zipzipzip
July 31, 2007
Washington State Sex Offenders: Overview of Recidivism Studies
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
July 28, 2007
Recidivism: A Fruit Salad Concept in the Criminal Justice World
Recidivism: A Fruit Salad Concept in the Criminal Justice World
May 2001
Statisticians produce seemingly “scientific” studies of recidivism. Correctional administrators sometimes brag about new programs that drastically reduce recidivism. Program staff present reports to their bosses that describe the success and failure of their programs in terms of recidivism. Politicians have had occasion to use the public pulpit to express dismay about recidivism. But in reality, the numbers to which they refer are often as dissimilar as apples, oranges, and grapes. Recidivism is a fruit salad concept in the criminal justice world.
“Recidivism” and “failure” are not always synonymous when talking about offender programs. “Recidivism,” as defined by Webster’s Dictionary is “a tendency to slip back into a previous criminal behavior pattern.”1 “Failure,” on the other hand, is a broad term that often encompasses both relapse into criminal behavior and the exhibition of non-criminal behavior that is unacceptable in correctional programs. For example, an offender may fail in a drug treatment program because he or she refuses to participate appropriately in group counseling. Although no crime involved, the person may be dropped from the program and counted as a failure. The discussion that follows only deals with recidivism.
In developing an understanding of recidivism, three concepts should be examined: (1) what is counted as recidivism, (2) what is time frame of recidivism, and (3) what is the basis for making sense of the information on recidivism? ..more.. by Allen R. Beck, Ph.D.
Glossary of Other Glossaries
July 2007
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections
Glossary of Terms
California Sex Offender Management Board
G;ossary of Terms
Center for Sex Offender Management,
Glossary of Terms (June 1999)
National Center on Sexual Behavior of Youth,
Glossary of Terms (November 2003)
July 27, 2007
Conversion of NIBRS Data to Summary Data
Uniform Crime Reports, September 1999
Introduction
Conversion of NIBRS Data to Summary Data
Law enforcement agencies across the Nation began implementing incident-based reporting systems over a decade ago. Today, many agencies are either certified to report crime data through the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) or are in the process of developing NIBRS reporting systems. However, until the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program receives the preponderance of data via NIBRS, the FBI will continue to report crime statistics to the Nation in the traditional format. During this period of transition, statistics submitted by agencies that have achieved NIBRS capability are converted to the traditional Summary format and then incorporated into the national crime database. This document explains in detail the procedures followed by the FBI when converting NIBRS data to Summary data.
The conversion procedures illustrated in this document use the 53 NIBRS data elements and their data values to transform NIBRS data to the traditional Summary forms. This information should prove helpful to agencies collecting NIBRS data who want to replicate the FBI’s procedures in order to produce the same data as the Summary portion of the UCR system for offenses, arrests, property types and values, clearances, and homicide details.
The FBI converts NIBRS data by month and agency into the existing Summary format for each UCR form except the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) form, which is not available in NIBRS. Printouts containing Summary data are available to state and local agencies for review each time their NIBRS submissions are received. These Summary printouts, when generated from the NIBRS submissions, contain incident reports that are aggregated by offenses, arrests, property types and values, clearances, and details of homicides.
When converting NIBRS data to Summary data, only one offense is taken from each NIBRS incident. The offense to be reported is selected based on the Hierarchy Rule, which ranks Index offenses from high to low as follows:
NIBRS offense code:
09A - Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter
11A - Forcible Rape
120 - Robbery
13A - Aggravated Assault
220 - Burglary/Breaking and Entering
23A-23H - Larceny-theft
240 - Motor Vehicle Theft1
An exception to the rule is arson (offense code 200) if listed. In those situations where an arson occurs in conjunction with one or more additional offenses, the arson is reported and the Hierarchy Rule is applied to the remaining Index crimes. ..more.. by FBI
Age Specific Arrest Rates -and- Race Specific Arrest Rates for Selected Offenses 1993-2001
Age Specific Arrest Rates -and- Race Specific Arrest Rates for Selected Offenses 1993-2001
Uniform Crime Reports
November 2003
Introduction
The objective of this publication is to supplement the statistics published in Crime in the United States by providing users of Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program data with age-specific arrest rates and race-specific arrest rates for the years 1993–2001. The current tabulations update the December 1993 publication, which presented these data for the years 1965–1992. The UCR Program’s statisticians have tabulated the data for the Crime Index, violent crime, property crime, and each Part I offense (murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson). Age and race specific arrest rates are also tabulated for select Part II offenses (forgery and counterfeiting, fraud, embezzlement, stolen property, weapons violations, sex offenses, gambling, and drug abuse violations). Additionally, for each of the offenses, the statisticians have calculated age breakdowns representing juveniles and adults by race (white and all other races, black and all other minorities). A separate table lists the average age of arrestees for each of the Part I and Part II offenses by year.
An age-specific arrest rate refers to the number of arrests made per 100,000 inhabitants belonging to a defined age group. Technical Note A describes the computational procedures used to derive age-specific arrest rates. Technical Note B describes the methodology used to compute the average age of the arrestees. The reader should be aware that the average age of the arrestees is based on the age composition of the U.S. population. Therefore, any shift in the average age of the arrestees should not immediately be associated with a change in criminal pattern since the data may, in fact, reflect a shift in the population.
A race-specific arrest rate refers to the number of arrests per 100,000 inhabitants belonging to a defined race. The statisticians have updated the race-specific data used in this publication, and therefore, figures may differ slightly from the national averages published in earlier editions of Crime in the United States. The rates represent that portion of the population covered by all agencies that contributed race data for the given offenses. The UCR Program requires that reporting agencies supply the age of arrestees; however, the Program stipulates that the submission of race data is voluntary. Therefore, the population coverage for race statistics is lower than that for age statistics.
This publication will be updated annually and published in electronic format beginning with the 2002 data, which will be posted on the FBI’s Web site in the spring of 2004. ..more.. by FBI
July 25, 2007
JUDGING INNOCENCE
July 19, 2007
Judging Innocence, 108 Colum. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2008)
ABSTRACT
In this empirical study, I examine for the first time how the criminal system in the United States handled the cases of people who were subsequently found innocent through post-conviction DNA testing. The data that I collected tells the story of this unique group of exonerees, starting with their criminal trials, moving through several levels of direct appeals and habeas corpus review, and ending with their eventual exonerations. Beginning with the trials of these exonerees, I examine why they were wrongly convicted. The leading types of evidence supporting their wrongful convictions were erroneous eyewitness identifications, faulty forensic evidence, informant testimony, and false confessions. Yet I show that our system of criminal appeals poorly addressed this factual evidence. Surprisingly few innocent appellants brought claims regarding those facts, nor did many bring claims alleging their innocence. For those who did, hardly any claims were granted by appellate courts. Far from recognizing innocence, courts often denied relief by finding error to be harmless on account of the appellant’s guilt. Criminal appeals brought before they proved their innocence using DNA yielded apparently high numbers of reversals—a fourteen percent reversal rate. However, I show that the reversal rate is indistinguishable from the background rate in appeals of comparable rape and murder convictions; thus our system may produce high rates of reversible errors during rape and murder trials. Finally, I develop how even after DNA testing was available, innocent appellants had difficulty ultimately receiving relief. These findings all demonstrate how our criminal system failed to effectively review unreliable factual evidence, and as a result, misjudged innocence. ..more.. by Brandon L. Garrett, University of Virginia School of Law
July 24, 2007
STEP 3: AN EVALUATION OF THE PRISON SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT PROGRAMME
NOVEMBER 1998 United Kingdom:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study was commissioned by the Home Office to evaluate the efficacy of treatment for sex offenders in Category C prisons. The work is third part of the STEP (Sex Offender Treatment Evaluation Project) research.
The first part (reported by Barker & Morgan, 1993) outlined a framework for evaluating community-based treatment. The second part (Beckett, Beech, Fisher & Fo rdham, 1994) rep o rted an evaluation of seven representative community treatment programmes run by, or for, the Probation Service. The STEP team is currently investigating the impact of the Core Programme on a sample of men who have offended against adult victims and/or are sexual murderers .
The Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP) began in 1991 as part of a national strategy for the integrated assessment and treatment of sex offenders. It is currently run in 25 establishments.
The central part of the SOTP is the Core Pro gramme, whose pri m a ry purpose is to increase the offender’s motivation to avoid re-offending and to develop the self-management skills necessary to achieve this.
Comprehensive assessment is also an integral part of the programme which informs decisions about the nature of future risk of the offe n d e r. The ‘ori ginal’ ve rsion of the Core Pro gramme consisted of 35 to 40 two - h o u r sessions but was later ‘revised’ to approximately 86 sessions including additional elements such as role play.
Group-work, known to be an effective way of delivering treatment, has been central to the SOTP strategy, as by joining a group, a sex offender publicly acknowledges his need to change. Group-work also provides a context in which socially acceptable values are conveyed and ‘normal’ social interactions reinforced.
The treatment approach used is ‘cognitive-behavioural’ which research indicates to be particularly effective in the treatment of child abusers.
• The ‘cognitive’ aspect involves recognising the patterns of distorted thinking which allow the contemplation of illegal sexual acts and understanding the impact which sexually abusive behaviour has on its victims.
• The ‘behavioural’ component of treatment invo l ves reducing sexual arousal to inappropriate fantasies of forced sexual activities with children and adults.
Establishments running the SOTP are subject to accreditation by an international panel of experts. The panel assesses the quality of treatment, written outcome reports, tutor availability and management support. ..more.. by Anthony Beech, Dawn Fisher and Richard Beckett
July 23, 2007
July 20, 2007
Contacts between Police and the Public: All Years
Presents data on the nature and characteristics of contacts between residents of the U.S. and the police over a period.
Contacts between Police and the Public 2005 NCJ 215243
Contacts between Police and the Public 2002 NCJ 207845
Contacts between Police and the Public 2001 NCJ 184957
Children with Sexual Behavior Problems: Common Misconceptions vs. Current Findings
2003:
Fact Sheet:
Children with sexual behavior problems (SBPs) are children 12 years and under who demonstrate developmentally inappropriate or aggressive sexual behavior. This definition includes self-focused sexual behavior, such as excessive masturbation, and aggressive sexual behavior towards others that may include coercion or force. Recognizing these children and understanding the causes, impact, and treatment of the sexual behavior problems is a relatively new area of research and clinical practice. Some early assumptions about children with SBPs have not been supported by current research. This Fact Sheet will examine common misconceptions of children with SBPs along with the most recent findings.
This Fact Sheet was prepared through the National Center on Sexual Behavior of Youth (NCSBY) at the Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center and was authored by Barbara L. Bonner, PhD, Mark Chaffin, PhD, and Keri Pierce, MSW. This project is funded by grant number 01-JR-BX-K002 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), US Department of Justice. ..more..
NCSBY Glossary of Terms
What Research Shows About Adolescent Sex Offenders
2003:
What Research Shows About Adolescent Sex Offenders
This Fact Sheet was prepared through the National Center on Sexual Behavior of Youth (NCSBY) at the Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center and was authored by Barbara L. Bonner, PhD, Mark Chaffin, PhD, and Keri Pierce, MSW. This project is funded by grant number 01-JR-BX-K002 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), US Department of Justice. ..more..
NCSBY Glossary of Terms
Adolescent Sex Offenders: Common Misconceptions vs. Current Evidence
Common Misconceptions vs. Current Evidence
2003:
NCSBY Fact Sheet
This Fact Sheet was prepared through the National Center on Sexual Behavior of Youth (NCSBY) at the Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center and was authored by Barbara L. Bonner, PhD, Mark Chaffin, PhD, and Keri Pierce, MSW. This project is funded by grant number 01-JR-BX-K002 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), US Department of Justice. ..more..
NCSBY Glossary of Terms
July 19, 2007
Electronic Monitoring: A Select Bibliography
Electronic Monitoring: A Select Bibliography
All material listed below is available at the University of Toronto. Entries in bold type are housed at the Criminology Information Service & Library, Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto and/or available online. Materials are listed in reverse chronological order. ..more.. by Civic Research Institute
Deaths in Custody Statistical Tables
July 2007:
This site contains a series of data tables describing recent trends in mortality in State prison, local jails and State juvenile correctional facilities. Data are presented over time, by jurisdiction and by demographic groups. The mortality data are from the BJS Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP), which was launched in 2000 to implement the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-297).
BJS phased in implementation of the Act over a four-year period. Data collection on deaths in local jail facilities began in 2000, followed by collection from State prison authorities in 2001. In 2002 BJS began collecting records of deaths from all State juvenile correctional systems. These collections involved individual-level reports of each death, as opposed to aggregated counts.
In 2003 BJS began collecting data on arrest-related deaths involving the nearly 18,000 State and local law enforcement agencies in the United States. Statistical tables on arrest-related deaths are forthcoming (Fall 2007).
To access data tables, click on one of the criminal justice populations below:
State prison deaths, 2001-2005
Local jail deaths, 2000-2005
State juvenile correctional facility
deaths, 2002-2005
Print version of all tables in PDF format (501 KB file)
For detailed analyses, see the following BJS publications:
Medical Causes of Death in State Prisons, 2001-2004
(January 2007, NCJ 216340)
Provides an in-depth look at the various medical conditions related to mortality in State prisons.
Suicide and Homicide in State Prisons and Local Jails
(August 2005, NCJ 210036)
Presents detailed data on suicide and homicide rates in correctional facilities over time, as well as comparative rates of such deaths for different groups of inmates. ..more.. by DOJ
Can Employment Programs Help Ex-Prisoners Successfully Reenter Society?
July 2007:
Each year, more than 600,000 people are released from prison and seek to rejoin their communities. The obstacles to successful reentry are daunting, starting with the challenge of finding stable work. Indeed, two-thirds of released prisoners are rearrested, and half are reincarcerated within three years. In recognition of the enormous human and financial toll of recidivism, there is new interest among researchers, community advocates, and public officials in prisoner reentry initiatives, particularly those focused on employment.
What’s the Relationship Between Crime and Employment?
Although the relationship between crime and employment is complex, most experts seem to agree on a few things. First, a large proportion of former prisoners have low levels of education and work experience, health problems, and other personal characteristics that make them hard to employ, particularly in a labor market that offers fewer and fewer well-paying opportunities for individuals who lack postsecondary education. For example, 40 percent of inmates in state and federal prisons have neither a high school diploma nor a GED, 31 percent of state inmates have a “physical impairment or mental condition,” and 57 percent report that they used drugs in the month before their arrest.[1] ..more..
The above paper summarizes this July 2006 report: Employment-Focused Programs for Ex-Prisoners by Dan Bloom
July 18, 2007
July 16, 2007
July 15, 2007
Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report
September 1999 -- NCJ 178257
Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report
As America moves into the 21st century, we need to forge enlightened policies for our juvenile justice system—policies based on facts, not fears. While the pictures on our television screens and the photos on our front pages raise genuine concerns that we must address, this Report, drawing on reliable data and relevent research, provides a comprehensive and insightful view of the nature of juvenile crime and violence across the Nation.
Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report offers the Congress, State legislators and other State and local policymakers, professors and teachers, juvenile justice professionals, and concerned citizens solid answers to the most frequently asked questions about the nature of juvenile crime and victimization and about the justice system’s response.
Citing FBI and other data sources, the Report demonstrates that the rate of juvenile violent crime arrests— after peaking in 1994—has consistently decreased over the past several years. However, it has yet to return to the 1988 level, the year in which dramatic increases in juvenile crime arrests were first seen. The Report also summarizes data on school violence and describes the recent downturn in the violent victimization of youth.
New findings from the 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, providing the most current data on self-reported delinquent and antisocial behavior, are included in the Report, which also presents data from OJJDP’s new national Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, summarizing key findings about the characteristics of juvenile offenders in custody.
In sum, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report, like its predecessors—Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report (1995), Juvenile Offenders and Victims: Update on Violence (1996 and 1997), and Juvenile Arrests 1997 (1998)—offers an indispensable resource for informed policy decisions that will shape the juvenile justice system in the 21st century by providing a clear view of juvenile crime and the justice system’s response at the end of the 20th century.
..more.. by Howard N. Snyder -and- Melissa Sickmund
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Juvenile population characteristics
Chapter 2: Juvenile victims
Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders
Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process
Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime
Chapter 6: Juvenile courts and juvenile crime
Chapter 7: Juveniles in correctional facilities
Index
July 14, 2007
Internet Prevention Messages: Targeting the Right Online Behaviors
February 2007:
Abstract
Background Internet safety programs urge youth to avoid sharing personal information and talking with "strangers" online.
Objective To examine whether sharing personal information and talking with strangers online or other behaviors are associated with the greatest odds for online interpersonal victimization.
Design The Second Youth Internet Safety Survey was a cross-sectional random digit–dial telephone survey.
Setting United States.
Participants A total of 1500 youth aged 10 to 17 years who had used the Internet at least once a month for the previous 6 months.
Main Exposure Online behavior, including disclosure of personal information, aggressive behavior, talking with people met online, sexual behavior, and downloading images using file-sharing programs.
Outcome Measure Online interpersonal victimization (ie, unwanted sexual solicitation or harassment).
Results Aggressive behavior in the form of making rude or nasty comments (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.3; P<.001) or frequently embarrassing others (AOR, 4.6; P = .003), meeting people in multiple ways (AOR, 3.4; P<.001), and talking about sex online with unknown people (AOR, 2.0; P = .02) were significantly related to online interpersonal victimization after adjusting for the total number of different types of online behaviors youth engaged in. Engaging in 4 types of online behaviors seemed to represent a tipping point of increased risk for online interpersonal victimization (OR, 11.3; P<.001).
Conclusions Talking with people known only online ("strangers") under some conditions is related to online interpersonal victimization, but sharing personal information is not. Engaging in a pattern of different kinds of online risky behaviors is more influential in explaining victimization than many specific behaviors alone. Pediatricians should help parents assess their child's online behaviors globally in addition to focusing on specific types of behaviors. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161:138-145.
Author Affiliations: Internet Solutions for Kids, Inc, Irvine, Calif (Dr Ybarra); and Crimes against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire, Durham (Drs Mitchell and Finkelhor and Ms Wolak).
Full Report:
Teens, Privacy & Online Social Networks
How teens manage their online identities and personal information in the age of MySpace
April 18, 2007
Summary of Findings
Many teenagers avidly use social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook, and employ a variety of tools and techniques to manage their online identities.
Online social networks are spaces on the internet where users can create a profile and connect that profile to others to create a personal network. Social network users post content to their profiles and use tools embedded within social networking websites to contact other users. Young adults and teenagers are among the most avid users of such websites.
Much of the media coverage surrounding young people and online social networks has focused on the personal information teens make available on these networks. Are they sharing information that will harm their future college or job prospects? Or worse, are they sharing information that puts them at risk of victimization?
A new survey and a series of focus groups conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project examines how teens understand their privacy through several lenses: by looking at the choices that teens make to share or not to share information online, by examining what they share, by probing for the context in which they share it and by asking teens for their own assessment of their vulnerability. For many online teens, particularly those with profiles, privacy and disclosure choices are made as they create and maintain social networking profiles. Of course, material shared in a profile is just one of many places where information is shared online – but it provides a snapshot into the choices that teens make to share in a relatively public and persistent online environment. Further, we went on to examine the interactions teens have with people unknown to them on social networking sites, exploring the nature of new friendships created on the networks, as well as unwelcome, and some times uncomfortable or scary stranger contacts.
Most teenagers are taking steps to protect themselves online from the most obvious areas of risk. The new survey shows that many youth actively manage their personal information as they perform a balancing act between keeping some important pieces of information confined to their network of trusted friends and, at the same time, participating in a new, exciting process of creating content for their profiles and making new friends. Most teens believe some information seems acceptable – even desirable – to share, while other information needs to be protected.
Still, the survey also suggests that today’s teens face potential risks associated with online life. Some 32% of online teenagers (and 43% of social-networking teens) have been contacted online by complete strangers and 17% of online teens (31% of social networking teens) have “friends” on their social network profile who they have never personally met.
Here is a general statistical snapshot of how teens use social network sites and the way they handle their privacy on them: ....... ..more (a long list of findings).. by PEW INTERNET & AMERICAN LIFE PROJECT 1615 L ST., NW – SUITE 700 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036: Amanda Lenhart -and- Mary Madden, Senior Research Specialists
Note: A very long list of findings and worth the time to read because much contradicts what was found by Finkelhor in 2000 "Online Victimization: A Report on the Nation’s Youth"
In January of 2007 Pew researchers Lenhart and Madden issued this memo which is also worth time to read.
Online Victimization: A Report on the Nation’s Youth
June 2000:
Introduction
The Internet is an exciting new territory for many young people. Nearly 24 million youth ages 10 through 17 were online regularly in 1999, and millions more are expected to join them shortly. They go there to learn, play, meet people, and explore the world. But stories from law-enforcement officials, parents, and young people themselves suggest that not every online adventure is a happy one. The Internet has a seamier side that young people seem to be encountering with great frequency.
This national survey confirms many of the stories. Large numbers of young people are encountering sexual solicitations they did not want, sexual material they did not seek, and people who threatened and harassed them in a variety of ways. While many are able to glide past these encounters as mere litter on the information super highway, some experience them as real collisions with a reality they did not expect and were distressed to find. Some of these young people report being upset and afraid in the wake of their encounters and have elevated symptoms of stress and depression.
This report describes the variety of disconcerting experiences young Internet users say they have online and ways they react. It also provides a window into how families and young people are addressing matters of danger and protection on the Internet. Some of the news is reassuring. At the same time, it suggests that the seamy side of the Internet spills into the lives of an uncomfortably large number of youth and relatively few families or young people do much about it. It highlights a great need for private and public initiatives to raise awareness and provide solutions.
Nothing in this report contradicts the increasingly well-documented fact that youth and their families are excited about the Internet and its possibilities. They are voting for the Internet with their fingers and pocket books, even as they are aware of some of its drawbacks. But because it is destined to play such an important role in the lives of those growing up today, the question of how to temper some of the drawbacks of this revolutionary medium is worthy of thorough consideration now at the dawn of its development. ..more.. BY THE CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN RESEARCH CENTER, DAVID FINKELHOR, KIMBERLY J. MITCHELL, JANIS WOLAK
Note: While this study was actually performed by David Finkelhor at his research center in New Hampshire, the study is copyrighted by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) and stored on their website.
See also the 2007 Update to this report "Just The Facts About Online Youth Victimization: Researchers Present the Facts and Debunk Myths" by Finkelhor
In addition, see the 2007 PEW INTERNET & AMERICAN LIFE PROJECT report "Teens, Privacy & Online Social Networks"
July 13, 2007
FBI Develops Eavesdropping Tools
11-22-2001 Washington Post:
WASHINGTON –– The FBI is going to new lengths to be sure it can eavesdrop on high-tech communications, secretly building "Magic Lantern" software to monitor computer use.
Separately, the agency is urging phone companies to change their networks for more reliable wiretaps in the digital age.
At a conference Nov. 6 in Tucson, Ariz. – and in a 32-page follow-up letter sent about two weeks ago – the FBI told leading telecommunications officials that increasing use of Internet-style data technology to transmit voice calls is frustrating FBI wiretap efforts.
The FBI told companies that it will need access to voice calls sent over data networks within a few hours in some emergency situations, and that any interference caused by a wiretap should be imperceptible to avoid tipping off a person that his calls might be monitored.
The Magic Lantern technology, part of a broad FBI project called "Cyber Knight," would allow investigators to secretly install over the Internet powerful eavesdropping software that records every keystroke on a person's computer, according to people familiar with the effort.
The software is somewhat similar to so-called trojan software already used illegally by some hackers and corporate spies. The FBI envisions one day using Magic Lantern to record the secret unlocking key a person might use to scramble messages or computer files with encryption software.
The bureau has been largely frustrated in efforts to break open such messages by trying different unlocking combinations randomly, and officials are increasingly concerned about their ability to read encrypted messages in criminal or terrorist investigations.
The FBI said in a statement Wednesday that it can not discuss details of its technical surveillance efforts, though it noted that "encryption can pose potentially insurmountable challenges to law enforcement when used in conjunction with communication or plans for executing serious terrorist and criminal acts."
The FBI added that its research is "always mindful of constitutional, privacy and commercial equities," and that its use of new technology can be challenged in court and in Congress.
Magic Lantern would largely resolve an important problem with the FBI's existing monitoring technology, the "Key Logger System," which in the past has required investigators to sneak into a target's home or business with a so-called sneak-and-peak warrant and secretly attach the device to a computer.
In contrast, Magic Lantern could be installed over the Internet by tricking a person into double-clicking an e-mail attachment or by exploiting some of the same weaknesses in popular commercial software that allow hackers to break into computers. It's unclear whether Magic Lantern would transmit keystrokes it records back to the FBI over the Internet or store the information to be seized later in a raid. The existence of Magic Lantern was first disclosed by MSNBC.
"If they are using this kind of program, it would be a highly effective way to bypass any encryption problems," said James E. Gordon, who heads the information technology practice for Pinkerton Consulting and Investigations Inc. "Once they have the keys to the kingdom, they have complete access to anything that individual is doing."
At least one antivirus software company, McAfee Corp., contacted the FBI on Wednesday to ensure its software wouldn't inadvertently detect the bureau's snooping software and alert a criminal suspect.
Experts said the FBI software could be used with a court order against criminals, terrorists or foreign spies. People familiar with the project, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the package is being developed at the FBI's electronic tools laboratory, the same outfit that built the bureau's "Carnivore" Internet surveillance technology.
Some experts said Magic Lantern raises important legal questions, such as whether the FBI would need a wiretap order from a U.S. judge to use the technology. The government has previously argued that the FBI can capture a person's computer keystrokes under the authority of a traditional search warrant, which involves less oversight by the courts.
"It's an open question whether the covert installation of something on a computer without a physical entry requires a search warrant," said David Sobel, a lawyer with the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center, a civil liberties group. ..more.. by Ted Bridis, Associated Press Writer
See also: Shedding Light On The FBI's 'Magic Lantern' By Paul Eng, ABCNEWS.com 12-22-1
See also: Feds use key logger to thwart PGP, Hushmail by CNet News.com 7-10-2007
See also: Keystroke Logging and the Constitution by Tech Insider 7-11-2007
July 12, 2007
WILLIAM LOUIS BARTLETT -v- E. S. ALAMEIDA, JR.; W. A. DUNCAN, Warden
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
May 10, 2004
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
William Louis Bartlett is a state prisoner serving a 25-yearto-life sentence for failing to re-register as a sex offender pursuant to California’s sex offender registration statute, Cal. Pen. Code § 290(a)(1)(A). He contends, in his quest for a writ of habeas corpus, that his conviction violates due process because the state was not required to prove that he had knowledge of the lifelong duty to register. The district court denied Bartlett’s petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we reverse and remand.
I.
William Bartlett was convicted of rape in California in 1983 and incarcerated. When paroled in 1986, he signed a form acknowledging that he had a lifelong duty to register as a sex offender in California. In the next four years, Bartlett repeatedly violated his parole and was returned to prison five times. Bartlett registered as a sex offender when he was released from prison in 1987 and again in 1990 when he was released. By 1990, Bartlett had signed three forms, each indicating that his duty to register as a sexual offender was a lifelong requirement, and he had duly registered twice as a sex offender. After 1990, however, he never again registered as a sex-offender. Bartlett was convicted of robbery and commercial burglary in 1992 and sentenced to prison for 11 years. While in prison and again when paroled in 1997, Bartlett signed forms acknowledging that his “responsibility to register as a sexual offender is a lifetime requirement.” When Bartlett once again violated his parole, he was returned to prison. When released in 1998, Bartlett signed another notice of duty to register. He did not register as a sex offender after his release. Rather, he was eventually discovered by authorities residing in a convalescent home under an assumed name.
Bartlett was charged with a violation of § 290(a)(1)(A), providing that “[e]very person [convicted of a sexual offense as] described in paragraph (2), for the rest of his or her life while residing in . . . California, . . . shall be required to register with the chief of police of the city in which he or she is residing . . . .” Bartlett admitted at his trial that he signed the registration requirement forms and registered as a sex offender while on parole for the sex offense, but contended that he was unaware that his duty to register was lifelong. He testified that he believed that his obligation to register as a sex offender ended when his parole for that offense expired. Bartlett explained to the jury that he did not read any of the registration notices because they were presented to him along with a number of other documents when he was being processed out of custody. He further testified that he began living under an assumed name because he knew he had violated his parole on the robbery and burglary convictions and was afraid to return to prison.
The court instructed the jury that “[i]t is not an element of the offense that the convicted sex offender have actual or probable knowledge of his duty to register. The convicted sex offender need only have been given actual notice of the requirement to register as a sex offender.” During deliberations, the jury became deadlocked and sent the court a note requesting that the court elaborate on the meaning of “willfully” in the jury instructions. In response, the court reiterated that “actual knowledge is not an element of the crime. Actual notice is an element of the crime. You must be given notice.
Actual knowledge is not an element of the crime. The people don’t have to prove actual knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt.” Bartlett was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender in violation of § 290. Because this conviction was his “third strike,” Bartlett was sentenced to a term of 25 years to life in prison. His conviction was upheld by the California Court of Appeal. That court reasoned that “actual knowledge is not an element of the offense of failing to register as a sexual offender.” The court also noted that even if federal due process requires proof of actual knowledge, Bartlett’s “repeated actual notice of the registration requirement supplies proof of the probability of actual knowledge.” The California Supreme Court denied Bartlett’s petition for review. A few months later, however, the California Supreme Court held, in a different case, that the state must prove as an element of the crime that a defendant had “actual knowledge” of the duty to register under § 290. People v. Garcia, 25 Cal. 4th 744, 752 (2001) (noting that making actual knowledge of the duty to register an element of a § 290 violation “undoubtedly” satisfies federal due process). ..more..
Homicide trends in the United States
July 2007:
This site contains a series of charts that describe homicide patterns and trends in the United States since 1976.
Homicide is of interest not only because of its severity but also because it is a fairly reliable barometer of all violent crime. At a national level, no other crime is measured as accurately and precisely.
The data on this site may differ slightly from previously published figures because of updates to the data files after publication and the imputation methods used. ..more.. by James Alan Fox, The Lipman Family Professor of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University -and- Marianne W. Zawitz, BJS Statistician
Court Recognizes ‘False Light’ Invasion of Privacy
July 11, 2007 Ohio:
2005-1964. Welling v. Weinfeld, 2007-Ohio-2451.
Stark App. No. 2004CA00340, 2005-Ohio-4721. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton and O'Donnell, JJ., concur. O'Connor and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent and would dismiss the cause as having been improvidently accepted.
James J. Sweeney, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, was assigned to sit for Resnick, J., whose term ended on January 1, 2007. Cupp, J., whose term began on January 2, 2007, did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. Court Opinion:
June 6, 2007) The Supreme Court of Ohio today for the first time recognized the right to sue for damages in cases where an individual's right to privacy has been violated by publicity that portrays the person in a “false light.”
In a 5-2 decision authored by Justice Paul E. Pfeifer, the Court remanded a dispute between neighboring Stark County landowners to the trial court with instructions to consider whether one of the disputants invaded the privacy of her neighbors not only by aiming floodlights and security cameras at their property, but also by posting handbills regarding alleged vandalism of her property at the neighbors' place of employment and their childrens' school.
“In Ohio, o ne who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy if (a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed,” Justice Pfeifer wrote in the majority opinion.
Joining Justice Pfeifer in the majority were Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton and Terrence O'Donnell and Judge James L. Sweeney of the 8th District Court of Appeals, who sat by assignment in place of former Justice Alice Robie Resnick, who did not participate in the case. Justice Robert R. Cupp, whose term of office began on Jan. 2, 2007, did not participate in the case. Justices Maureen O'Connor and Judith Ann Lanzinger dissented without written opinion and indicated that they would have dismissed the case as having been improvidently allowed.
The case arose from a dispute between owners of adjoining properties in the Canton suburb of Perry Township. In 1998 Lauri Weinfeld purchased two parcels of land adjacent to the home of longtime residents Robert and Katherine Welling. Weinfeld lived in a house on one parcel and used the other to operate a business known as “Lakeside Center,” a facility which she promoted as a site for banquets, private parties and outdoor weddings.
In the Spring of 1999, Weinfeld began using the Lakeside property for outdoor weddings and receptions on most weekends. An ongoing dispute developed when Weinfeld complained about the Wellings' operation of lawn mowers and other loud equipment on their property while weekend functions and other business activities were taking place at her adjacent party facility. The conflict escalated when Weinfeld installed floodlights and surveillance cameras on her property that were directed toward the Wellings' home.
Weinfeld filed a lawsuit in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas alleging that the Wellings' noisy activities on their property while outdoor events were being held at Lakeside Center were a public nuisance and constituted trespass, invasion of privacy, interference with Weinfeld's business relations and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Wellings counter-sued, alleging that Weinfeld's actions had invaded their privacy.
While those actions were pending, a window in a building at the Lakeside Center was found broken. Weinfeld printed up posters offering a $500 reward for information about the incident. She posted these notices on the door of the Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company where Mr. Welling and one of the Wellings' children were both employed and at the schools attended by the Wellings' children. The bottling plant and schools were several miles from the Lakeside Center property.
A jury trial was conducted to resolve the disputants' claims and counter-claims. The jury found in favor of the Wellings on all of Weinfeld's claims against them. On the Wellings' counter-claims the jury found that Weinfeld had invaded their privacy. The Wellings had alleged two sets of facts alleging two different types of invasion of privacy: (1) that Weinfeld's videotaping of them in their yard and installation of floodlights and surveillance cameras aimed at their home constituted an invasion of privacy by intruding on their seclusion, and (2) that Weinfeld's distribution of the reward posters regarding her broken window at their place of employment and their childrens' schools constituted invasion of privacy by means of publicity portraying the Wellings in a “false light” to the public. The jury awarded the Wellings $5,412.88 in compensatory damages, $250,000 in punitive damages plus $10,000 for their attorney's fees, but did not set forth whether the verdict was based upon one or both of the Wellings' theories of recovery.
The trial court judge denied a motion by Weinfeld that judgment be entered in her favor notwithstanding the jury verdict. The judge did grant a reduction in the jury's award of punitive damages, and offered the Wellings a choice between accepting a reduced punitive damage award of $35,000 or the court's issuance of an order vacating the jury's verdict on their counterclaims and requiring a new trial limited to those claims and the amount of any damages due them. The Wellings refused to accept the reduced punitive damage award, and the trial court vacated the jury verdict and award and ordered a new trial on their counterclaims. On review, the 5th District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's action, but limited the retrial to the issue of invasion of privacy based upon invasion of seclusion, holding that Ohio had not yet adopted the “false light” theory of recovery.
The Wellings sought Supreme Court review of the 5th District's holding. The Court agreed to hear arguments on the sole issue of whether the Wellings' claim against Weinfeld alleging “false light” invasion of privacy is a cause of action recognized under Ohio law.
In today's opinion, Justice Pfeifer wrote that “false light” is one of four categories of invasion of privacy claims identified by leading legal scholars in the widely cited “Restatement of the Law.” He further noted that the Supreme Court of Ohio referenced “false light” invasion of privacy as a generally accepted theory of tort liability in a footnote to a 1982 decisions, Sustin v. Fee. In addition, more than 20 state and federal courts outside Ohio which have recognized publicity portraying a person in a “false light” as actionable.
“In Ohio, we have already recognized that a claim for invasion of privacy can arise when true private details of a person's life are publicized,” Justice Pfeifer wrote. “The right to privacy naturally extends to the ability to control false statements made about oneself. Without false light, the right to privacy is not whole, as it is not fully protected by defamation laws.”
Justice Pfeifer dismissed concerns raised by Weinfeld's attorneys, including the suggestion that recognition of a false-light privacy cause of action would interfere with freedom of speech and of the press.
“[W]e believe that the First Amendment concerns that some courts have raised in regard to false-light claims are overblown,” he wrote. “False-light defendants enjoy protections at least as extensive as defamation defendants.” The Court adopted the higher standard of fault recognized in the Restatement of the Law designed to ensure First Amendment protection. In order to demonstrate a false-light liability, plaintiff's will have to demonstrate that the defendant “had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.”
Contacts
Ralph F. Dublikar, 330.499.6000, for Robert and Katherine Welling. ..more.. by Supreme Court of Ohio
Sheriff Must Send Notice to Last Known Address Before Failure To Register Charge Can Be Filed
July 11, 2007 Ohio:
2006-0875. State v. Williams, 2007-Ohio-3268.
Allen App. No. 1-05-74, 166 Ohio App.3d 444, 2006-Ohio-1409. Judgment reversed.
Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Lanzinger and Skow, JJ., concur.
William J. Skow, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting for Cupp, J.
Court Opinion:
(July 11, 2007) The Supreme Court of Ohio held today that a sheriff must send a statutorily required written notification to a sex-offender's last known address before the offender may be prosecuted for failure to periodically verify his current address. The Court's unanimous decision was authored by Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger.
Based on a prior conviction for a qualifying sex offense, Derrick Williams of Lima was required under R.C. Chapter 2950 to register annually with the Allen County Sheriff to verify his current address. On June 25, 2004, Williams went to the sheriff's office for his required annual address verification. He advised the sheriff that he was currently homeless. The sheriff provided Williams with a paper explaining his registration requirements and informing him that his next registration was to be completed by June 15, 2005. Williams signed the document.
Williams failed to appear or contact the sheriff's office to update his address by June 15, 2005. He was later indicted for failure to comply with the sex offender registration statute, a third-degree felony. Williams filed a motion to dismiss the complaint because the sheriff had not sent a written warning required under R.C. 2950.06(G)(1) advising Williams that he had missed his registration deadline and that charges would be filed against him if he did not register within seven days. The Allen County Court of Common Pleas granted the motion to dismiss.
On review, the 3rd District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and reinstated the charge against Williams. The appellate panel held that R.C. Chapter 2950 was a “remedial” rather than a “punitive” statute, which meant that provisions of the statute need not be strictly construed against the state. Applying that standard, the court of appeals found that, under the facts of Williams' case, the sheriff did not need to send the seven-day warning notice before prosecuting Williams for failure to periodically verify current address.
Williams appealed the 3rd District's ruling, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the case.
In today's decision, Justice Lanzinger noted that the 3rd District relied on State v. Cook, a 1998 decision in which the Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the overall purpose of R.C. Chapter 2950 and held that it was remedial rather than punitive.
“Reliance on Cook is misplaced here,” wrote Justice Lanzinger. “R.C. Chapter 2950 has been amended since Cook ... and the simple registration process and notification procedures considered in that are now different.... The registration requirements of R.C. Chapter 2950 may have been enacted generally as remedial measures, but R.C. 2950.06 defines a crime: the offense of failure to verify current address. R.C. 2901.04 requires that statutes defining offenses or penalties shall be strictly construed against the state and liberally in favor of the defendant. Therefore, this section of the law is subject to strict interpretation against the state, and must be liberally interpreted in favor of the accused.”
Having made that determination, Justice Lanzinger wrote that the Court disagreed with the 3rd District's holding “that mailing of the required notices operates independently of the seven day period, i.e. that prosecution may commence seven days after the yearly verification deadline, even if the warning letter has not been sent.... Because the statute clearly states that the offender must be given a new compliance date (which is seven days from the date the warning is sent), an R.C. 2950.06(F) prosecution is dependent on the sending of that notification.... We hold that the sheriff must fulfill the duty to send a notification to the offender's last known address before a sex offender may be prosecuted for failure to periodically verify a current address under R.C. 2950.06(F). We therefore reverse the judgment of the Allen County Court of appeals and reinstate the trial court's dismissal of this action.”
Justice Lanzinger's opinion was joined by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Maureen O'Connor and Terrence O'Donnell, and Judge William J. Skow of the 6th District Court of Appeals, who sat by assignment in place of Justice Robert R. Cupp.
Contacts
Jana E. Emerick, 419.222.2462, for the State of Ohio and Allen County prosecutor's office.
Michael J. Short, 419.228.0189, for Derrick Williams. ..more.. by Ohio Supreme Court
July 11, 2007
Measuring the Costs and Benefits of Crime and Justice
2000:
Abstract:
Cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost analyses are tools that have been used by public policy analysts for years. Programs as diverse as environmental and land use regulations, welfare benefits, job training programs, and immunization policies have all been analyzed in this manner. Since the early 1980s, Federal regulatory agencies have been required to conduct benefit-cost analyses on major regulatory initiatives. Despite their widespread use, cost-effectiveness and benefitcost analyses have not been staples of the criminal justice policy analyst’s tool kit. This is rapidly changing in response to both increasing public demand for accountability of government agencies and the availability of new data and analysis techniques for identifying the costs of crime. This chapter reviews state-of-the-art techniques for estimating the costs and benefits of criminal justice and prevention programs. Although official government estimates of the cost of street crime have been available for many years, recent studies have attempted to go beyond government statistics by incorporating the monetary value of pain, suffering, and lost quality of life. Many of these studies use methodologies that are employed by environmental, health, and safety economists. Because these methodologies are new to the criminal justice research community, considerable attention is given to understanding their underlying assumptions, limitations, and alternatives. Cost-benefit analysis has arrived in the criminal justice policy arena, and it will not go away. Forcing analysts to quantify expected costs and benefits sheds new light on the merits of alternative programs and will undoubtedly change the focus of the debate in many criminal justice program areas. Whereas one could previously claim that “prevention is cheaper than prison” or “three strikes and you’re out pays for itself,” the benefit-cost framework allows decisionmakers to examine these claims more carefully and begin to make more rational, scientifically based judgments. ..more.. by Mark A. Cohen
July 10, 2007
Twenty Findings of Research on Residential Restrictions for Sex Offenders and the Iowa Experience with Similar Policies
Sex Offender Housing Restrictions
1) Housing restrictions appear to be based largely on three myths that are repeatedly propagated by the media: 1) all sex offenders reoffend; 2) treatment does not work; and 3) the concept of “stranger danger.” Research does not support these myths, but there is research to suggest that such policies may ultimately be counterproductive. Sex offender residence restrictions. A Report to the Florida Legislature, October 2005, Jill S. Levinson, Ph.D.
2) Research shows that there is no correlation between residency restrictions and reducing sex offenses against children or improving the safety of children. Iowa County Attorneys Association
3) The resulting damage to the reliability of the sex offender registry does not serve the interests of public safety. Iowa County Attorneys Association
4) There is no demonstrated protective effect of the residency requirement that justifies the huge draining of scarce law enforcement resources in the effort to enforce the restriction. Iowa County Attorneys Association
5) Many prosecutors have observed that the numerous negative consequences of the lifetime residency restriction has caused a reduction in the number of confessions made by offenders in cases where defendants usually confess after disclosure of the offense by the child. In addition, there are more refusals by defendants charged with sex offenses to enter plea agreements. Plea agreements are necessary in many cases involving child victims in order to protect the children from trauma of the trial process. Iowa County Attorneys Association
6) Recommendation 1: Shared Living Arrangements appear to be a frequently successful mode of containment and treatment for higher risk sex offenders and should be considered a viable living situation for higher risk sex offenders in the community…. Recommendation 2: Placing restrictions on the location of correctionally supervised sex offender residences may not deter the sex offender from re-offending and should not be considered as a method to control sexual offending recidivism. Report on Safety Issues Raised by Living Arrangements for and Location of Sex Offenders in the Community; Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal justice, Sex Offender Management Board
7) ....the number of sex offenders who are unaccounted for has doubled since the law went into effect. Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault
8) There is no accommodation in the current statute for persons on parole or probation supervision. These offenders are already monitored and their living arrangements approved. Iowa County Attorneys Association
9) [This policy] is contrary to well-established principles of treatment and rehabilitation of sex offenders….These goals are severely impaired by the residency restriction, compromising the safety of children by obstructing the use of the best known corrections practice. Iowa County Attorneys Association
10) The sex offender residency restriction was a very well intentioned effort to keep the children of our communities safe from sex offenders. It has, however, had unintended consequences that effectively decrease community safety. Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault
11) ….some offenders are attempting to comply by providing descriptions of where they are actually living….”under the 7th street bridge,” “truck near river,” “rest area mile marker 149,” “Flying J, in truck,” “in tent, S side of I-80,” “RV in old K-Mart parking lot,” “I-35 rest area,”….Two listed Quick Trips…. For the first time, sex offender treatment providers tell us, sex offenders are absconding in larger numbers. Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault
12) When a brutal sexually violent crime occurs, such as the one that occurred in Iowa last year, our societal tendency is to focus all our resources and energy on stopping offenders. The long-term solutions to eradicating sexual violence from our society, however, do not lie in measures taken to stop re-offense, but rather in preventing sexual violence from happening in the first place. Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault
13) … the Board of the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault joined the Iowa County Attorneys Association in stating that these unintended consequences warrant replacing the residency restriction with more effective measures. Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault
14) Housing restrictions have passed in most localities with little resistance. Child safety is rightly the primary concern when sex offender restrictions are imposed. It seems to make sense that decreasing access to potential victims would be a feasible strategy to preventing sex crimes. There is no evidence, however, that such laws are effective in reducing recidivistic sexual violence. On the other hand, such laws aggravate the scarcity of housing options for sex offenders, forcing them out of metropolitan areas and farther away from the social support, employment opportunities and social services that are known to aid offenders in successful community re-entry. Sex offender residence restrictions. A Report to the Florida Legislature, October 2005, Jill S. Levinson, Ph.D.
15) Despite overwhelming public and political support, there is no evidence that proximity to schools increases recidivism, or, conversely, that housing restrictions reduce reoffending or increase community safety. Sex offender residence restrictions. A Report to the Florida Legislature, October 2005, Jill S. Levinson, Ph.D.
16) Based on the examination of level three re-offenders, there were no examples that residential proximity to a park or school was a contributing factor in any of the sexual re-offenses noted… Enhanced safety due to proximity restrictions may be a comfort factor for the general public, but it does not have any basis in fact…it appears that a sex offender attracted to such locations for purposes of committing a crime is more likely to travel to another neighborhood on order to in secret rather than in a neighborhood where his or her picture is well known. Level Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues, 2003 Report to the Legislature, Minnesota Department of Corrections
17) Having such restrictions in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul would likely force level three offenders to move to more rural areas that would not contain nearby schools and parks but would pose other problems, such as high concentration of offenders with no ties to the community; isolation; lack of work, education and treatment options; and an increase in the distance traveled by agents who supervise offenders. Again, no evidence points to any effect on offense rates of school proximity residential restrictions. Level Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues, 2003 Report to the Legislature, Minnesota Department of Corrections
18) Since blanket proximity restrictions on residential locations of level three offenders do not enhance community safety, the current offender-by-offender restrictions should be retained. Proximity restrictions, based on circumstances on an individual offender, serve as a valuable supervision tool…Most of these supervision proximity restrictions address the issue of the offender associating or interacting with children or minors, rather than where the offender resides. Level Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues, 2003 Report to the Legislature, Minnesota Department of Corrections
19) A significant number of offenders have married or have been reunited with their victims; and, in those cases, the residency restriction is imposed on the victims as well as the offenders. Iowa County Attorneys Association…
20) A tight web of supervision, treatment and surveillance may be more important in maintaining community safety than where a sex offender resides. Report on Safety Issues Raised by Living Arrangements for and Location of Sex Offenders in the Community; Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal justice, Sex Offender Management Board ..more.. by Kansas Department of Corrections
The impact of residency restrictions on sex offenders and correctional management practices: a literature review
August 2006:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Banishment: to expel from or relegate to a country or place by authoritative decree...to compel to depart. Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. Second Edition
Banishment was a form of legal punishment in Ancient Greece and Renaissance Italy and England. Colonial America received its share of banished English thieves and other offenders, as did Australia. During the American Revolution, the colonies banished English loyalists. More recently, the former Soviet Union restricted inmate’s rights upon release from the Gulag to 101 kilometers from large urban centers, resulting in a number of rural settlements.
Today some communities in the United States banish sex offenders from living in their midst, resulting in a difficult dilemma: where can these offenders live, and where can they best be supervised and receive treatment, if available? This report describes local ordinances and state statutes restricting where a sex offender may reside, discusses what research has found so far about the success of these restrictions, considers the impact that these restrictions are having on criminal justice management practices and sex offender treatment regimens, and examines constitutional implications. According to California Penal Code § 288 (a) (b):
A sex offender is any person who willfully and lewdly commits any lewd or lascivious act, upon or with the body, or any part or member thereof, of a child who is under the age of 14 years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person or the child. A sex offender is any person who commits an act by use of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person.1
Each year there are 60,000 to 70,000 arrests on charges of child sexual assault, according to the U.S. Justice Department, of which only about 115 are abductions by strangers. In addition, there are 15,000 to 20,000 arrests on charges of forcible rape. Most rape victims know their assailants: seven in ten female rape or sexual assault victims state the offender was an intimate, other relative, a friend or an acquaintance.2
[[[[SNIP]]]]
EFFECTIVENESS OF LOCAL SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS
There have been no careful evaluations of local residency restrictions, in part because they are so recent. There have been some evaluations of state laws, which we discussed earlier.82 A number of experts in the field have expressed opinions, which we quote below.
According to John Gruber, executive director of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA), the organization is generally opposed to residency restrictions: “What you’re doing is pushing people more underground, pushing them away from treatment and pushing them away from monitoring,” he said. “You’re really not improving the safety, but you’re giving people a false sense of safety.”83
Jill S. Levenson, author of a study on sex offender zoning laws, contends that local restrictions could force some sex offenders to move away from the sources of stability such as family in their lives, perhaps putting them at greater risk of committing more crimes: “When you push offenders out of the more populated areas, they can lose access to jobs and treatment, and it makes them harder to track.”
Ernie Allen, the president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, is of the opinion that sex offender residency restrictions can create a false sense of security because people will believe that sex offenders will just go away. Also, they may move sex offenders from one community to the next, setting off a competitive spiral of ever-tougher “not in my backyard” ordinances.84
According to John Furlong, a Trenton, New Jersey lawyer and coeditor of A Megan’s Law Sourcebook, sex offender ordinances overlook the chief victimizers of children: relatives and acquaintances.85 Each year there are 60,000 to 70,000 arrests on charges of child sexual assault, according to the U.S. Justice Department, of which about 115 abductions by strangers. About seven in ten female rape or sexual assault victims state that the offender was an intimate, other relative, a friend or acquaintance.86
According to Ronald K. Chen, a Rutgers University Law School dean and authority on Megan’s Law, each town is trying to make sex offender residency someone else’s problem. More often than not, said Chen, “the exclusion is so comprehensive that if it doesn’t prevent offenders from having any meaningful existence in the town, it comes pretty close.”87
Local residency restrictions may drive some of the estimated 500,000 registered sex offenders in the country underground: “What they’re probably going to do is move into a community and not register,” said Carolyn Atwell-Davis, legislative director for the nonprofit National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. There are an estimated 100,000 offenders nationally who have failed to comply with registration requirements and remain undetected: “It’s better to know where these “lost offenders” are than where they aren’t.”88
Seattle police detective Bob Shilling, a nationally recognized expert on sex offenders, is of the opinion that sex-offender-free zones chase offenders “from one jurisdiction to another.” “It creates a lot more homeless sex offenders, which makes it a lot harder for us to keep track of them,” Shilling said. “They do not work. In fact, it exacerbates the problem.”89
Linn County, Iowa, Sheriff Don Zeller reports that his county had 435 sex offenders registered in 2002, when the state residency restriction law first went into effect. Of those, 114 moved, 74 were charged with violating the ordinance, and others just disappeared; “We went from knowing where about 90 percent of them were. We’re lucky if we know where 50 to 55 percent of them are now...the law created an atmosphere that these individuals can’t find a place to live.”90 ..more.. by Marcus Nieto, Senior Research Specialist -and- Professor David Jung, Public Law Research Institute, Hastings Law School
Washington State Partnership for Community Safety Community Safety Zones: Information from Other States
August 2005:
A compilation of information from accross the nation about the effectiveness of "Community Safety Zones." Mostly it cites news articles and other sources where authorities mentioned what they have done. This material is very dated. ..more.. by David M. Wertheimer, Partnership Consultant
Off to Elba: The Legitimacy Offender Residence and Employment Restrictions
Abstract
Overborne by a mob mentality for justice, officials at every level of government are enacting laws that effectively exile convicted sex offenders from their midst with little contemplation as to the appropriateness or constitutionality of their actions. These laws fundamentally alter the liberties and freedom of convicted sex offenders to satisfy the ignorant fear of the masses. As a result, residence and employment restrictions which in theory are to protect society, in practice only exacerbate the perceived recidivism problem. When such laws are passed and the political process is broken, it is necessary for the judicial branch to step forward and protect those who are politically impotent.
There are times when politicians are hostages to the lusts of their constituents. They dare not oppose bills that, if defeated, would serve only to aggravate those who placed them into office.2 Regardless of whether they actually favor the measures, the political risk is too great not to allow their constituents’ passions to overrun their own common sense. As a consequence, laws are passed with little or no resistance.3 These laws can fundamentally alter the liberties and freedom of a few to satisfy the ignorant fear of the masses. As a result, laws that in theory appear to protect society, in practice only exacerbate the perceived problem. In situations like this, an independent judiciary must do what needs to be done. Because sometimes the desire of the majority overbears individual liberty, it is critical that the courts protect the legitimate interests of "the others."4 When such laws are passed and the political process is broken, it is necessary for the judicial branch to step forward and protect those who are politically impotent.5 When it comes to laws that involve sex offenders, the passions of the majority must be tempered with reason. Overborne by a mob mentality for justice, officials at every level of government are enacting laws that effectively exile convicted sex offenders from their midst with little contemplation as to the appropriateness or constitutionality of their actions. Politicians across the country will approve almost any measure that deals with sex offenders to appear strong on crime.6 Given that the sex offender lobby is neither large nor vocal, it will be up to the courts to protect the interests of this disenfranchised group.7 ..more.. by Joseph L. Lester, Faulkner University
July 8, 2007
July 7, 2007
Recidivism of State FY96 Prison Releases in Iowa, 2001
2001
Abstract
This report presents recidivism data on offenders released from Iowa prisons during State FY1996 (July 1, 1995 – June 30, 1996). ..more.. by Human Rights, Department of.
The Iowa Sex Offender Registry and Recidivism, 2000
December 2000
Abstract
The Iowa Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) received funding through the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) State Justice Statistics (SJS) Program for the purpose of collection and analysis of data related to implementation of the Iowa Sex Offender Registry. The research had two specific goals: · To enhance understanding of the State’s Sex Offender Registry through collection and analysis of data on sex offenders before and after the Registry’s implementation. · To develop and validate a unique Iowa Sex Offender Risk Assessment tool to assist in identifying those offenders who constitute the highest risk to re-offend. Few studies have addressed the impact of a Sex Offender Registry program on recidivism rates or other variables. It was the purpose of this first study to examine and compare two groups of individuals to determine what effect, if any, the requirement to register as a sex offender had on recidivism rates over a 3-4 year period. ..more.. by Department of Human Rights
Recidivism
2001
Preface to the Internet Edition
I started working in the general area of recidivism and correctional measures over 20 years ago, under the assumption that I would be able to make some marginal changes in the measurement of recidivism. What has happened has been quite gratifying. The primary yardstick of the time, the “one-year recidivism rate,” has generally (but not completely) been replaced with measures based on survival analysis, as suggested by this book. It was also gratifying to have the book receive awards in two fields, criminal justice (the Leslie T. Wilkins Book Award) and operations research (the Lanchester Prize). Despite this, the book has been out of print for a number of years, prompting me to retrieve the copyright from Academic Press and publish it on the Internet.
During this period the software environment has changed to a great extent: the FORTRAN programs listed on pp. 206-222 are included more for the sake of historical curiosity than out of any expectation that they will be used. In addition, the use of Cox regression procedures in survival analysis has made the search for covariates simpler than as described in Chapter 10. [However, those who use Cox regression techniques should be aware that, even though it is a nonparametric method, it makes the implicit assumption that the hazard rate of each individual is the same as for that of all other individuals, except for a multiplicative constant.]
One concern that I had at the time I initially wrote this book, and which I still have, is the penchant of some social scientists to use only the standard methods they learned in graduate school, without considering the conditions under which they can and cannot be used. They appear to be wary of going beyond the “tried and true” (or in some instances, “tired and false”) methods.
This is in some sense equivalent to a shoe salesman attempting to sell a size 9 shoe to a person with a size 8 foot, because it’s the only size available. My growing concern about the misuse of methods was detailed in a paper published in November 1994, in the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, “Deviating from the Mean: The Declining Significance of Significance,” and elaborated on in subsequent articles in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology. This book can be used as a primer on how to deal with a measurement problem, by first considering how it has been dealt with in the past, and then attempting to fashion a method based on the characteristics of the problem.
A note on this version: I have tried to keep the same text on this version as on the printed page, so that the index would not have to be redone. This has meant that some of the pages are longer than others. I’ve also taken the opportunity to correct some of the typos; however, as anyone who has scanned material into a computer, new errors are often introduced – one cannot expect the character recognition to be correct everywhere. I would appreciate it if those who find mistakes would communicate them to me Other than that, this version is the same as the original. ..more.. by Michael D. Maltz, Department of Criminal Justice and Department of Information and Decision Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago
The Reconviction Rate of Federal Offenders
June 2003:
Recidivism is an important and widely used performance measure for correctional programs, but there is no single, standard measure of recidivism. The report notes that it is often difficult to compare recidivism rates because various methods are used and these produce different results.
Using the RCMP's criminal records to measure all new offences, the study found that reconviction rates for federal offenders released in three consecutive fiscal years -1994/95, 1995/96 and 1996/97 - were 44 per cent, 43 per cent, and 41 per cent, respectively. Non-violent offences accounted for the majority of reconvictions. The violent reconviction rate was approximately 13 per cent, and the sexual reconviction rate was very low (0.7 per cent to 1.7 per cent).
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
Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature
March 2004:
PURPOSE AND METHODS OF SYNTHESIS
Section 5414 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001 as amended in the No Child Left Behind Act authorizes a national study of educator sexual misconduct. This synthesis reviews existing data which relate to educator sexual misconduct including the methods used to collect those data. This report documents research on educator sexual misconduct, not advice or practice recommendations unless supported by data.1 Using data related to sexual misconduct, the synthesis examines:
• Incidence and prevalence
• Offender descriptions
• Target/victim descriptions
• Patterns of misconduct
• School district responses
• Legal remedies
• Effects on targets and others
• Consequences to offenders of allegations
• Union and professional organization roles
• Prevention
1.1 Definitions.
The phenomena examined in this synthesis include behavior by an educator that is directed at a student and intended to sexually arouse or titillate the educator or the child. In this review, “educator” includes any person older than 18 who works with or for a school or other educational or learning organization. This service may be paid or unpaid, professional, classified or volunteer. Adults covered by this review might be teachers, counselors, school administrators, secretaries, bus drivers, coaches, parent volunteers for student activities, lunchroom attendants, tutors, music teachers, special education aides, or any other adult in contact in a school-related relationship with a student.
“Students” include any person, whatever age, in an educational institution up through 12th grade. This review does not examine the literature on post secondary or higher education educator-to-student sexual misconduct.
The behaviors included in the review are physical, verbal, or visual. Examples include touching breasts or genitals of students; oral, anal, and vaginal penetration; showing students pictures of a sexual nature; sexually-related conversations, jokes, or questions directed at students.
“Molestation”, “rape”, “sexual exploitation”, “sexual abuse”, “sexual harassment” – these words and phrases are often used to describe adult-to-student sexual abuse in schools. Shoop (2004) defines these behaviors as educator sexual exploitation. There is considerable discussion concerning the appropriate label for these actions. While “educator sexual abuse” is a common reference, “educator sexual misconduct” is a more appropriate term for the purposes of this review.
In naming the focus of this inquiry, I use as a guide the policy of The Ontario (Canada) College of Teachers that recommends the term educator sexual misconduct because the phrase “educator sexual abuse” fails to include the larger set of inappropriate, unacceptable and unprofessional behaviors.
By referring to “sexual abuse” the emphasis is placed on the victim, and the question of whether the victim did or did not suffer abuse or harm. This is not the appropriate focus. The proper emphasis must not be on the student, but on the teacher, who is solely responsible for his or her professional conduct. That is why the College believes it is preferable to define “sexual misconduct”. (Ontario College of Teachers, 2001, p. 3)
The Ontario College of Teachers arrived at this position as a result of a 4-year series of reports and legislation. Their policy referred to the earlier Robins report which discussed the inadequacies of the term “sexual abuse” because it failed to capture the full range of sexual misconduct which may properly be the subject of disciplinary actions by an educator’s employer.2 Further, the term conveys to many the incorrect assumption that the only types of behaviors that count as sexual abuse are physical, criminal, or involve a significant age difference.
For instance, patterns of grooming a potential victim of sexual abuse are not commonly included in criminal definitions of child sexual abuse, and yet are very much part of the pattern of abuse. Other behaviors encompassed under “educator sexual misconduct” that might not be assumed using conventional definitions are an excess of academic or school-related contacts such as email messages or telephone calls not directly related to assignments or classroom expectations, gifts to students, invitations to an educator’s home or to social events, questions about sexual activity, and offers of rides to or from school activities. While traditional definitions of sexual abuse are included under the umbrella of educator sexual misconduct, they are insufficient in describing the range of behaviors that are the focus of this report. These additional components of inappropriate behaviors cross boundaries of professional obligation, but may not yet be sexual. However, they are often the best indicators of the potential for harm. ..more.. by Charol Shakeshaft, Ph.D., Professor, Foundations, Leadership and Policy Studies, Hofstra University and Managing Director, Interactive, Inc.
Assessing Sexual Arousal with Adolescent Males Who Have Offended Sexually: Self-Report and Unobtrusively Measured Viewing Time
December 2006:
Abstract
Sexual arousal was assessed using three approaches: the Affinity (Version. 1.0) computerized assessment of unobtrusively measured viewing time (VT), Affinity self-report ratings of sexual attractiveness, and a self-report sexual arousal graphing procedure. Data were collected from 78 males, aged 12–18 (M=15.09; SD=1.62), who acknowledged their sexual assaults. The pattern of responses to all three assessment techniques was remarkably similar, with maximal sexual interest demonstrated and reported for adolescent and adult females. Both self-report procedures could significantly distinguish those adolescents who assaulted a child from those who assaulted peers or adults. The self-report procedures could also significantly discriminate those adolescents with male child victims. The Affinity VT approach significantly differentiated those adolescents who assaulted male children from those who assaulted other individuals. No assessment technique could accurately identify those adolescents with exclusively female child victims. Overall, the results suggest that structured, self-report data regarding sexual interests can be useful in the assessment of adolescents who have offended sexually. ..more.. by James R. Worling (Have Copy on Disk)
Increasing Honest Responding on Cognitive Distortions in Child Molesters: The Bogus Pipeline Revisited
January 2007:
Abstract
Questionnaires are relied upon by forensic psychologists, clinicians, researchers, and social services to assess child molesters’ (CMs’) offense-supportive beliefs (or cognitive distortions). In this study, we used an experimental procedure to evaluate whether extrafamilial CMs underreported their questionnaire-assessed beliefs. At time one, 41 CMs were questionnaire-assessed under standard conditions (i.e., they were free to impression manage). At time two, CMs were questionnaire-assessed again; 18 were randomly attached to a convincing fake lie detector (a bogus pipeline), the others were free to impression manage. The results showed that bogus pipeline CMs significantly increased cognitive distortion endorsements compared to their own previous endorsements, and their control counterparts’ endorsements. The findings are the first experimental evidence showing that CMs consciously depress their scores on transparent questionnaires. ..more.. by Theresa A. Gannon -and- Kirsten Keown -and- Devon L. L. Polaschek (Have Copy on Disk)
July 6, 2007
July 3, 2007
Juveniles Who Have Sexually Offended: A Review of the Professional Literature
March 2001 NCJ 184739
Executive Summary
Introduction
Sexual abuse is widely recognized as a significant problem in society, and the scope of the problem may be underestimated because juvenile sex offenders who are known to the system may represent only a small proportion of juveniles who have committed such offenses. Studies of adult sex offenders suggest another dimension of the problem: many of these offenders began their sexually abusive behavior in their youth.
The costs of sex offending are substantial for victims and society and for the young offenders and their families. To minimize these costs, timely and appropriate interventions are needed. A review of the professional literature suggests, however, that programs designed to meet the perceived needs of these young offenders frequently apply knowledge and interventions designed for adult offenders without considering developmental issues and needs unique to juveniles.
Characteristics of Juveniles Who Have Committed Sex Offenses
Juveniles who have committed sex offenses are a heterogeneous mix (Bourke and Donohue, 1996; Knight and Prentky, 1993). They differ according to victim and offense characteristics and a wide range of other variables, including types of offending behaviors, histories of child maltreatment, sexual knowledge and experiences, academic and cognitive functioning, and mental health issues (Knight and Prentky, 1993; Weinrott, 1996).
Offending Behaviors
Sexually abusive behaviors and sex offense characteristics. Sexually abusive behaviors range from noncontact offenses to penetrative acts. Offense characteristics include factors such as the age and sex of the victim, the relationship between victim and offender, and the degree of coercion and violence used.
Nonsexual criminal behavior. Juvenile sex offenders frequently engage in nonsexual criminal and antisocial behavior (Fehrenbach et al., 1986; Ryan et al., 1996). A national survey found that most of the 80 juveniles who disclosed sexually assaultive behavior had previously committed a nonsexual aggravated assault (Elliot, as cited in Weinrott, 1996). ..more.. by Sue Righthand -and- Carlann Welch
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
