Number of abused U.S. children unchanged since 2008

Original Article

05/14/2013

By Andrew M. Seaman

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The number of U.S. children who were exposed to violence, crime and abuse in 2011 was essentially unchanged from 2008, according to a new government survey.

Researchers who interviewed 4,503 children and teenagers in 2011 found that two in five children reported being physically assaulted in the previous year, and one in every 10 kids was injured by that abuse.

"The good news is that a lot of people expected things to get worse given the economy was doing so bad," said David Finkelhor, the study's lead author.

"That's the good news but the bad news is that... the level of exposure to violence, to crime and all that stuff is really enormous to kids," added Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire's Crimes against Children Research Center in Durham.

For the new study, which was supported by federal grants from agencies including the U.S. Department of Justice, interviewers called the homes of children between the ages of one month and 17 years old.

They interviewed an adult in the home and then a randomly selected child between 10 and 17 years old. If the child was younger than 10 years old, the caregiver who is most involved with the child was interviewed.

Finkelhor and his colleagues found that 40 percent of the children and teens reported being physically assaulted in the past year, and 10 percent said they suffered an injury from an assault.

Boys were more likely to be the victims of assault, and often brothers and sisters or other children were the perpetrators.

About 6 percent said they were the victims of sexual harassment, and about 2 percent said they were sexually assaulted.

Those at the highest risk for sexual assault were girls between the ages of 14 and 17 years old. About a quarter of girls in that age group experienced sexual harassment and about 8 percent reported a sexual assault.

The researchers also found that about 14 percent all the children and teens experienced maltreatment, which includes neglect, physical or emotional abuse, custodial interference or sexual abuse by a familiar adult.

About a quarter of the entire group also said their belongings were vandalized or stolen in the past year. About the same number of children reported seeing some sort of violence or crime in their homes or their community. That included domestic violence.

A previous study that surveyed children and their caregivers in 2008 found similar rates of violence and abuse, according to the researchers, who published the new findings in JAMA Pediatrics.

Finkelhor suggested that the rates may have remained steady, in part, because there are programs to help curb violence available to families.

"In spite of anxiety that people had about the recession or the Internet… I think something larger is at work," he said, adding that people still should not be afraid to get involved if they suspect abuse.

"I don't want anyone to get the impression that everything is hunky dory. We still have rates that are higher than in many other developed countries," Finkelhor said.

---

Teen sex offenders remain on sex offender registry for years

See Also:

• US: More Harm Than Good (Human Rights Watch)

Video Link

---

DC - US: More Harm Than Good (Human Rights Watch)

Original Article

Most of what is said below applies to adults offenders as well.

05/01/2013

Exempt Youth Sex Offenders From Registration Laws

Washington - Harsh public registration laws often punish youth sex offenders for life and do little to protect public safety, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. A web of federal and state laws apply to people under 18 who have committed any of a wide range of sex offenses, from the very serious, like rape, to the relatively innocuous, such as public nudity.

The 111-page report (PDF), “Raised on the Registry: The Irreparable Harm of Placing Children on Sex Offender Registries in the US,” details the harm public registration laws cause for youth sex offenders. The laws, which can apply for decades or even a lifetime and are layered on top of time in prison or juvenile detention, require placing offenders’ personal information on online registries, often making them targets for harassment, humiliation, and even violence. The laws also severely restrict where, and with whom, youth sex offenders may live, work, attend school, or even spend time.

"Of course anyone responsible for a sexual assault should be held accountable,” said Nicole Pittman, Soros Senior Justice Advocacy Fellow at Human Rights Watch and author of the report. “But punishment should fit both the offense and the offender, and placing children who commit sex offenses on a public registry – often for life – can cause more harm than good.”

States and the federal government should exempt people who commit sex offenses when they are under age 18 from public registration laws because the laws violate youth offenders’ basic rights. Available research indicates that youth sex offenders are among the least likely to reoffend.

Video Link

During 16 months of investigation, Human Rights Watch interviewed 281 youth sex offenders, whose median age at offense was 15, across 20 states, as well as hundreds of offenders’ family members, defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges, law enforcement officials, experts on the topic, and victims of child-on-child sexual assault.

“I'm a ghost,” said “Dominic G.,” of San Antonio, Texas, who was required to register for an offense he committed when he was 13. “I can’t put my name on a lease, I never receive mail. No one cares if I am alive. In fact, I think they would prefer me dead.”

Throughout the United States, youth sex offenders must comply with a complex array of legal requirements that permeate virtually every aspect of their lives. Under registration laws, they must register with law enforcement, providing their name, home address, place of employment, school address, a current photograph, and other personal information. Under community notification laws, the police make this information accessible to the public, typically via the Internet.

And under residency restriction laws, youth sex offenders are prohibited from living within a designated distance – typically 500 to 2,500 feet – of places where children gather, such as schools, playgrounds, parks, and even bus stops.

There are no comprehensive statistics for the number of people under 18 in the US who are subject to these registration laws, because the national statistics generally do not separate youth sex offenders from others. Each state, US territory, and federally recognized Indian Tribe has its own set of sex offender laws, which can vary considerably, and a number of federal laws also contain requirements affecting youth sex offenders.

In 2011, the last year for which there are complete statistics, the total number of sex offenders nationally was 747,000.

The majority of youth sex offenders interviewed by Human Rights Watch were placed on a registry between 2007 and 2011, but since some state registration laws have been in place for nearly two decades, large numbers of people in the US who began registering as children are now well into adulthood. Their offenses can range from heinous crimes like rape, to consensual sex between children, to relatively innocuous actions like public nudity.

“Many people assume that anyone listed on the sex offender registry must be a rapist or a pedophile,” Pittman said. “But most states spread the net much more widely.”

The report documents the numerous ways in which youth sex offenders are harmed by registration, community notification, and residency restriction laws. Youth sex offenders are stigmatized and publicly humiliated, often causing them to become depressed and even suicidal. They may become targets of harassment and vigilante violence.

Barred from spending time near a school, much less in one, they often struggle to continue their education. Many have a hard time finding – and keeping – a job, or a home. And if they miss a deadline to register, youth sex offenders can find themselves in prison, often for lengthy terms.

Sex offender laws are designed to protect communities from sex offenses by helping police monitor past offenders. But including youth sex offenders on registries assumes that they are highly likely to reoffend, which is not the case. Numerous studies estimate the recidivism rate among children who commit sexual offenses to be between 4 and 10 percent, compared with a 13 percent rate for adult sex offenders and a national rate of 45 percent for all crimes.

The laws further assume that children are essentially younger versions of adults. However, psychological and neuroscientific research confirms that children, including teenagers, act more irrationally and immaturely than adults and should not be held to the same standard of culpability. Likewise, research indicates that children are more likely to respond to rehabilitation and treatment.

Furthermore, requiring a wide range of sex offenders to register overburdens law enforcement with large numbers of people to monitor, undifferentiated by the public safety threat they pose.

States and the federal government should exempt youth sex offenders from both registration and community notification requirements. Short of a full exemption, states should remove all youth sex offenders from registration schemes that are not specifically tailored to take account of the nature of their offense, the risk they pose – if any – to public safety, their particular developmental and cognitive characteristics, their needs for treatment, and their potential for rehabilitation.

“Painting all sex offenders with the same broad brush stymies law enforcement’s attempts to focus on the most dangerous offenders and defeats what every parent knows about how children act and how they mature,” Pittman said. “Exempting youth from harsh registration laws would both respect their rights and ability to change and improve public safety.”

See Also:

• Sex-offender registries: Should kids be listed?

---

The following are quotes from youth sex offenders and others interviewed by Human Rights Watch or contained in documents Human Rights Watch reviewed. Names of registered youth sex offenders and their family members have been abbreviated or replaced with pseudonyms to protect their privacy.

“I live in a general sense of hopelessness, and combat suicidal thoughts almost daily due to the life sentence [registration] and punishment of being a registrant. The stigma and shame will never fully go away, people will always remember.”
– Christian W., who was required to register as a sex offender for an offense committed at age 14. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

“Under the law at the time, he was looking at being put on the public registry when he turned 18. His picture, address and information on the Web.... He just couldn’t bear it.”
– Julia L., mother of Nathan L., who was convicted of a sex offense at 12 and committed suicide at 17. Grand Rapids, Michigan.

“Everyone in the community knew he was on the sex offender registry, it didn’t matter to them that he was removed.... [T]he damage was already done. You can’t un-ring the bell.”
– Elizabeth M., mother of Noah M., who was convicted of a sex offense at 12 and committed suicide at 17, after being removed from the registry in Michigan. Flint, Michigan.

“Suicide [among children placed on sex offender registries] is a possibility ... even predictable.”
– David S. Prescott, a social worker and expert on treatment strategies for youth sex offenders.

“A member of the community made flyers that said ‘Beware - Sex Offender in the Neighborhood.’ The flyers, with my grade school picture, offense, and address, were posted all over the place.”
– Nicholas T., placed on the registry at age 16. Portland, Oregon.

“A few months after [Max] went on the registry the local newspaper ran a Halloween story entitled ‘Know where the Monsters are Hiding,’ warning families to beware of the registered sex offenders in the neighborhood when taking their little ones out to go trick-or-treating. The article listed all the sex offenders in our town. Max’s name and address was listed.”
– Bruce W., father of a youth sex offender who started registering at 10. Weatherford, Texas.

“The police always expect you are the worst of the worst sex offenders and so they treat you that way. Most of them look down on you as if you are the scum of the earth.”
– Elijah B., placed on the registry at age 16. Houston, Texas.

“My son’s life was ruined before he even turned 18 years old. Due to the burden of registration my son dropped out of school, he is afraid to leave the house, and he cannot get a job interview. He has not committed any new crimes yet this is holding him back from becoming a good member of society.”
– Tony K., father of a child placed on the registry at 17. Kansas City, Missouri.

“Once while attempting to register my address, a police officer refused to give me the paperwork and instead stated, ‘We’re just taking your kind out back and shooting them.’”
– Maya R., placed on the registry for an offense committed at age 10. Howell, Michigan.

“It makes people very angry. My brother, who looks like me, was once harassed and nearly beaten to death by a drunk neighbor who thought he was me.”
– Isaac E., who started registering at 12. Spokane, Washington.

“One time a man from one of those cars yelled ‘child molester’ at me.” A week later several bullets were fired from a car driving by. “The bullets went through the living room window as my family and me watched T.V.”
– Camilo F., registrant since age 14. Gainesville, Florida.

“I was in the [school] parking lot and this truck drove by and started throwing beer bottles at me. I had to run inside. They yelled, ‘Get out of our school, you child molester! I wish I could kill you!’”
– Joshua G., placed on the registry for an offense committed at age 12. Dallas, Texas.

“Neighbors harassed our family. We later found out that one of the neighbors shot our family dog.”
– Jasmine A., mother of Zachary S., who has been on the registry since age 11. Dallas, Texas.

“For sex offenders, our mistake is forever available to the world to see. There is no redemption, no forgiveness. You are never done serving your time. There is never a chance for a fresh start. You are finished. I wish I was executed, because my life is basically over.”
– Austin S., who started registering at age 14. Denham Springs, Louisiana.

“My ten years of registration was supposed to end on September 27, 2012. It is now 2013 and I am still on the state website and all those other registration sites. I feel like it will never end.”
– Diego G., placed on the registry at age 10. Houston, Texas.

“Because of sex offender restrictions my family had to be divided up. I could not live with children. My father stayed in our house with my younger brother. My mother and me moved in with my grandparents two hours away.”
– Sebastian S., youth sex offender who started registering at age 10. Laredo, Texas.

“I worry about my two little children, ages 4 and 2, having to live in a publicly identified house and having to pay this lifelong price for something that happened years before they were born. I want to be involved in their lives but I also want them to be able to live free to be who they are without having to carry such a burden.”
– Jerry M., who started registering at 11. Wilmington, Delaware.

“With parents often the targets of blame for the sins of their children, parents of sex offenders can experience just as much fear, shame, and paranoia as their children.
– David Prescott, a social worker and expert on treatment strategies for youth sex offenders.

“I have found a few places to rent but as soon as we move in the police and neighbors harass us until we get evicted. They keep us homeless. I am banned from living in a homeless shelter.”
– Aaron I., Florida registrant since age 15. Palm Beach, Florida.

“I get hired and fired from so many jobs. I can usually keep a job for a few weeks until the employer’s name and address goes up on the sex offender registry [because registrants must provide this information]. Employers say it’s ‘bad for business’ to keep me on.”
– Elijah B., placed on the registry at 16. Houston, Texas.

“Employment is difficult. I have to support my wife and kids. I estimate that between January to April 2012 I have applied for 250 positions.”
– Joshua G., placed on the registry for an offense committed at age 12. Dallas, Texas.

“I have to look at a map before I walk anywhere. I can be arrested if I am walking anywhere near a school or park.”
– Blake G., a registrant for an offense committed at age 15. Citrus, Florida.

“These fees are associated with the registrant wherever he goes for the rest of his life. They are forever a tax on his life.”
– Ethan Ashley, attorney for James O., a youth sex offender.

“The most recent laws dilute the effectiveness of the registry as a public safety tool, by flooding it with thousands of low risk offenders like children, the vast majority of whom will never commit another sex offense.”
– Detective Bob Shilling, a former chief detective in charge of the Seattle Sex Crimes Unit responsible for making home visits to registered sex offenders.

“We cast the net widely to make sure we got all the sex offenders ... it turns out that really only a small percentage of people convicted of sex offenses pose a true danger to the public.”
– Ray Allen, a former Texas legislator and former chairman of the Texas House Corrections Committee– who once helped push tougher sex offender registration bills into law – admitting that he and his colleagues went too far.

“[O]n many state sex-offender web sites, you can find juveniles’ photos, names and addresses, and in some cases their birth dates and maps to their homes, alongside those of pedophiles and adult rapists.”
– Brenda V. Smith, a law professor and the director of the National Institute of Corrections Project on Addressing Prison Rape at American University’s Washington College of Law.

---

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.

---

MA - In wake of alarming audit, state to check whether child care workers are sex offenders

Susan Bump

Original Article

Just because someone is forced to wear the "sex offender" label doesn't mean they have sexually abused a child. Out of the 119 matches, how many had sexual crimes against children, and how old were they when the crime occurred? That is information that is needed in a study like this, unless you are just fear mongering?

03/27/2013

By Martin Finucane

People who work in child care centers or live on the centers’ premises will be checked to see if they are registered sex offenders, the acting head of the state agency that oversees the centers said today.

Acting Early Education and Care Commissioner Thomas L. Weber commented in the wake of a state audit (PDF) that found 119 matches between the addresses of registered sex offenders and the addresses of child care providers.

“We take the safety and security of children in the care of providers very seriously. It’s our highest priority. Any time we receive suggestions or findings related to safety, we’re going to treat those very seriously,” Weber said.

“We’ll obviously work closely with [the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security] and the Sex Offender Registry Board to ensure that all those who are working with children and/or living with children are being reviewed for any safety concerns,” he said.

Auditor Suzanne Bump today unveiled the audit, which covered the period from July 2010 to September 2011, calling for the state to check whether those who work or live at child care sites are sex offenders, something 17 others states do, she said.

Bump also called for the state to continue to check for address matches. Weber said the address matching would also be done. “We’ll take advantage of all publicly available information,” he said.

“No parent who drops their child off at day care should have to worry about the safety of their son or daughter,” Bump said in a statement. “The presence of registered sex offenders in such proximity to groups of children is information parents, providers, and the EEC must have and act upon.”
- Not all ex-sex offenders have sexually abused children!  That is like saying all ex-felons are serial killers because a couple are, but it's the typical reaction by politicians and many in today's society.

The child care agency said in a response included in the audit report that its investigation had found that 16 of the address matches uncovered by Bump’s office were for programs that were closed, 39 were for workplaces or community college campuses where the sex offenders were either working or going to school, and 10 simply weren’t matches.

In 50 of the remaining cases, Weber said, the sex offender lived in the same building but not at the child care facility and operators were directed to “complete a safety plan” for the children.

In four cases, at four separate locations, Weber said, the investigation found that sex offenders were living in homes where family day care was provided. Those licenses were immediately revoked, he said.

The 119 offenders matched addresses with 75 child care locations, said auditor’s spokesman Christopher Thompson, meaning multiple offenders matched up, in some cases, to a single location. Weber said that could be explained, for example, by multiple offenders listing a community college campus.

After a thorough review of all 119 “individuals of concern,” Weber said, “we haven’t received any evidence of any wrongdoing. ... Should we have any information brought to our attention we will take action and, if appropriate, report it to public safety officials.”

The audit matched the addresses of Level 2 and Level 3 offenders against the addresses of child care providers licensed by the agency. Weber said he had no information on how many of those with matching addresses were Level 3 offenders, those considered most likely to reoffend.

The audit also contained other findings critical of the agency, but Bump said the agency had already taken actions in response.

“While I know that EEC has the best intention to fulfill its mission, this audit shows that more can be done to protect young children,” said Bump. “Unfortunately, there is little margin of error as just one case can have dire consequences.”

Weber, the acting commissioner, has been on the job for only a little over two weeks. The commissioner of the department, Sherri Killins, resigned earlier this month after revelations that, while working at her nearly $200,000-per-year state job, she was enrolled in a superintendent training program in the town of Ware.

Video Link

---

SSRN - On Emotion, Juvenile Sex Offenders, and Mandatory Registration

Original Article

Catherine L. Carpenter
Southwestern Law School

November 10, 2012

3 Journal of Race, Gender, & Policy 1 (2013, Forthcoming)

Abstract:
It is both unremarkable and true that juveniles are different from adults. United States Supreme Court decisions over the past decade have highlighted the extent of the differences. Yet, played out against the backdrop of sex offender registration laws, the conversation takes an abrupt turn. Rather than differentiating between adult and juvenile offenders, federal sex offender registration laws require juveniles convicted of certain sex offenses to face the same onerous registration and notification burdens as their adult counterparts.

Tracking the shift in sex offender registration models from “likely to reoffend” to “conviction-based" assessment, this article argues that “conviction-based” assessment is an unstable proposition when applied to child offenders for two fundamental reasons. First, juvenile offenders lack intentionality and purpose that adult offenders possess, thereby diminishing the value that a conviction carries. Further, and more importantly, studies reveal that the commission of juvenile sex crimes does not portend future predatory behavior, raising the question of the purpose of registration for this class of offenders.

Ultimately, the legislative push to require juvenile sex offenders to suffer serious register and notification burdens demonstrates convincingly the pitfall that impacts the entire debate over sex offender registration. Emotional rhetoric controls the legislative agenda, even in the face of compelling arguments to the contrary.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 14

Keywords: sex offender registration, juvenile sex offender, mandatory registration, SORNA

---

Jurisdictions Face Challenges to Implementing the Act, and Stakeholders Report Positive and Negative Effects

The following was sent to us via the contact form and posted with the users permission. The name has been abbreviated for their own protection.

By RF:
An eye opening "study" by GAO. Reveals the overall failure of implementating the AWA across the entire country. Most interesting here is the fact that "SORNA, when passed in 2006, required DOJ to conduct a comprehensive study on SORNA’s effects, which could help address current research gaps." But DOJ cites no funding for the study. DOJ has money, even unclaimed Byrne JAG funds from states that have not implemented SORNA, available to implement more SORNA programs BUT NO MONEY TO GATHER FACTS ON THE EFFECTS OF SORNA ONCE IMPLEMENTED!

---

Original Article (PDF)

What GAO Found
The Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office) within the Department of Justice (DOJ) has determined that 19 of the 37 jurisdictions that have submitted packages for review have substantially implemented the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). Although the SMART Office has determined that 17 of the jurisdictions that submitted packages have not yet substantially implemented SORNA, the office concluded that 15 of these 17 jurisdictions have implemented at least half of the SORNA requirements; the office has not yet made a determination for 1 jurisdiction that submitted a package. A majority of nonimplemented jurisdictions reported that generating the political will to incorporate the necessary changes to their state laws and related policies or reconciling legal conflicts are among the greatest challenges to implementation. For example, officials from 27 nonimplemented jurisdictions reported reconciling conflicts between SORNA and state laws--such as which offenses should require registration--as a challenge to implementing SORNA. Officials from 5 of 18 jurisdictions that responded to a survey question asking how DOJ could help address these challenges reported that the SMART Office could provide greater flexibilities; however, SMART Office officials said they have offered as many flexibilities as possible and further changes would take legislative action.

A few studies have been conducted on the effects of certain SORNA requirements on jurisdictions and registered sex offenders, but GAO did not find any that evaluated the effects on public safety following SORNA implementation; stakeholders reported both positive and negative effects as a result of implementing the law. Officials from 4 of 12 implementing jurisdictions who responded to the survey reported that one benefit was improved monitoring of registered sex offenders. Stakeholders also reported that SORNA resulted in enhanced information sharing on registered sex offenders between criminal justice components, in part through the use of certain databases that enable jurisdictions to share information with one another. Stakeholders and survey respondents also identified negative or unintended consequences of implementing SORNA. For example, officials from three of five state agencies and all eight of the local law enforcement agencies GAO interviewed stated that their workload has increased, in part because of the increased frequency at which sex offenders must update their registration information as a result of the act. Officials from a majority of the public defender and probation offices also said that SORNA implementation has made it more difficult for registered sex offenders to obtain housing and employment, which can negatively affect their ability to reintegrate into their communities. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is statutorily required to study SORNA's effectiveness in increasing compliance with requirements and the effect of these requirements on increasing public safety. As of December 2012, DOJ had not requested the funding to conduct this study and the funding had not been appropriated. NIJ officials stated that NIJ does not proactively request funding for specific studies, but waits for Congress to decide when to appropriate the funding. Neither DOJ nor the Administrative Office of the United States Courts provided written comments on this report.

Why GAO Did This Study
Studies estimate that about 1 in every 5 girls and 1 in every 7 to 10 boys are sexually abused. In 2006, Congress passed SORNA, which introduced new sex offender registration standards for all 50 states, 5 U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands), the District of Columbia, and certain Indian tribes. SORNA established the SMART Office to determine if these jurisdictions have "substantially implemented" the law, and to assist them in doing so. The deadline to implement SORNA was July 2009; given that none of the jurisdictions met this deadline, DOJ authorized two 1-year extensions. This report addresses: (1) To what extent has the SMART Office determined that jurisdictions have substantially implemented SORNA, and what challenges, if any, have jurisdictions faced? (2) For jurisdictions that have substantially implemented SORNA, what are the reported effects that the act has had on public safety, criminal justice stakeholders, and registered sex offenders?

GAO analyzed SMART Office implementation status reports from September 2009 through September 2012. To identify any challenges, GAO surveyed officials in the 50 states, 5 U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia; GAO received responses from 93 percent (52 of 56) of them. The survey results can be viewed at GAO-13-234SP GAO visited or interviewed criminal justice officials in five jurisdictions that have substantially implemented SORNA, chosen to represent a range in the number of registered sex offenders per 100,000 residents. Their perspectives are not generalizable, but provided insights.

For more information, contact Eileen R. Larence at (202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov.

---

CA - Sex Offenders Monitored by GPS Found to Commit Fewer Crimes (DUH!!!!!)

Original Article

Did you really have to do a study to determine this? Any half-dead human being could have told you this. Guess this is what happens when the government thinks we are all brain dead zombies who cannot comprehend anything. Of course they have a lower recidivism rate, that is obvious, but ex-sex offenders already have one of the lowest recidivism rates out there. This is just pure nonsense! How can you disprove this?

By Philip Bulman

An NIJ-sponsored research project examines the impact that GPS monitoring has on the recidivism rates of sex offenders in California.

A study of California high-risk sex offenders on parole found that those placed on GPS monitoring had significantly lower recidivism rates than those who received traditional supervision.

Researchers examined the effectiveness of using GPS to monitor high-risk sex offenders placed on parole in California. The NIJ-sponsored study included 516 high-risk parolees who had been released from prison between January 2006 and March 2009. Half of the parolees wore GPS monitoring devices in addition to receiving traditional parole supervision, which involves regular contact by parole agents and weekly sex-offender treatment classes ("GPS group"); the other half received only traditional parole supervision ("traditional group"). Researchers tracked each parolee for one year following his initial parole date.

See "Using GPS to Monitor Sex Offenders"

The study involved:

• An outcome evaluation to assess both the cost of the GPS program and its effectiveness in reducing the criminal behavior of high-risk sex offender parolees.
• A process evaluation to assess the program's design and implementation.

The researchers collected information from the state's data management system and examined official arrest records, parole supervision records, GPS monitoring data and state cost information. In addition, they conducted a survey of roughly 1,000 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) parole officers. The survey included questions about the GPS monitoring system, caseloads, program staffing and screening of high-risk sex offender parolees.

Read the rest of this nonsense here

---

DC - US Sentencing Commission releases big new report on federal child porn sentencing

Original Article

02/27/2013

As reported in this official press release (PDF), this morning "the United States Sentencing Commission submitted to Congress its comprehensive report examining federal sentencing policy in child pornography cases." Here is more from the press release, which serves as a partial summary of the 468-page (Full Report -PDF) report:

Excerpt:
Although still only a small percentage of the overall federal caseload, child pornography prosecutions have grown significantly during the past decade and now account for nearly 2,000 federal cases each year. That growth reflects the increasing role of the Internet in child pornography offenses. Before the Internet, law enforcement officers had significantly curtailed the child pornography market in the United States.

Significant technological changes in offenders’ conduct have occurred since the federal penal statutes and sentencing guidelines for child pornography offenses were last amended comprehensively a decade ago. Child pornography offenders today typically use Internet technologies such as peer-to-peer file-sharing programs that enable offenders to distribute, receive, and collect child pornography images more easily and in greater quantities than when the current penalty structure was established. Several penalty enhancements in the guidelines for child pornography offenses,such as use of a computer, now apply to typical offenders. As a result, prison sentences for defendants convicted of federal child pornography offenses have almost doubled in the last decade to approximately five years for possession and 11 years for receipt and distribution.

Judge Saris concluded, “Because of changes in the use of Internet-based technologies, the existing penalty structure is in need of revision. Child pornography offenders engage in a variety of behaviors reflecting different degrees of culpability and sexual dangerousness that are not currently accounted for in the guidelines.”

See Also:

• Report to Congress: Federal Child Pornography Offenses (All links)

Read the entire article here

---

Preventing Sex-Offender Recidivism Through Therapeutic Jurisprudence Approaches and Specialized Community Integration

Original Article

Heather Cucolo
New York Law School

Michael L. Perlin
New York Law School

2012

Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review, Fall 2012
NYLS Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12/13 #33

Abstract:
(View the PDF) The public’s panic about the fear of recidivism if adjudicated sex offenders are ever to be released to the community has not subsided, despite the growing amount of information and statistically-reliable data signifying a generally low risk of re-offense. The established case law upholding sex offender civil commitment and containment statutes has rejected challenges of unconstitutionality, and continues to be dominated by punitive undertones. We have come to learn that the tools used to assess offenders for risk and civil commitment are often inaccurate and that meaningful treatment for this population is often unavailable and ineffective. Yet, society continues to clamor for legislation confining this cohort of offenders for “treatment,” and, ostensibly, protection of the community, and legislatures respond quickly to these calls. This “reform legislation” often includes strict and demeaning post-release restrictions that track offenders and curb their integration into society. These “reforms” continue to show no benefit either to the public or to the individual offender. The absence of meaningful and effective treatment during confinement, combined with inhumane conditions upon release, make it far less likely that this cohort of individuals will ever become productive members of society. Only through therapeutic jurisprudence, a focus on rehabilitation, and a dedication to treating sexual offenders humanely, will it be possible to reduce recidivism and foster successful community reintegration.

This article takes a new approach to these issues. It examines sex offender laws, past and present, looks at this area of sex offender commitment and containment through a therapeutic jurisprudence lens, and suggests basic policy changes that would optimally and constitutionally minimize re-offense rates, while upholding and protecting human rights of all citizens. It highlights the failure of community containment laws and ordinances by focusing on (1) the myths/perceptions that have arisen about sex offenders, and how society incorporates those myths into legislation, (2) the lack of rehabilitation offered to incarcerated or civilly-committed offenders, resulting in inadequate re-entry preparation, (3) the anti-therapeutic and inhumane effect of the laws and ordinances created to restrict sex offenders in the community, and (4) the reluctance and resistance of courts to incorporate therapeutic jurisprudence in seeking to remediate this set of circumstances. It concludes by offering some modest suggestions, based on the adoption of a therapeutic jurisprudence model of analysis.

---

'They're Planting Stories in the Press': The Impact of Media Distortions on Sex Offender Law and Policy

Original Article

02/19/2013

Heather Cucolo
New York Law School

Michael L. Perlin
New York Law School

NYLS Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12/13 #55
NYLS Clinical Research Institute Paper No. # 33/ 2012

Abstract:
(View the PDF) Individuals classified as sexual predators are the pariahs of the community. Sex offenders are arguably the most despised members of our society and therefore warrant our harshest condemnation. Twenty individual states and the federal government have enacted laws confining individuals who have been adjudicated as “sexually violent predators” to civil commitment facilities post incarceration and/or conviction. Additionally, in many jurisdictions, offenders who are returned to the community are restricted and monitored under community notification, registration and residency limitations. Targeting, punishing and ostracizing these individuals has become an obsession in society, clearly evidenced in the constant push to enact even more restrictive legislation that breaches the boundaries of constitutional protections.

The advancement of technology and mass media communication have spawned a constant influx of information about sexual predators. News headlines and Internet webpages are dedicated to reporting on and highlighting sexual crimes and their infamous perpetrators. There is little disputing that the newest surge in legal attention and efforts to contain sexual predators stems from the mass dissemination of sexual offender media stories available to the general public. Thus, we cannot discuss our national obsession with sexual offenses and offenders without considering how the role of the media has framed our conceptualizations of offenders and influenced resulting legal decisions and legislation.

The public perception of what constitutes a “sex offender” is undoubtedly linked to the media’s portrayal of these types of heinous crimes. The media’s attention to high profile, violent sexual offenses has been shown to elicit a panic and fear of rampant sexual violence within our communities. This, in turn, places extreme public pressure on legislators to enact more repressive legislation and on judges to interpret such laws in ways that insure lengthier periods of incarceration for offenders. The media’s portrayal of a “largely ineffective” criminal justice system heightens fear; fictionalized portrayals of crime on television dramas may lead viewers to believe that “all offenders are `monsters’ to be feared.” The media, in short, shapes and produces the reality of crime, as it influences “factual perceptions of the world.” A “moral panic” has developed primarily due to the media’s depiction of a “sex offender” in the news and newspaper articles. As a result of the incessant media coverage, the general public has conceptualized what it believes to be the prototype of this “monstrous evil” – a male who violently attacks stranger young children .

This paper is not the first inquiry into the media’s influence on public perceptions and moral panic: the media’s influence on sex offender policy, legislation and public opinion has been highlighted in depth throughout much of the literature and academic writings. The other discussions have generally focused on the media’s role as a precursor to the enactment of sex offender legislation, the upholding of sex offender laws in the courts, and as a significant influence on the continuation of moral panic. But what has not been looked at significantly, is whether and how the media coverage and presentation of these issues has been transformed over the past two decades, and what effect, if any, this has had on public perception. What if the media has begun to shift away from simply highlighting and describing the feared beast and has begun to focus more on the problematic results of laws and legislation? Would that, in turn, have an effect on public perceptions and inevitably on the formation and enactment of laws and judicial decisions?

Slowly and somewhat recently, it appears that the tone of the media’s portrayal of sex offender issues has begun to shift. In addition to highlighting salient and horrific sexually violent offenses and contributing to community outrage, the mainstream media has increasingly begun to report on significant concerns surrounding the conceptualization, treatment and containment of the sex offender population. News articles – published in popular newspapers and media sites – more readily dedicate information to expressing expert opinions (that were previously embedded in articles dedicated solely to describing heinous crimes and community outrage), reporting on statistics that question the factual basis of our perceptions, questioning the efficacy of the laws designed to protect the community, and touching on the cost of human rights violations resulting from our laws.

This article will consider the role of the media in sex offender issues and further theorize whether the shift in media presentation has affected public perceptions of sex offenders and whether it has had any impact on recent legislation and the future enactment of sex offender laws. As part of this inquiry, we will employ the lens of therapeutic jurisprudence in an effort to assess the broader societal impact of these media depictions.

Part I will offer an overview of the major (media-centered) sex offender laws and legislation, focusing on the media accounts of the crimes upon which they were based. Part II will consider the impact of the media’s portrayal of offenders as the pariahs of society in the civil and criminal justice system; Part III will detail the proposed recent shift in media presentation and consider how, if at all, this shift has made an impact on new laws, legislation and court opinions. Part IV weighs these developments in the context of therapeutic jurisprudence, and considers its potential impact on dealing with the aftermath of the first decades of the media’s volatile influence on this area of law and policy. We conclude by offering several policy recommendations.

---

The Truth Behind the Penn State Cover Up with Jim Clemente

Jim Clemente

Video Description:
Jim Clemente (retired FBI and current Criminal Minds writer/producer) goes in depth on the case of Jerry Sandusky and the extent of Joe Paterno's involvement in any cover-up. Confirming guilt is very tricky in sex abuse cases, and Jim discusses the factors that enable some predators to abuse for years.
- You don't need to confirm guilt these days, just an allegation is enough to ruin your life (See here).

Jim Clemente is a retired FBI agent and current advisor, writer and producer for the TV series "Criminal Minds." A graduate of Fordham University School of Law, Jim was the head of the Child Sex Crimes Prosecution Team in Bronx County for the New York City Law Department. As a result of undercover work that led to the imprisonment of a child sex offender, Clemente was recruited into the FBI. From 1998 until October 2009 he was a Supervisory Special Agent in the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit in Quantico, Virginia. He is an expert in the fields of Sex Crimes Investigations, Sex Offender Behavior, Child Sexual Victimization, and Child Pornography. Clemente has investigated and consulted on thousands of cases involving the violent and sexual crimes, sexual victimization of children, and he has interviewed hundreds of victims and offenders. He has also testified as an expert witness and lectured on these topics across the country and around the world.

Study

---

People Want Criminals to Suffer, Even If It Is “Useless”

Original Article

A large body of experimental research has sought to determine whether punishment is motivated more by instrumental considerations (deterrence, incapacitation, etc.) or by retributive urges. The various studies, although limited in important ways, have generally pointed to retribution as the primary factor in driving penal decisions in response to hypothetical fact patterns.

Add to this body of research an interesting new study Eyal Aharoni and Alan Fridlund, “Punishment Without Reason: Isolating Retribution in Lay Punishment of Criminal Offenders,” 18 Psych., Pub. Pol’y & L. 599 (2012).

Aharoni and Fridlund presented subjects with various versions of a hypothetical homicide case and then asked how much the killer should be made to suffer and what sentence should be imposed.

In the various versions, they cleverly manipulated the facts so as to add or subtract instrumental justifications for punishment. For instance, in one version, the legal proceedings were conducted entirely in private, thus supposedly eliminating general deterrence as a rational purpose of punishment. They also sought to manipulate the intentionality of the crime, stipulating sometimes that it was deliberate and sometimes that it resulted from a brain tumor. Since intentionality is thought to be a key variable in retributive judgments, this manipulation helps to isolate the effect of retributive purposes of punishment.

Consistent with earlier studies, Aharoni and Fridlund found that their subjects wanted the intentional wrongdoer to suffer and to receive a long sentence, even when punishment was useless (in the sense of lacking a deterrent or incapacitative justification).

The authors reached similar conclusions in a second, related study, in which subjects were presented with a single vignette in which punishment again lacked any apparent instrumental justification. Initially, more than 90% of the subjects favored punishment. An interviewer then sought to determine the reasons for punishment, which the interviewer rebutted. For instance, if a subject provided an incapacitative rationale, the interviewer would remind the subject that the offender had become permanently paralyzed after commission of the crime, which removed any threat of future dangerousness. Even after being talked out of any instrumental value to the punishment, more than 70% of the subjects continued to support punishment.

Read the entire article here

---

NH - Local lawmaker proposes bill to study sex offender registry

Original Article

01/22/2013

By Danielle Rivard

A local lawmaker hopes to prompt a study of the state’s sex offender registry.

State Rep. Timothy N. Robertson, D-Keene, says each sex offender’s case should be treated individually instead of a one-size-fits-all approach.

There are different levels of punishment for different types of sex offenses, and Robertson says offenders should not automatically have to register at the level their crimes are associated with, for example if someone is convicted of a felony, they are at a different level of the registry than someone convicted of a lesser crime.

A 30-year-old man who sexually assaulted a 4-year-old child should not get the same punishment as a 20-year-old who was drunk and “seduced” by a 15-year-old girl who looks mature for her age, he said.

Robertson authored a bill this year to create a team of three state representatives and two senators to review and study the effects of the sex offender registry.

Federal law requires people convicted of sex crimes to register with the state as sex offenders; their names and addresses are publicly available.

There are three tiers of sex offender registration, based on the type of crime committed. One tier requires the offender to be on the registry for 10 years, while the other two require the offender to be on the registry for life.

The bill states as part of its study, the committee will evaluate whether any changes to the registry’s law should be made and to determine whether certain offenders should be allowed to ask the court to be removed from the registry after a period of time.

As a member of the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, Robertson said he’s seen many different sex offender cases, such as the case of the 20-year-old man and the 15-year-old girl.

A few 20-year-old men were drinking together at a party and some girls who looked of age showed up. One of the men who never met one of the girls before had sex with her because she was willing, Robertson said in a recent interview.

It turns out the girl was 15, on probation, and told her probation officer what happened. The probation officer then had no choice but to have the man arrested, who then served four years in prison for it, Robertson said.

Since the man got out of prison he has never committed another crime and has been trying to make a living for himself. But he still has to report to police every few days and for the rest of his life he’s considered a child molester, Robertson said.

“There has to be a way to have (the man’s) punishment modified,” Robertson said. “I don’t believe in fixed sentences.”

Advocates for sexual assault victims at the Monadnock Center for Violence Prevention in Keene say they are in favor the committee’s creation because it will evaluate the sex offender registry laws.

From this, advocates hope to see more thorough assessments of offenders when their cases are reviewed.

But the bigger issue is the lack of prosecution on sexual assault cases and the safety of the public, advocates say.

Because there are too few prosecutions of sex assaults to begin with, the bill raises a different discussion “that is in favor of what we really need to be doing about sexual violence and sexual assaults on adults and children,” said Robin P. Christopherson, executive director of the center.

The sex offender registry is one tool meant to protect victims, Christopherson said. But the problem is that perpetrators often get charges reduced so they don’t have to register as a sex offender, and that protection is lost, she said.

Robertson’s bill will be assigned to a House committee, which will review the bill and hold a public hearing on it.

---

AUSTRALIA - Misperceptions about child sex offenders (09/2011)

Original Article
View the PDF document

Kelly Richards
ISSN 1836-2206
Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, September 2011

Abstract:
Sexual offending against children is a highly emotive issue. It is nonetheless important that public policy initiatives to prevent and/or respond to child sexual abuse are based on the available evidence about child sex offenders.

This paper (PDF) addresses five common misperceptions about the perpetrators of sexual offences against children. Specifically, the issues addressed include whether all child sex offenders are ‘paedophiles’, who sexually abuse children, whether most child sex offenders were victims of sexual abuse themselves, rates of recidivism among child sex offenders and the number of children sex offenders typically abuse before they are detected by police.

The evidence outlined in this paper highlights that there are few black and white answers to these questions. Perpetrators of sexual crimes against children are not, contrary to widespread opinion, a homogenous group. Rather, there are a number of varied offending profiles that characterise child sex offenders. Gaining an understanding of the nuances of this offender population is critical if children are to be protected from sexual abuse.

Read the entire study here

---

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?

---

FL - OPPAGA finds sex offender registration is rising

Original Article

01/03/2013

By Bill Cotterell

The number of sex offenders registering with police has risen four times faster than Florida's population, but state and federal law enforcement agencies have dramatically cut the number who get away, says a new legislative study of rules imposed since the rape and murder of a little girl horrified the state in 2005.

However, homeless and transient sex offenders take up a lot of police time and paperwork, and about one-fourth of offenders who comply with registration laws can't afford the sign-up fee or lack documentation to verify their arrests. In addition to transient sex offenders, many of the addresses listed by those registering turn out to be jails or homeless shelters, the report said.

The Legislature's Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability did a statewide review of how the 2005 Jessica Lunsford Act has worked. The law, named for a 9-year-old Homosassa girl who was kidnapped  raped and murdered, requires life sentences for anyone assaulting children under 12, and a 2007 revision added new rules for those classified as predators.

All offenders are required to check in with police every six months, and those classified as predators have to check in every 90 days -- updating identification, addresses, phone numbers phone and e-mail addresses, work locations and other data.

"The number of registered sex offenders residing in Florida communities has grown by 28 percent, from 18,607 in 2005 to 23,813 in 2012," the OPPAGA report said. "During this same time period, the state population grew by roughly 6.5 percent."

OPPAGA said the number of predators almost doubled -- from 1,222 in 2005 to 2,400 last year.

But the number of registered offenders absconding from official supervision has fallen from 1,214 when the act was passed to 646 last year. The number of predators not reporting in edged up from 45 in 2005 to 47 last year, OPPAGA said.

Predators are distinguished from other offenders as those "who present an extreme threat to public safety, as demonstrated through repeated sex offenses, the use of physical violence or preying on child victims."

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which maintains a public registry of sex offenders, told OPPAGA analysts that several factors have contributed to the decline in numbers of criminals who abscond or otherwise lose contact with police.

"These factors include the department's hiring of absconder analysts to actively monitor the sex offender registry to identify absconders quickly," said the report. "In addition, FDLE and local sheriffs' offices are working with the U.S. Marshals Service to locate absconded sex offenders."

Sex-offense statutes also include restrictions on where offenders can live, requirements for electronic monitoring and prohibition of contact with children.

Tracking homeless, transient and indigent offenders with oft-changing addresses remains a chronic problem, even when they try to comply with registration laws, OPPAGA said. It said the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles processed 22,329 identification requests for sex offenders between Aug. 1, 2011, and July 31, 2012, and 23.3 percent of them -- 5,194 offenders -- either couldn't furnish required documentation or pay fees ranging from $25 to $54.25, depending on whether they wanted a driving license or other ID card.

Sheriffs' offices also reported that locating transient offenders "was a major impediment" in verifying addresses they provided. The report said some counties require transients to call police weekly, in addition to showing up in person quarterly or semi-annually, as required by their offense records.

FDLE Commissioner Gerald Bailey thanked OPPAGA for its analysis of the sex-offender registry.

"Despite the complexities and challenges of administering the system, Florida remains a national model," Bailey wrote in his reply to the OPPAGA report. "The Florida registry maintains a remarkably low percentage of absconded registrants; it has decreased from 4.37 percent in 2005 to 1.23 percent, despite the 65 percent increase in number of registrants."

See Also:

• Report No. 12-12: Registered Sex Offenders in Florida Communities Increased to Over 23,000; Transient Offenders Present Challenges (PDF)

---

Judge bars Static-99R risk tool from SVP trial

Original Article

12/14/2012

By Karen Franklin

Developers staunchly refused requests to turn over data

For several years now, the developers of the most widely used sex offender risk assessment tool in the world have refused to share their data with independent researchers and statisticians seeking to cross-check the instrument's methodology.

Now, a Wisconsin judge has ordered the influential Static-99R instrument excluded from a sexually violent predator (SVP) trial, on the grounds that failure to release the data violates a respondent's legal right to due process.

The ruling may be the first time that the Static-99R has been excluded altogether from court. At least one prior court, in New Hampshire, barred an experimental method (PDF) that is currently popular among government evaluators, in which Static-99R risk estimates are artificially inflated by comparing sex offenders to a specially selected "high-risk" sub-group, a procedure that has not been empirically validated in any published research.

Read the entire article here

---

FL - New study finds federal sex offender law not effective

Original Article

11/28/2012

By Jill Levenson

New data driven system called for in new report

According to a report released last week (PDF) by the U.S. Department of Justice, the federal tier-based sex offender registration and management system put in place in 2006 does not predict risk of recidivism by sex offenders and its authors point to the need for a system based on more empirical data.

Title 1 of the Adam Walsh Act (called SORNA – Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act), passed by Congress in 2006, sought to improve and standardize sex offender registration and management procedures by requiring all states to implement the same three-tier classification system according to the offense of conviction—Tier 1 being the least serious and Tier 3 being the most serious. The system assumed that the more serious the offense the higher the risk of a repeated crime by the offender.

"The offense-based classification system adopted by the Adam Walsh Act was developed without empirical validation," said Jill Levenson, an associate professor of human services in Lynn University's College of Liberal Education and one of the researchers on the project. "Therefore the essential question is whether this classification system accurately represents the risk of re-offense and leads to more effective sex offender management."

The study (PDF), funded by the National Institute of Justice, collected data about 1,789 adult male sex offenders released from prisons in Florida, Minnesota, New Jersey and South Carolina. The sex offenders were tracked for up to 10 years. After 5 years, 5.1 percent of them had been rearrested for a new sexual crime, and after 10 years, the sexual rearrest rate was 10.2 percent.

Tier level was not significantly associated with recidivism in New Jersey, Minnesota and South Carolina and was inversely associated with recidivism in Florida (PDF)—the only state in the study's sample that has been certified as substantially compliant with the federal Adam Walsh Act.

"We investigated whether SORNA tiers were correlated with risk assessments and recidivism rates. If SORNA designations correctly identify higher risk offenders, then we would expect cases with Tier 3 offenders to have higher risk scores and higher rates of recidivism," explained Levenson. "What we found, however, was that Tier 3 offenders were consistently associated with lower risk scores and lower recidivism rates."

The researchers concluded that actuarial risk assessment instruments, which are created by putting together risk factors found by research to correlate with reoffending, consistently outperformed the tier system mandated by federal law. The tiering systems already in use by the states also did a better job than SORNA tiers in predicting which sex offenders will go on to be rearrested for a new sex crime.

States that fail to comply with the law are penalized with a reduction in their federal criminal justice funding. So far, only 16 states have passed legislation complying with the federal requirements.

"The findings call into question the accuracy and utility of the federal classification system in detecting high-risk sex offenders and applying concordant risk management strategies," said Levenson. "If decision-making is to be driven by assigning offenders into defined risk classes, those categories must be determined by empirically-derived procedures so that they are more likely to correctly identify higher risk offenders. The public needs to be able to tell who poses the greatest threat to the community, and we need to make sure our limited resources are targeted toward those most likely to reoffend."

The team of researchers was led by Kristen Zgoba, director of research at the New Jersey Department of Corrections, and Michael Miner, a professor in human sexuality at University of Minnesota. The team also included Ray Knight of Brandeis University, Elizabeth Letourneau of Johns Hopkins, and David Thornton, who runs the Sand Ridge secure sex offender treatment center in Wisconsin. Read the full report online (PDF).

Video Link

More on Levenson

Jill Levenson is an associate professor of human services at Lynn University and a licensed clinical social worker with over 20 years of experience treating sexual abuse victims, survivors, perpetrators and non-offending parents. Her academic focus is on sexual abuse and how offenders are categorized and treated.

Levenson is a nationally known expert on sexual violence and has become a respected authority on, among other things, laws aimed at protecting children while punishing, tracking and rehabilitating sex offenders. She has been quoted in national publications including the Associated Press, The Wall Street Journal and Newsweek, among others. She has published over 60 articles about sex crime policy and offender treatment.

---