Canada Published 2002-2003:
Executive Summary
The recidivism of offenders is of interest to the public and an important indicator of the impact of criminal justice interventions. Measuring recidivism, however, is a complex matter. The various measures that are used have their advantages and disadvantages. For example, successful completions of day parole is helpful for assessing the National Parole Board's release decisions but the time period is relatively short and does not include criminal behaviour past the period of supervision.
The present study was conducted as part of the mandate of the Solicitor General Portfolio Corrections Statistics Committee to provide the general public and professionals basic statistical information on corrections and conditional release. In this study, recidivism was defined as any new conviction for an offence committed within two years of release from prison. The study samples included all releases (except for releases on temporary passes) from federal penitentiaries during the three fiscal years 1994/95, 1995/96 and 1996/97.
The reconviction rate for the first fiscal year release cohort was 44.0%, 42.8% for the second release cohort and 40.6% for the third cohort. These reconviction rates were comparable to other rates reported internationally and from other Canadian studies using a similar methodology. Nonviolent reconvictions accounted for the majority of the reconvictions. The violent reconviction rate was much lower; approximately 13% for all three release cohorts and the sexual offence reconviction rate was very low (0.7% to 1.7%).
[[[[SNIP]]]]
Summary
The major goal of the present study was to derive a standard measure of recidivism for use by the Portfolio of the Solicitor General. After weighing the advantages and disadvantages of different measures of recidivism, the Committee chose a new conviction for an offence committed within two years as the most acceptable measure from the choices available.
However, a choice had to be made as the public deserves a uniformly reported measure of recidivism rather than the confusing range of statistics presently offered. We hope that by outlining the limitations of the present methodology and the reasons for choosing reconviction as our measure of recidivism we give a common language to the correctional agencies of the federal government. ..more.. by James Bonta, Tanya Rugge, Mia Dauvergne, Solicitor General Canada
May 31, 2007
The Reconviction Rate of Federal Offenders
Recidivism Among Federal Prisoners Released in 1987
Published 1994
Introduction
Within 3 years of their release from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) in 1987, 40.8 percent of the former inmates had either been rearrested or had their parole revoked, that is, recidivated. This finding is based on a representative sample of 1,205 BOP inmates released to the community during the first 6 months of 1987.
In line with these past and ongoing recidivism studies, the current study will update our understanding of recidivism among Federal prison releasees by examining the association between pre-prison, prison, and post-release characteristics and experience and recidivism rates; revalidating the U.S. Parole Commission's Salient Factor Score and the U.S. Sentencing Commission's Criminal History Score; and testing the effectiveness of several BOP policies, operations, and programs aimed at reducing recidivism.
The study report is presented in five parts. Part I summarizes the study's findings and defines its sources. It also describes the release population and sample and the two-way, or bivariate, associations between each of the background, prison experience, and community variables and recidivism. Recidivism is also compared among 1970, 1978, 1980, 1982, and 1987 release cohorts. ..more.. by Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of Research and Evaluation, Washington, DC
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER: THE MYTHS AND FACTS ABOUT SEXUAL OFFENDING
Attorney General of Maryland
Because of common misconceptions, many of us have both unwarranted fears and misguided complacency about sex offenders. Protecting ourselves and our children must begin by understanding the facts about sex offenders and their crimes.
Sex offenders who are caught and convicted are the tip of the iceberg. MOST sex offenders are never identified. Less than 30% of sexual crimes are even reported to law enforcement, and even fewer are successfully prosecuted and convicted. Estimates are that the several hundred thousand convicted sex offenders nationwide represent only a fraction (less than 10%) of all sex offenders living in communities across the country.
The vast majority (80-95%) of sex offenders KNOW THEIR VICTIMS. Sexual assaults committed by strangers, while often high-profile, are far less common than assaults by someone in a victim’s familiar circle of family, friends, and acquaintances - an old boyfriend, a babysitter, a coach, an uncle. Between 75-90% of adult victims of rape report knowing their assailant. About 60% of sexual victimization of boys and 80% of girls is committed by offenders known to the child or his family. Young victims who know their abuser are least likely to report the crime.
Sex offenders cut across all demographic groups. Sex offenders come from all kinds of backgrounds, income levels and professions. Many have no official criminal record or sex crime history of any kind. While there is no profile of a “typical sex offender,” therefore, they all tend to be manipulative, deceptive, and secretive. Most do not offend on impulse, but rather plan their crimes carefully.
Sex offenders often commit different types of sex crimes with different kinds of victims. At least half of convicted child molesters have also assaulted adults. Over 80% of convicted rapists of adults have also molested children. Over two-thirds of offenders committing incest have also assaulted victims outside the family. One-third of offenders report assaulting both males and females.
Not all sex offenders are male, and not all offenders are adults. The majority are male, but women also commit sexual offenses, particularly against children. While most offenders are adults, adolescents account for a significant number of rapes and child molestation cases every year.
Sex offenders are four times more likely than other offenders to be rearrested for another sex crime, and child molesters have the highest rearrest rates among different types of sex offenders. Measuring how likely it is that a sex offender will commit another sex crime is tricky because most sex crimes are unreported. Sex offenders are less likely than other offenders to be rearrested for any crime, but considerably more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime. The more prior arrests a sex offender has before release, the higher the rate of rearrest. Rearrest rates of sex offenders also do not follow the pattern of non-sex offenders by falling as offenders age.
The median age of sexual assault victims is less than 13 years old; the median age of rape victims is 22 years old. ..more..
Myths and Facts About Sex Offenders
August 2000:
There are many misconceptions about sexual offenses, sexual offense victims, and sex offenders in our society. Much has been learned about these behaviors and populations in the past decade and this information is being used to develop more effective criminal justice interventions throughout the country. This document serves to inform citizens, policy makers, and practitioners about sex offenders and their victims, addressing the facts that underlie common assumptions both true and false in this rapidly evolving field. ..more.. by CSOM The Center for Sex Offender Management, The Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM) would like to thank Rob Freeman-Longo for principal authorship of this brief. We would also like to thank Donna Reback for her contributions to this document. Kristin Littel and Scott Matson edited the document.
TOWARDS MORE EFFECTIVE SEX OFFENSE LEGISLATION
Facts Versus Fears…Believing Versus Knowing
March 2007:
Recidivism is defined as repeat criminal behavior among offenders. Of all crimes, sex offenders are widely believed to have the highest level of recidivism. However, treatment professionals and criminologists have known for some time that only a small minority of sex offenders — once caught — will recommit another sex crime.
Although some pedophiles, before they are caught, have many victims, most have a single victim in or about their own family.
We all hope for the day when we can see fewer sex offenses and particularly fewer juvenile victims of such crimes. But so long as what we think we know about these types of crimes is based on myths and fear rather than facts, that day will never come. There are several myths that are widely believed that need to be debunked.
Over the past several decades, social scientists and criminologists have combed through an immense accumulation of data from hundreds of studies, which have tracked tens of thousands of individual sex offenders for long periods of time, some even for decades.
By 1994, 670 studies of sex offenders had been done and by the end of 2005 well over 700. As a way to comprehend the results from all of these studies, meta analysis has been used in some of these studies. What follows are some of the key findings from those massive efforts. ..more.. by NATIONAL CENTER ON INSTITUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES, INC., 7222 Ambassador Road, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Phone: 410.265.1490, Fax: 410.265.8078
Vigilantes emerge in time of fear
January 2007 Australia:
.SHAPED by fear and intolerance, compromised police resources and a growing requirement that citizens be self-sufficient, the social climate of 21st-century Australia is a breeding ground for vigilante behaviour. That's the word from criminologists, social researchers, psychologists and veteran police sources in pondering recent high-profile instances of people taking the law into their own hands. But it takes someone like Jim Pickering to put it most simply: "When jobs aren't getting done the way society expects them to be done then people are going to hop in and do it for themselves. I can see it won't stop, it will keep going. Like there'll be more of it for sure."
Mr Pickering isn't a crime expert. He's one of the citizens of Meringur, in the Mallee, who watched a convicted pedophile's house burn to the ground. There was drinking, dancing and cheering. The man had raped a 10-year-old girl, received five years in jail and could be out in 2½. The young victim of the sex attack was reportedly fireside, smiling. "If he'd got the maximum sentence I don't know if it would have happened," Mr Pickering says. "And if we had a police station in town it probably wouldn't have happened because it wouldn't have been so easy to get away with. But half the problem was the house stood across the road from where the victim lives. She was going to wake up every morning and see it there. She's the one who needed looking after."
Although Mr Pickering "wouldn't advise anyone to go out and take matters into their hands … I suppose you have to look at the fact that this bloke isn't coming back here. I can see why people might see it as an encouraging example." A similar message comes from Trish and Joe, long-time residents of Grevillia Drive, Mill Park. They are not happy a car was torched and six others vandalised two weeks ago in response to their street being terrorised by hoons doing burn-outs and street racing. "It's not what you want to see," says Trish of the vigilante attack on the cars. "But the burn-outs and that have been going on for like 10 years. We've tried a petition and asking the council to put in speed humps but no one's doing anything about it. The hoons have started up again and it's only a matter of time before someone takes matters into their own hands again."
Police union boss Paul Mullet says vigilantism "is an emerging issue for our members, who are totally frustrated". "A lot of it's linked to street gangs that we're starting to witness. These youth gangs aren't involved in organised crime per se but mainly anti-social behaviour," he says. "Local communities have had enough and are starting to take the law into their own hands. They'll approach youngsters and tell them to stop spraying graffiti, stop drunken behaviour or they'll try to break up fights in the street. "At the moment it's an ad hoc response but it could become a trend and we need to stop it in its tracks. Without police taking a proactive approach through community patrols and preventing this behaviour, it means ordinary citizens are stepping in to fill the void."
Deakin University criminology lecturer Ian Warren believes the incidence of vigilante behaviour will continue to grow, such that it becomes a focus of criminology research. He says there is scant research into vigilantism in Australia but academics are noticing that "we're slowly backtracking into a self-help model, and there are a whole range of reasons for that". "The whole idea of community policing has shifted away from dealing with local concerns … where police resources are deployed more strategically or tied up in complex investigations that will lead to successful court cases," Mr Warren says. "(But) people are more security conscious, which has led to the rise of private security firms, which in turn has become a formal mechanism that's allowing this self-help culture to develop.
"People are fed up with anti-social behaviour and certain types of crime and they are quick to identify and respond to the presence of someone they don't want in their neighbourhood or to certain behaviours they're not happy with." Fiona Haines, Associate Professor of criminology at the University of Melbourne, says it's important not to "over-interpret these recent (vigilante) events, which could simply be the result of frustration". But she says Australia is undergoing a cultural shift where punitive responses are increasingly used in dealing with social problems "and vigilante activity is just one aspect of this general law and order response". Professor Haines also says Australians are increasingly being "asked to accept more uncertainty in their lives and to be more self-reliant". Some of the pressures include work contracts, the need for private health insurance and a reliable retirement fund. "The message is, the overnment isn't going to step in and support you," she says.
Social analyst David Chalke says we are generally feeling safer "because government seems to be doing a good job by boosting police resources. Statistically, crime is down. But neighbourhood issues don't generally bubble up into the national stats. When there are too many instances of the police failing to send out a divvy van to deal with a recurring problem in the neighbourhood, people are pretty quick to get antsy. When the system isn't working we see the need to take action." Psychologist Andrew Fuller says anxiety has taken over from depression as the leading complaint among his clients — particularly among young people — and believes it may lead to a rise in youth gang culture. This in turn leads, as Paul Mullet says, to a rise in vigilantism among the mainstream community. "When people feel threatened, they become more primitive."
Do-it-yourself justice: a chronology
January 2007¦Residents of the Adelaide Hills stop traffic and interview drivers in the search for an arsonist who has started up to 16 fires. Police urge restraint but a local mayor publicly supports the citizens' response.
¦A car is torched and six others are vandalised in suburban Mill Park. For 10 years the residents of Grevillia Drive have asked police and the local council to stop dangerous hooning, burn-outs and street racing on their doorstep. The hooning goes on and residents have told The Sunday Age that another vigilante response is likely in the next year.
¦Police send out extra patrols in the Riverina town of Griffith after text messages circulate that allegedly call for revenge attacks over the bashing death of 17-year-old Andrew Farrugia.
¦Following a spate of sex attacks on Brisbane bike lanes there are calls for a violent response from the community on a blog on The Courier-Mail's website. One blogger warns: "Some people I know are forming a group that is going to set up a sting for these scumbags. Then maybe the police will have to do something when a few of these blokes end up almost dead."
November 2006
A Broadmeadows man is threatened, his windows smashed, gates locked and letterbox vandalised following rumours that he is a pedophile. In fact, it's a case of mistaken identity.
October 2006
Up to 40 people gather in the Mallee town of Meringur to drink and cheer as a convicted pedophile's house is burnt to the ground.
March 2004
The home of Zdravko Micevic, the bouncer charged and later acquitted of the manslaughter of cricketer David Hookes, is set on fire.
August 2002
Angry divorced fathers band together as the Blackshirts to picket the houses of "adulterers" and call for their deaths.
July 2001
A group called Frontline Australia places a newspaper ad calling for people with military experience to tackle people-smuggling. It boasts: "Patrols will be undertaken in international waters without the constraints of political correctness." ..more.. : by John Elder
Banishment By a Thousand Laws: Residency Restrictions on Sex Offenders
January 2007:
Abstract:
Across America, states, localities, and private communities are debating and implementing laws to limit the places of residence of convicted sex offenders. Twenty states and hundreds, if not thousands, of local communities have adopted statutes which severely limit the places where a sex offender may legally live. In this article, I trace these new laws to historical practices of banishment in Western societies. I argue that the establishment of exclusion zones by states and localities is a form of banishment that I have termed "internal exile." Establishing the connection to banishment punishments helps to explain the unique legal, policy, and ethical problems these laws create for America. Ultimately, residency restrictions could fundamentally alter basic principles of the American criminal justice system. While those supporting these laws have the interests of children at heart, the policies they are promoting will be worse for children and society. ..more.. (link at bottom of page) by COREY RAYBURN YUNG (His blog "Sex Crimes")
SEX, SHAME, AND THE LAW: AN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE ON MEGAN’S LAWS
2006 National:
Abstract:
There is a long history of legal regimes using shaming to punish criminal offenders, a practice that is currently employed throughout the United States to sanction sex offenders. This Article focuses on how policymakers can minimize the cost of criminal punitive measures by utilizing both legal and nonlegal sanctions. After discussing the general economic case for the use of nonlegal sanctions, the Article presents a model of shaming that, unlike existing models, incorporates the endogenous effects of legal and non-legal sanctions.
More precisely, the model demonstrates that changes in the level of legal sanctions can affect the level of non-legal sanctions and vice-versa. The Article then examines current practices in various U.S jurisdictions of publicizing the names of convicted sex offenders. The author concludes that while such policies arguably have limited preventative value, they may still be justiªed as an efªcient way to sanction sex offenders, subjecting them to non-legal sanctions at costs lower than those associated with legal sanctions. ..more.. by Doron Teichman
P-356: (Non-legal Sanctions) One of the current debates regarding non-legal sanctions concerns the extent to which legally induced non-legal sanctions such as shaming should be used to punish criminals. At one end of this debate stand scholars such as Toni Massaro and James Whitman, who argue that non-legal sanctions are either ineffective or morally repugnant and therefore should not be used.6 At the other end stand scholars such as Dan Kahan and Eric Posner, who argue that non-legal sanctions may be an efficient and politically viable sanctioning tool.7 This Article sides with the latter group and contributes further economic insights to the debate.
(eAdvocate NOTE: The error of this "non-legal sanctions" argument is, first it fails to recognize that a "sanction" is punishment, and as applied to this class is applied after-the-fact make it additional punishment, and further, that there are no balancing or limits to the non-legal sanctions and finally, they are constanly changing and being retroactively applied. There is no finality, registrants are manipulated like pawns in a chess game, often to their psychological limts with many committing suicide)
6: See Toni M. Massaro, Shame, Culture, and American Criminal Law, 89 Mich. L. Rev. 1880, 1883–84 (1991); James Q. Whitman, What Is Wrong with Inºicting Shame Sanctions?, 107 Yale L. J. 1055, 1087–92 (1998).
7: See Dan M. Kahan, What do Alternative Sanctions Mean?, 63 U. Chi. L. Rev. 591, 630–31 (1996); Dan M. Kahan & Eric A. Posner, Shaming White-Collar Criminals: A Proposal for Reform of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, 42 J.L. & Econ. 365, 366–68 (1999).
P-367: ( ) James Whitman, an opponent of shaming sanctions, points out the adverse effects of these sanctions on the sanctioning public.51 More specifically, Whitman is concerned that delegating the act of punishing to the public could stir up emotions and create an atmosphere of lynch mob justice.52 However, policymakers have the power to take measures to prevent this from happening.53 Prosecution of vigilantes, policing demonstrations against offenders, and harm caused to innocent bystanders are all costs associated with shaming sanctions that must be incorporated into the cost benefit analysis of these sanctions.
The inducement of non-legal sanctions also poses a problem in that it requires reliance on local communities and their own sanctioning norms to punish criminals rather than on a central government. While local norms may serve the narrow interests of a specific community, they may be inefficient from the perspective of the broader community.54 For example, a local community may choose to punish criminals by banishing them.55 Such sanctions are potentially inefficient since they result in a negative outcome outside of the local community, namely the relocation of an offender to a neighboring area.56 As with banishment, housing discrimination may be inefficient since it simply forces criminals to find housing elsewhere. A system based on non-legal sanctions must therefore expend resources on regulating these sanctions, and outlawing certain inefficient sanctions may be necessary.57
51: See Whitman, supra note 6, at 1087–92.
52: See id.
53: Historically, systems using shaming sanctions have been aware of this problem and
devoted resources to controlling the behavior of the sanctioning public. For example, when the pillory was used in England, constables made sure that the event would not deteriorate to wild violence. See J. M. Beattie, Crime and the Courts in England: 1660–1800, at 614–16 (1986).
54: See Posner, Inefficient Norms, supra note 4, at 1720–21 (analyzing the potential
inefficiencies of norms that generate negative externalities).
55: This seems to be the case currently with respect to sex offenders. See, e.g., Abril R. Bedarf, Examining Sex Offender Community Notiªcation Laws, 83 Cal. L. Rev. 885, 908 (1995) (noting that “[s]ometimes the community outrage and rejection forces the offender out of town”). For a review of the non-legal sanctions suffered by offenders, see Part II of this Article.
56: See Doron Teichman, The Market for Criminal Justice: Federalism, Crime Control,
and Jurisdictional Competition, 103 Mich. L. Rev. (forthcoming June 2005).
57: See, e.g., N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:7-11(c)(7) (West 1997) (prohibiting housing discrimination on the basis of registration as a sex offender).
P-386: (Family theme) The significant amount of cases where sanctions are directed against the family members of an offender similarly demonstrates the punitive nature of non-legal sanctions generated by SORNLs.147 In research conducted in Wisconsin, for example, two-thirds of offenders reported negative effects on the lives of their family members.148 It is difficult to categorize ridiculing an offender’s son and causing him to leave his school’s football team as a preventative measure.149 Rather, these cases indicate that the sanctioning of sex offenders has become a focal point for a sanctioning norm in some communities.150 Since norm-driven non-legal sanctions are based simply on the willingness to engage in costly acts, the identity of the target of non-legal sanctions is immaterial. Thus, publicly sanctioning the children of sex offenders can be as effective a signal as sanctioning the offenders themselves.
Additionally, non-legal sanctions that are applied to sex offenders are
often applied inconsistently, singling out specific individuals arbitrarily.151
146: See Doe v. Pataki, 940 F. Supp. 603, 610 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (describing an incident in which a gas station that employed a sex offender was boycotted); Brief of Amici Curae Office of the Public Defender of the State of New Jersey et al. at 8, Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (No. 01-729) [hereinafter New Jersey Public Defender Brief] (reporting that an offender was refused a job because of the hiring company’s fear of negative publicity); id. at 15–16 (describing a case in which an employer terminated an offender due to public pressure despite the employer’s acknowledgement of the offender’s “outstanding performance”); Brian D. Gallagher, Now that We Know Where They Are, What Do We Do with Them?: The Placement of Sex Offenders in the Age of Megan’s Law, 7 Widener J. Pub. L. 39, 53 (1997) (reporting a case in which a business rescinded a job offer to a released sex offender due to negative public reaction). Not surprisingly, community members who oppose notification are sometimes fearful of voicing their opinions in public. In Texas, a resident who spoke out against the local notification policies refused to identify himself to the media out of fear of retaliation. See Tracey-Lynn Clough, Neighbors Warned About Sex Offender, Dallas Morning News, May 24, 1996, at 1A.
147: See, e.g., Pataki, 940 F. Supp. at 609 (noting a case in which members of a sex offender’s family were harassed); Small, supra note 9, at 1466 (reporting a case in which the offender’s sister-in-law and her children were shot at and harrassed).
148: See Richard Z. Zevitz & Mary Ann Farkas, Sex Offender Community Notification: Managing High Risk Criminals or Exacting Further Vengeance?, 18 Behav. Sci. & L. 375, 383 (2000). This fraction overstates the number of non-legal sanctions that are aimed toward family members since it includes cases in which family members were hurt solely by the publication of the offender’s name. See also The National Criminal Justice Association, Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Problem Avoidance & Barriers to Implementation & Sex Offender Registration & Notiªcation Costs Survey Results 32 (1999) [hereinafter Nat’l Crim. Just. Ass’n Study] (discussing the harassment of children of offenders).
149: See Zevitz & Farkas supra note 148, at 383.
150: See Posner, Social Norms, supra note 3, at 93 (pointing out that norm-based nonlegal sanctions might target relatives of wrongdoers).
151: See Richard G. Zevitz & Mary Ann Farkas, Sex Offender Community Notification: Assessing the Impact in Wisconsin, National Institute of Justice—Research in Brief 9 (2000), available at http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/179992.pdf (last visited Mar. 15, 2005); see also Scott Matson & Roxanna Lieb, Community Notification in Washington State: 1996 Survey of Law Enforcement 16 (1996), available at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptªles/sle.pdf (last visited Mar. 15, 2005) (pointing out that “communities can be unpredictable in their reactions towards sex offenders”).
P-387-388: (Vigilantism Theme) Sanctions that target offenders are frequently conducted by groups rather than individuals, reflecting a “lynch mob attitude.”153 Group-based non-legal sanctions are another indicator that signaling behavior is at work. Such participation in sanctioning offenders is driven by a need to conform to the norms of the group rather than by an individual decision to protect oneself from future harms.154
Finally, it should be noted that the acts of violent vigilantism suffered by sex offenders are consistent with punitive rather than preventative non-legal sanctions. Since the adoption of SORNLs, sex offenders have been subjected to threats,155 vandalism of their property,156 physical assaults, 157 and gunshots.158 Despite the fact that these acts are relatively rare,159 they are still a signifcant sanction from the perspective of potential offenders since they have such serious consequences.
In sum, the various characteristics of non-legal sanctions generated by SORNLs suggest a social mechanism concerned not merely with precautionary measures. This conclusion is also supported by the only available systematic study of the non-legal sanctions incurred by sex offenders as a result of SORNLs. This study reported that eighty-three percent of offenders were excluded from their place of residence and that over fifty percent were terminated from their place of employment.160 These large numbers reflect a general sanctioning norm to which sex offenders are subject.
153: See Dugan, supra note 95, at 618; Amy L. Van Duyn, Note, The Scarlet Letter Branding: A Constitutional Analysis of Community Notiªcation Provisions In Sex Offender Statues, 47 Drake L. Rev. 635, 650 (1999).
154: See Posner, Social Norms, supra note 3, at 93 (noting that “[t]he reason that people join mobs is that it is better to be a member of a mob than its target”).
155: See, e.g., New Jersey Public Defender Brief, supra note 146, at 7 (reporting that an offender received a letter with a message made of newspaper clippings saying, “[w]e’ll be watching you asshole”); id. at 9 (reporting that a man told an offender, “[s]top fucking little girls. I’m going to kill you,” and that the offender was attacked by another man armed with a gun wearing a ski mask who told him, “[i]f you don’t get out of this neighborhood I’m going to kill you”); Small, supra note 9, at 1466 (reporting death threats made against the sister-in-law of an offender).
156: See, e.g., New Jersey Public Defender Brief, supra note 146, at 11 (describing a series of incidents including placing human feces on the steps of an offender’s home, slashing the tires of an offender’s car, and destroying offenders’ mailboxes); Small, supra note 9, at 1466 (describing a case in which the car of the offender was vandalized); Zevitz & Farkas, supra note 148, at 383 (same); Jenny A. Montana, Note, An Ineffective Weapon in the Fight Against Child Sexual Abuse: New Jersey’s Megan’s Law, 3 J. L. & Pol’y 569,579 (1995) (noting the case of Joseph Gallardo, a Washington sex offender whose house was burned down).
157: See, e.g., Doe v. Pataki, 940 F. Supp. 603, 610 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (describing an incident in which an offender was punched in the face); New Jersey Public Defender Brief, supra note 146, at 8–9 (describing an incident in which two men broke into an offender’s residence and attacked a man they mistook for the offender and an incident in which an offender was struck with a crowbar).
158: See, e.g., Robert Hanley, Neighbor Admits Firing Gun Into Home of Paroled Rapist, N.Y. Times, Nov. 10, 1998, at B8 (reporting the case of a shooting at the house of a sex offender in Linden, New Jersey).
159: See Matson & Lieb, supra note 151, at 15 (reporting that 3.5% of offenders report cases of harassment); Zevitz & Farkas, supra note 148, at 381 (reporting that in only three percent of cases did sex offenders report acts of vigilantism).
160: See Zevitz & Farkas, supra note 148, at 381.
P-390: (Psychological Effects) From an economic perspective, SORNLs seem to create a problem of marginal deterrence, since in many cases they deprive offenders of the opportunity to regain new social capital. Although SORNLs do not attach a physical mark to sex offenders as did branding punishments in eighteenth century England or scarlet letter punishments in colonial times, they are relatives of such schemes. SORNLs attach specific information to sex offenders in such a way that this information becomes a part of their identity. This information causes detrimental consequences, including loss of housing, disruption of personal relationships, and loss of employment.175
Thus, sex offenders subject to SORNLs find themselves with little social capital and do not feel very threatened by the possibility of future non-legal sanctions. In fact, it has been reported that some offenders have chosen to return to prison since that is their only housing option.176 In extreme cases, SORNLs have made sex offenders feel that they literally have nothing to lose, and they end up committing suicide as a direct result of notification.177 These cases reflect a potentially fatal weakness in a deterrence system, since there is most likely no threat that the law can use in order to deter individuals who are willing to commit suicide.178
175: See supra Part II.C.
176: See Zevitz & Faraks, supra note 148, at 382.
177: See, e.g., New Jersey Public Defender Brief, supra note 146, at 19–21 (describing numerous incidents of offenders committing suicide as a result of notiªcation); Associated Press, Suicide Is Recalled as Maine Revisits Megan’s Law; Released Sex Offender Shot Himself After Neighborhood Notiªcation, Wash. Post, Feb. 17, 1998, at A2 (reporting on an offender committing suicide just two days after notiªcation); Todd S. Purdum, Death of Sex Offender Is Tied to Megan’s Law, N.Y. Times, July 9, 1998, at A16 (reporting two separate incidents of offenders committing suicide after notiªcation).
The link between shaming sanctions and suicide is not unique to SORNLs or to American culture. See, e.g., John Beattie, Other Cultures; Aims, Methods, and Achievements in Social Anthropology 176 (1964) (reporting that shame caused suicide
among Tobriand Islanders); Braithwaite, supra note 68, at 138 (noting that cases of
suicide due to corporate malpractice are common in Japan); Persons, supra note 11, at
1527 (reporting the case of a patron of a prostitute who committed suicide after his name was published in a newspaper as part of a shaming scheme).
178: See Alan M. Dershowtiz, Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge 29 (2002) (pointing out that in the context of suicide bombers “the usual deterrent strategy of threatening death to the perpetrator will not work”).
P-403-404: (Cruel & Unusual / Punishment Theme) Sex offenders challenge the validity of SORNLs on other constitutional grounds as well, arguing that they are unconstitutional inflictions of cruel and unusual punishment.265 Similar arguments have been made by legal scholars, who tend to focus their attention on the vigilante attacks facilitated by SORNLs.266 Thus far, since the majority of courts have found that SORNLs do not constitute punishment, they have necessarily rejected claims that SORNLs constitute cruel and unusual punishment.267 Under the punitive approach to SORNLs, these laws generally should not be considered cruel and unusual punishment. Despite their harsh effects on offenders, there seems to be no reason to view SORNLs’ sanctions as exceptionally cruel, especially when compared to the alternative sanction of imprisonment. 268
Nonetheless, there may be specific types of public shaming that could be viewed as cruel and unusual punishment in that they contradict the common morals of society.269 Such values are based on a variety of theories, such as human dignity or the disutility caused to the general public by the humiliation of a fellow community member. For instance, one may argue that the provisions of the Louisiana SORNL authorizing courts to order offenders to wear T-shirts and post signs outside their homes indicating their status as sex offenders represent an unacceptable form of humiliation. Evaluating which types of notification are unacceptable should be done on a case-by-case basis and is beyond the scope of this Article.
265: See, e.g., Cutshall v. Sundquist, 193 F.3d 466, 472–83 (6th Cir. 1999). The Eighth Amendment provides that “[e]xcessive bails shall not be required, nor excessive ªnes imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inºicted.” U.S. Const. Amend. VIII.
266: See, e.g., Bedarf, supra note 55, at 936–39 (arguing that SORNLs constitute cruel and unusual punishment because they are degrading); Michele L. Earl-Hubbard, The Child Sex Offender Registration Laws: The Punishment, Liberty Depravation, and Unintended Results Associated with the Scarlet Letter Laws of the 1990s, 90 Nw. U. L. Rev. 788, 820–26 (1996) (arguing that SORNLs constitute cruel and unusual punishment because vigilante acts are a foreseeable result of such laws); Andrea L. Fischer, Florida’s Community Notification of Sex Offenders on the Internet: The Disregard of Constitutional Protection for Sex Offenders, 45 Clev. St. L. Rev. 505, 523–30 (1997); G. Scott Rafshoon, Community Notiªcation of Sex Offenders: Issues of Punishment, Privacy, and Due Process, 44 Emory L. J. 1633, 1668–71 (1995). But see Houston, supra note 36, at 747–56 (arguing that SORNLs are a legitimate way to promote public safety and do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment).
267: See, e.g., Cutshall, 193 F.3d at 477. But see In re Reed, 663 P.2d 216, 222 (Cal. 1983) (Finding that requiring a defendant convicted of soliciting lewd or dissolute conduct to register as a sex offender constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the California Constitution). Recently, the California Supreme Court overruled Reed in In re Leon Casey Alva, 92 P.3d 311, 312 (Cal. 2004). However, one should note that the discussion in Alva was limited to the question of whether registration constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. See id. at 313. Thus, it is still unclear whether the enactment of a widespread notiªcation program is constitutional under California law.
268: See supra notes 72–75 and accompanying text.
269: Courts have generally held that the Eighth Amendment creates a moral limitation on the types of punishments that can be used. See, e.g., Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100 (1958) (stating that the basic principle underlying the Eighth Amendment is human dignity); Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 378 (1910) (explaining that the Eighth Amendment “may acquire meaning as public opinion becomes enlightened by a humane justice”).
P-408-409: (Term of Registration and Notification) One point of contention regarding SORNLs involves the duration of registration and notification. The Jacob Wetterling Act requires offenders who are either convicted of aggravated offenses or have multiple convictions to register for life without exception.291 Furthermore, since the Jacob Wetterling Act only establishes minimum requirements, some states have created harsher rules and require all offenders to register for life with no possibility of relief.292 This type of sanctioning is undesirable from the perspective of marginal deterrence since it threatens offenders with a life of stigmatization and a diminished possibility of reacquiring social capital. As one offender stated before committing suicide, “I have no hope . . . . What is left for me? I will be subject to Megan’s Law for the rest of my life.”293 A policy sensitive to marginal deterrence considerations would allow for the removal of offenders from the registry after a specific period of time that reflects a socially desired level of sanctioning. Purging one’s name from the registry could be contingent on meeting certain requirements, such as clean police records, that would motivate offenders to refrain from criminal activity.294 Creating a finite registration and notification period would give offenders something to lose by re-offending and would enable policymakers to utilize non-legal sanctions to deter future crimes.295
The case for a finite registration and notification period may be phrased in constitutional terms. The Supreme Court has yet to make a clear connection between the concept of marginal deterrence and the Eighth Amendment. Nevertheless, in several cases in which the Court was willing to strike down punishments, its decisions appear to have been at least partially driven by marginal deterrence intuitions. This can be seen in the way the Court has read a proportionality requirement into the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.296 For example, in Coker v. Georgia, the Supreme Court struck down on proportionality grounds a Georgia law allowing the imposition of the death penalty on rapists.297 Although the court did not ground its ruling in a marginal deterrence theory, the decision is consistent with such a theory of punishment. Imposing the death penalty on rapists would give rapists an incentive to kill their victims, since by doing so they could reduce the possibility of detection with no risk of a harsher sentence.298
Similarly, some of the concerns of courts regarding three-strike laws can be framed in terms of marginal deterrence. Under these laws, offenders convicted for the third time of certain crimes are subject to harsh mandatory sanctions.299 For instance, in Solem v. Helm, the Supreme Court evaluated a sentence of life without the possibility of parole imposed on a repeat offender convicted of issuing a no-account check for $100.300 The Court struck down the punishment, finding it was disproportionate to the crime.301 Again, despite the fact that the Court did not base its decision on marginal deterrence grounds, one can point to a connection between the theory and the Court’s holding. A sanctioning regime that imposes harsh mandatory sanctions for crimes of widely varying degrees erodes marginal deterrence.
A two-strike offender who faces the same sanction for shoplifting a videotape as for armed robbery may opt for the latter if his expected payoff from the latter crime is higher.
291: 42 U.S.C. § 14071(b)(6)(B) (2000). The Final Guidelines make clear that “[a] state is not in compliance with subsection (b)(6)(B) (i) or (ii) if it has a procedure or authorization for terminating the registration of convicted offenders within the scope of these provisions at any point in their lifetimes.” The Final Guidelines, supra note 105, at 582.
292: See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 589.400.3 (2000 & Supp. 2004) (setting out lifetime registration for all offenders); S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-460 (Law. Co-op. Supp. 2004) (same).
293: See New Jersey Public Defender Brief, supra note 146, at 22.
294: Some states have opted for such a regime. For example, the Florida SORNL provides for judicial review of the registration requirement twenty years after the initial registration. Fla. Stat. ch. 943.0435(11)(a) (2004). However, since this provision is subject to the constraints of the Jacob Wetterling Act, offenders in Florida cannot currently ask for such relief.
295: The mere fact that registration ends will not necessarily end non-legal sanctions since the community will continue to hold the information that was disseminated by the SORNL. Nevertheless, the moment that registration is no longer required, the offender has the opportunity to move to a different community and start a new life without non-legal sanctions.
296: See Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 367 (1910) (“[P]unishment for crime
should be graduated and proportioned to offense.”).
297: See 433 U.S. 584, 592 (1977) (concluding that “a sentence of death is grossly disproportionate and excessive punishment for the crime of rape and is therefore forbidden by the Eighth Amendment as cruel and unusual punishment”). It should be noted that Coker does not represent a complete ban on imposing the death penalty on sexual crimes that do not involve murder. See Louisiana v. Bethley, 685 So. 2d 1063 (La. 1996) (upholding a Louisiana statute allowing the death penalty when the victim of a rape was less than twelve years of age); cert. denied, Bethley v. Louisiana, 520 U.S. 1259 (1997).
298: This conclusion presupposes that law enforcement agencies devote equal resources
to the investigation of rapes in which the victims are murdered as to those in which they are not. If law enforcement agencies in fact increase their efforts in murder cases, the rapist may still have an incentive to avoid murdering his victim.
299: For a comparative description of these laws, see John Clark et al., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Three Strikes and You’re Out: A Review of State Legislation 6–12 (1997).
300: See 463 U.S. 277, 281–83 (1983).
May 30, 2007
Child abuse and the media
[[[[[SNIP]]]]]
NAMING AND SHAMING
Identifying the perpetrators
Throughout the Western world, awareness of child sexual abuse has led to action by members of the public to draw attention to horrific crimes against children (Goddard 1997a). British newspapers have carried many articles on the dangers created for children when convicted child sex offenders are released from prison. The British media demonstrated that they were prepared to identify or "out" the perpetrators. A selective review (Goddard 1997a) demonstrated that tabloid newspapers carried particularly graphic studies.
The Liverpool Echo on 17 June 1997, for example, devoted almost its entire front page to an "exclusive" by Jason Teasdale (1997) to the effect that a "convicted paedophile" would soon be released. Broadsheet newspapers, for example The Guardian, also carried such stories. Interestingly, The Guardian, exactly one week earlier, had carried the news that this particular man was to be released, under the headlines "In a few days this man, a convicted child rapist, will be released. Police say he is ‘incredibly dangerous’. Should you be told if he moves in next door?", and "Nightmare on any street" (Bowcott and Clouston 1997). The story in The Guardian was accompanied by a photograph of the man, who had been detained after being found carrying a bag of books and toys. He admitted to the police that he was searching for a child (Bowcott and Clouston 1997).
The Guardian story summarised the issues in its opening: "Newspapers are ‘outing’ paedophiles and their homes are consequently being fire-bombed. Do child molesters deserve a second chance after they have served their sentences? Or has the public the right to know when such a menace moves in next door? (Bowcott and Clouston 1997: 2)
The role of newspapers in "outing" convicted child molesters is examined in another piece in the same paper by Gary Younge (1997). Paul Horrocks, acting editor of the Manchester Evening News, a paper described as exposing several child molesters, is quoted as saying that a newspaper takes risks when it does so: "The paper must balance children’s safety with the threat of mob rule; it pits the chance that a paedophile may re-offend against the fact that he has served his time and may be denied the right to resume a normal life. ‘There is a risk that people will take the law into their own hands. But there is a greater risk that children will be hurt. If you can’t take risks to protect children, then when can you?’ [Paul Horrocks] says." (Younge 1997: 3)
Risks there certainly are: "One of those ‘outed’ by the Manchester Evening News suffered physical and verbal abuse from his neighbours and moved away as a result. Horrocks describes as ‘regrettable’ a case of mistaken identity in which an innocent man was attacked by an angry mob" (Younge 1997: 3).
The anger and the potential for tragedy are described in the piece by Bowcott and Clouston (1997: 3): "In May 1994, a girl aged 14 called Samantha Penell died after the house in which she had been staying was burnt down. Those who set fire to the building were looking for a paedophile."
They recount other stories: a convicted child molester stabbed to death in Edinburgh, and a man in Manchester badly beaten by a gang who wrongly believed that he was a child rapist(Bowcott and Clouston 1997). Such problems also occur in Australia. The release in New South Wales of convicted child killer John Lewthwaite prompted a considerable degree of media attention. After his release his new home was attacked by local residents, angry at his presence in their community.
[[[[SNIP]]]] ..more.. by Chris Goddard and Bernadette J. Saunders
MONSTERS WITH HUMAN FACES, The Guardian
9-17-1997 United Kingdom:
[[[[SNIP]]]]
Paedophiles are the most feared and loathed men in our society.
All over the country there are groups, some no bigger than a coffee circle of concerned mothers, whose sole aim is to hunt down and hound out paedophiles in their neighbourhoods. The names of these ad hoc campaigns - Campaign Against Paedophiles, Parents Against Child Abuse, People Power, Know Your Neighbour, Parents Aiming to Right Abysmal Sex Offender Laws, Unofficial Child Protection Unit - reveal their simple missionary zeal. It is a movement from the streets upwards. Local newspapers often provide them with the raw material; trawling through back numbers, they turn up details of long-past child abuse cases.
The Oxford Mail and Bournemouth Echo keep informal registers of sex offenders, and the Scottish Daily Record published a "Gallery of Shame" of 38 convicted paedophiles. The Sunday tabloids devote pages and reporters to doing nothing else but hunting "child sex monsters".
Paedophilia has become a national obsession.
Such outings inevitably lead to violence. In May 1994, the home of Dennis Butlin was firebombed and a young girl inside burnt to death; in February 1995, Lawrence Leydon was stabbed to death in Edinburgh; last August in Teignmouth, 44-year-old David Moist was severely battered after vigilantes broke into his flat brandishing a fire extinguisher; in the same month in Belfast, 53-year-old Desmond Moonan was found strangled in his flat. They were all vicious attacks. But when we insert "paedophile" before these men's names, our hearts harden: they got what they deserved.
Whatever has been done to them and however they are treated, we have no sympathy for paedophiles. What they do strips them of any possibility of redemption. Who could defend the rights, the life even, of a man who wants to bugger a four-year-old? Schemes are continually proposed to provide indefinite monitoring, from electronic tagging to chemical castration.
[[[[SNIP]]]]
..more.. by The Guardian
"PEADOPHILES OUT!"
Thanks mainly to 'The Guardian' (19 ii '97), I can begin to provide a historical record of recent paedo-hysteria in Britain.
MAY, 1994. Samantha Pennell, aged 14, was killed after the house of paedophile Dennis Butlin was firebombed. Butlin himself escaped.
FEBRUARY, 1995. Lawrence Leydon, a convicted paedophile, was stabbed to death in his home in Edinburgh, nine months after being released on probation.
JUNE, 1996. Residents on the Kingsmead estate in Hackney, east London, warned of vigilante action if Sidney Coke, part of a paedophile ring that tortured to death a local teenager, was allowed to return.
AUGUST, 1996. The 'Manchester Evening News' publishes details of local paedophiles, following a trend set by the 'Sunday Express' (London) and the Bournemouth Evening Echo. Other local papers followed suit.
SEPTEMBER, 1996. 53-year Brixton mother of mentally handicapped boy bludgeons newly released 65-year "paedophile" with a metal spring and smashed bricks through all his car's windows. (Awarded 4 months prison, suspended for 18 months, plus 18 months probation, plus £150 compensation.) (South London Press, 1 xi '96.)
NOVEMBER, 1996. George Taylor fled his Birmingham flat under police escort after residents discovered he had been jailed for a child sex offence.
JANUARY, 1997. A mob surrounded a Department of Social Security hostel in Stirling, demanding that Alan Christie, a convicted paedophile, be forced to leave.
FEBRUARY, 1997. Parents in Dunoon, Argyll, warned they would take action amid fears that up to 10 convicted child sex offenders had moved in nearby.
FEBRUARY, 1997. 'Anti-Paedophile March' in Manchester used placards drawn up as follows "Peadophiles Out!" {sic} and "COUNSIL PUTTING OUR ChilDREN AT RISK!" {sic, though an effort had been made to correct the mis-spelling}. A pensioner mistaken for a photographed paedophile was assaulted and had his wrist broken.
FEBRUARY, 1997. UK police, civil liberties campaigners and child protection groups....warned that the plan [for a register of paedophiles] would lead to violence against those named while doing nothing to protect children.
MARCH, 1997. The 47-year-old East Lothian father of a newly released paedophile had both his legs broken by a mob.
MARCH, 1997. Lewisham[?] Borough Council (London) release many details of the appearance and convictions of a recently discharged "paedophile" prisoner so that a lynch mob can be prepared for his arrival on a particular council estate. ..more.. by
Collective violence as social control
Abstract:
Collective violence is often social control: self-help by a group. It typically defines and responds to conduct as deviant. When unilateral and nongovernmental, it appears in four major forms—lynching, rioting, vigilantism, and terrorism—each distinguished by its system of liability (individual or collective) and degree of organization (higher or lower). Following Donald Black's paradigm of pure sociology, the central assumption is that collective violence varies with its location and direction in social space—the conflict structure. I offer ten propositions that predict and explain the likelihood and severity of collective violence in general and the four forms of collective violence in particular. Conflict structures with a high degree of relational distance, cultural distance, functional independence, and inequality between the adversaries are associated with collective violence in general. Each of the four forms depends on the degree of social polarization between the parties as well as the continuity of the deviant behavior to which the violence responds.
Key words collective violence - social control - conflict structure - social polarization - continuity of deviant behavior
Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, August 1992, and the Centennial Congress of the International Institute of Sociology, University of Paris (Sorbonne), Paris, June 1993. ..more.. by Roberta Senechal de la Roche, Department of History, Washington and Lee University, 24450 Lexington, Virginia
Managing Unacceptable Risk: Sex Offenders, Community Response, and Social Policy in the United States and Canada
Abstract:
This article compares the community protection–risk management model for the control of sex offenders with the clinical and justice models that preceded it and with a restorative justice alternative based on the principle of community reintegration. The author discusses how this community protection–risk management model reflects the new penology as well as the fusion of panopticism and synopticism. The author also discusses the model’s actual and potential social costs. He concludes with a brief look at circles of support and accountability. This Canadian approach involves setting up support circles of volunteers who enter into a covenant with persons designated as high-risk sex offenders to help them both to integrate into the community and to reduce the likelihood that they will reoffend. ..more.. by Michael G. Petrunik, Criminology Department, University of Ottawa, Canada
Paedophilia: plague or panic?
Abstract:
A punitive socio-legal policy towards sex offenders against minors has been driven by public demand. The perception of an appallingly high incidence of serious abuse by incorrigible men has been encouraged by press sensationalism, but criminal statistics and recidivism studies fail to confirm either an escalation of sex crimes against minors or the inevitability of recidivism. Retrospective victim studies have given alarming indications of the prevalence of abuse, but they have often included trivial incidents and the experiences of sexually active adolescents that do not involve real paedophiles.
Clinical observation demonstrates the devastating effects of child sex abuse, but community surveys suggest that minor incidents have only minor effects, except when accompanied by other stresses. Statutory changes and prison statistics reveal the increasing punitiveness of criminal justice. Exaggerated perception of risk produces undue restrictions on children's freedom and on their interactions with teachers and other adults. Assumptions of incorrigibility impede the rehabilitation of offenders through vigilantism, stigmatization and barriers to employment. This amplifies deviance and does not protect children.
Keywords: PAEDOPHILIA; SEX; ABUSE; SOCIO-LEGAL; POLICY ..more.. by D. West
Never Going Home: Does It Make Us Safer? Does It Make Sense? Sex Offenders, Residency Restrictions, and Reforming Risk Management Law
This article analyzes whether State laws that place residency restrictions on sex offenders are both constitutional and effective at reducing sex offender risk.
Abstract:
The analysis indicates that State residence restrictions on sex offenders have statistical, political, and constitutional problems. The author argues that uniformly applied residency restriction laws will most likely fail judicial scrutiny and are ineffective at preventing sex offender recidivism. Three main concerns with residency restrictions are identified as: (1) the laws are based on two flawed premises--that sex offenders target unknown children in their neighborhood and that sex offenders reoffend at higher rates than other felons; (2) they are a heavy tax burden on the government; and (3) they provoke two real estate crises--one in the already undesirable communities where sex offenders often end up living and one for low-income sex offenders themselves.
Best practice methods for managing sex offender risk in the community are examined, including the use of risk assessment criteria to match post-release restrictions to prior acts and future risk; indeterminate sentencing; civil commitments; and sex offender reentry courts. The author proposes that a comprehensive risk management system that relies on a mix of methods and focuses most restrictions on the highest risk sex offenders is the most efficient and effective means of sex offender community management.
During the past 5 years, 13 States have passed laws forbidding sex offenders from living within a certain distance of schools, parks, day care centers, and “places where children normally congregate.” Such laws even hold a sex offender in violation if at any point in the future one of the restricted uses, such as a day care center, were to be built within the proscribed number of feet from their current residence. ..more.. by Caleb Durling, published in: Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology Volume:97 Issue:1 Dated:Fall 2006 Pages:317 to 364
May 28, 2007
Analysis of Risk Factors Contributing to the Recidivism of Sex Offenders on Probation
Published October 2002 NCJ 203905
Utilizing a sample of probationers in Maricopa County, AZ, this federally supported study attempted to identify static and dynamic factors that predict success or failure among adult sex offenders while on probation between 1997 and 1999.
Abstract:
A growing body of literature, which looks at probation success among a variety of offenders has done little to investigate the factors associated with probation outcomes for sex offenders. However, a number of static and dynamic factors have been associated with sex offenders’ likelihood of failure after release from prison. An analysis, supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice was conducted of 419 adult male sex offenders who entered probation in Maricopa County, AZ between 1997 and 1999. The analysis attempted to examine the success of each probationer for a period of 21 to 51 months after entry to probation. Data were collected on 21 static or historical factors, such as age, race, education, marital status, employment status, and prior alcohol or drug abuse and 16 dynamic factors, such as living alone, positive social supports, current alcohol and other drug problems, motivation to change, and assessed emotions, and analyzed the relationship of each factor to probation failure. Both the likelihood of failure and the time to failure were examined.
Select findings include: (1) a technical violation while on probation was found to be significantly associated with 9 of the 21 static factors and 11 of the 16 dynamic factors; (2) arrest for a new offense was associated with 6 static factors and 5 dynamic factors; and (3) probation failure was found with 7 of the static factors and 10 dynamic factors. Factors which were not associated with any of these criminal justice outcomes were: prior treatment for drug or alcohol abuse, prior mental health treatment, entry to probation from prison or jail, life time probation, age of victim, relationship to victim, and force used in the offense. Factors associated with all three outcomes were marital status, employment status, prior use or abuse of drugs, presence of alcohol or drugs at the offense, current problem with alcohol or drugs, motivation to change, and acceptance of responsibility for offense. Study limitations are presented and discussed. Tables and references ..more.. by John R. Hepburn -and- Marie L. Griffin, Arizona State University
May 27, 2007
Effect of Age-at-Release on Long Term Sexual Re-Offense Rates in Civilly Committed Sexual Offenders
A cohort of 136 rapists and 115 child molesters civilly committed to a prison in Massachusetts and followed for 25 years was examined for the effect of age at time of release on sexual reoffending.
Abstract: The data support the general conclusion that risk of sexual reoffending diminishes as a function of increasing age at the time of release for rapists. There was a significant difference, however, in the reoffending patterns of rapists compared with child molesters according to age at release. Whereas the age-crime pattern was linear and declining among the rapists, child molesters had low reoffending rates according to age just after release, but then had a sharp increase before leveling off for several decades before declining at age 60. The highest risk period for child molesters was middle age (late 20s to mid-40s), followed by a decline. The difference in age-crime patterns of rapists and child molesters should be taken into account when assessing relative risk for reoffending. The study examined the reoffending rates for each of five age-at-release groups, separately for rapists and child molesters. The study tested the fit of linear and quadratic models for 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 years, using Cox regression analysis. 5 tables, 3 figures, and 30 references. ..more.. by Robert Alan Prentky -and- Austin F.S. Lee (Have Copy on Disk)
May 26, 2007
Mapping Registered Sex Offenders in Wood County: Considering the School Buffer Zone and Housing Rent
2005 Ohio:
Introduction
The rising numbers of sex crimes have been the focus of public opinion since the past two decades and public response to sexual crimes has become harsher than ever. In 1994, the rape-murder of 7-year-old Megan Kanka of New Jersey shocked the public and led to the enactment of the Megan’s Law in May 1996, which requires convicted sex offenders to register with police prior to moving to the neighborhood. The state sexual offender registry targets to keep detailed information of sexual offenders, and enables the police to utilize the information to track released sexual offenders. This registry later has been extended to the community notification laws. In 47 of the 50 states requiring sex offender registration (Philips, 1998), local authorities are allowed to notify the community of the convicted sex offender’s information, including home and work address, a photograph and description of physical attributes and the offense involved. By community notification of former offenders, it is expected that parents will be able to inform their children to avoid the dangerous persons in the community, and since everyone knows the offenders in the community, the opportunity for reoffending will be minimized. ..more.. (Large 2.39MB file) by Qiang Xu -and- Yu Zhou, Bowling Green State University
May 25, 2007
Sex Offenses and Offenders: An Analysis of Data on Rape and Sexual Assault
February 1997, NCJ-163392
Foreword
This report draws on more than two dozen statistical datasets maintained by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Uniform Crime Reporting program of the FBI to provide a comprehensive overview of current knowledge about the incidence and prevalence of violent victimization by sexual assault, the response of the justice system to such crimes, and the characteristics of those who prey on victims of all ages by committing sexual assault or rape.
This report reinforces a striking observation in recent studies about crimes involving rape and sexual assault: In a high percentage of cases, the victims are children. In self-reported victimization surveys of the public age 12 and older, teenagers report the highest per capita rates of exposure to rape and sexual assault. Data drawn from police-recorded incidents of rape in three States revealed that 44% of rape victims were under the age of 18. The self-reports of convicted rape and sexual assault offenders serving time in State prisons indicate that two-thirds of such offenders had victims under the age of 18, and 58% of those ¾ or nearly 4 in 10 imprisoned violent sex offenders ¾ said their victims were age 12 or younger.
Though the vast majority of violent sex offending involves males assaulting female victims, females account for a small percentage of known offenders, and males account for a small percentage of victims. In a very small fraction of sexual assaults, victim and offender are of the same sex.
Victim and offender are likely to have had a prior relationship as family members, intimates, or acquaintances. Victims of rape and sexual assault report that in nearly 3 out of 4 incidents, the offender was not a stranger. Based on police-recorded incident data, in 90% of the rapes of children younger than 12, the child knew the offender; twothirds of the victims 18 to 29 years old had a prior relationship with the rapist. The FBI’s UCR arrest data, as well as court conviction data and prison admissions data, all point to a sex offender who is older than other violent offenders, generally in his early thirties, and more likely to be white than other violent offenders ¾ characteristics that match the information obtained from victims who describe the offender to interviewers in the National Crime Victimization Survey.
This report was prepared as background information for the Assistant Attorney General’s 1996 National Summit Promoting Public Safety Through the Effective Management of Sex Offenders in the Community. It presents a thorough analysis and compilation of the currently available national data, but we anticipate that even more will be learned in the coming years as BJS assembles data on rape and sexual assault from the redesigned National Crime Victimization Survey and surveys of felony probationers, local jail inmates, and State and Federal prison inmates.
Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.
Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics
Laurie Robinson
Assistant Attorney General Office of Justice Programs
..more.. by Lawrence A. Greenfeld, Statistician, Bureau of Justice Statistics
Criminal Offenders Statistics (Various Stats)
Statistics relevant to 1994:
Summary findings
Prevalence of imprisonment in the United States
Lifetime likelihood of going to State or Federal prison
Characteristics of State prison inmates
Characteristics of jail inmates
Comparing Federal and State prison inmates
Recidivism
Sex offenders
Child victimizers
Intimate victimizers
Use of alcohol by convicted offenders
Women Offenders
..more.. by U.S. Department of Justice · Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics
May 24, 2007
Electronic Monitoring of Sex Offenders
December 2005:
Background:
The Fifth CBC District Department started the Electronic Monitoring Program with federal funds as a pilot project in Polk County in FY 1988. The General Assembly replaced the expired federal funds with a State General Fund appropriation to the Fifth CBC District Department in FY 1993.
Generally, the electronic monitoring devices were used within the Intermediate Criminal Sanctions Program as defined by Chapter 901B, Code of Iowa. Offenders required to be on electronic monitoring were usually high risk, repeat offenders that were also being supervised according to the policies of the Intensive Supervision Program. This Program requires the offender to have a variety of multiple contacts each week with a Parole/Probation Officer (PPO). Examples of the type of offense for which an offender could be placed on electronic
monitoring include Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) Third Offense, domestic violence, and sex offenses.
Electronic monitoring of offenders in Iowa has been used primarily for enforcement of a curfew (home confinement), as an intermediate sanction for those offenders who failed to comply with the terms of the probation or parole agreement, or to monitor an offender’s alcohol consumption. Electronic monitoring has not been used to track an offender’s location in real time. The Judicial Branch, the Department of Corrections (DOC), and the CBC District Departments do not currently have the capability to provide an immediate response to reports of violation. ..more.. by Department of Corrections
Electronic Monitoring of Sex Offenders: 2006 Report to the Legislature
Abstract:
The monitoring of "high-risk sex offenders who are on supervised release, conditional release, parole, or probation to help ensure that the offenders do not violate their community supervision conditions" is examined. Sections of this report include: background; advantages of global positioning system (GPS); GPS monitoring technology; disadvantages of GPS; type of sex offender subject to monitoring; time period offenders are subject to monitoring; financial costs of monitoring equipment; and summary. Accession Number: 021237 ..more.. by Minnesota Department of Corrections
May 20, 2007
Bureau of Justice Statistics:
Statistics about —
A overall page which leads to statistics covering:
Crime & Victims
Criminal Offenders
Special Topics
=======================
The Justice System
=======================
Law Enforcement
Prosecution
Federal Justice System
Courts & Sentencing
Corrections
Expenditure & Employment
Criminal Records ..more..
The Vilification of Sex Offenders: Do Laws Targeting Sex Offenders Increase Recidivism and Sexual Violence
ABSTRACT:
Sex offenders are universally hated and despised and seen as dangerous sexual predators unless locked up and kept under surveillance. Following a number of highly publicized violent crimes, all states passed registration and notification laws and many passed civil commitment laws. Although these laws were passed as a means to decrease recidivism and promote public safety, the resulting stigmatization of sex offenders is likely to result in disruption of their relationships, loss of or difficulties finding jobs, difficulties finding housing, and decreased psychological well-being, all factors that could increase their risk of recidivism. The civil commitment programs amount to expensive preventive detention and incapacitation rather than treatment; very few have been released. The high costs of the civil commitment programs divert resources from other programs with a better chance of being effective in reducing sexual violence. ..more.. by Hollida Wakefield, M.A., Institute for Psychological Therapies
May 12, 2007
Diagnostic and Risk Profiles Among Civilly Committed Sex Offenders in Washington State
Abstract:
Since 1990, 17 states have passed legislation allowing for the civil commitment of a small number of sex offenders who are deemed at a particularly high risk for reoffense. Despite the very public and controversial nature of these laws, little is known about the individuals who are detained pursuant to them. The current article presents data on 190 civilly committed and detained sexually violent predators in Washington State. These sexual offenders suffer from a variety of mental illnesses. The modal offender is diagnosed with both an Axis I and an Axis II disorder. Furthermore, these offenders are at moderate to high risk for reoffense and present with a significant degree of psychopathy. ..more.. by Rebecca L. Jackson, Pacific Graduate School of Psychology, Palo Alto, CA -and- Henry J. Richards, Special Commitment Center, Steilacoom,WA
May 9, 2007
Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs
TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 46 > SUBCHAPTER V
SUBCHAPTER V—BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAMS
How Current is This?
§ 3750. Name of programs
§ 3750a. Grant authorization
§ 3750b. Application
§ 3750c. Award of grants
§ 3750d. Authorization of appropriations
Part A—Drug Control and System Improvement Grant Program
Part B—Discretionary Grants
Part C—Administrative Provisions ..found at..
=========================
TITLE II--IMPROVING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICES GRANT PROGRAMS
Subtitle A--Assisting Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Agencies
SEC. 201. MERGER OF BYRNE GRANT PROGRAM AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) IN GENERAL- Part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 is amended as follows:
(1) Subpart 1 of such part (42 U.S.C. 3751-3759) is repealed.
(2) Such part is further amended--
(A) by inserting before section 500 (42 U.S.C. 3750) the following new heading:
Subpart 1--Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program;
(B) by amending section 500 to read as follows:
SEC. 500. NAME OF PROGRAM.
(a) IN GENERAL- The grant program established under this subpart shall be known as the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.
(b) REFERENCES TO FORMER PROGRAMS- Any reference in a law, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs, or to the Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants program, shall be deemed to be a reference to the grant program referred to in subsection (a).; and
(C) by inserting after section 500 the following new sections:
SEC. 501. DESCRIPTION.
(a) GRANTS AUTHORIZED-
(1) IN GENERAL- From amounts made available to carry out this subpart, the Attorney General may, in accordance with the formula established under section 505, make grants to States and units of local government, for use by the State or unit of local government to provide additional personnel, equipment, supplies, contractual support, training, technical assistance, and information systems for criminal justice, including for any one or more of the following programs:
(A) Law enforcement programs.
(B) Prosecution and court programs.
(C) Prevention and education programs.
(D) Corrections and community corrections programs.
(E) Drug treatment programs.
(F) Planning, evaluation, and technology improvement programs.
(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Paragraph (1) shall be construed to ensure that a grant under that paragraph may be used for any purpose for which a grant was authorized to be used under either or both of the programs specified in section 500(b), as those programs were in effect immediately before the enactment of this paragraph.
(b) CONTRACTS AND SUBAWARDS- A State or unit of local government may, in using a grant under this subpart for purposes authorized by subsection (a), use all or a portion of that grant to contract with or make one or more subawards to one or more--
(1) neighborhood or community-based organizations that are private and nonprofit;
(2) units of local government; or
(3) tribal governments.
(c) PROGRAM ASSESSMENT COMPONENT; WAIVER-
(1) Each program funded under this subpart shall contain a program assessment component, developed pursuant to guidelines established by the Attorney General, in coordination with the National Institute of Justice.
(2) The Attorney General may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) with respect to a program if, in the opinion of the Attorney General, the program is not of sufficient size to justify a full program assessment.
(d) PROHIBITED USES- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no funds provided under this subpart may be used, directly or indirectly, to provide any of the following matters:
(1) Any security enhancements or any equipment to any nongovernmental entity that is not engaged in criminal justice or public safety.
(2) Unless the Attorney General certifies that extraordinary and exigent circumstances exist that make the use of such funds to provide such matters essential to the maintenance of public safety and good order--
(A) vehicles, vessels, or aircraft;
(B) luxury items;
(C) real estate;
(D) construction projects (other than penal or correctional institutions); or
(E) any similar matters.
(e) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS- Not more than 10 percent of a grant made under this subpart may be used for costs incurred to administer such grant.
(f) PERIOD- The period of a grant made under this subpart shall be four years, except that renewals and extensions beyond that period may be granted at the discretion of the Attorney General.
(g) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Subparagraph (d)(1) shall not be construed to prohibit the use, directly or indirectly, of funds provided under this subpart to provide security at a public event, such as a political convention or major sports event, so long as such security is provided under applicable laws and procedures. ..more..
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program Past JAG Stats..
=========================
Individual state JAG websites:
Georgia:
Indiana: (Older report)
Kentucky: They have a wonderful explanation of how the JAG system of grants work. In addition there are documents showing who got these grants, some are private organizations (Note: even though private they must have 501(c)(3) status).
Michigan:
Nevada:
Ohio: Use the "funding" link to find information (kinda poor info).
Oklahoma:
=========================
Office of the Law Revision Counsel Access to the current US Code in the US House
