August 30, 2007

A Review of the "TopTen Reviews of State Registries"

A few readers have pointed out this new site which purports to review and compare all state registries. Here is their main page: TopTen State Registries

While their main page looks good, in that it compares 10 state registries in detail, but there is no way to get the same review of any state or states that does not appear in their TopTen.

Things get worse when you click on any individual state registry because individually they do not show all the details which they show only for the TopTen registries. Individually you are left with -their opinion- without any supporting information.

What is it they are reviewing:

What to Look for in Your State’s Sex Offender Registry

The laws in each state govern state run sex offender registry websites. These laws regulate how much information is disclosed to the public and who is posted on the registry. However, states are free to design their registries so they are easy to use as well as provide additional tools and information like maps, comprehensive search functions and safety tips.

Below are the criteria TopTenREVIEWS used to evaluate sex offender registries.

Information Provided
– This information varies by state depending on state laws. It may include a photograph, name, home, work and school addresses, physical description, crime location, conviction date, offense committed and basic information about the victim including gender and age.

Search Functions – The search function should be easy to use and produce relevant results. The important search criteria are name, geographical location and type of crime or offender risk level. More in–depth searches filter offenders by gender, physical description, higher education schools, etc.

Additional Site Features – The state sex offender registry sites should provide the community with supplemental information and tools. These may include a mapping function, printer–friendly profiles, legal information, safety tips and additional resources for offenders, victims and involved citizens.

Ease of Use – As with any service, state–run sex offender registries should be user friendly. The website should be accessible from the state’s homepage and through a search engine. The site itself should be easy to navigate and have well labeled buttons and text fields, so anyone can find the information they seek.

Contact Information – The registry websites should have apparent contact information for the agency that oversees the registry. Contact information may include an email address, physical address and phone number.

To read the review on your state’s registry click the “Read Review” button under your state’s name in the table above. Or, find your state in the product list on the left side of the page.

Now, notice that there is no date as to when they reviewed a state registry. How up to date is this review? Laws change daily and with the Adam Walsh Act virtually every state registry will be changing, as states enact their version of AWA.

For a minute take a look at Florida, under "Additional Site Features" where it shows "Number of Entries" 39,525. I presume that means there are 39,525 registered offenders living in Florida communities.

In reality that is not true, Florida includes -in their numbers- folks who have moved out of state, folks who are in prison, folks who have died, folks who have been deported, etc. How do I know this to be true, read this article: "Ghosts in the Machine" by James Carlson, my hats off to that man for uncovering the truth. Now while that shows Florida's number sto be wrong, sadly it is true of all states.

Now, Congress had the opportunity to force the states to post the correct numbers when they were CREATING (behind closed doors) the Adam Walsh Act. In the Senate version was this requirement:


(c) Publication of Number of Offenders Registered-
(1) IN GENERAL- Every 6 months, the Attorney General shall collect from each State information on the total number of covered individuals included in the registry maintained by that State.

(2) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY AND CONTENTS- The Attorney General shall--
(A) release information under paragraph (1) to the public in a manner consistent with this title; and

(B) include in such a release the number of individuals within each tier and the number of individuals who are in compliance with this title within each tier.

(3) DOUBLE-COUNTING- In reporting information collected under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall ensure, to the extent practicable, that offenders are not being double-counted.

That provision was stricken from the final Adam Walsh Act. Why? I can only guess, but haven't you heard the politicians screaming to the high heavens, first, 400,000 then, 500,000 then 550,000 and more recently over 600,000. They simply do not want the truth known because by keeping it hidden they can justify all the balony laws they are passing. They want the public to believe the problem is getting worse day by day.

I could write volumns about why registries are no worth a darn, but I am going to stick to law. Do you see any mention of the the WARNINGS required by the Adam Walsh Act? TopTen Review is only concerned with what the public feels it needs.

Adam Walsh Act Requires: "Sec 118(f) Warning- The site shall include a warning that information on the site should not be used to unlawfully injure, harass, or commit a crime against any individual named in the registry or residing or working at any reported address. The warning shall note that any such action could result in civil or criminal penalties."

"Sec 118(e) Correction of Errors- The site shall include instructions on how to seek correction of information that an individual contends is erroneous."

Reviewers simply do not care about protecting the lives of registrants and their families which, in some cases, includes the children of registrants. Here is a sampling of what is going on with respect to murders and other deaths of registrants. That is my old listing I am releasing a newer one shortly.

The TopTen Review is useless in my opinion, but if someone can find value to it, the link is above.


Read More of Article...

August 29, 2007

Sex Offender Community Notification and Its Impact on Neighborhood Life


This paper is based on research that both quantitatively and qualitatively examines the effects of sex offender community notification on neighborhood life—specifically on fear of crime, community morale, and the ability of residents and business owners to preserve and restore their neighborhood. The literature hypothesizes that neighborhoods are stable social entities that react to destabilizing events by finding ways to resist unwanted change and bounce back to a semblance of their former selves. This resiliency factor may be problematic in those neighborhoods beset by a variety of social problems. Data for this paper were derived from an in-person interview survey with households and businesses located within an area officially notified about a convicted sex offender living there. The findings suggest that the state practice of targeting an already fragile neighborhood for sex offender placement, while a blow to the neighborhood, may not be of such magnitude as to weaken its ability to recover. ..more.. by Richard G Zevitz, Associate Professor of Criminology and Law Studies, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal (2003))

Read More of Article...

Megan's Law: Does it protect children? (2)

An updated review of evidence on the impact of community notification as legislated for by Megan's Law in the United States

November 2006 United Kingdom

The NSPCC’s purpose is to end cruelty to children. Children have a right to be protected from all forms of abuse whether within the home or from someone unknown to the child.

Recent public debate has focused on the risks posed by sex offenders to children. The NSPCC believes Government is right to tackle this and is publishing “Megan’s Law: Does it protect children?” as a contribution to this important debate. There is no solid evidence that supports the introduction of Megan’s Law into the UK.

The NSPCC report shows that there is not one Megan’s law but many different variations of community notification. Although the law is popular with parents, there is no evidence that open access to sex offender registers actually enhances child safety. There is no evidence that Megan’s Law reduces reoffending. However, there is some evidence that it may have unintended negative consequences for children.

The NSPCC supports the view that when the police are aware that an offender poses a risk to the public they or the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) should be responsible for informing individuals and the community, as they see fit on a case by case basis. But two things are clear. First, the success, or lack of success, of these arrangements is either not established or, if it has been, has not been well communicated. Secondly, there is significant public concern about arrangements for protecting children from sex offenders in the community.

The NSPCC considers that in the UK there is a danger that public debate is focusing on a small number of high-risk offenders and excluding the many ‘medium-risk’ offenders who also pose a significant risk to children. The NSPCC believes that the current system of monitoring and sharing information about sex offenders under the MAPPA needs to be strengthened. Recent reports suggest that the MAPPAs are overstretched and under resourced. We are concerned that risk assessments are not being consistently carried out, that there are not enough sex offender treatment programmes available, and that multi-agency arrangements are not working consistently.

Measures taken to enhance community safety through the management of registered sex offenders are only one part of keeping children safe. In order for the sexual abuse of children to be addressed effectively, a broad approach is required to ensure that children are supported to talk about abuse, that adults act to stop abuse taking place and that potential abusers themselves are provided with help before they abuse.

Mary Marsh, NSPCC Director and Chief Executive ..more.. by Kate Fitch

Read More of Article...

August 28, 2007

A Reader's Comment Objecting to the Adam Walsh Act

A reader posted the following comment to the Rhode Island AWA Objection, because it really pertains to the Adam Walsh Act in its entirety I thought it appropriate to address it separately. Reader's Comment:

The Adam Walsh Act appears to impinge several constitutional provisions.

First, it excludes consensual conduct between adults from its application but nowhere defines "consent" leading to arbitrary enforcement. Moreover, "non-consent" is not an element of the listed federal crimes.

Second, the Act calls upon state legislators to determine without a judicial trial who is guilty of crimes comparable to or more severe than cetain federal crimes and impose restrictions on the individuals liberty in consequence of that determination. The Act is, therefore, a prohibited bill of pains and penalties.

Third, the registration laws no doubt impose an affirmative obligation on the individual to labor on behalf of the general public and have been held to not constitute punishment. Involuntary servitude, however, can only be imposed as punishment for a crime. Finally, forced public charity is communism, plain and simple.

The reader's first issue "Adult Consensual Conduct" is a moot point since criminal law does not punish such conduct therefore it would not come under AWA in any way.

The reader's third issue "Labor on Behalf of the General Public" is also a moot point since AWA does not require registrants to perform any form of labor for the public good.

The second issue is rather interesting though, but since AWA does not require legislators to determine guilt-inoccence that portion is incorrect. However, AWA does call for a comparison of sorts to be made and that is what will be addressed.

First the portion of AWA in question:
Sec. 111(8) CONVICTED AS INCLUDING CERTAIN JUVENILE ADJUDICATIONS- The term `convicted' or a variant thereof, used with respect to a sex offense, includes adjudicated delinquent as a juvenile for that offense, but only if the offender is 14 years of age or older at the time of the offense and the offense adjudicated was comparable to or more severe than aggravated sexual abuse (as described in section 2241 of title 18, United States Code), or was an attempt or conspiracy to commit such an offense.

Now the federal statute in question:
Title 18 § 2241. Aggravated sexual abuse
(a) By Force or Threat.— Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act—
(1) by using force against that other person; or
(2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.

(b) By Other Means.— Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, knowingly—
(1) renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or
(2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby—
(A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and
(B) engages in a sexual act with that other person;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.

(c) With Children.— Whoever crosses a State line with intent to engage in a sexual act with a person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or knowingly engages in a sexual act under the circumstances described in subsections (a) and (b) with another person who has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years (and is at least 4 years younger than the person so engaging), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. If the defendant has previously been convicted of another Federal offense under this subsection, or of a State offense that would have been an offense under either such provision had the offense occurred in a Federal prison, unless the death penalty is imposed, the defendant shall be sentenced to life in prison.

(d) State of Mind Proof Requirement.— In a prosecution under subsection (c) of this section, the Government need not prove that the defendant knew that the other person engaging in the sexual act had not attained the age of 12 years.

AWA defines a procedure to be followed, a comparison of the facts of an individual's crime to the elements of a federal criminal statute. While this may seem to be a simple procedure, in reality it is not so, prosecutors take painstaking care when charging someone with a crime. However, under this new AWA procedure anyone could be doing the comparison and the result determines whether the person will have to register under AWA.

Will administrative employees of local police stations have the expertise to perform this procedure? Further, will they have the documentation from the person's original court files, one must consider that in some cases persons registering may have come from other jurisdictions or other states. Cases may be years old, and then there is the retroactive application of AWA to further complicate matters. Will these reviewers set aside personal biases and prejudices? These and many other questions are left unanswered. Further, there does not seem to be any appeal of a local reviewer's decision.

Other problems also become apparent, why should these cases have such a review to establish whether or not they will register, and what Tier Level they will be assigned if they are required to register, and the remainder of the registrants are denied such a searching review before being classified and a Tier Level assigned?

I do recognize that Congress wanted to cull some cases and include others, but the parameters set for these cases exclude all other persons who will have to register. The remainder of those cases have their Tier Levels set by how much time their sentence was for, a completely different system of classifying levels.

Reader's Comment: "Impose restrictions as the result of classification"
While AWA does not restrict a registrant's liberty per se, if registration is coupled with residency laws, then yes it will restrict liberty in some cases. It will depend on how a local residency law is written.

Finally, I agree that AWA is unconstitutional on many levels, especially its retroactivity which destroyes "finality of judgement" between the state and the registrant. Said another way, retroactivity violates "Laches" in this writer's opinion. Further, there is no proof that at some point in the future Congress will again allow the states to make the laws further retroactive into a quasi lifetime sentence.

Read More of Article...

August 25, 2007

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL)

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) is the preeminent organization in the United States advancing the mission of the nation's criminal defense lawyers to ensure justice and due process for persons accused of crime or other misconduct. A professional bar association founded in 1958, NACDL's more than 12,800 direct members -- and 94 state, local, and international affiliate organizations with another 35,000 members -- include private criminal defense lawyers, public defenders, active U.S. military defense counsel, law professors and judges committed to preserving fairness within America's criminal justice system.

NACDL information on the Adam Walsh Act (Results obtained by searching their site on "Adam Walsh" from their main page)

Read More of Article...

August 24, 2007

Online Crime Mapping Meets Opposition

8-24-2007 North Carolina

The Raleigh Police Department is now providing online crime mapping to the public, but some residents are concerned about how much information is being released.

The mapping system uses the GIS system to geo-locate reported incidents along the street centerline GIS database by site address. The data contains all the streets in Wake County along with an address block range for each street segment. When incidents are geo-located, the GIS system interpolates the address and mathematically determines where it would fall along a street block range. The crime incidents are then geo-located as icons on the map to approximate locations along a street segment. The icons may not fall exactly on the property of the reported incident. This GIS could not be used to determine a distance as is required by residency laws.

What Else Can Be Found
On the surface, it appears to be a great tool for anyone in Wake County to track crime in their neighborhood. But Eyewitness News has discovered it also exposes a lot of your personal information.
You can find all kinds of resources at the iMaps (GIS) site - from garbage pick-up to schools and libraries. The latest feature to be added are crime stats.

But if you dig deeper into the site, much of your personal information can be found. Rob Snopkowski noticed just now much information he could find on himself.

No matter what brings you to the iMaps site, you might be surprised to know that you can search for home ownership information on anyone in Wake County.

When Snopkowski entered his name he not only got a picture of his Northwest Raleigh house, the listing also provided his address, his wife's name, the date he bought the house and how much he paid for it.

"You can get a lot of information based on that and take it further. It's kind of scary," Snopkowski said.

Snopkowski says with construction going on just up the street there are a lot of strangers in his neighborhood these days - strangers who Snopkowski feels can check him out online. "A lot of information that anyone can find if you have a name or even an address. Just surprised they don't have pictures inside your house too."

How Crime Mapping Helps

Crime mapping has been used since 1994. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the tool allows law enforcement agencies to understand where crime is occurring and to determine if there is a pattern.

The Raleigh Police Department will use the iMAP crime mapping will provide 30-days of data on crimes of arson, motor vehicle thefts, larcenies, burglaries, aggravated assaults, robberies and homicides. Rape reports will not appear to help protect the identities of rape victims.

Crime Mapping and Your Personal Information
The Vacaville Police Department in Vacaville, California was the first law enforcement agency to put crime maps on the web in 1995. Now 12 years the Raleigh Police Department has joined the many agencies that publish their crime data online.

With such information available at your fingertips, real estate developers and agents feel that public crime data in high crime data will lower housing prices.

As with most debates about web publishing of GIS data, right-to-privacy advocates worry about backlashes towards former felons especially convicted sex offenders and domestic violence criminals. Raleigh Police spokesperson Jim Sughrue stresses unless the average web visitor knows specifics about the crime such a parcel number, detailed information is not released. (What about folks reading the daily newspaper, this is a joke.)

The reality is, according Raleigh Police and the online publication, GIS Lounge, most of this information is public information (check the crime blotter section of your local newspaper) although the ease of crime mapping makes this information more readily available. ..more.. by Eyewitness News

The crime-mapping link is:

Read More of Article...

August 23, 2007

Attack of the Perv Trackers


If the creepy guy next door suddenly stops wearing shorts, he may have an eye in the sky to blame.

Just a few years ago, satellite tracking of convicts was a newfangled alternative to house arrest. Now, the number of American ex-offenders tracked through GPS-equipped ankle bracelets will likely triple to more than 30,000, thanks to the passage of a California ballot measure.

California's Proposition 83, which easily passed Tuesday by a margin of 70 percent to 30 percent, requires many convicted sex offenders to be monitored by GPS for life. Only those who committed felonies and served time in prison will be affected.

(On Wednesday, a judge ruled (.pdf) that portions of the ballot measure are probably unconstitutional. The objections revolve around provisions that retroactively set new rules about where prior offenders may live. The electronic monitoring requirements were not immediately challenged, and remain untouched by the court's decision.)

At least 11 other states have recently considered GPS tracking legislation, with some inspired by the 2005 murder of a Florida girl, allegedly by a registered sex offender. Florida's high-profile legislation was named "Jessica's Law" in her honor, and talk-show host Bill O'Reilly has been pushing for passage of similar laws elsewhere.

But there's a hitch: The ankle bracelets -- usually accompanied by digital-pager-size transmitters -- are hardly criminal-proof. Convicts can easily cut the bracelets off and run away as their probation officer gets an alarm and tries to contact the local police. For health reasons, the bracelets aren't designed to be permanent.

"GPS will not prevent a crime," said Steve Chapin, CEO of Pro Tech Monitoring, a manufacturer of GPS tracking devices. "It's a crime deterrent. It has proven to be a good tool, but you can't oversell it -- there's no physical barrier that it creates that can prevent a crime."

Chapin said his Florida-based company tracks about 10,000 people, and he thinks other companies track a few thousand more. Offenders wear an ankle bracelet -- Chapin said it can be hidden under a sock -- and keep the transmitter nearby.

There are an estimated 63,000 to 90,000 sex offenders convicted of felonies and misdemeanors in California. According to Chapin, it's possible that about 20,000 of them will need GPS monitoring under the new law.

Chapin expects the state to adopt "active" monitoring, which tracks offenders in real time and sends out alerts if they go somewhere they're not supposed to, such as a school. The alternative is "passive" tracking, which produces reports about where offenders have been, not where they are right now.

Currently, Pro Tech charges $6 to $8 a day for active monitoring, and $4 to $5 a day for passive monitoring, equipment included. At that rate, California can expect to fork out between $80,000 and $160,000 per day to watch its sex offenders, although the ballot measure allows increases in court fees and other costs that offenders are billed.

GPS tracking technology allows users to create "geofences" to mark forbidden "hot zones." The monitoring systems can even be programmed so that alarms only go off if an offender spends a certain amount of time in an outlawed area instead of, say, simply driving through it at high speed on the way to somewhere else.

GPS tracking has its critics. The American Civil Liberties Union has been skeptical, although at times intrigued by an alternative to incarceration.

Donald Smith, an associate professor of criminology and criminal justice at Old Dominion University in Virginia, said it's wrong to rely on technology instead of teaching children to be cautious. "People would like alarms to go off when pedophiles go near their children," he said. "The real problem is that the pedophile is likely to be their brother, their uncle, their cousin."

On the other hand, a new study of more than 75,000 Florida convicts found that both GPS monitoring and old-fashioned, house-arrest electronic monitoring (the kind Martha Stewart endured) made convicts more likely to toe the line.

"Our conclusion is that it does help protect public safety, that these offenders are less likely to get in trouble," said study co-author Kathy Padgett of Florida State University.

GPS technology is "pretty reliable," but conventional devices often don't allow tracking inside buildings, said Richard Langley, a professor who studies GPS tracking at the University of New Brunswick in Canada.

Conceivably, sex offenders could head to an indoor shopping mall and get into trouble without anyone knowing exactly where they are. But cell phones may help triangulate people's positions inside buildings, even to specific floors, and Pro Tech's Chapin predicted that his company's GPS devices will eventually allow tracking in buildings. For now, though, his goal is to make a "smaller, cheaper, lighter product."

Another company has created an all-in-one GPS tracking device that doesn't require a separate bracelet and transmitter, although it's bulky. And then there's an approach that's positively Maxwell Smart-ian: At least one model is equipped with a speakerphone, allowing overseers to contact offenders via their ankles. ..more.. by Randy Dotinga

Read More of Article...

August 22, 2007

A Florida Objection to the Adam Walsh Act

Offender list requirement not fair for young teens
8-15-2007 Florida

ISSUE: State law now requires young teens convicted of sex crimes to register as offenders.

A 14-year-old experimenting with sex does not have either the culpability or the awareness of his actions that a 30-year-old convicted of rape does.

And yet, thanks to lawmakers' misguided efforts, both would now find themselves condemned to the same fate: their name inscribed for perpetuity on the state's public registry of sex offenders. For youths, that means a moment of indiscretion, even a lewd prank that speaks more to immaturity than predatory behavior, could follow them around for life, forever limiting their living arrangements, college aspirations and job prospects.

That's the lunacy behind a particularly troublesome state law that went into effect July 1. Passed unanimously by the Florida Legislature, it is required in large measure for compliance under the Adam Walsh Act, especially if the state wants to qualify for millions in federal dollars.

Its provisions require that children 14 and older who engage in genital, anal or oral-genital contact with children younger than 12 be listed on community notification registries, which alert the public to the names, addresses and other identifying information of convicted sex offenders and predators.

Sounds reasonable, in theory. Except that when you're dealing with minors, nothing is as cut and dry as it sounds.

That's why the juvenile court system was created, and why its proceedings and records are kept from public view: It recognizes the maturity level of its clients and their broad propensity for rehabilitation. Those who commit more serious crimes are charged in adult court, subject to adult sentences.

The registry requirement deals a setback to that established hierarchy, essentially mandating an adult sanction on a juvenile crime — one that was prosecuted behind closed doors and without input from a jury. The seriousness of the penalty also may discourage parents from reporting troubling behavior, especially when a registry listing restricts where the whole family can live.

With the law already on the books and in effect, defense attorneys should follow their instincts and challenge its constitutionality. Lawmakers are right to deal seriously with sex crimes, even by minors. But this penalty goes way beyond reason or fairness.

BOTTOM LINE: Challenge its constitutionality.

South Florida Sun-Sentinel Editorial Board

Read More of Article...

Rhode Island Objects to the Adam Walsh Act

Legislators look to toughen sex-offender laws
8-1-2007 Rhode Island:

PROVIDENCE — State leaders have begun to craft a series of laws aimed at dramatically strengthening the state’s sex-offender tracking and notification requirements.

The possible changes — many required by the passage of the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection Safety Act — would in some cases require convicts as young as 14 to register as sex offenders for life, would require the public posting of the offenders’ home and employment addresses, and would be applied retroactively, forcing the registration of hundreds of sex offenders not currently monitored by Rhode Island authorities.

The state may lose as much as $280,000 in federal grants should it fail to implement the federal guidelines in the next two years.

The proposals were discussed at the State House yesterday afternoon by a special commission assembled to study the state’s sex-offender laws and propose changes in the coming General Assembly session. The commission, led by co-chairs Sen. James E. Doyle II, D-Pawtucket, and Rep. Peter G. Palumbo, D-Cranston, consists of a coalition of sex-offender experts, including judges, parole officials, defense attorneys and sexual-abuse education leaders.

“We want everybody on board when we present this legislation,” Doyle said. “The bottom line is to protect the kids. We don’t really care about money. If it’s going to cost, we’re going to find the money to protect kids. And we’ve got the right people to do it.”

Doyle and Palumbo were the prime sponsors of a 2006 law that requires lifetime monitoring of those convicted of first-degree child molestation through the use of an electronic device or global positioning software.

Officials gathered at the State House yesterday noted that the law has yet to be tested, as it only applied to those convicted and released from prison after Jan. 1 of this year. And Doyle acknowledged that the necessary infrastructure isn’t in place to enforce the law.

There are roughly 1,600 registered sex offenders living in Rhode Island. Most are monitored by probation counselors, each of whom is charged with making periodic visits — some by surprise and some by appointment — to as many as 80 offenders.

Most of the offenders do not appear on the state sex-offender Web site ( Only those deemed by the Superior Court to have a moderate to high risk of recidivism (135 offenders as of last night) are listed by name. Each posting includes a photo, birth date, physical description, and the specific crime committed.

The sex offender’s community is listed, as is his or her general neighborhood, but the specific home address is not.

“I want to get a lot more aggressive on that,” Palumbo said. “The number-one thing that constituents want, they want to go to a Web site and see where they’re living.”

The federal Adam Walsh Act of 2006 would require states to do just that and more, forcing authorities to publicly post the offenders’ home addresses, their job locations, and their license plate numbers, according to Alan Goulart, chief of the criminal division in the attorney general’s office, who briefed the commission yesterday. The federal act also requires states to collect information from offenders including DNA to be supplied to a national sex-offender registry.

Rhode Island does not have to adopt all the standards outlined in the federal statute.

But any state failing to adopt the provisions by July 2009 would lose 10 percent of its law-enforcement assistance grants, an estimated loss of about $280,000 for Rhode Island. Several commission members expressed a willingness to forgo the federal money to avoid passing the more controversial sections of the federal law.

They include a provision to implement tougher reporting and monitoring requirements retroactively, something that Superior Court Judge Joseph A. Keough warned may open “a floodgate” for the courts from offenders seeking post-conviction relief, having already settled on a specific set of probation requirements.

“I deal with them on a daily basis. I’m offended by what they do. But there are due-process rights,” Keough said.

And several members of the group were bothered by the suggestion that juvenile offenders may be required to have their photos and addresses posted on a public Web site for the rest of their lives.

“The question is not only whether or not the state can accomplish these goals, but whether or not they are the right goals to be accomplished,” said defense attorney Thomas G. Briody, also a member of the commission. “It’s something we need to take a very careful look at. We’re still talking about human beings.”

The federal law also calls on states to require those convicted of sex-related misdemeanors, such as indecent exposure or possession of child pornography, to register as sex offenders. Such people are currently exempt from Rhode Island’s registration laws.

Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, said there’s no need to strengthen the state’s laws. Besides encouraging citizens to go after offenders and impeding their rehabilitation efforts, the stricter reporting requirements would give communities a false sense of security, he said.

“The suggestion is if we know the sex offenders in the neighborhoods, our kids are safe. That’s simply not true,” Brown said. “Despite what prompts these laws, the overwhelming number of crimes are committed by family members.”

He said an ACLU representative would likely attend future meetings of the commission, as the group shapes a specific proposal in the coming months. ..more.. by Steve Peoples

Read More of Article...

August 19, 2007

Tennessee Sex Offender Registry Study

September 2003

As of June 2003, there were a total of 6,139 people on the Sex Offender Registry (SOR). Of these, 1,789 offenders were on the Internet registry. The number of people on the registry changes constantly as new offenders are added and deleted. TCA § 40-39-106 (f) states: For all sexual offenses committed on or after July 1, 1997, the information concerning a registered sexual offender set out in subdivision (f)(1)-(9) shall be considered public information. For all sexual offenses committed on or after October 27, 2002, the information concerning a registered sexual offender set out in subdivision (f)(10) shall be considered public information.

Offenders will be deleted if their offense has been expunged, they move out of the state or if they die. This registry is maintained by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation’s (TBI) Tennessee Internet Criminal Information Center (TICIC). TBI is required by TCA § 40-39-104 to mail out Registration/Monitoring forms to all known sex offenders at least once every 90 days. The form requires verification of the offender’s last reported address. If a person who is required to register is re-incarcerated, the monitoring requirements cease until the person is released. If two consecutive monitoring forms are sent back to the TBI marked “Return to Sender”, the offender remains on the registry. However, the offender’s release type code on the registry is changed to “unknown address”. The monitoring forms are not mailed to offenders with “Unknown Address” in the release type code field.

Any offender who knowingly fals ifies a sexual offender’s registration/monitoring form or verification/monitoring form commits a Class A misdemeanor for the first offense, which is punishable by confinement in the county jail for not less than 180 days. ..more.. by Tennessee Bureau of Investigation’s Statistical Analysis Center

Read More of Article...

Tennessee Sex Offense Study

August 2006

This study was compiled using the new Tennessee Crime Online website at: The Tennessee Crime Online website has been active since June 2006. The public is able to access the site and can research crime statistics based on their own criteria. The data in this study may be run for a region, county or agency at the website. There is a tutorial available from the main page that will guide the user through running a basic report as well as a second tutorial on the “Public Reports” page.

Agencies report incidents of crime through the TIBRS system. An incident is defined for TIBRS reporting purposes as ““one or more offenses committed by the same offender, or group of offenders acting in concert, at the same time and place.” “Acting in concert” requires that the offenders actually commit or assist in the commission of the crime(s). “Same time and place” means that the time interval between the offenses and the distance between the locations where they occurred were insignificant.”

Sex offense statistics in Tennessee are submitted to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) through the Tennessee Incident Based Reporting System (TIBRS). Data is submitted by sheriff’s departments, municipal police departments, state parks, colleges and universities, drug task forces, other police departments (i.e., airport police departments), and state agencies. The data period covered in the research brief is for the calendar year 2005. ..more.. by Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, Crime Statistics Unit

Read More of Article...

Tennessee Recidivism Study


Read More of Article...

August 18, 2007

Investigating Potential Child Abduction Cases


Read More of Article...

The Initial Response to Child Abductions: An Analytical Perspective


Read More of Article...

Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis. For Law-Enforcement Officers Investigating Cases of Child Sexual Exploitation


This booklet provides a behavioral analysis of child molesters. The terms child molesters and pedophiles are defined and distinctions are drawn between the two. The second section develops a law enforcement typology differing from those of mental health professionals, focusing on pre-arrest behavior or pre-identification behavior of child molesters that is of most value to law enforcement. The third section focuses on the law enforcement investigation, including combination offenders, sex rings, incest cases, female offenders, and adolescent offenders. The fourth section focuses on recognizing and identifying the highly predictable sexual behavior patterns of pedophiles or preferential child molesters. The fifth section focuses on collection of pornography and erotica, since pedophiles almost always collect it. The sixth section focuses on behavior of the offender after identification. The seventh section focuses on four major problems that make the investigation of child sexual abuse and exploitation difficult for law enforcement officers and the criminal justice system. A discussion of considerations in obtaining and using expertise search warrants in cases of preferential child molesters is given. A bibliography is included. (ABL) ..more.. by Kenneth V. Lanning,

Read More of Article...

August 17, 2007

Sex Offender Risk Assessment

June 30, 2006

Prepared for: Missouri Sentencing Advisory Commission

Executive Summary
Compared to clinical methods, actuarial risk instruments are a preferred method to discern sex offenders risk for sexual as well as violent recidivism because, unlike clinical practices, they are considered inexpensive, objective and modestly accurate. Scientists argue that risk instruments that employ only static, or historic measures of offender characteristics, rather than dynamic, are certainly sufficient for the purposes of gauging individuals’ likelihood of recidivism. In fact, Harris and Rice (2003:207) contend that dynamic constructs are “unnecessary for anticipating who will recidivate in a given time period”; furthermore they state that “very accurate statements about the likelihood of another…offense can be based upon knowledge of an individual’s lifetime conduct.” In their view, offender risk scales that incorporate only static information are essentially capturing factors that refl ect a person’s underlying antisocial propensity.

Although there are a considerable number of risk instruments available for corrections officials to utilize, far fewer have been rigorously evaluated. Of those that have, Harris and Rice (2003) recommend that the MnSOST-R and the Static-99 are two of the most “promising” scales for predicting sexual recidivism. An emerging body of work also suggests that the SORAG is quite effectual in terms of its predictive accuracy. Additional empirical research is likely to surface which will provide further evidence of the statistical accuracy of sex offender risk instruments.

For the remainder of this paper: by Dr. Beth Huebner (Prepared by: Institute of Public Policy, Truman School of Public Affairs, University of Missouri – Columbia)

Read More of Article...

National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

April 1998, NCJ-168965

Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH conference

Americans have become increasingly angry in recent years in response to a series of violent and highly publicized sexual assaults, primarily against children, committed by individuals with extensive prior sexual offense histories. This outrage has been intensified by the perception, justified or not, that systems traditionally used by justice agencies to monitor law-breakers returned to the community do not adequately protect the public from that unique category of individual known as the sex offender.

Seeking to address the public’s concern, the U.S. Congress established three statutes that collectively require States to strengthen the procedures they use to keep track of sex offenders: the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (enacted in 1994), the Federal version of “Megan’s Law” (enacted in 1996), and the Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act (also enacted in 1996).

In brief, the statutes require States to establish registration programs so local law enforcement will know the whereabouts of sex offenders released into their jurisdictions, and notification programs so the public can be warned about sex offenders living in the community. (The Lychner Act also requires the creation of a national sex offender registry, and it requires the FBI to handle registration in States that lack “minimally sufficient” programs.) The States were assigned a difficult task. They were given until September 1997 to comply with the Wetterling Act and Megan’s Law, and until October 1999 to comply with the Lychner Act. Those that failed to meet the compliance deadlines risked losing 10 percent of their appropriation from the Federal Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, which provides funding for State and local
crime eradication efforts.

Compliance was complicated by the fact that both Megan’s Law and the Lychner Act amended portions of the Wetterling Act, creating confusion as to whether the requirements of one statute superceded those of another. There were also questions as to whether the registration and notification programs, once implemented, would survive constitutional challenges based on claims of excessive punishment, invasion of privacy and denial of due process. Another hurdle was the growing number of individuals who fell under the statutes’ requirements. According to data compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the number of sex offenders jumped 300 percent between 1980 and 1994. In 1994, there were approximately 234,000 sex offenders under the care, custody or control of corrections agencies — 60 percent under conditional supervision in the community — on any given day.

States experiencing difficulty meeting the compliance deadlines were given the opportunity to request 2-year, “good-faith-effort” extensions. Forty-two of the 56 States and territories required to comply with the statutes requested deadline extensions. It appeared the States needed guidance and clarification to help them comply with the registration and notification statutes.

To assist the States, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, along with SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, cosponsored the National Conference on Sex Offender Registries, held July 16-17, 1997, in Bellevue, Washington. This publication presents the proceedings of that 2-day conference.

The conference featured presentations by Federal officials who explained the requirements of the registration and notification statutes in detail and who answered the questions of State representatives. Representatives from several States presented information on programs that their States had implemented in response to the Federal requirements. Elected officials provided a legislative perspective to the proceedings, and experts updated participants on the status of legal challenges to registration and notification programs.

Many of the problems and issue areas identified in these proceedings were subsequently addressed or ameliorated in Federal legislation and regulations. The issue of sex offending is as sensitive and emotionally charged as any faced by society. The federally required programs are relatively new or redesigned approaches to controlling sex offenders, and a period of time must elapse before quantitative study can be conducted to ascertain whether they are effective. I hope these proceedings serve during this period as a valuable reference tool and also as a contribution to the ongoing debate over the methods used to control sex offenders.

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.


Read More of Article...

August 15, 2007

Boys avoid sex abuse charges


Read More of Article...

Cover Story: Next Comes Burning at the Stake


Read More of Article...

August 6, 2007


January 2006

Few offenses evoke more fear and loathing than sexual offenses. The idea stirs up images of innocent children deceived and victimized by scheming predators. Neighborhoods, fueled by sexual registries, are concerned, and intent on finding ways to reduce the frequency and severity of this personally destructive crime.

This review is intended to summarize basic facts about sex offenses and sexual offending. The goal is to clarify current knowledge and focus attention on the policies most likely to reduce the incidence and increase safety in communities. This report highlights the salient facts and discusses how they apply to public policy, so future policy can be crafted to improve safety and reduce future sexual victimization. ..more.. by Eric Lotke, Director of Policy and Research at the Justice Policy Institute -and- NATIONAL CENTER ON INSTITUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES

Read More of Article...

My Turn: Safer communities laws are dangerous

February 2, 2006

With the help of Bill O’Reilly, Governor Jim Douglas is flogging public fear of child molesters in the bushes. The Legislature is running scared too – from a perceived mob of angry voters.

But if fear is the greatest political motivator, it is the worst basis for policy. The various proposed Safer Communities laws – whether including longer sentences, broader sex offender registries and stricter ex-convict supervision, or civil commitment– are unlikely to make Vermont’s communities safer. Indeed, they could put us in more danger. Here’s why:

1. Such laws put resources where the problem isn’t.

All but about 7% of sex crimes against children are committed by their families. Sex offender registries do nothing for these victims, who already know where the released perpetrator is. Requirements that ex-offenders stay away from schools and playgrounds are likewise unnecessary. Where molestation is concerned, kids are safest in public.

2. Imprisonment does not significantly reduce crime.

From 1984 to 1998, according to the Sentencing Project, “states with the largest increases in incarceration experienced…smaller declines in crime than other states.” Vermont ’s imprisoned population rose 52% during the ’90s; we suffered 9% -- that’s 11 -- fewer violent crimes. U.S. Bureau of Justice statistics also show that longer sentences have a negligible effect on whether someone commits another crime.

3. Expanded sex offender registries and tougher restrictions contribute to reoffense.

“Research shows that the best way to [change antisocial behavior] is to normalize life,” says Eric Lotke, former research and policy director of the Justice Policy Institute. Offender websites and community notification of neighbors, landlords and employers, coupled with requirements that registrants report their every move to the police, do the opposite. In other words, says offender therapist Robert Longo, “you ban somebody from the community, he has no friends, he feels bad about himself, and you reinforce the very problems that contribute to the sex abuse behavior in the first place. You make him a better sex offender.”

4. Community notification encourages violence.

“Stronger sex offender laws give tools to parents and concerned citizens so they can be more aware of the location of convicted sex offenders, especially sexually violent predators,” Douglas proclaims.

And what are we to do with these “tools?” Muster the good old boys with their shotguns? That’s what’s happening nationwide: harassment, assault, arson. Margy Love, former Justice Department Pardon Attorney, calls the new U.S. sex-offender registry an “incitement to vigilante justice” masquerading as “a responsible public safety measure.”

5. In a free society, you don’t lock people up for crimes you think they might commit. Anyway, it’s almost impossible to know.

Don’t worry, says Douglas , only the baddest of the bad --19 Sexually Violent Predators tops – will be civilly committed. Vermont ’s SVP statute sounds reassuringly stringent. “The standard of proof . . . shall be clear and convincing evidence that the convicted sex offender suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in predatory, sexually violent offenses.”

Such risk prediction, though, is notoriously unreliable—partly because “personality disorder” is an imprecise diagnosis and a “mental abnormality” is as common as anorexia. And depending on whom you talk to, “pedophilia” can refer to a 40-year-old who rapes a toddler or an 8-year-old playing doctor with his 5-year-old sister.
Using civil commitment as a back door to longer sentences, other states have exceeded their estimates by hundreds, even thousands.

6. Sex criminals reform, and treatment works.

Large studies in the U.S. and Canada have found that sex criminals are among the least likely to reoffend: about 13% do so, compared with 74% of other prisoners. Treatment improves the odds greatly. In 1995, Vermont reported post-treatment reoffense rates of just 7% for pedophiles and 3% for incest perpetrators.

Criminal justice policy has two functions: to punish; and to protect the community. But offender websites and civil commitment are only about vengeance – and votes.

If it’s safety we’re after, we’ll put most of our resources where they work: public education about sexual violence, treatment and community reintegration for offenders.

And what will “get-tough” policy get us? Fuller cellblocks and locked wards. A public that perceives more crime and demands more laws. More laws bringing more arrests. The perception of more crime.

Conjuring monsters in the streets, we will divide communities and leave children defenseless at home. We will feel falsely safer, and all the while, more fearful.

by Hardwick resident Judith Levine is the author of “Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex” and a director of the National Center for Reason & Justice.

Read More of Article...

August 5, 2007

Scarlet Letters and Recidivism: Does an Old Criminal Record Predict Future Offending


Research Summary: This research explores the issue of old prior records and their ability to predict future offending. In particular, we are interested in the question of whether, after a given period of time, the risk of recidivism for a person who has been arrested in the distant past is ever indistinguishable from that of a population of persons with no prior arrests. Two well-documented empirical facts guide our investigation: (1) individuals who have offended in the past are relatively more likely to offend in the future; and (2) the risk of recidivism declines as the time since the last criminal act increases. Using hazard rates and posterior distribution analysis, we find that immediately following an arrest, the knowledge of this prior record does significantly differentiate this population from a population of nonoffenders. However, these differences weaken dramatically and quickly over time so that a person who offended 6 or 7 years in the past looks very similar in regard to risk of new offending to a person who never offended at all. ..more.. by Megan C. Kurlychek, Assistant Professor, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina -and- Robert Brame, Associate Professor, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina -and- Shawn D. Bushway, Associate Professor, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland

Read More of Article...

August 4, 2007

Self-Reported Sex Crimes of Nonincarcerated Paraphiliacs

This article will present data gathered by the authors through structured clinical interviews of 561 paraphiliacs regarding demographic characteristics, frequency and variety of deviant sexual acts, and number and characteristics of victims. Results show that nonincarcerated sex offenders (1) are well educated and socioeconomically diverse; (2) report an average number of crimes and victims that is substantially higher than that represented in the current literature; and (3) sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is five times greater than the molestation of young girls. The relevance of these findings is discussed. ..more.. by GENE G. ABEL, Emory University School of Medicine -and- JUDITH V. BECKER, Columbia University -and- MARY MITTELMAN, Columbia University -and- JERRY CUNNINGHAM-RATHNER, Columbia University -and- JOANNE L. ROULEAU, Emory University -and- WILLIAM D. MURPHY, University of Tennessee Center for Health Sciences (Have copy on disk)

Read More of Article...

Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act: A Legal Analysis

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
April 6, 2007

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, (P.L. 109-248, H.R. 4472), emerged from Congress following the passage of separate bills in the House and Senate (H.R. 3132 and S. 1086 respectively). The act's provisions fall into four categories: a revised sex offender registration system, child and sex related amendments to federal criminal and procedure, child protective grant programs, and other initiatives designed to prevent and punish sex offenders and those who victimize children.

The sex offender registration provisions replace the Jacob Wetterling Act provisions with a statutory scheme under which states are required to modify their registration systems in accordance with federal requirements at the risk of losing 10% of their Byrne program law enforcement assistance funds. The act seeks to close gaps in the prior system, provide more information on a wider range of offenders, and make the information more readily available to the public and law enforcement officials.

In the area of federal criminal law and procedure, the act enlarges the kidnaping statute, increases the number of federal capital offenses, enhances the mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment and other penalties that attend various federal sex offenses, establishes a civil commitment procedure for federal sex offenders, authorizes random searches as a condition for sex offender probation and supervised release, outlaws Internet date drug trafficking, permits the victims of state crimes to participate in related federal habeas corpus proceedings, and eliminates the statute of limitations for certain sex offenses and crimes committed against children.

The act revives the authorization of appropriations under the Police Athletic Youth Enrichment Act among its other grant provisions and requires the establishment of a national child abuse registry among its other child safety initiatives. ..more.. by Charles Doyle, Senior Specialist, American Law Division

Read More of Article...

August 2, 2007


May, 2007

The issue of sexual offenders and predators is one of the most widely discussed topics in today’s society. While the issue of sexual abuse is a serious problem, some of the current policies in place are not the most effective means of protecting the innocent from these criminals. One such policy is residential distance requirements that prohibit sexual offenders and predators from living in certain areas, most often within 1,000 to 2,500 feet of a school, day care center, park, or playground. This assessment examines these laws and their effects on both the offender and the members of law enforcement charged with monitoring them.

Several issues have been identified relating to residential distance requirements placed on sexual offenders. Numerous studies have shown that a vast majority of sexual assaults on children are perpetrated by someone who is already known to the victim, such as a family member. In these cases, prohibiting the offender from living near a school or other place where children are routinely located would have no effect on preventing the offense, as the offender would have access to the child regardless of the location of the offender’s residence. Also, other studies have shown that prohibiting offenders from living in certain areas may lead to factors that contribute to recidivism. Additionally, in Florida there are multiple state laws and numerous local ordinances that prohibit where these individuals can reside. The number of offenders affected by these restrictions increases every day, as more and more people fall under the net of these laws. This puts a strain on law enforcement members and only magnifies the problem they already face in keeping track of sexual offenders.

Data was analyzed from both the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and Department of Corrections to assess the number of offenders affected by these restrictions. The major finding showed that although the number of offenders affected by the current state residency restrictions is not overwhelming at this time, the numbers are only going to increase, creating a problem for law enforcement in the future. However, the number of offenders affected by city and county ordinances is much larger. This could potentially lead to problems for law enforcement in tracking these individuals, and can also make it difficult for offenders to find residences that are within the limits of the law.

While residential distance requirements on sexual offenders and predators should not be completely abolished, certain reforms should be made to more effectively protect the public. Recommendations include eliminating local ordinances pertaining to sex offender distance requirements, looking at offenders on an individual basis to determine who should be restricted from living near places where children are present, providing funding for a multi-agency statewide study of the issue, educating parents and teachers on how to recognize the warning signs of abuse, the creation of more housing options available to offenders affected by residential restrictions, and educating the public and law enforcement on the laws. This will not stop the chronic problem of sexual abuse, but it would help focus resources in the appropriate direction. ..more.. by Christina Rivers, Florida Law Enforcement Analyst Academy, Class VIII

Read More of Article...

August 1, 2007

Why Humans Have Sex

July 2007

Historically, the reasons people have sex have been assumed to be few in number and simple in nature–to reproduce, to experience pleasure, or to relieve sexual tension. Several theoretical perspectives suggest that motives for engaging in sexual intercourse may be larger in number and psychologically complex in nature. Study 1 used a nomination procedure that identified 237 expressed reasons for having sex, ranging from the mundane (e.g., ‘‘I wanted to experience physical pleasure’’) to the spiritual (e.g., ‘‘I wanted to get closer to God’’), from altruistic (e.g., ‘‘I wanted the person to feel good about himself/herself’’) to vengeful (e.g., ‘‘I wanted to get back at my partner for having cheated on me’’). Study 2 asked participants (N = 1,549) to evaluate the degree to which each of the 237 reasons had led them to have sexual intercourse. Factor analyses yielded four large factors and 13 subfactors, producing a hierarchical taxonomy. The Physical reasons subfactors included Stress Reduction, Pleasure, Physical Desirability, and Experience Seeking. The Goal Attainment subfactors included Resources, Social Status, Revenge, and Utilitarian. The Emotional subfactors included Love and Commitment and Expression. The three Insecurity subfactors included Self-Esteem Boost, Duty/Pressure, and Mate Guarding. Significant gender differences supported several previously advanced theories. Individual differences in expressed reasons for having sex were coherently linked with personality traits and with individual differences in sexual strategies. Discussion focused on the complexity of sexual motivation and directions for future research. ..more.. by Cindy M. Meston -and- David M. Buss

Read More of Article...

96.5% of new sex offenses are committed by someone who has never before committed a sex offense!

Many folks have disputed this claim, saying, you need to ask victims to get the truth!

Today when sex offenders are released from prison, back into the community, they are required to register with their local police. Legislatures and the general community believe that, new sex offenses are committed by these former offenders. That for the most part is a myth, and now we can present some hard facts to prove our claim.

To make sense of this issue we searched for a "Victim Study" which showed the number of offenses according to victims. The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has a report called "Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1994," published in May of 1997. In 1994 victims reported 432,750 incidents.

Although that report has later versions, we used 1994 to be consistent with the latest sex offender recidivism statistics of the same year, "Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994, also published by the DOJ in November 2003.

The DOJ reported 3.5% of those released sex offenders were RECONVICTED for another sex crime within 3 years following their release. (DOJ Pg-24)

Accordingly, victims reported 432,750 incidents. 3.5% of sex offenders released committed another sex offense (recidivated within 3-years of release).

The math: (100% - 3.5% = 96.5%) 96.5% of 432,750 = 417,603 committed by someone other than a former sex offender released from prison.

What more needs to be said?

Important Note:
We do recognize that the 3.5% reconviction rate is over 3-years. However, when switching between rearrest, reconviction, recidivates, recidivism etc. all this muddys the waters and requires a careful read of what is being said.

Part of the explanation is, when a person "recidivates" -that act whenever committed-, is rarely taken to court in the same year, reconviction -if any- would more likely be in the next year. Also, most recidivism (actual acts) occurs in the first year or so following release from prison. (DOJ pg-16). We also didn't feel a simple divide by 3 was fair either, so we just erred on the side of caution, and used 3.5% as an yearly figure.

So, who is committing new sex offenses?

We have a partial answer, see the recidivism study above, within that study is an astounding fact discovered by the DOJ. The DOJ reported that, released sex offenders are four times more likely than other offenders to commit another sex offense.

Sounds bad, but sometimes things are alleged and there is something hidden in them. Notice "than other offenders," well that means other offenders also commit sex offenses when released from prison. Here are the real facts from the above recidivism study:
DOJ pg-24:
"The 15 States in this study released a total of 272,211 prisoners. The 9,691 released sex offenders made up less than 4% of that total. Of the remaining 262,420 non-sex offenders, 3,328 (1.3%) were RE-ARRESTED for a new sex crime within 3-years. By comparison, the 5.3% REARREST rate for the 9,691 released sex offenders was 4-times higher. ..."

Number ReleasedOffendersReArrested for New Sex OffenseNumber of New Sex OffensesPct. of New Sex Offenses
9,691Sex Offenders5.3%51713%
262,420Non-Sex Offenders1.3%3,32887%
272,211All Offenders1.4%3,845100%

Yes, we are showing ReArrest numbers this time. The shocking fact is, that non-sex offenders released commit six times the number of sex offenses than do sex offenders released. Study that, from the DOJ, non-sex offenders present a bigger danger to communities than do sex offenders. Someone needs to tell lawmakers this truth!

One interesting fact, all this is before the beginning of sex offender registries, and shows they were not justified. One day when a new DOJ recidivism study is published, we will again review this calculation. For now this is the best available, backed by victim and offender statistics.

We need to constantly ask "Legislators," why they continually focus new more restrictive legislation on ALL registered sex offenders, when they have the second lowest recidivism rate, murder is lower, and legislators ignore the group committing "96.5% of new sex offenses," persons who have never before committed a sex offense!

The collateral effect on society from this legislative stance is a disaster, not only are offender lives being destroyed, but the legislation is harmful to the children and families of previously convicted sex offenders!

Who are the 96.5%?
What is their relationshionship, if any, to the victim?

The DOJ, in the above study, found out. Most are related to the victim or within the victim's daily circle of activities. The DOJ reviewed 73,116 cases and found the following, but it is better to see our chart: Department of Justice: Victim/Offender Relationship Statistics

Notice the percentages, at the top of the chart, break down into "All Offenses," "Offenses Against Adults," and "Offenses Against Minors." As to those under 18 (minors) 93.3% of the offenses are committed by family members, friends and acquaintances. Lawmakers need to wake up and stop claiming and enacting "Stranger Danger" legislation! Stop the false hysteria!


Read More of Article...