One of the interesting things about the politicization of the national crackdown on sex offenders is that the battle has, for the most part, remained a state and local endeavor. In previous and current criminal "wars," like the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, there is a strong trend towards federal involvement as the politicization of the issue increases. However, I think there are a few factors that are preventing that trend from happening in the sex offender context. First, one-size-fits-all type laws adopted at the federal level seem like poor choices for the punishment du jour for sex offenders: work and residency restrictions. Applying a law like Iowa's 2000 foot limit has a very different effect in states with dissimilar urban/rural population distribution. I think this is something we will see as Proposition 83 goes into effect in California. Second, the problem of sex offender recidivism presents very different issues for different localities. For example, see this post about the situation in Alaska, a state which currently has the highest rate of sexual assaults in the country. While we are seeing a difference in local concerns in the drug war (i.e., the meth epidemic in the Midwest), the federalization long preceded the need for tailored approaches. Third, deterring and/or rehabilitating sex offenders is often seen as an intractable problem. There are no easy or obvious answers. As a result, I think federal government intervention is often token and politically expedient, usually in the form of higher sentences for crimes that are rarely prosecuted at the federal level. Perhaps, if and when, certain criminal justice policies show better results, the federal government will take a more active role.
Most sex offenders have families, friends, relatives, and children. Some are required to register for much lesser crimes of flashing, prostitution, incest, and a host of other offences.
Contrary to the media’s torch, grouping all registered sex offenders as dangerous. Even the DOJ in a report states American politicians have lied.
This you can find on the Department Of Justice website,
November 2003, NCJ 198281. http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/rsorp94.txt
Only 3.5% of new sex offences are committed by offender on the sex offender's registry. The remaining 96.5% are committed by unregistered citizens.
See how 3 year old children have been placed on the registry and how citizens are held indefinitely after teir sentence has been served.
See it now on You Tube at
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=evil9999999999999999
Posted by: Keith Richard Radford Jr. | November 08, 2006 at 05:22 PM
Sex offender recidivism needs to by de-sensationalized. 3.3% of those released for abuse of a minor will commit another sex crime, and 5.3% of all sex offenders released will commit another sex crime. If you listen to the media, you’d think that 100% of sex offenders will re-offend. The reality is that ONLY murderers are less likely to commit another crime.
Work and residency restrictions are also hysteria driven, and only address crimes committed by strangers. Essentially these laws might potentially prevent 0.53% of those affected from committing another crime. 90% of sex crimes are committed by someone known to the victim- friends, family, relatives. To get a real sense of the problem of these approaches, consider the following:
It is estimated that there are 566,000 Americans listed on sex offender registries. Using the Department of Justice statistics, you could assume that 5.3% of these (29,998) will re-offend. Only 10% of those statistically likely to re-offend will commit a crime against a stranger. That is just under 3,000 of the 566,000 total. So, sex offender registries and work and residency restrictions MIGHT help prevent 0.53% of those offenders from committing another crime, at the expense of the other 99.47% (563,000 people) who are ostracized, suffer vigilante attacks, neighborhood shunning, are ejected from their homes, prevented from picking up their children at school, or playing with them in the park, and other negative repercussions.
Another media myth is as you mention, that “deterring and/or rehabilitating sex offenders is…an intractable problem.” Again this is simply untrue. Reports over several years from the Colorado Department of Corrections found that, with 50 or more sex-offender treatment sessions, recidivism could be reduced to 0-3%. How can a re-offense rate of 0-3% be considered, an “intractable problem?” The only intractable problem we have is that of a bunch of politicians jumping on the true horror of a few widely publicized cases, and riding it into office where they pass uninformed legislation sentencing all offenders based on the actions of the worst.
I’m afraid I don’t believe your assessment that the Federal Government is simply waiting for criminal justice policies to show better results. If the multi-year CDC study of sex-offender specific treatment is not a “better result,” I don’t know what is, and that result has been published for ten years! The reality is, no one will stand up for reason in the punishment of sex offenders as long as the media continues sensationalizing and hyping the sad, but unusual, cases of nationally publicized cases.
Posted by: Aeryk | November 08, 2006 at 08:48 PM
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION Against Prop 83 Issued, but many questions left unanswered about the poorly designed law!
11-8-2006 California: Sex offender Proposition 83 blocked in court
.SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge on Wednesday blocked enforcement of Proposition 83, the ballot measure passed overwhelmingly by voters a day earlier that's meant to crack down on sex offenders, including limiting where they may live. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, ruling on a lawsuit filed here early Wednesday, said the measure "is punitive by design and effect" and likely unconstitutional. [SNIP]
The scope of the initiative's impact largely hinged on whether it would apply retroactively to the state's roughly 90,000 registered sex offenders. Supporters and critics had expected the expanded residency requirements to be challenged in court. Judge Illston issued what is known as a temporary restraining order against Proposition 83.
She said the unidentified sex offender who brought the case was likely to prevail and ordered a Nov. 27 hearing. John Doe, as the plaintiff was named in court documents, argued that the measure could only apply to sex offenders registered after the law was passed. Another unknown is what to do with registered sex offenders who violate the law. The measure does not add any crimes to the state's criminal statutes.
"There are a million questions left open," said Dennis Riordan, the lawyer who filed the lawsuit. ..more.. : by DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press
http://www.geocities.com/voicism/index.html
Posted by: eAdvocate | November 08, 2006 at 09:46 PM
While I agree that the DOJ study shows a level of recidivism far lower than is commonly assumed, it is also important to note the limitations on the study. First, sex offender recidivism was only studied within a small time frame (3 years). Second, the study still concludes a much higher recidivism rate for sex offenders than non-sex offenders. From the study:
"Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released
sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex
crime." While the media often uses much higher numbers, I believe both comments citing the DOJ study are misrepresenting the actual findings because of the limitations on the study.
Posted by: Corey Rayburn Yung | November 09, 2006 at 09:56 AM
Well, until a longer time frame study comes out, we have to go with the numbers we have. I actually believe that those recidivism numbers will decrease as we begin to see the results from more recent studies (are there any in progress?). Also, I think it is becoming more and more important to distinguish between recidivism rates for offenders who go through a post-offense treatment program and those who don't.
The reason the myth of the "incurable sex offender" got started is because the treatment of sex offenders is a developing field. In the 80's and 90's, the typical treatment methodolgy didn't work for sex offenders, hence they were declared incurable. The recidivism rates may have been higher during that era do to the failure of the treatment programs, though I haven't seen any statistics. As we learn more about the motivation, pattern, and offense cycle of sex offenders, the treatment success rate goes up.
We have many diseases now that were once considered incurable. But as cures are found, we don't continue to say the disease is incurable, even if we can't cure every single case.
The Colorado Department of Corrections has (again, a three year study) shown recidivism rates of 0-3% with 40-50 sex offender specific treatment sessions. That doesn't sound incurable to me.
Your point about the length of these studies is well taken, but until the results of longer term studies are published, we can't simply discount the ones we do have because we don't like the results, or because we don't think the study was long enough. What we have today is two highly objective studies from the U.S. Department of Justice and the Colorado Department of Corrections, two entities one would not expect to be particularly sympathetic to sex offenders, which show recidivism rates in the 0% to 5.3% range.
Posted by: Aeryk | November 10, 2006 at 01:19 AM
Let me address the comments as to the 2003 Dep't of Justice study on sex offender recidivism.
First, this is the most extensive study on sex offenders (SO) with the target audiance being 9,691 sex offenders -AND- 262,420 non sex offenders (NSO) released from prison and followed for 3-years.
The comment that SO are 4 more likely to be arrested for a new sex offense than NSO released is very misleading.
A picture is worth a thousand words, see this chart of that study:
http://www.geocities.com/voicism/index-charts.html#chtc
What that shows is that NSOs committed 6 sex offenses for every 1 by a SO released in the same time period: 3-years.
Which group is more dangeous to the community?
I see I will have to use several posts to address all the issues.
Posted by: eAdvocate | November 10, 2006 at 12:21 PM
A little but important unknown fact about the 2003 Dep't of Justicce study on sex offender recidivism.
The 9,691 sex offenders (2/3 rds of all sex offenders released nationwide that year) were released from State prisons in these 15 States: Arizona, Maryland, North Carolina, California, Michigan, Ohio, Delaware, Minnesota, Oregon, Florida, New Jersey, Texas, Illinois, New York, and Virginia.
Three (3) of the 15 states DID NOT have an in-prison sex offender therapy program. They were Florida, California and Oregon.
See "State Sex Offender Treatment Programs: 50 State Survey," Prepared by Paula Wenger, Consultant for the Colorado Department of Corrections (495pg PDF) found here:
http://www.doc.state.co.us/admin_reg/PDFs/SO-report-send2.pdf
The three states without therapy: 4,768 offenders.
The twelve states with therapy: 4,923 offenders.
Roughly 50% likely had therapy, I say likely because it is also likely some refused to take therapy since at that time it was not mandatory.
Therefore, that study is the best cross-sectional view of all kinds of sex offenders because none were excluded as is the case in so many studies, and roughly 50% had sex offender therapy.
The study showed 5.3% were REARRESTED and 3.5% were RECONVICTED.
Michigan was one of the 15 states and it has a in-prison sex offender therapy program. I had been compiling a 11-year recidivism chart for all offenders released from Michigan prisons. That study can be found here:
http://www.geocities.com/eadvocate/issues/michstats.pdf
Sex offenders recidivism rate fof 11-years running was 2.46% for same crime type. i.e., a new sex offense.
So what we have is, the DOJ says 3.5% and I proved, for one of the states, 2.46%. It is my opinion that the difference betwen those rates is due to the states which provided no in-prison therapy programs.
One other point, Florida is the state with the highest number of children murdered by released sex offeners and they have no in-prison sex offender therapy program.
Posted by: eAdvocate | November 10, 2006 at 01:16 PM
Just a quick comment to Aeryk and everyone else out there who seems pro-sex offender rights. As the ex wife of a sex offender, I personally don't want to take even the 3% chance of reoffense that you have quoted in your blog with my children. Stop and think how you might feel if someone like this was in your home, around your children, or worse yet someone that you are supposed to entrust them to, and then tell me how you feel about the situation. Especially when you have stated that the offenses usually occur with family, friends or other close relationships. It's easy to quote the statistics but you are forgetting about the personal side of the matter.
Posted by: hl | November 13, 2006 at 11:57 PM
To all, yes there is a personal side to the matter of former sex offenders, I have not forgotten that either.
Lets assume for a minute that 3-5% is a good statistical figure for recidivism, is recidivism the only issue?
No, 96.5% of NEW sex offenses are committed by someone who has NEVER BEFORE committed a sex offense, think about that.
Who are those folks?
Now, let me show folks one more very important fact that actually comes out of that very same study I mentioned above.
The way to tell, in general, who those folks are is to look closely at another portion of that study. The following website put those facts into a very clear chart which can be found here: http://www.geocities.com/voicism/index-charts.html#chta
Given your focus is a "child" the chart shows that 93.3% of the times the offender was someone known to the child, someone in the child's daily circle of associations: Study the column on the right "Victims were Under 18" and then look to the left to see what relationship the offender was to the child victim. That chart is the result of 73,116 cases a good sized sampling.
Then of course we all must remember that "sexual issues" are not the only risk in the lives of children in society today, no matter what politicians tell us, there is drugs, domestic violence, cars, and a whole host of other issues.
Then there is one more very real issue "Abuse" in its varying forms, study this Child Maltreatment 2004 report:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/index.htm
Read Chapter four: Fatalities, that will get to the heart of the matter.
None have anything to do with registered sex offenders.
Do readers here understand between the two systems?
Registered sex offenders where there is a public registry, and those reported in the Child Maltreatment Report (Abuse in varying forms) which has a registry (every state has one) but it is not public.
eAdvocate
Posted by: eAdvocate | November 14, 2006 at 02:41 AM
Utah DOC recently brought out a study that followed 400 offenders for 26 years post-release, finding 83% had NO new criminal conviction over that time.
It'll be interesting to see the details of the study if/when they make it publicly available.
Posted by: Ilah | November 16, 2006 at 12:27 PM