutions that can reduce sexual violence without scarring our constitutional values."—Roxanne Lieb, Director, Washington State Institute for Public Policy
"Failure to Protect is a vitally important book that demonstrates how we have drastically undermined the protections of our Constitution by creating a class of citizens for whom these protections no longer apply. The book raises this question: if one class of citizens can be excluded from the Bill of Rights, what other classes can also be excluded later on? This book should be essential reading for lawyers, law students, and those who care about preserving our liberties."—Charles Reich, Yale Law School, author of The Greening of America
About the Author
Eric S. Janus is Vice Dean and Professor of Law at William Mitchell College of Law. He is the author of Law and Mental Health Professionals and Civil Commitment in Minnesota.
Eric S. Janus
Most crimes of sexual violence are committed by people known to the victim—acquaintances and family members. Yet politicians and the media overemphasize predatory strangers when legislating against and reporting on sexual violence. In this book, Eric S. Janus goes far beyond sensational headlines to expose the reality of the laws designed to prevent sexual crimes. He shows that “sexual predator” laws, which have intense public and political support, are counterproductive. Janus contends that aggressive measures such as civil commitment and Megan's law, which are designed to restrain sex offenders before they can commit another crime, are bad policy and do little to actually reduce sexual violence. Further, these new laws make use of approaches such as preventive detention and actuarial profiling that violate important principles of liberty.
Janus argues that to prevent sexual violence, policymakers must address the deep-seated societal problems that allow it to flourish. In addition to criminal sanctions, he endorses the specific efforts of some advocates, organizations, and social scientists to stop sexual violence by, for example, taking steps to change the attitudes and behaviors of school-age children and adolescents, improving public education, and promoting community treatment and supervision of previous offenders.
Janus also warns that the principles underlying the predator laws may be the early harbingers of a “preventive state” in which the government casts wide nets of surveillance and intervenes to curtail liberty before crimes of any type occur. More than a critique of the status quo, this book discusses serious alternatives and how best to overcome the political obstacles to achieving rational policy.
Reviews
"Janus makes a persuasive case that by throwing vast resources at a few offenders while hiding the true scope of sexual violence, sexual predator laws do more harm than good. Not only is the public not much safer than it was before civil commitment became widespread, he writes, but we've unleashed a political monster."—Minneapolis/St. Paul City Pages
"Nowhere in Failure to Protect does the author minimize the damage done by criminals . . . . The problem, Janus says, is that extreme offenders have been incorrectly cast as the archetypal sex criminal. The result has been laws that reflect and reinforce a distorted view of sexual violence, remove resources from more effective policies, and are the signs of a constitutionally questionable 'preventive state.' Janus argues that sexual predator laws reflect a conservative backlash against hard lessons learned from the feminist movement about the systematic nature of sexual violence in society. and the fact that most sexual offenses are committed by a member of the victim's family or social circle. He identifies misconceptions about recidivism and questions 'actuarial' approaches that assign a static risk rating to an individual and ignore changes from treatment, aging, or altered circumstances."—Chronicle of Higher Education
"Eric S. Janus explores sexual predator laws from three perspectives: public safety, civil liberties, and effective government. He moves beyond the quick and easy arguments used both to defend and attack these laws, seeking policy solutions that can reduce sexual violence without scarring our constitutional values."—Roxanne Lieb, Director, Washington State Institute for Public Policy
"Failure to Protect is a vitally important book that demonstrates how we have drastically undermined the protections of our Constitution by creating a class of citizens for whom these protections no longer apply. The book raises this question: if one class of citizens can be excluded from the Bill of Rights, what other classes can also be excluded later on? This book should be essential reading for lawyers, law students, and those who care about preserving our liberties."—Charles Reich, Yale Law School, author of The Greening of America
About the Author
Eric S. Janus is Vice Dean and Professor of Law at William Mitchell College of Law. He is the author of Law and Mental Health Professionals and Civil Commitment in Minnesota.
Friday, March 14, 2008
California Coalition on Sexual Offending
Core Purpose:
Stop Sexual Abuse by supporting, educating and training professionals and the community.
Vision:
CCOSO is a recognized leader in providing expertise, training, education, and legislative guidance in treatment, management and research related to sexual offending. CCOSO and its chapters strengthen local and statewide agencies and professionals to enhance community safety.
Mission:
* Increase awareness by educating and training the community and professional organizations whose purpose is to manage and treat sex offenders
* Provide and promote a network of professionals in the field of sex offending
* Provide feedback and recommendations regarding legislation and public policy
* Provide information regarding management and treatment of sex offenders to all interested parties
* Develop and promote standards of care and best practices related to sexual offending
* Promote research in offender and victim treatment and community management practices
* Inform and influence media presentations on issues of sexual abuse
* Mentor and encourage potential professionals to enter the field
LIBRARY
Welcome to the CCOSO Library. For articles on a given topic, click on the links below and you'll be taken to that section. You can easily return to this page from any section. You can also use the search below to search the library database for articles on a topic of interest to you.
1. Child Pornography
2. Community Management and Treatment - Adolescent
3. Community Management and Treatment - Adult
4. Community Reintegration
5. General Information
6. Internet Crimes
7. Laws and Legal Issues
8. Polygraph
9. Recidivism
10. Residency Restrictions
11. Sex Offender Registration
The California Coalition on Sexual Offending (CCOSO) POSITION PAPERS.
CCOSO’s HOMEPAGE.
Stop Sexual Abuse by supporting, educating and training professionals and the community.
Vision:
CCOSO is a recognized leader in providing expertise, training, education, and legislative guidance in treatment, management and research related to sexual offending. CCOSO and its chapters strengthen local and statewide agencies and professionals to enhance community safety.
Mission:
* Increase awareness by educating and training the community and professional organizations whose purpose is to manage and treat sex offenders
* Provide and promote a network of professionals in the field of sex offending
* Provide feedback and recommendations regarding legislation and public policy
* Provide information regarding management and treatment of sex offenders to all interested parties
* Develop and promote standards of care and best practices related to sexual offending
* Promote research in offender and victim treatment and community management practices
* Inform and influence media presentations on issues of sexual abuse
* Mentor and encourage potential professionals to enter the field
LIBRARY
Welcome to the CCOSO Library. For articles on a given topic, click on the links below and you'll be taken to that section. You can easily return to this page from any section. You can also use the search below to search the library database for articles on a topic of interest to you.
1. Child Pornography
2. Community Management and Treatment - Adolescent
3. Community Management and Treatment - Adult
4. Community Reintegration
5. General Information
6. Internet Crimes
7. Laws and Legal Issues
8. Polygraph
9. Recidivism
10. Residency Restrictions
11. Sex Offender Registration
The California Coalition on Sexual Offending (CCOSO) POSITION PAPERS.
CCOSO’s HOMEPAGE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)