OH - Ohio Public Defender’s Office says sex offender registry doesn’t improve public safety

Original Article

04/12/2013

Ohio will begin tracking arsonists this summer through a new registry similar to the one used to track sex offenders.

A law passed last year by the General Assembly will require people convicted of arson-related offenses to register at their local sheriff's office each year for at least 10 years. Failing to register will be a felony.

Supporters tout the measure as a tool for law enforcement. Critics argue, among other points, that the registry will be a burden for sheriffs already charged with keeping the sex-offender registry.

"The sex-offender registry has been around for a long time, and the research that's out there says that it has no positive impact on the public safety," Amy Borror, spokeswoman for the Ohio Public Defender's Office, told The Plain Dealer. "And, if anything, it might have a negative impact on public safety because it creates this administrative burden."

The registry has been around for almost 20 years and has been public for more than 15. The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children Act, enacted by Congress in 1994, required convicted sex offenders to record their address with local law enforcement. Megan’s Law, added in 1996, allowed the information to be given directly to the public. The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), passed in 2006, set registration standards that widened the reach of registration for the entire nation.

PolitiFact Ohio knew the subject could be an emotional one. We asked Borror how the claim is supported that the registry does not improve public safety.

She referred us first to the website of the Public Defender's Office, which links to a number of reports, and to a special issue of the peer-reviewed journal Criminal Justice and Behavior, from May 2010, which was dedicated to sex offender issues.

Criminal Justice and Behavior published 10 academic studies related to sex offenses, focusing on the question of whether public policies concerning sex offenders enhance the safety of children and communities.

The journal found that the subject is consistently one of the leading policy issues on legislative agendas. It concluded, however, that "sex offender policies are often inconsistent with empirical evidence about sex offender risks, recidivism, reintegration and supervision...."

"Legislators cite the news media and the views of their constituents -- not research evidence -- as their primary sources of information about sex offenses and offenders," the journal said.

One of the published studies, by criminologists with the University of Massachusetts, Lynn University and the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, focused on Ohio and Oklahoma, two of the first states to meet federal guidelines set by SORNA. Those guidelines classify offenders into one of three categories determined by solely by convicted offense. (Previously, judges determined what risk offenders posed and assigned them to one of three registration categories.)

Drawing on data from more than 28,000 cases in Ohio and from other research, the study’s conclusions "shed doubt on the public safety utility of the SORNA classification system." It found that a disproportionate number of offenders were classified as high risk, placing greater burdens, perhaps unnecessarily, on law enforcement personnel and budgets.

"From a public safety perspective," the study found, the SORNA classification guidelines hurt the ability of the system "to effectively discriminate between those who pose a substantial risk to society and those who pose minimal risk," and also contradict evidence about the risk of repeat offenses for both adult sex offenders and juveniles.

Another report, from the Minnesota Department of Corrections, studied sexual offenders who were jailed for failing to register with local law enforcement agencies. It found that the failure to register was not a predictor of repeated crime, other than future failure to register.

An analysis of adult arrest data from 1990 to 2005 in South Carolina found that sex offender registration laws did have a deterrent effect on first-time adult offenders, but no effect on juveniles and no effect on recidivism.

Borror also pointed us to a 2009 study from the state of New York’s Office of Mental Health that specifically compares a risk-based classification system (which Ohio used to have) to the offense-based registration system, which Ohio has now.

It concluded that the current system "falls short of increasing public safety," citing five earlier studies that found registration and notification laws were "ineffective methods of reducing sexual victimizations."

It also noted there is evidence that such laws actually lead to more criminal behavior by aggravating the factors linked to it -- an unintended consequence of reducing or denying employment, educational, social and housing opportunities.

"Although well intended, such laws have done little (if anything) to increase public safety and may in fact be lowering it," the study said.

(A 2007 report by the non-government organization Human Rights Watch detailed the harassment of registered offenders because of online community notification.)

We looked further and found a 2008 report (PDF) funded by the U.S. Justice Department examining the original Megan's Law in New Jersey.

"Despite widespread community support for these laws," it said, "there is virtually no evidence to support their effectiveness in reducing either new first-time sex offenses (through protective measures or general deterrence) or sex re-offenses (through protective measures and specific deterrence)."

"Given the lack of demonstrated effect of Megan’s Law on sexual offenses, the growing costs may not be justifiable," it said.

Another study (PDF), by J.J. Prescott of the University of Michigan Law School and Jonah Rockoff of Columbia Business School and the National Bureau of Economic Research, examined data from 15 states over more than 10 years.

They found that registering sex offenders does reduce sex crime, especially among victims with a personal connection to offenders, most likely because of better police monitoring. They also found, however, that making the registry information available to the public has the opposite effect and increases crime.

"There is little evidence of a decrease in crimes against strangers," the study said. "We also find evidence that community notification deters crime, but in a way unanticipated by legislators. Our results suggest that community notification deters first-time sex offenders, but may increase recidivism by registered offenders by increasing the relative attractiveness of criminal behavior. This finding is consistent with work by criminologists showing that notification may contribute to recidivism by imposing social and financial costs on registered sex offenders and, as a result, making non-criminal activity relatively less attractive."

"We regard this latter finding as potentially important, given that the purpose of community notification is the reduction of recidivism," the authors concluded.

The federal Government Accountability Office evaluated the effects of SORNA in a report issued earlier this year.

The GAO noted that law’s purpose is to protect the public from sex offenders, but found "analysis of the act’s effect on public safety has been limited."

Positive effects included "improved monitoring of registered sex offenders" and better information sharing between law enforcement agencies.

Negative consequences found by the GAO included a lack of consideration of the risk of repeating sexual offenses in classifying offenders; a disproportionate increase in the workload of law enforcement agencies, and increased problems for registered sex offenders to find work or housing.

What conclusion can we draw about Borror’s statement for the Ohio Public Defender’s Office, that research shows the sex offender registry has no positive impact?

We found that research has been done generally on the effectiveness of sex offender registration and notification laws.

We found that studies indicate the laws have no clear effect on recidivism, or repeat offenses, which is their intended target, and are ineffective in assessing and managing risk.

Although there is some indication that registration and community notification may deter first-time adult offenders, the studies find that the deterrence doesn’t extend to juveniles -- and that community notification likely increases repeat sex crimes and other crimes.

With that information needed for clarification, we rate the statement Mostly True.

---

Stop drinking the kool-aid!

Recidivism Studies

---

Rowan advocates for sex offender reform

Shana Rowan

Original Article

03/07/2013

By Reece Alvarez

As the executive director of USA FAIR, a not-for-profit organization that advocates for a fair and intelligent sex offender registry, Lewisboro native Shana Rowan faces criticism, insult and at times the threat of harm as part of her professional life.

Her organization, which she co-founded in November, aims to raise awareness about the repercussions family members of registrants face as a result of the national and state use of the sex offender registry system.

“We want to minimize the damage to families and reform the registry into a viable safety tool,” said Ms. Rowan, a John Jay High School graduate who now lives in central New York.

She knows firsthand the consequences of being close to someone on the registry — her fiancé is a registered sex offender who served four years in prison for a sex crime he committed while he was a minor.

At the request of Ms. Rowan and her fiancé, The Ledger has omitted his name to protect his privacy.

Ms. Rowan and her fiancé have experienced financial and legal hardship, targeted vandalism and threats of violence as a result of his registrant status, she said.

“The more I saw, the more I got involved,” she said. “I saw somebody needed to do something.”

Ms. Rowan co-founded USA FAIR (fair and intelligent reform) with family members of registrants, as well as people currently on the registry. Their mission is to educate the public about the myth of high sex offender recidivism and to advocate for reform of the registry that is based on facts and evidence, according to the organization’s website, USAFAIR.org.

Perceptions

“The assumption they [sex offenders] are all predatory pedophiles preying on children, who are highly dangerous, can’t be stopped and can’t be helped, are all myths not supported by the research,” said Jill Levenson Ph.D., an associate professor of human services at Lynn University in Florida and an expert on sexual violence.

Much of the work of USA FAIR centers on combating misinformation and false public perception, Ms. Rowan said, the most predominant of which is the public perception of who actually commits sex crimes and that sex offenders will all inevitably re-commit sex crimes.

“The majority of sex crimes — 96% — are committed by someone who is not on the registry,” Ms. Rowan said.

She also notes that sex offenders have the lowest occurrence of re-offending next to murderers, who have the lowest recidivism rate in the criminal justice system, a point supported by a 2003 Department of Justice study, Ms. Levenson said.

Joan Tabachnik, co-chair of the Prevention Committee for the Association for Treatment of Sexual Abusers and an expert in the field of sexual abuse prevention, said that 85% to 97% of victims of sexual abuse know their abuser.

“The registry gives people a false sense of security because not all dangerous offenders are there,” Ms. Tabachnik said. “People feel if they know who is on the registry that they are safe, their children are safe. Sex offenders on the registry are not the ones we need to worry about. The ones we don’t know about are the ones we need to worry about.”

In her experience, the majority of sex offenders are not what people see on “To Catch a Predator” or “Law and Order: Special Victims Unit,” Ms. Tabachnik said. When she thinks of sex offenders she thinks of countless people she has met in her 20 years of experience in the field and, in particular, the children who have been abusive with other children.

“The registry is not just a list of people who abuse children,” Ms. Rowan said. “There are a lot more people, including children and teenagers.”

Cognitive dissonance

Risa Sugarman, deputy commissioner of the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services and the director of the office of sex offender management, said that to her knowledge there are no complaints of negative consequences from the sex offender registry.
- That is because you are looking at only one side of the story.

“What we hear is that parents are grateful and happy they have this opportunity to keep their children safe,” she said. “What we do here is to provide information to make people feel safer in their communities and what they can do to keep themselves safe.”
- And that is all it does, makes them feel safe.  But, they are not.  If a person who is on the online shaming hit-list wants to commit a crime, the registry or laws will not stop that.

The registry gives people the knowledge to empower themselves, and that is a part of being a responsible parent, Ms. Sugarman said.
- So if you want to give people knowledge and empower them, then why don't we have an online registry for all criminals?  The fact is that many other felons are more dangerous that what you perceive by those on the sex offender registry.

“As a parent, do I want to know if a sex offender is in my neighborhood? Of course I want to know,” Ms. Tabachnik said. “But is that good public policy? Does it make my neighborhood safer? I would say in most cases it doesn’t make it safer and is not a good public policy.”

With the well-established fact that the majority of sex crimes are perpetrated by someone known to the victim, people should not be monitoring sex offender registry lists and maps as much as they should be observing the people closest to them and their children, Ms. Tabachnik said.

“You should be watching out for anyone who gives you concern,” she said, “not just a registered sex offender.”

Consequences of the registry

Ms. Tabachnik has less of an issue with the registry than with the public notification aspect of it, she said.

“Public notification without education is like putting a lit match in a gallon of gasoline,” she said.

There is an abundance of research showing there are a lot of collateral consequences that interfere with successful reintegration, Ms. Levenson said. Research from other criminal fields, as well, has shown that stable employment, housing and social support increase the likelihood of success for criminal offenders.

“If you push people to the brink of society and make it impossible to exist, you are taking away all incentives for them to reintegrate,” Ms. Rowan said.

Reminds us of this video:

As part of her work with USA FAIR, Ms. Rowan has collected hundreds of stories of families and individuals affected by the negative consequences of the registry. Difficulty finding and maintaining employment, as well as physical and verbal harassment of children of registrants, are among the top obstacles registrants and their families face.

The group also works to challenge perceptions and terminology frequently portrayed and used in the media and politics.

Bills passed in the New York state Senate on Tuesday, March 5 illustrate the challenges registrants have in turning their lives around after incarceration, Ms. Rowan said. The four bills promote tougher restrictions for registrants, including prohibiting registrants from serving on school boards or as principals; instituting misdemeanor charges for anyone known to harbor, house or employ a defaulting sex offender; and prohibiting high-level sex offenders from living in college housing.

While sexual violence on campuses is an important issue, Ms. Rowan said, she finds these bills to be restrictive to a registrant’s ability to reintegrate in a community. They also further the inflammatory language that promotes a common perception of all sex offenders as predators, she said.

The danger of indifference

“Everyone agrees that sexual crimes need to be punished and that the impact on victims is often incomprehensible,” Ms. Rowan said. “But by refusing to acknowledge information that could help us prevent there being more victims, we are doing a huge disservice.”

Along with Ms. Levenson and Ms. Rowan, Ms. Tabachnik advocates for increased awareness and educational strategies to prevent sex crimes from happening.

Former Penn State football coach and convicted serial child molester Jerry Sandusky was not on any registry, Ms. Rowan pointed out. Ms. Levenson made a similar observation about Mr. Sandusky and how he represents the more likely source of danger than someone on the registry.

“Perhaps if those parents and the people around had been more educated and understood the dynamics of grooming, noticed what was going on and understood the dynamics of how sexual abuse thrives in the trust between the abuser and victim, it could have been prevented,” she said.

Ms. Tabachnik said that knowing how to set boundaries and teaching children that it is OK to say no and have it be respected is much more important than knowing about a sex offender who is already being watched by the police.

“The biggest misconception is that all sex offenders are all the same and they should all be treated the same,” Ms. Levenson said.

Both she and Ms. Tabachnik said that painting an entire class of people with a broad brush creates room for the truly dangerous to be mixed with non-violent individuals and draws attention away from the true source of danger.

“A blind focus on punishment turns a blind eye to prevention,” Ms. Rowan said. “It’s much easier to pretend all the dangerous people are neatly organized on a magical list than realizing those who cause the most harm are often those closest to us.”

---

MI - Defenders, critics debate effectiveness of sex offender registry

Original Article

02/02/2013

By Liz Shepard

Michigan residents have access to the names, addresses and offenses of convicted sex offenders at their fingertips.

You can search within a mile of your house for them. You can search an entire ZIP code. Smart phone apps will show you a map of sex offenders, your location marked with a green dot, surrounded by menacing looking red dots marking the addresses on the registry.

Michigan required sex offenders to register in the state in 1994 to meet a federal mandate. Legislation sponsored by Michael Bouchard, now Oakland County’s sheriff, made the registry public in 1996.

“I wrote the law because of the high recidivism rate of sex offenders,” Bouchard said in an email. “The average pedophile has over 100 victims in their so-called career. For those reasons alone, the public should have easy access to what is already public record."
- And that is the problem, people continue to ignore the fact that study after study shows that ex-sex offenders have a very low recidivism rate, but politicians continue to ignore those facts because they don't help their career.  The registry does nothing to "prevent" crime or "protect" anybody, it's a false sense of security. Even the Department of Justice says recidivism is low.

“Their crimes, their release and their location,” Bouchard wrote. “This allows women and families to better protect themselves by being informed. Maybe it's taking a different route to school or jogging or skipping a house or block on Halloween. To those that say, ‘When can the sex offender move on with their life?’ I say the day their victims can forget.”
- This is why police or other uninformed people should not be making laws, especially police, who are biased in the first place and think most people who are in jail or have been accused of a crime, are criminals who will continue to repeat their "crimes!"  They think everyone is a criminal!  Maybe we should have a POLICE BRUTALITY registry so all these egomaniacs can have their own personal online registry?  Then see how much they like it when their names, addresses, photos are put online.

There are 519 sex offenders registered in St. Clair County and 138 in Sanilac County.

While many say the registry is a useful tool, others argue it might not be the right approach.

JJ Prescott, a law professor at the University of Michigan, researched the topic of private versus public directories for a paper published in 2011.

Prescott said he found public registries are a deterrent to potential first-time offenders — but once an offender is on the list, it does little or nothing to keep him or her from committing new crimes.

“They can’t find jobs, can’t build families, can’t live near friends and family, they are pariahs,” Prescott said. “What is the threat? What do you threaten someone with who is in prison on their own dime?”

Francie Giordano, founder of Michigan Citizens for Justice, said her son was on the registry for just a few months and it was like living a nightmare.

Read the entire article here

---

NY - Families of Registered Sex Offenders: “Remove Misleading Statistics from Web”

Original Article

01/24/2013

Family Members of Registered Sex Offenders Call on Parents for Megan’s Law to remove misleading statistics from their website

Long Island - USA FAIR, Inc., a national advocacy organization formed by the family members of people required to register with the sex offender registry, today publicly urged Parents for Megan’s Law Executive Director Laura Ahern to take down misleading statistics from their website that reinforces the myth of high sex offender recidivism.

“According to the U.S. Justice Department and numerous other agencies and institutions that have researched recidivism (PDF), sexual offenders have one of the lowest recidivism rates in the criminal justice system. Yet, the myth of high sex offender recidivism has formed the foundational falsehood for the never-endng sanctions imposed on law abiding former offenders through the sex offender registry”, said Shana Rowan, Executive Director of USA FAIR.

“While we applaud Parents for Megan’s Law for their mission to protect children, as an entity that is funded in part with public funds, they have an obligation to not mislead the public through the misuse of statistics, such as presenting a study of a sub-set of dangerous recidivists and presenting those findings as representative of the entire population of former sex offenders,” said Rowan.

In a letter sent to Parents for Megan’s Law (PDF) on December 6, 2012, USA FAIR raised objections to statements made on their website, including claims that the “typical” offender against children had committed an average of 280 crimes and has between 360 and 380 victims in his lifetime. USA FAIR pointed out that the sample of this study was not “typical” of former offenders and that even among this subset of high-risk offenders, a small percentage of the subjects were responsible for a disproportionately high number of offenses, which significantly skewed the “average” numbers. In fact, according to Rowan, “When you look at the median numbers of this very study it reveals that half of the subjects committed four or fewer offenses and had three or fewer victims. So even the “typical” subject of this study did not have the number of victims that Parents for Megan’s Law claims. And while three victims is three too many, it is a far cry from the 360 to 380 that their website presents.”

Rowan announced that USA FAIR decided today to go public with its request to Parents for Megan’s Law to correct their website because following several phone calls and emails by Rowan to Ahern to follow-up on the December 6th letter, there has been no response. “Ms. Ahern has every right to disagree with USA FAIR on policy issues, but as long as she takes public money she should present this important issue with facts and not false fears,” said Rowan.

USA FAIR has made shining the light on the myth of high sex offender recidivism one of its top goals for 2013. A 2010 survey by the Center for Sex Offender Management of the U.S. Department of Justice found that 72% of Americans believe that the sex crime recidivism rates are 50% or higher, with a third believing it is more than 75%. Only 3% believe it is less than 25% – even though actual recidivism rates are considerably below 25%. New studies are constantly confirming low recidivism, with the latest being released last month showing a recidivism rate in four states of 10% after 10 years, with rates dropping sharply with years of offense-free tenure in the community. (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/240099.pdf)

“As the loved-ones of people who are required to register, we know that the vast majority of former sex offenders are law abiding citizens today who are just trying to rebuild their lives and be good providers for their families. Once the myth of high sex offender recidivim is firmly dicredited, it will allow us to end our one-size-fits-all approach to sex offender laws and focus our policies on targeting the truly dangerous,” concluded Rowan.

---

VT - Sexual Assault Recidivism (May 2012)

Original Article

They say this study compares to what other studies have found with which we disagree. Other studies show the recidivism rates much lower, below 10% for the most part.

They do point this out: "Roughly seven percent (6.67%) of recidivists had a new sex offense conviction at some point" which is more accurate, overall, but from what we can tell, they only looked at 94 adult males from 2004-2010 who all had committed sex crimes against other adults, so with such a small group, of course the recidivism rate will be a little larger. They should've looked at a much larger group. Any ways, the report is a little biased in our opinion.

This research study was supported through funds provided by the Bureau Justice Statistics United States Department of Justice - Grant# 2009-BJ-CX-K038

This study (PDF) examined the rate of recidivism and criminal history typology of sexual assault offenders with adult victims in Vermont between 2004-2010, in an effort to inform policy makers about who is likely to recidivate.

The results of this study confirmed that sexual assault offender recidivism rates in Vermont are comparable to what other studies have found. Previous research found that rapists had a recidivism rate of 7% to 35%, 18.9%, and 28%. In this Vermont cohort, the first time offenders and the sexual assault offenders with no prior sex offense convictions had 24.3% and 21.7% recidivism rates respectively. These rates were also similar to the overall recidivism rate for the Vermont sample which was 24.6%.

Overall the information provided in this report is beneficial because it sheds light on what the recidivism rates are for sexual assault offenders in Vermont. Additionally it showed that most offenders are recidivating with a probation violation. The analysis in this report lays a foundation for beginning a discussion of sexual assault offenders in Vermont.
- So if recidivism is defined, as it should be, as the commission of another sex crime, then what is the recidivism rate?

---

The best predictor of future behavior is …

Original Article

12/27/2012

… past behavior.

Past as prelude. So neat, so clean. So full of certitude. Like a fortune cookie Confucianism. Or something you might hear on CSI: Special Victims Unit, or from pop psychologist "Dr. Phil" McGraw. Actually, McGraw does cite it, in one of his many self-help books.

I'm sure you have heard the mantra. It's creeping into risk assessment reports and court testimony by forensic psychologists. Sometimes, it's augmented with incendiary metaphors: The subject is "a ticking time bomb"; he is "carrying a hand grenade and it's just a matter of when he pulls the pin."

One current case of mine involves a guy with a cluster of several violent offenses a few years ago, when he was in his 20s. He was using drugs back then, and hanging around with a bad crowd. Plus, he is chronically psychotic. Not a good combination.

But if you predict future violence based on a set of risk factors like his, you will be wrong more often than not. Only about four out of ten of those individuals judged to be at moderate to high risk of future violence go on to reoffend violently, according to research. The low base rates of violent recidivism will be working against you.

Read the entire article here

---

The Truth About Recidivism Rates In Sex Offenders

Original Article

11/29/2012

By Pete Carey

Many people talk about recidivism in sex offenders and to be completely honest - it drives me crazy. I'll admit it probably has everything to do with me being a sex offender - otherwise I likely wouldn't care.

I think what drives me crazy are the individuals that jump on the bandwagon and repeat hearsay versus fact. It's the neighborhood activists that proclaim neighbors are unsafe with offenders in them. These are people that are simply creating a false hysteria. There's no 'safety' in this thought process. If I ever ask someone to cite sources and open a discussion with me about the topic, I'm met with statements like 'it's common sense' or a hostile attitude.

But seriously, think about it. If I wanted to re-offend (... which I don't) what good is it that my picture is posted on a website? I've asked numerous 'stay at home' parents to describe any sex offender's appearance that lives within 5 miles. None of them have been able to give me just one description.

Not only that, but if I was going to re-offend, is the public ignorant enough to think that I would re-offend at my house or my place of employment? (... because these are the only two places that I'm required to register where I am located.) I'm not required to share when I go to the grocery store, when I go to the park, when I go to a soccer game, etc. It seems to me that hysteria has grossly trumped 'common sense' in this department.

Recidivism isn't good with any crime. People are flawed. Without diving into the religious side of that statement, let's all just agree that individuals all do dumb things... and some of those individuals repeat those dumb things. Those are just the facts.

But, when it comes to comparing risks and percentages of repeating - the facts speak loudly. I just don't think many people are listening. Ironically, it was my state required therapist that told me the public is misinformed. Here's a woman that spends 40+ hours a week talking and counseling numerous convicted sexual offenders - and she was the one that told me sexual offenders have the lowest recidivism rates outside of murder. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006)

She shared with me that one study (... based on sex offenders released from prison in 1994) from the Department of Justice suggests:

Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (... men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime. Not only that, sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for ANY criminal offense - 43 percent of sexual offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.

Again, these are facts and not hearsay. Once the public starts to accept these facts, perhaps sex offenders can move toward being encouraged to rehabilitate versus being shamed and avoided.

Article by Pete Carey. Pete is the featured author, editor and publisher of mySOlife.Com. As a registered sex offender, Pete writes openly about addiction, therapy and most importantly... "how to live life with a label."

Engage in the discussion while he shares not only his testimony, but also his thoughts, perspectives and advice at mySOlife.Com.

---

Do Sex Offender Registries Make Us Less Safe? Laws purporting to protect the public may be increasing sex offender recidivism rates!

Click the image to view the PDF document

---

Sex-Offender Laws Doomed by Flawed Reasoning

Paul Appelbaum

Original Article

11/16/2012

By Aaron Levin

How to prevent convicted sex offenders from committing further crimes is a policy dilemma that has been met with punishing legal responses.

Laws and policies intended to control sex offenders are ineffective, expensive, unenforceable—and unlikely to be changed.

“These laws are preventive and punitive in intent and effect, motivated by a desire to contain but not to treat,” said Paul Appelbaum, M.D., the Dollard professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law and director of the Division of Law, Ethics, and Psychiatry at Columbia University. Appelbaum spoke at APA’s 2012 Institute on Psychiatric Services in New York in October.

Sentencing of convicted sex offenders underwent a major change about 30 years ago, he explained. For most of the 20th century, sex offenders were given sentences of indeterminate length in hopes that they would become rehabilitated. With little evidence of efficacy using that approach, courts in the 1980s switched to “determinate sentencing,” with fixed prison terms.

“The change went from punishing the offender to punishing the crime,” said Appelbaum.

In addition, “sexually violent predator” statutes were passed in many states, reflecting a state of panic in the 1990s about sex crimes against children. They mandated civil commitment “in a treatment facility” once offenders had completed their prison sentences. Treatment might be offered, but was voluntary. As of 2010, 5,300 sex offenders were committed under these statutes.

The process also shifted a new burden onto mental health systems, filling beds needed for other patients and diverting funds from an already under-funded system.

Detention is expensive. A Minnesota study revealed costs of $120,000 annually per offender. Since none of the offenders in the state had been released since the program’s inception in 1994, costs can only go up.

“Still, this system was seen as akin to civil commitment and thus raised fewer constitutional issues,” said Appelbaum. The Supreme Court has upheld the system three times. “But is civil commitment a pretext for preventive detention, and is the mental health system the right place for that?” he asked.

Other Strategies Questioned

Confinement is not the only way that governments have attempted to restrict convicted sex offenders as a means of reducing recidivism.

State and federal laws call for registration of offenders and, as of July 2012, more than 700,000 were registered nationwide.

Community notification laws require that local jurisdictions be alerted to the presence of offenders and the information displayed on a Web site.

“Yet many of these laws cover non-contact offenses, or sex by underage teens, or even offenses by young children,” said Appelbaum. “Offenders are often harassed and find it hard to reestablish their lives, find a job, or receive mental health treatment.”

A third approach in 20 states and hundreds of cities restricts residency and workplace options to points at least 1,000 to 2,000 feet from schools, churches, day-care centers, or even bus stops.

“This has placed entire towns completely off limits,” said Appelbaum. “And is creating sex-offender ghettos a good idea? Maybe it’s better to not have them around each other.”

A study by Appelbaum and Jacqueline Berenson, M.D., found that 92 percent of registered sex offenders in Buffalo, N.Y., and 100 percent of those in Schenectady, N.Y., lived in restricted locations in those cities.

Clearly, these laws are not being enforced, reflecting a choice by police, said Appelbaum.

“The law doesn’t make sense to the police,” he said. “They see it more like jaywalking than homicide.”

Flawed Reasoning Underlies Laws

He listed a number of flaws in the thinking behind registration, notification, and residency laws. They are indiscriminate, based on weak premises, and are likely to be counterproductive, he said.

“For one thing, most sex offenses against children are committed by family members and friends, not by strangers,” he said. “and while the premise of such laws is that sex offenders are likely to re-offend, in fact only 13.4 percent do so, compared to 60 percent of felons in general.”

Although the laws are intended to protect children from sexual predators, many of the offenders did not commit crimes against children. There are no data indicating that they target children near where they live or work—and some anecdotal reports indicate that those are the last places they would commit their crimes.

Also disturbing is the dearth of research on the treatment of sex offenders, especially in the United States, Appelbaum noted.

“Medications like SSRIs, depoprovera, or lupralide are understudied and underutilized,” he said. “Treatment has been dominated by therapists who favor cognitive-behavioral therapy and resist medication.”

“This area is a major challenge for rational policy making, and there is little political support for change,” he said.

Ideally, it might be better not to create a new system but instead keep offenders within the correctional system while beginning treatment soon after they are incarcerated, Appelbaum suggested. A return to indeterminate sentencing might permit many to be released once they had responded adequately to treatment.

An abstract of “A Geospatial Analysis of the Impact of Sex Offender Residency Restrictions in Two New York Counties” by Appelbaum and Berenson in Law and Human Behavior is posted at http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1007/s10979-010-9235-3.

---

WI - Report: Recidivism rate declining

Original Article

When looking at sex crimes, recidivism should be defined as committing another sex crime, not just any crime or technical violation, then the recidivism rate would be even lower.

10/27/2012

By Laura Smith

GREEN BAY - Prisoners at Green Bay Correctional Institution are learning about financial literacy.

Education is a big part of the state corrections department's re-entry program at GBCI.

Deputy Warden Sarah Cooper says the program is designed to help inmates cope with life after prison.

"There's a lot of different things that we try to teach, and meet core competencies, so that when they do go back to society, they have some skills to succeed," said Cooper.

Cooper added if an inmate can succeed on the streets without going back to a life of crime, everybody wins.

"There's less victims, there's less incarceration, it costs less money and we want the inmates to go out into the community and succeed," said Cooper.

Circles of Support, a Goodwill Industries program, has a similar mission aimed at reducing repeat crimes, also known as recidivism.

Through group meetings and individual sessions, "Circles" helps recently released prisoners transition from incarceration to the community.

"They may come out without a state ID where they can't get a job, they can't do anything without that. So we'll drive them to the DMV and get that taken care of, and we'll just meet them where they're at," said regional director Anne Strauch.

Strauch said statistics show the program, which is funded in part by the Department of Corrections, is on the right track.

"Right now, I just figured out the statistics for 3/4 of the year and we're at 98.5%. So 1.5% have been revoked and back into prison, which is pretty good," Strauch said.

Are the various re-entry efforts in Wisconsin working? According to a new Department of Corrections report , the answer is yes. It shows the rate at which prisoners are committing new crimes after their release from prison is on a downward trend.

"As long as that rate keeps coming down, I think that's a positive sign for safety in Wisconsin," said Department of Corrections secretary Gary Hamblin.

The report tracked nearly the recidivism rates of 125 thousand offenders over a period of 20 years. It looked at people released from prison who re-offend within a three year period.

Recidivism is defined in the study as a new offense resulting in a conviction and sentence to the Wisconsin Department of Corrections.
- Like said above, for sex offenders, recidivism should be the commission of another sex crime.

Analyzing follow-up periods of one, two, and three years, the report shows the three-year follow-up recidivism rate decreased by 28.5% from 1993 to 2007.

Read the rest of the article

---

CSOM - Recidivism of Sex Offenders (05/2001)

Original Article

The criminal justice system manages most convicted sex offenders with some combination of incarceration, community supervision, and specialized treatment (Knopp, Freeman-Longo, and Stevenson, 1992). While the likelihood and length of incarceration for sex offenders has increased in recent years (since 1980, the number of imprisoned sex offenders has grown by more than 7 percent per year; in 1994, nearly one in ten state prisoners were incarcerated for committing a sex offense [Greenfeld, 1997]), the majority are released at some point on probation or parole (either immediately following sentencing or after a period of incarceration in prison or jail). About 60 percent of all sex offenders managed by the U.S. correctional system are under some form of conditional supervision in the community (Greenfeld, 1997).

---

IA - Iowa trying to prove their registry is why recidivism is low?

Original Article

10/12/2012

By DANA LARSEN

Iowa's sex offender laws continue to be under fire, sometimes described as "one size fits none," but in Buena Vista County, the existing laws seem to be working well, according to Major Doug Simons, who heads up enforcement of the Sex Offender Registry for the county sheriff's department.

The problem is, he adds, that the workload in tracking the offenders continues to grow as additional people are convicted.

"Over the 12 years we have seen more and more and more people on that list, and that trend is only going to continue - a few years ago laws were changed and a lot of people stay on the offender list much longer now, some for 25 years instead of the 10 years it used to be, and in more cases, for life."

The department is charged with knowing exactly where those people are, for as long as they reside in the county, and conducting checks.

There are about 52 people currently on the Sex Offender List in Buena Vista County, the third highest in the northwest quarter of the state and trailing only Woodbury County (the Sioux City metro area) and Cherokee County which is higher than BV because it is required to count residents of an inpatient treatment program for sexual abusers.

The sheriff's department has three people working on the sex offender registry enforcement at any given time, trying not to tie up any one officer's time from attending to other duties, according to Sheriff Gary Launderville.

Sex offenders who are new convicts, releases or have moved into the county are required to register with the sheriff's department. At that point, Simons said, they informed of the rules and given a written copy to sign.

The newest laws passed created a "tier" system, requiring those on the list to check in periodically based on the level of concern for risk to the public - one level must check in quarterly, one every six months, and one annually.

"On top of that we periodically do a quality control check, just to make sure they all are where they are supposed to be," Simons added. "If they are not, we have to either get them back in compliance, or they will be charges with violating the registry law."

Often, the best tips that there may be a problem come from the public, who have recognized an offender from the registry online.

"We check into every public concern that we get as quickly as we can," Simons explained. "It's not always someone trying to hide - often it's a case of a person who didn't fully understand the rules, and it turns out to be a non-issue. But we do depend on what we hear. I'm not saying violations of the law don't happen, and when they do, we find out about them, through a variety of means."

The department feels confident that at any given time, it knows where nearly all of the convicted residents of the county are at.

In most cases, Iowa's controversial "2,000 foot rule" has been dropped. In the past, sex offenders were barred from living within 2,000 feet of a school, day care, park or library where children would be gathered.

"Now, the 2,000 foot rule is applied only where the court feels it is specifically needed. We only have two or three in this county who cannot live inside the 2,000-foot barrier; most can live anywhere," said Simons.

He finds the change to be a good one. "The problem was, in small towns like we have, it meant there were hardly any places where a person could still live, and if there was no where to live legally, there was more incentive for people to try to hide from us."

While it is not unusual for persons on the offender list in the county to get charged for violating registry rules, the department has not seen a problem with them committing additional sexual offenses, according to Simons.

"I can't sit here and think of a single one that has re-offended."
- Study after study has proven that the recidivism for ex-sex offenders is one of the lowest of any other crime, yet ex-sex offenders are treated as if they will commit many crimes any chance they can get, which is false of course.

The offender registry has been a strong step in public protection, he feels.

"It's a big deal. People do use it, and we encourage the to look at it," Simons said.

"It does take a lot of our time to enforce, but the system does seem to work well."
- What does "work well" mean exactly?

Last session, both houses of the Iowa Legislature passed the Adam Walsh Child Safety & Protection Act on a near-unanimous vote. Some of the highlights include: better tracking of the most dangerous sex offenders; new exclusion zones for child sex offenders; and new work and volunteer restrictions for child sex offenders at places with children.

A new tool has also been added to the offender registry that lets the public track offenders by neighborhood.

Governor Branstad has sought additions to the law that would require residential care facilities to notify their communities and relatives of residents when sex offenders are living in their facilities. The proposed legislation is in response to an incident at a nursing home in Pomeroy where an elderly resident was assaulted by a registered sex offender who also resided there. Sex offenders sometimes are ordered to a care facility as part of a court order, as was the case in the Pomeroy incident. Officials estimated that about 55 registered sex offenders currently live in Iowa care facilities.

Still, according to an Associated Press report recently, Iowa is among 34 states that remain unable to meet the conditions of a 2006 federal law (bribery) that requires them to take part in a nationwide effort to track sex offenders. Five of them - Arizona, Arkansas, California, Nebraska and Texas - have completely given up on the effort, even though it means forfeiting millions of dollars in federal grants.

See Also:

• eAdvocate - Sex offender laws working well in area

---

NM - Repeat Sex Offender Numbers Low in County

Original Article

09/19/2012

By Patrick Lohmann

Every Halloween night, between 30 and 50 Bernalillo County Sheriff’s deputies spread out all over the county and knock on the doors of registered sex offenders, as a reminder that the county knows where they are and what they’re doing.

The Halloween blitz is just one of the tactics the Sheriff’s Department says could be behind the county’s remarkably low sex offender re-offense, or recidivism, rate.
- Come on, you are taking credit for something that is already low, recidivism.

Of more than 1,200 registered offenders that include sex offenders as far back as the 1970s, the sex offender registry unit has identified only seven who have re-committed a sex crime since 2009 – or 0.6 percent who re-offended over that three-year period.

Fourteen Bernalillo County sex offenders released in 2010 did end up back in prison within 18 months of their release dates, but they were there for such things as failing to register as an offender or for probation violations, according to data from the New Mexico Department of Corrections.

“We do have a very low recidivism rate in Bernalillo County,” Sheriff’s spokesman Sgt. Sam White said. “We believe part of that is our proactive stance.”
- There is a low recidivism rate across the county, not just New Mexico.

Data regarding sex offender recidivism rates are hard to come by.

A New Mexico Sentencing Commission study followed 126 sex offenders released from state prisons in 2004.

The study is still only in draft form and has not yet been reviewed by the Department of Corrections, but according to the draft, 5.6 percent of offenders went back to prison after committing a new sex offense between 2004 and when the study began earlier this year. More than 35 percent of the total number of sex offenders were sent back to prison, but largely for probation violations.

A national Bureau of Justice Statistics study is in the works that will look at sex offender recidivism for offenders released in 2005. The bureau’s last study found that 5.3 percent of almost 1,000 sex offenders released in 1994 re-committed a sex offense within three years.

That rate is considerably lower than for violent offenders, 61 percent of whom were arrested for similar crimes within three years, and for property offenders, who had a recidivism rate of almost 74 percent, according to the same BJS study.

White said he doesn’t know what his department might be doing differently than other counties, but it does make prevention of sex crimes a high priority. He said deputies use their spare time to check up on sex offenders at their homes.

“Any rate is not low enough,” he added.

Registry effective?

Whether the sex offender registry is effective in preventing sex crimes depends on whom you ask.

Gov. Susana Martinez, who specialized in prosecuting sex crimes during her career as a district attorney, said Bernalillo County’s low recidivism rate doesn’t necessarily mean offenders aren’t re-offending, just that they’re not being caught.
- And your statement doesn't mean it's true either, you could say that about any crime!

“The vast majority of my cases involved delayed reporting by the children (victims) because they are afraid, they are threatened that something bad will happen if they tell,” Martinez told the Journal. “That allows an offender to re-offend many times.”

That’s why Martinez said the registries are so effective, because they allow parents to monitor offenders who might be re-offending without punishment in their neighborhood. Martinez has also pressured the state Legislature during her time as governor to become fully compliant with the Adam Walsh Act, a 2006 federal sex offender registration law.

The state’s sex offender laws do not require offenders to scan palm prints in addition to fingerprints, which is out of compliance with the federal act, nor do they have a juvenile sex offender registration, GPS monitoring or email notifications for when an offender moves into a neighborhood, said Regina Chacon, the state Department of Public Safety spokeswoman.

Despite this, New Mexico has so far avoided fines of between $100,000 and $250,000 from the U.S. Department of Justice, since it is one of many noncompliant states, Chacon said

Sen. Cisco McSorley, D-Bernalillo, voted against the Adam Walsh Act each time it came before the Legislature, and received a standing ovation after speaking at the national Reform Sex Offender Laws conference in Albuquerque.

McSorley said the Adam Walsh Act is a politicized, unfunded mandate that doesn’t differentiate between the worst predators and offenders convicted of milder crimes. As a result, he said, law enforcement and parents are unable to zero in on who poses the greatest threat.

“New Mexico citizens are less safe today because politicians have been trying to prove how strong they are against sex crimes,” McSorley said. “They’re diluting our efforts at getting the most serious predators.”

The national conference for Reform Sex Offender Laws, an organization that claims sex offender registries are ineffective and unjust, was held at an Albuquerque hotel earlier this month to the dismay of some residents and law enforcement officials who were concerned about the conference’s proximity to schools.

Lloyd Swartz, the organization’s New Mexico branch president and a registered sex offender who was convicted of sexual assault in Texas in 1987, said the response to the conference by the city and residents underscores the need to have a conversation about sex offender laws, which he said are bad policy written out of emotion, not data.

“How do we put this hysteria aside, put all these misconceptions aside, and sit down and have an honest conversation?” Swartz said. “We need to acknowledge that what we’re doing may make us warm and fuzzy inside, but it’s not working.”

Swartz said the registry misinforms parents about who threatens their kids, and parents should instead learn to identify signs of a possible sex offender within their homes or neighborhoods.

“It’s telling people to look the wrong places, so they can’t protect themselves,” Swartz said during the conference at the Ramada Hotel and Conference Center on Sept. 7.

Both Martinez and Swartz said the vast majority of sex crimes are committed by perpetrators who know the victim – as relatives, neighbors, coaches or through other means.

While Swartz argues that’s a reason the registry is not effective, Martinez said that fact makes the registry all the more important, because parents need to be able to find out if their acquaintances or family friends pose a threat to their children.

“If you are a convicted sex offender, I as a parent have a right to know,” she said. ” … You can’t teach a parent what to look for.”
- The only reason you have that right, is because of the law, you really aren't entitled to know who lives around you, and yes you can teach parents what to look for.

---

VT - Busting myths about sex offenders

Original Article

07/27/2012

By JoANN LOKKEN

Mary Murdock's article "Pity isn't in the plan" suggests making amends and/or establishing a fund to help victims of sexual crimes, which is noteworthy. However, she goes on to say that "sex offenders do not need a support group, feeling sorry for themselves, while relating and enjoying memories of their crimes."

Mary, Mary, quite contrary! You have inspired me to research this subject and I would like to share some little known facts about sex offense recidivism rates. Most of this comes directly from here (PDF).

Sex crime policies are often justified by assumptions that all sex offenders re-offend, that treatment does not work and that strangers who lurk in playgrounds pose an unparalleled threat to children. These erroneous beliefs are widely propagated by the media, creating strongly held but largely inaccurate public perceptions. These beliefs, in turn, prompt the expansion of sex crime policies which often lack empirical support and can impede community re-entry and adjustment with adverse consequences such as unemployment, relationship loss, threats, harassment, physical assault and property damage as well as psychological symptoms such as shame, embarrassment, depression or hopelessness as a result of public disclosure. Stable employment and supportive relationships lead to lower recidivism rates for sex offenders (Colorado Department of Public Safety).

According to a study by the U.S. Department of Justice, 87 percent of new sex crimes were committed by other types of criminals compared to 13 percent of previously identified sex offenders. Contrary to some strongly held beliefs, most sexual offenders do not re-offend sexually over time. After 15 years, 76 percent of sexual offenders had not been charged with, or convicted of, another sexual offense. Most child sexual abuse victims are molested by family members (34 percent) and close acquaintances (59 percent) (DOJ Bureau of Statistics). Forty percent take place in a victim's own home and 20 percent take place in the home of a friend or relative.

The myth of "stranger danger" persists, however a Wisconsin study revealed that of 200 cases recidivistic sex offenses, none involved predatory sex crimes against strangers. Such cases are actually extremely rare; it is estimated that about 100 such cases occur in the United States each year (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children). By comparison, more than 500 children under age 15 were killed by drunk drivers (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) and more than 1,100 children died as a result of physical abuse or neglect at the hands of their own parents or caretakers (Child Welfare League of America).

Sex offenders recidivism rates are much lower than commonly believed. Public safety can be enhanced when states adopt empirically derived risk assessment schemes to validly and reliably identify high risk individuals. By reserving public disclosure for those who pose the greatest threat, resources can be more efficiently allocated, citizens can be appropriately warned and reintegration obstacles can be minimized. The stigma of sex offender is known to impede successful community re-entry, ironically exacerbating the factors (e.g. housing stability, unemployment) known to correlate with increased criminal recidivism.
- But they want ex-offenders to recidivate, so they can continue to exploit the issues to help themselves, and to keep the prison business raking in the money!

There is ample evidence to suggest that many sex offenders benefit from therapeutic interventions which focus on helping them to change their thinking patterns and manage their impulses. Studies have found that rates of sexual re-offending drop by about 40 percent after participation in contemporary cognitive-behavioral therapies.

Agreed, there is no cure for pedophilias, and about 40 percent of registered sex offenders can be diagnosed with this illness. These types fall in the high risk category and should be dealt with accordingly. But I also believe that low risk, non re-offending individuals should be taken off the registry after a certain time has lapsed.

As for second chances, I quote Bible Verse 1 John 1:9: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."

---

OK - Counterproductive sex offender law doesn't protect community

Original Article

07/10/2012

Our View: Oklahoma's new counterproductive law fails to protect community by putting hundreds of sex offenders out on the streets.

Local sex offenders are homeless and out on the streets July 1 as a result of SB 852, a bill authored by Sen. Clark Jolley, R-Edmond.

Hands Up Ministries, an Oklahoma City ministry that housed 200 sex offenders on its 6-acre mobile home community and provided counseling services, was specifically targeted in the bill, which made it unlawful for two or more registered sex offenders to live together. Supporters of the bill maintain the bill isn’t “an attempt to evict anyone,” but to “clarify the intended purpose of the sex order statute,” Oklahoma City Police Capt. Patrick Stewart said.

Instead, the bill did evict people — at least 61 men and women had been living in tents since July 1 at Hands Up. Instead of allowing the offenders to stay in one place, the bill scattered many of them throughout the community, where they're homeless and more likely to commit crimes of survival in search of shelter and food.

The intent of the law was to lower recidivism rates — relapses into criminal sexual behavior — and protect community members. However, it does the opposite.

LIMITS HOUSING OPTIONS

The bill is outrageous and unfair. It specifically targets Hands Up by creating housing restrictions and outlawing “manufactured homes, mobile homes, trailers, and recreational vehicles” in section four of the bill. It allows only “multi-unit structures” that provide independent facilities for living, sleeping, cooking, eating and sanitation as acceptable dwellings.

The bill demonizes all registered sex offenders and makes it more difficult for sex offenders to find homes. According to Oklahoma law, sex offenders already cannot live within 2,000 feet of schools, day care centers or parks. Not allowing them to live together eliminates many of the few housing possibilities that previously existed.

Allowing the sex offenders to live together in the mobile home park would ensure the 200 individuals were accountable at an address with adequate means of living. Residents paid a $100 weekly fee to founder David Nichols that helped fund spiritual support, help finding work and transportation to treatment centers. Concerned citizens had piece of mind knowing the 200 sex offenders were housed at Hands Up instead of dispersed throughout the city or state, under radar and maybe even unregistered.

Many sex offenders have been forced to move to more rural areas because they had a hard time finding a place to live under residency restrictions. Up to 85 percent of the Tulsa and Oklahoma counties are off-limits, according to residency restrictions.

Tighter restrictions don’t make Oklahoma any safer. These restrictions just cause sex offenders to live in cities illegally and unregistered because they don’t have a choice. In Norman specifically, there are very few places sex offenders can live.

Let’s remember that not all sex offenders are child abusers. Of the people at Hands Up, some have performed severe acts like child molestation, though others have less-aggravated charges attached to their name, like exposing themself by urinating in public, according to published reports.

Part of a sex offender’s debt to society is registration. According to Oklahoma’s sex offender registry website, “habitual, aggravated and level three sex offenders are required to register for their lifetime,” while level one offenders and level two offenders are required to register for 15 years and 25 years, respectively.

Since the classification “sex offender” makes it difficult for individuals to get jobs or socialize with society, it further complicates residency. Without a job or a friend to room with, how can any individual — sex offender or otherwise — afford a rent payment on his or her own?

Many cannot realistically turn to halfway houses as an alternate form of residency. According to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, only four of the 10 community contract facilities in Oklahoma accept sex offenders. Section C of the bill states that a halfway house cannot contract with the Department of Corrections to house sex offenders if it is located “within a single-family zoned residential neighborhood or is not properly zoned as multi-unit structure.”

Because of all this, many former residents of Hands Up haven’t any other place to go.

ASSUMES OFFENDERS WILL RELAPSE

SB 852 intends to punish sex offenders who could reoffend based on the sheer possibility that they might — not that they have or even that they will. The bill should not punish people who haven’t committed another crime.

A 2008 study conducted by sex crime researchers for the Scientific American magazine found that while the general public believes 75 percent of sex offenders will reoffend, researchers only found that 14 percent of those studied did over a period averaging five to six years.

While the study noted that recidivism rates increased over time, with offenders 24-percent more likely to repeat offences after a period of 15 years, it also noted that the offenses repeated weren’t always a sex crime. Many of the sex offenders studied were likely to engage in a variety of sex and nonsexual crimes.

A future bill should not deal with individuals in a general way because each case is different. We wouldn’t want a surgeon operating on each patient the same way or the Department of Human Services dealing with children the same way. Why would we rely on law enforcement to approach each offender the same way? As stewards to society, these individuals all have responsibilities that require nuanced approaches.

If lawmakers really want to protect society, they should recognize there isn’t a “type” of criminal and the categorization of a criminal shouldn’t be the primary directive — treatment for the offender and proactive measures to deter crime should be the focus.

Express your outrage to the lawmakers who authored the bill and let them know that their backward laws aren’t protecting sex offenders or the community.

---

NJ - Sex Offenders - Recidivism and Collateral Consequences (March 2012)

Abstract:
This report examines the efficacy of sex offender registration and notification (SORN) through its influence on sex offender recidivism and collateral consequences. The first study examines the recidivism rates of two samples of sex offenders, those released prior to SORN and a sample released under SORN in New Jersey. It asks whether or not there are distinct risk profiles among sex offenders with regard to their recidivism trajectories, and if these profiles are similar or different for sex offenders pre- and post- SORN. Additional analyses also include an examination of the influence of demographics, substance abuse, mental health issues, treatment history, sex offense incident characteristics, and criminal history on recidivism trajectories. The second study looks at whether the recidivism trajectories post-prison release for post-SORN sex offenders are similar to or different from the recidivism trajectories post-prison release for post-SORN non-sex offenders who are released from prison via parole. It also specifically focuses on whether or not a series of collateral consequences are experienced similarly or differently among these post-SORN sex and post-SORN non-sex offender parolees.

View Larger Document

---

Predicting Reoffense for Community-Based Sexual Offenders: An Analysis of 30 Years of Data

Original Article

05/29/2012

Abstract:
This study contributes to the area of risk prediction by exploring whether the Static-99R is useful for predicting reoffense in community-based samples, and for noncontact offenders with and without identified victims. A total of 744 participants drawn from an outpatient sex offender treatment program in a large metropolitan area were followed for a period of up to 30 years. Multiple Cox Regressions were run; covariates included length of treatment, status in treatment, Static-99R items, and number of technical probation violations. Overall, reoffending was an infrequent occurrence in this sample regardless of how it was defined, with sexual reoffenses identified in 13% of the sample and any criminal reoffense identified in 20% of the sample. Consistent with previous research, the Static-99R was a better predictor of sex-related reoffenses than of nonsexual reoffenses. However, in no case were more than a couple of the items significantly related to reoffending and these items differed depending on reoffense definition.

---

SVP risk tools show 'disappointing' reliability in real-world use

Click the image to view the entire article

---