2007
Abstract:
The article deals with a bizarre but common phenomenon: the registration of nonsexual criminals in sex offender registries. The practice has been challenged in a number of cases, but there is much disagreement among courts - often within the same jurisdiction - on its constitutionality, and on the analysis it entails. The issue has recently picked-up steam - reaching some state Supreme Courts (Florida's and Illinois'), and appearing in the popular news media. The article offers a comprehensive analysis of the Substantive Due Process issues involved, showing why registering nonsexual criminal in sex offender registries is a violation of the federal Constitution (both on the part of the States and on the part of the federal government). It also shows that the registration of nonsexual criminals in sex offender registries is a first-rate case-study for negligent policy-making (supported by faulty data), which frequently received a stamp of approval from an often-poor judicial reasoning, itself supported by an impoverished constitutional jurisprudence. ..more.. by OFER RABAN, University of Detroit Mercy School of Law; University of Utah - S.J. Quinney College of Law zipzipzip
September 29, 2007
Be They Fish or Not Fish: The Fishy Registration of Nonsexual Offenders
September 27, 2007
JOHN DOE v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY et al.
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2007 ME 139
Docket: Ken-06-757
Argued: May 23, 2007
Decided: September 25, 2007
JOHN DOE v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY et al.
CALKINS, J.
[¶1] John Doe appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Kennebec County, Studstrup, J.) granting Evert Fowle, Craig Poulin, and Everett Flannery’s motions to dismiss, and dismissing Doe’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Doe argues that the court erred in dismissing his claims that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 1999 (SORNA), 34-A M.R.S. §§ 11201-11256 (2006), violates his rights to procedural and substantive due process, equal protection, and a civil jury trial pursuant to the United States and Maine Constitutions. We conclude that further factual development is necessary, and we remand for further proceedings.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURE
[¶2] The amended complaint alleges that Doe, a Maine resident, was convicted and sentenced after 1982 and before 1986 for a sex offense he committed when he was nineteen years old on a family member, and to which he pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to less than seventy days of incarceration. He had previously been convicted of public indecency when he was eighteen years
old.
[¶3] Doe’s amended complaint states that since the sex offense conviction, he has had no arrests or convictions for sexual offenses, and he has not abused drugs or alcohol. He is gainfully employed and has worked almost continuously for over twenty years. He married his current wife in 1988, and she has three children from a previous marriage. His wife told him that she will have to leave him if his name goes on the sex offender registry. He also states that he has reason to believe that he will lose his job if his name is placed on the registry and his neighbors will attempt to get him to leave the neighborhood. He is in fear of violence to his person.
[¶4] Doe further alleges that he received a letter dated April 5, 2006, notifying him of his obligation to register under SORNA. When Doe made further inquiry by calling the telephone number in the letter, he was told that he had to register for his lifetime.
[¶5] Shortly after receiving the April 5 letter, Doe filed a complaint against Evert Fowle, in his capacity as District Attorney, and Craig Poulin, in his capacity as Chief of the Maine State Police. Everett Flannery, in his capacity as Kennebec County Sheriff, was later added as a defendant. Doe alleges that the retroactive provisions of SORNA, 34-A M.R.S. § 11222, render the statute unconstitutional pursuant to the United States and Maine Constitutions. Specifically, Doe alleges violations of (1) procedural due process because he was not informed of the registration requirements when he entered his guilty plea; (2) procedural due process because SORNA is unconstitutionally vague; (3) substantive due process because Doe’s right to privacy is violated and the violation of his privacy right is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest; (4) equal protection because classifying lifetime registrants differently from ten-year registrants creates an unfair classification; and (5) the right to a jury trial because both the registry classification and the risk assessment require findings of fact that must be found by a jury.
[¶6] Doe filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a supporting affidavit to prohibit the defendants from arresting or prosecuting him for failing to register pursuant to SORNA, or from publishing his name while he pursued his complaint.1 In his affidavit Doe repeats many of the allegations in his complaint.
Additionally, he states that he is a step-father to his wife’s three children and a step-grandfather to seven children. He states that he has reason to believe that two men whose names were on the sex offender registry were murdered by a stranger who had searched the registry immediately before committing the murders. After reading about the murders, Doe’s terrified wife told Doe that if his name went on the registry she would have to leave him to protect her family. In his affidavit Doe also lists his other convictions consisting of forgery and several counts of negotiating a worthless instrument, all before 1989, and furnishing liquor to a minor before 1993.
[¶7] The court denied the temporary restraining order, finding that Doe failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. Thereafter, Fowle, Poulin, and Flannery filed motions to dismiss pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Prior to the argument on the motions, Doe registered as a sex offender. ..more.. by Maine Supreme Court
September 26, 2007
New U.S. law puts teen sex offenders on Web
9-13-2007 Arizona
Teen sex offenders would have their photos posted online under a new federal law that threatens to undo reforms state lawmakers pushed through last session.
During a legislative hearing Wednesday, Sen. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa, said it might be worth opting out of the Adam Walsh Act and risk losing federal law enforcement funds.
Johnson led efforts to soften punishment for young, nonviolent sex offenders after hearing tearful testimony from constituents about teens as young as 14 prosecuted as adults and placed on lifetime probation for one-time incidents with a family member or a younger girlfriend.
The new state law, which takes effect next week, allows teens to have their cases sent back to juvenile court or have their probation lifted, and requires that they be placed in treatment with young people convicted of similar crimes. The law applies only to nonviolent, first-time offenders.
“To think that the Adam Walsh Act might wipe all that out is pretty hard to take,” Johnson said. “A lot of kids make mistakes ... (only) to have their whole entire life ruined, with no light at the end of the tunnel.”
The 2006 federal law is intended to protect children from violent sex offenders by creating a nationwide registration and notification system.
For the first time, those requirements will extend to juveniles, and be applied retroactively, as well as on tribal lands.
Patty Morris, a supervisor with the state Department of Public Safety, which administers the state’s sex-offender registration site, said Arizona is well ahead of other states in complying with the federal law.
The state has until July to comply, or risk losing more than $1 million in federal drug interdiction funds. But lawmakers and state officials suggested the new law might cost more than that to implement.
It requires listing additional information in the sex offender registry, including the offender’s school and workplace. It also requires notifying neighbors, schools and child welfare agencies. Morris said it’s unclear how notification would work on remote tribal lands.
The interim committee on youthful sex offenders, cochaired by Johnson, expires at the end of the month. But Johnson urged committee members, who include prosecutors, probation officials and the chief juvenile public defender, to keep meeting and recommend legislation for the upcoming session.
East Valley families testified last session their children had been forced to live in homeless shelters, placed in group therapy with adult rapists and subjected to harsh sex-offender probation terms that prevent them from having a family or living a normal life.
Jason Grygla, a counselor and former juvenile probation officer, said the committee needs to address the problem of law enforcement agencies holding cases until teen offenders near their 18th birthdays, increasing the odds they’ll be prosecuted as adults.
“They’re sitting on these cases before they’re filed,” Grygla said. “The charges come down and they’re yanked out of treatment and put into the adult system.”
Barbara Marshall, chief of the juvenile crimes division for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, disputed that, saying it’s considered malicious prosecution to hold onto a case.
Also Wednesday, Human Rights Watch released a report arguing that laws aimed at alerting the public to sex offenders in their midst may do more harm than good.
The international watchdog group singled out the Adam Walsh Act for requiring juvenile registration, saying it can only exacerbate problems with state registration systems. ..more.. by
A Post from the Bureau of Prisons Wtachdog SIte
We at BOPWATCHDOG.COM received this letter.
There are many valid points and more to come.
It Begins: News of a horrific crime, reporters telling the details over and over, mugshots of the suspect on the screen, revelation that the suspect is a registered sex offender. Even though such a crime might occur hundreds of miles away, I panic.
That crime could cost my son any remaining chance of a normal, stable childhood. It could cost me the choice to live peacefully with my husband, the right to live free of the terror that someone will show up on my doorstep intent on murder.
Why? Because in response to horrific crimes, society now lashes out at law-abiding citizens who, in the past, broke the law. Punishes them again by broadcasting their daily whereabouts to the world, driving them into joblessness and homelessness, banning them from walking down a city street or taking shelter in cases of emergencies. And the law thoroughly punishes their families. Spouses must either live under the same dangers, restrictions and privacy invasions, or abandon their marriage. Children lose friends, homes, and the right to be free of mockery and assault and fear.
We don't speak out often. Being legally required to provide personal information to those who wish to kill us tends to stifle public discourse. If a death threat is made, we cannot protect ourselves by staying with relatives or in a hotel for a few days. The law requires we keep the potential killer updated as to where we can be found. And that potential killer would have more rights under the law, even if he murdered us, than we do as people trying to remain in compliance with ever-changing laws.
My husband was convicted decades ago of a sex crime against an adult. He served time, he participated in years of treatment during and after release, he spent additional years under supervision. Then a court, and a panel of mental health experts, deemed he was no longer a danger to anyone. Not medium risk, not low risk. No risk. He set out to do what hundreds of thousands of ex-cons do--build a new life--and he succeeded. We married and had a child. We worked hard, contributed to our community, raised our son, made plans for the future.
Then society demanded a do-over, and contrived to do so through "regulation." So another court decided there was no punishment attached to retroactive registration of sex offenders, nor in the highly publicized dissemination of their whereabouts. Even though we are no longer subject to criminal supervision, "civil" laws have taken our privacy, our right to live and travel where we choose, and our right to be free of harassment.
Politicians, the media, and the public make it clear to us: We are human garbage. Toxic waste. Unfit to breathe the air. Unworthy of life. Deserving of death at the hands of vigilantes.
Yes, I say "we," even though my husband is the only sex offender in the family. For years, the public, politicians, and certain advocacy groups have gotten away with failing to acknowledge the swath of collateral damage their law-making has inflicted. If a mere third of offenders are married, almost a quarter million spouses are recklessly placed in jeopardy by the laws. If a third live with a parent, almost a quarter million family members are at risk. If a third have a single child, almost a quarter million children are--daily-- endangered by public notification and the prevailing, rabidly encouraged public sentiment that any registered offender should be tormented at every opportunity. Our lives are ones of fear.
To those who say I knew what I was getting into by marrying a man with a sex crime in his past, consider this: We married five years before the first law that affected us was passed, and nearly ten years before the current crop became law. Ten years ago, no reasonable person would have predicted that, absent any wrongdoing in that time, we'd suddenly be violating the law to live in a home we own, to drive down certain city streets, to take a vacation without notifying law enforcement, to buy or rent a new home or hold a job without updating the public--all because of a decades-old conviction. All these penalties came to pass after our marriage, and after the birth of our child.
There is no way to appeal it. There is no escaping it. No matter what we do--no matter how well or how long we abide by the laws--we lose more and more rights and freedoms every day. And that loss is based upon pure hysteria and statistical manipulation. The testimony of mental health experts is ignored by politicians and the mainstream media. True recidivism rates are under-reported, or are not reported at all. Even victim advocacy groups and prosecuting attorneys are disregarded when they speak against these punishments. And discussing the consequences of the laws is, apparently, taboo in the public forum.
Some will say it would be shameful to repeal laws intended to protect children. I tell you the recklessness with which hundreds of thousands of innocent American citizens have been triumphantly stripped of their privacy, family, and safety is shameful indeed. Politicians and advocates tell us that such "civil" abuse heaped upon sex offenders is worthy if it saves a single child. By default, they name the pain and loss and endangerment inflicted on other children worthy as well. Shameful indeed.
I don't ask that you welcome us with open arms. We ask for something far more simple: to be left alone, just as we were all those years in which we did nothing wrong under the law. However, if you demand that every offender be eternally punished for his or her past, then show the moral courage to hold yourself accountable for the present.
When you demand offenders be pushed out of your community, say out loud, "and their children should be hounded out of their home, too."
When you demand longer and broader notifications, state bravely, "and I want their children to be shamed whenever they leave their home, to live in terror of vigilante violence forever."
When you demand offenders be banned from schools, proclaim as well, "and I want their children to be mocked and beaten by their classmates, to never have a friend."
When you demand the government step in to 'protect the children,' say to the offender's child, "But you I will purposefully endanger. Your family I will destroy, and claim its destruction as my victory."
When you demand an offender be again punished for a decades-old crime, at least have the decency to say you're willing to inflict certain damage on thousands of children in exchange for the many-times disproved promise of better security for yours.
Don't like the way that sounds? Neither do we. But you have the option of turning away, of ignoring it, of justifying it with sound bites. We don't. We live according to the whims of civil madmen every day. ..more..
The function of punishment in the civil commitment of sexually violent predators
July 2007
Abstract
Two experiments find that support for civil commitment procedures for sexually violent predators is based primarily upon the retributive rather than incapacitative goals of respondents.
Two discrete samples composed of students (N = 175) and jury-eligible citizens (N = 200) completed experimental surveys assessing their support or opposition to scenarios in which a sexual predator was to be released after completing his criminal sentence.
Respondents were sensitive to likelihood of recidivism only when the initial sentence was sufficiently punitive. When initial sentence was lenient, respondents strongly supported civil commitment without regard to future risk.
Results are discussed in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Kansas v. Hendricks ([1997]) on the constitutionality of civil commitment laws for sexually violent predators. ..more.. by Kevin M. Carlsmith, Ph.D., John Monahan, Ph.D., Alison Evans, M.A.
September 24, 2007
Human Rights report pans offender laws
9-23-2007 New Hampshire
Lawmakers are struggling to make the state's sexual predators law mirror the federal Adam Walsh Act, named for the 6-year-old snatched from a Florida store in 1981. Authorities never found his body, just his head in a canal 120 miles away. Suspects in the unsolved crime have included the infamous Jeffrey Dahmer and a Florida mass murderer, Otis O'Toole, who died in prison in 1996 for another crime. O'Toole twice confessed to killing Walsh, but later recanted and authorities never charged him.
The federal law posts an Internet profile of most sex offenders, including their photo, age, home address, license plate number, identifying features, and employer's name and address, if they have a job. Those felons also give the police a DNA sample.
Each person is assigned to a reporting tier based on the severity of his crime. Tier III is for the worst threats, people who register four times a year for life.
Assistant Attorney General Ann Rice warned that New Hampshire could lose up to $200,000 in crime-prevention grants unless its law substantially conforms to Adam Walsh.
Study debunks sex predator laws
Recently, Human Rights Watch, a national research and advocacy group, issued a damning report on the spate of sex offender laws that swept the country after the 2005 murder of Jessica Lunsford in Florida.
The 146-page document said the popular Internet offender registries endanger children by driving the few intractable pedophiles underground. The study tried to debunk several alleged myths: that all sex offenders are like Dahmer and O'Toole and prey on strangers; that they have many victims; that they commit new sex crimes after release from prison; and that treatment programs are useless.
The report, "No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the United States," found the vast majority of offenders against children have a single victim well known to them. It also said sex offenders are the least likely of all parolees to re-offend, and therapy cuts that risk even more.
The report criticized municipal ordinances like the ones in Dover, Franklin, Tilton and Northfield that keep offenders from living near schools, parks and day-care centers. The study said these bans can cost sex offenders their friends, jobs, spouses, families and mental health. It also makes them more dangerous, being homeless and with no address to report.
Reams stands by law
Rockingham County Attorney Jim Reams serves on a national executive task force of prosecutors, helped draft New Hampshire's child predator law, lobbied for it, and found the Rights Watch study biased. He said the country has more than 600,000 registered sex offenders, and only a handful have been murdered. The county attorney opposes residency restrictions on sex offenders, but said they have passed constitutional muster so far.
Note: His mentioning of a "handful" is grossly inaccurate. The reality of those murdered cam be found in this blog it is over 80 and still more to post.
Reams said a recent study of pedophiles at the federal Butner Corrections Center in North Carolina found that most had multiple victims. The report said 132 men had confessed to sexually abusing 1,777 young children. A Canadian study of sex offenders showed much the same thing, Reams said, and the lifelong recidivism rate was more than 90 percent.
Note: It appears the studies cited pertain to those in a civil commitment center and as usual should not be applied to all sex offenders as Reams has done here. Unfortunately I cannot find a e-mail address to contact the Journalist who apparently has the studies. The federal BOP study was never released and is being hidden by the feds, see link.
It should be noted the Butner facility is the only one in the federal system devoted to treating serial pedophiles. The Canadian study tracked 300 inmates arrested in the 1950s and 1960s when only fixated pedophiles went to prison. Even talk of incest was taboo, and modern therapies did not exist.
Carolyn Lucet of Conway has counseled hundreds of sex offenders in therapy over the last 30 years. She said only one has ever returned to prison on a new sex charge. She called the Human Rights Watch study reliable and urged lawmakers to classify sex offenders by rigorous clinical standards used in several states.
"The offenders I deal with are very frightened," Lucet said. "The man who murdered two offenders in Maine had New Hampshire names on his list. That man in Tennessee hasn't even been tried yet. And he's homeless."
Janis Wolak, a UNH researcher on crimes against kids, said the Rights Watch study is consistent with the scientific literature. Many sex offenders are treatable, and the incidence of sex crimes has declined for more than a decade, she said. The typical abusers are family members, close friends, babysitters, coaches, priests, teachers. Among teenagers, it's their peers. She said there are no studies to show if the new laws protect children.
"We desperately need research on it. The media is fixated on the stranger-danger idea," Wolak said. "Most are nonviolent. They use their authority as a father, stepfather or uncle."
Defense lawyers widely predicted their clients would reject plea deals under the new law. That's because the state can hold an offender five more years in prison if they remain dangerous to society. But Reams has seen no major shift in the pre-trial process. Most cases went to trial in the past.
"They still do," he said.
Assistant Attorney General Rice told lawmakers the state should conform with federal law by classifying people by their crimes, not by their actuarial risk. In an interview, Rice said she was aware of clinical indexes that claim to predict whether certain types of sex felons are likely to re-offend.
Attorney Mike Iacopino heads the Defense Lawyers Association and told Rice, "Just do without the federal money." ..more.. by Chris Dornin, of Golden Dome News, covers the Statehouse in Concord.
September 22, 2007
Privacy and Human Rights 2002
An International Survey of Privacy Laws and Developments
Executive Summary
This annual report by EPIC and Privacy International reviews the state of privacy in over fifty countries around the world. It outlines legal protections for privacy, and summarizes important issues and events relating to privacy and surveillance. A major focus of the 2002 report has been to document the effects of September 11, 2001 on privacy and civil liberties. In response to the events of that day, specific anti-terrorism measures have been introduced in Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Singapore, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. Another significant development was the adoption, in June 2002, of the European Union’s Electronic Communications Privacy Directive. This Directive allows European Union member states to enact laws requiring Internet Service Providers, and other telecommunications operators, to retain the traffic and location data of all people using mobile phones, text messaging, land-line telephones, faxes, e-mails, chatrooms, the Internet, or any other electronic communication devices, to communicate.
Such data retention schemes are already in place in Belgium, France, Spain and the United Kingdom and have been proposed in the Netherlands. In New Zealand a law granting significant new interception authority to law enforcement is also pending. Among all of these measures, it is possible to identify a number of trends including: increased communications surveillance and search and seizure powers; weakening of data protection regimes; increased data sharing; and increased profiling and identification. While none of the above trends are necessarily new; the novelty is the speed in which these policies gained acceptance, and in many cases, became law.
On the other hand, the report finds that efforts to pass new data protection laws or to strengthen existing laws are continuing in Eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America. In August 2001, Peru enacted a data protection law covering credit reporting agencies and, in March 2002, created a Commission to draft a more comprehensive law. In Bulgaria, a new Personal Data Protection Act came into effect in January 2002. In Estonia, the Government is currently working on an amendment bill to the Data Protection Act to bring it into full compliance with the 1995 European Union Data Protection Directive. Poland ratified the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (ETS No. 108) in May 2002. In Slovakia, an amended data protection law has been introduced and is expected to take place in September 2002. In 2001, Slovenia amended its Data Protection Act in order to establish an independent supervisory authority. A Personal Data Protection Act is pending in Malaysia. In Japan, two new anti-spam laws were adopted in 2002. In Singapore a National Internet Advisory Committee issued a Model Data Protection Code for the Private Sector in February 2002.
In addition, laws or codes to protect privacy in the workplace are gaining more prominence. In Finland, a new law on Data Protection in Working Life entered into force in October 2001. In December 2001, the President of the Russian Federation, signed into law the new Labor Code which includes protection of personal data. The United Kingdom Privacy Commissioner has drafted a fourpart code on data protection in the workplace. The first of these, relating to privacy in the recruitment and selection process was issued in March 2002. The second, on employee monitoring, was released for public comment in April 2002.
In Sweden, a national committee issued a proposal in March 2002 recommending specific legislation to protect the personal information of current employees, former employees and employment applicants in both the private and public sectors. In May 2002, the European Union Article 29 Data Protection Working Party issued a working paper on monitoring and surveillance of electronic communications in the workplace. In June 2002, the Hong Kong Data Protection Commission issued a draft a code of practice on workplace for public consultation. The new European Union Electronic Communications Directive, while leaving open the possibility of data retention in the members states, has also established important safeguards for information transmitted across the Internet. It prohibits unsolicited commercial marketing by e-mail (spam) without consent, and protects mobile phone users from precise location tracking and surveillance.
During the year new Freedom of Information Laws were passed in Peru and Mexico and went into effect in Poland. ..more.. by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Washington, DC, USA -and- Privacy International, London, United Kingdom
September 21, 2007
Sex Offenses and Offenders: An Analysis of Data on Rape and Sexual Assault
February 1997 NCJ 163392 (revised 2/7/97)
Foreword
This report draws on more than two dozen statistical datasets maintained by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Uniform Crime Reporting program of the FBI to provide a comprehensive overview of current knowledge about the incidence and prevalence of violent victimization by sexual assault, the response of the justice system to such crimes, and the characteristics of those who prey on victims of all ages by committing sexual assault or rape.
This report reinforces a striking observation in recent studies about crimes involving rape and sexual assault: In a high percentage of cases, the victims are children. In self-reported victimization surveys of the public age 12 and older, teenagers report the highest per capita rates of exposure to rape and sexual assault. Data drawn from police-recorded incidents of rape in three States revealed that 44% of rape victims were under the age of 18. The self-reports of convicted rape and sexual assault offenders serving time in State prisons indicate that two-thirds of such offenders had victims under the age of 18, and 58% of those--or nearly 4 in 10 imprisoned violent sex offenders--said their victims were age 12 or younger.
Though the vast majority of violent sex offending involves males assaulting female victims, females account for a small percentage of known offenders, and males account for a small percentage of victims. In a very small fraction of sexual assaults, victim and offender are of the same sex.
Victim and offender are likely to have had a prior relationship as family members, intimates, or acquaintances. Victims of rape and sexual assault report that in nearly 3 out of 4 incidents, the offender was not a stranger. Based on police-recorded incident data, in 90% of the rapes of children younger than 12, the child knew the offender; two-thirds of the victims 18 to 29 years old had a prior relationship with the rapist. The FBI's UCR arrest data, as well as court conviction data and prison admissions data, all point to a sex offender who is older than other violent offenders, generally in his early thirties, and more likely to be white than other violent offenders-- characteristics that match the information obtained from victims who describe the offender to interviewers in the National Crime Victimization Survey.
This report was prepared as background information for the Assistant Attorney General's 1996 National Summit Promoting Public Safety Through the Effective Management of Sex Offenders in the Community. It presents a thorough analysis and compilation of the currently available national data, but we anticipate that even more will be learned in the coming years as BJS assembles data on rape and sexual assault from the redesigned National Crime Victimization Survey and surveys of felony probationers, local jail inmates, and State and Federal prison inmates. ..more.. by Lawrence A. Greenfeld, Statistician, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Important Excerpts:
Sex offenses and murder
After the latter half of the 1980's, the percentage of all murders with known circumstances in which investigators identified rape or another sex offense as the principal circumstance of the murder has declined from about 2% of murders to less than 1%.
Between 1976 and 1994 there were an estimated 405,089 murders in the United States. Of these, the circumstances surrounding the murder are known in 317,925, or 78.5%. Among the cases with known circumstances, an estimated 4,807, or 1.5%, were classified as involving rape or another sex offense.
Offenders in sexual assault murders are about 6 years younger on average than other murderers. Youth under 18 have accounted for about 10% of the sexual assault murders since 1976.
Sex Offender Treatment Programs (1994)
Office of the Legislative Auditor
1994
in the pre-1980's era
Executive Summary:
In response to public concern about sex crimes, the Legislature has toughened penalties for sex offenders, increased funding for programs that treat sex offenders, and taken steps to ensure that more offenders receive treatment. However, basic descriptive information about the number of treatment programs in operation and the number of sex offenders who receive treatment is lacking. Also, legislators have asked whether sex offender treatment programs are effective in reducing the rate at which sex offenders commit additional crimes.
We issued a report on Minnesota's psychopathic personality commitment law in February 1994. (Office of the Legislative Auditor, Psychopathic Personality Commitment Law (St. Paul, 1994). In this second report on sex offender treatment programs we address the following questions:
How has the number of reported sex crimes changed in recent years? What are the characteristics of these crimes and the offenders who commit them? What sanctions do sex offenders typically receive?
How many sex offender treatment programs are there in Minnesota and what do they consist of? How much treatment do offenders typically receive and how much does it cost?
How do programs assess amenability to treatment? How many sex offenders receive treatment?
To what extent are Minnesota's programs consistent with national treatment standards? Are treatment programs adequately overseen and coordinated by the Departments of Corrections and Human Services?
What data do programs keep to judge whether treatment works? What is known about the effectiveness of sex offender treatment?
To answer these questions, we analyzed reported crime and conviction data provided by the Department of Public Safety, Minnesota Supreme Court, Sentencing Guidelines Commission, and Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning. We interviewed officials and staff from the Departments of Corrections and Human Services, community corrections administrators, probation officers, and other criminal justice professionals. We also interviewed officials from sex offender treatment programs operating in the fall of 1993 and asked them to complete a short data form about each offender they treated in 1992. Finally, we reviewed Minnesota and national studies of treatment effectiveness. ..more.. by Office of the Legislative Auditor
September 18, 2007
Prop 83 Tightens Residency Restrictions on Sex Offenders
9-17-2007 California:
More than 350 recently paroled sex offenders in the Bay Area must relocate within 45 days to a residence more than 2,000 feet away from a school or park.
State officials on Friday finished notifying about 2,700 parolees statewide—though none in Berkeley—that they must move or face a possible return to jail, said Bill Sessa, a spokesperson for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Sex offenders convicted after the passage of Proposition 83 in November and before legal challenges to the law were settled now officially face a ban from living within about a quarter-mile of a school or park and may be tracked with GPS systems.
Known as “Jessica’s Law” for Jessica Lunsford, a Florida girl who was raped and murdered in 2005, Prop. 83 expanded many restrictions previously reserved for child molesters to all sex offenders convicted after its passage.
State officials visited the homes of about 5,000 paroled sex offenders statewide to verify that their residence falls outside the 2,000 foot limit as measured by handheld GPS devices.
Officials also modified the parole conditions of sex offenders convicted after the law’s passage who live outside the 2,000 foot zone to ensure that they may never move within it, Sessa said.
Berkeley contains no recent parolees in violation of the law, Sessa said.
It is also unlikely that sex offender parolees, who must stay in the county where they were convicted, will move to Berkeley.
The city, like most in the Bay Area, contains few locations that do not fall within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children regularly play, said Berkeley police Sgt. Mary Kusmiss.
“Given the current broad definition (of restricted areas), there are only tiny little pockets of Berkeley that wouldn’t fall under the restrictions,” Kusmiss said. “There are few, if any, places where a sex offender could live.”
About 50 sex offenders live in the city, Kusmiss said.
Parolees having a hard time find unrestricted residential locations may seek assistance from social service agencies, but ultimately are responsible for finding acceptable housing. ..more.. by Julie Strack and Brian Whitley, Daily Cal Staff Writers
September 17, 2007
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006
Congressional Action
July 27, 2006: Signed by President George W. Bush
July 25, 2006: House agreed to Senate amendments by voice vote
July 20, 2006: Passed Senate as amended by voice vote
March 8, 2006: Passed House by voice vote
Other Status
May 17, 2007: Proposed guidelines issued by the Office of Justice Programs.
February 28, 2007: Interim rule with request for comments (by April 30, 2007) issued. Addresses retroactivity. Precedes full guidelines and regulations to implement sex offender registration and notification provisions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. Rule declares the sex offender requirements to be non-punitive, regulatory measures. Asserts that those are validly applied, and enforced by criminal sanctions, to sex offenders whose predicate offense occurred prior to creation of the requirements.
August 2006: Regulations are being prepared by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Provisions Affecting the States
The stated purpose of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 is to protect the public, in particular children, from violent sex offenders via a more comprehensive, nationalized system for registration of sex offenders.
The act states that the attorney general will issue guidelines and regulations in interpretation and implementation of the legislation.
The act calls for state conformity to various aspects of sex offender registration, including information that must be collected, duration of registration requirement for classifications of offenders, verification of registry information, access to and sharing of information, and penalties for failure to register as required. The act states that failure of a jurisdiction to comply with the federal requirements within three years of the implementation of the act will result in a10 percent reduction to Byrne law enforcement assistance grants.
A number of new grant programs are authorized to assist states in improving sex offender registration and related requirements of the act.
Requirements
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act requires that sex offender registration occur before an offender is released from imprisonment or within three days of a non-imprisonment sentence. Changes in registry information must be reported in that time period, as well.
Each sex offender is to provide the following registration information: Name; Social Security number; address or multiple addresses; employer and address; school (if a student) and address; license plate number and description of any vehicle owned or operated by the offender; and any other information required by the attorney general.
Each jurisdiction must include the following information for each offender in the registry: A physical description; the criminal offense; the criminal history of the offender, including dates of arrests and convictions and correctional or release status; a current photograph; fingerprints and palm prints; a DNA sample, a photocopy of a valid driver's license or ID card; and any other information required by the attorney general.
The law defines and requires a three-tier classification system for sex offenders, on which other requirements are based. The tier levels are established as:
Tier I are those other than a tier II or tier III.
Tier II are those other than Tier I with an offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year and comparable to or more severe than the following federal offenses involving a minor: sex trafficking; coercion and enticement; transportation with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity; abusive sexual contact. Also includes any offense involving use of a minor in a sexual performance, solicitation of a minor to practice prostitution, or production or distribution of child pornography.
Tier III are sex offenses punishable by imprisonment for more than one year and comparable to or more severe than the following federal offenses: sexual abuse or aggravated sexual abuse; abusive sexual contact against a minor less than 13 years old; offense involving kidnapping of a minor (parent or guardian excepted); or any offense that occurs after one has been designated a tier II sex offender.
The law makes further clarifications of a sex offense and offense against a minor.
Regarding juveniles, the act defines a conviction for purposes of registration and classification to include juvenile adjudications if the juvenile offender is at least 14 years of age at the time of the offense and the offense adjudicated is comparable to or more severe than the federal offense aggravated sexual abuse.
The law sets requirements on duration of the registration requirement, according to the classification system. Tier 1 sex offenders are required to register for 15 years; tier II for 25 years and tier III offenders must register for life. Registration periods may be reduced, also according to the tier system, for completing certain programs or having a clean record for specified periods of time.
Registered sex offenders are required to appear in person to verify their address and other registry information and for update of the required photo. Frequency of personal appearance is set according to the tier system. Tier 1 offenders must appear in person each year; tier II offenders every six months; and for tier III sex offenders in-person verification is required every three months.
States are required to have a criminal penalty that includes a maximum term of imprisonment greater than one year for failure of a sex offender to comply with requirements. Assistance by federal law enforcement agencies is available to assist jurisdictions in locating and apprehending sex offenders who abscond from the registration requirement.
The law requires that states make registry information available on the Internet, in readily accessible form and with certain mandatory exemptions. Each state's website must have search capabilities compatible to the National Sex Offender Public Registry. The attorney general is to develop software to enable jurisdictions to establish and operate uniform registries and Internet sites, and states will have one year to implement it after it becomes available. The act also requires prompt sharing of information on registered sex offenders among state, local and federal law enforcement agencies and other entities.
Grant Programs Authorized
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 authorizes a Sex Offender Management Assistance grant program to help states implement and comply with the law, with bonus payments for substantial implementation within two years of the Act. A Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking (SMART) Office is established in the Department of Justice to administer standards for sex offender registration, grant programs and assistance to states. Other grants to states or localities are authorized to assist with verification of sex offender addresses.
The law authorizes grants to states for establishing, enhancing or operating civil commitment programs for sexually dangerous people. It includes definition of a sexually dangerous person and provides that states must have such a program or a plan for establishment within two years of the enactment of this act to receive these grants.
Also authorized is a three-year grant program at $5 million each year, supporting active, real-time and continuous monitoring (GPS) of offenders. States and localities may apply FY 2007 through FY 2009, and will be required to report on effectiveness and cost effectiveness.
The act authorizes Sex Offender Apprehension Grants, also 2007 through 2009, to assist states and localities in enforcing sex offender registration requirements.
Juvenile Sex Offender Treatment Grants are authorized, also 2007 through 2009, to assist state and local governments, public and private entities, in addressing treatment needs of juvenile sex offenders.
Grants to law enforcement agencies are authorized under the Bureau of Justice Assistance to help with investigation and enforcement of sexual crimes against children. This includes funds for personnel, computer hardware and software needed to investigate and enforce Internet-facilitated crimes against children. Grants also are authorized to law enforcement agencies for fingerprinting programs for children; and to government and nonprofit organizations for purposes of establishing and improving child Internet safety.
Section-by-Section Summary of the Act
Title I: Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
Sec. 111. Definitions, including three-tier sex offender classifications.
Sec. 112. States must establish a statewide sex offender registry that conforms to federal standards. The attorney general will issue guidelines and regulations interpreting the federal law.
Sec. 113 (c). When a registered sex offender changes registry information, states are required to immediately provide information to all other jurisdictions in which the offender is required to register.
Sec. 113 (e). States must provide a criminal penalty that includes a maximum term of imprisonment greater than one year for failure of a sex offender to comply with registration requirements.
Sec. 114. Sets out all of the information states must acquire as part of registration, including a DNA sample and "any other information required by the attorney general."
Sec. 115. The duration of the sex offender registration requirement is established in accordance with the three-tier system set out in Sec. 111. Requires 15 years for tier I sex offender; 25 years for tier II; and life for a tier III sex offender.
Sec. 116. Offenders required to register must appear in person for address verification every three months, six months or one year, according to the three-tier classification, including taking updated photographs.
Sec. 117. State officials must notify offenders of the registry requirements prior to release from custody or immediately upon sentencing if not in custody, and ensure that the registration occurs.
Sec. 118. Sex offender registry information must be available via the Internet in single-query format. Each state’s Internet site must be compatible for search capabilities within the National Sex Offender Public Website, and participate in that website as decided by the attorney general. Includes items required and optional for disclosure exemption.
Sec. 119, 120. The attorney general will establish a National Sex Offender Registry and a Public Website.
Sec. 121. Immediate information sharing is required when a sex offender registers or updates registry information. Notice is to be provided to the attorney general for update of the national registry, and information is to be provided to appropriate law enforcement, school and housing agencies, all other jurisdictions in which a sex offender must be registered, and other specified agencies, entities and organizations.
Sec. 122. The attorney general and appropriate law enforcement agencies also must be notified of failure of a sex offender to comply with registry requirements.
Sec. 123. The Attorney General shall consult with states and other jurisdictions to develop computer software for the creation and operation of uniform sex offender registries and websites.
Sec. 124, 125. States have three years, or until July 2009, to implement the requirements for sex offender registries, and one year from the creation of the software named in Sec. 123. States that fail to comply will lose 10 percent of funds allocated for that fiscal year under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
Sec. 125 (b). States are not required to take action that would violate that state’s constitution, as determined by the state’s highest court. However, the state must act in good faith with the attorney general to reconcile differences between this law and the state’s constitution and the state must implement alternative procedures or accommodations to fulfill the purposes of this law. (Consultation with state governor, attorney general, legislature is not mentioned.)
Sec. 126. The attorney general will establish a Sex Offender Management Assistance grant program to offset costs to states in implementing provisions of this law, for fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2009. Authorizes appropriations but no amount specified.
Sec. 143. The Department of Justice will create a Project Safe Childhood program to integrate federal, state and local efforts to investigate and prosecute child exploitation cases, identify and rescue victims of child exploitation crimes, conduct local training, education and awareness. The Department of Justice also will conduct training of state and local law enforcement relating to computer-aided child exploitation crimes. Appropriates funds for various functions FY 2007 and as may be necessary for five succeeding fiscal years.
Sec. 144. The Department of Justice will help states locating sex offenders who might be relocated after a major disaster.
Sec. 145. The attorney general will expand training efforts for all levels of law enforcement to effectively respond to threats to children. Meetings and conferences will be convened to discuss problems of use of Internet technology to exploit children and to develop pro-active approaches. Authorized is $1 million is for FY 2007 for these programs.
Sec. 146. Creates an Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking (SMART Office) within the Department of Justice, to administer grant programs and provide technical assistance to states and other entities involved with sex offender registration and notification.
Sec. 153. States may request the Department of Justice to conduct fingerprint checks of national crime information databases as part of an individual’s background check by a child welfare agency or school.
Sec. 154. Prohibits state policy that would remove a missing person entry from a state law enforcement system or National Crime Information Center database based solely on the age of the person.
Sec. 202-216. Sets federal mandatory penalties for crimes against children, including sex trafficking in children. Extends statute of limitations for felony sex offenses.
Title II: Federal Criminal Law Enhancements Needed to Protect Children From Sexual Attacks and Other Violent Crimes
This title creates federal offenses for the sale of date rape drugs over the Internet, creates stricter federal penalties for people who commit federal crimes against minors such as engaging in conduct relating to child prostitution and sexual abuse or sex trafficking of children. No sections appear to affect state statutes.
Title III: Civil Commitment of Dangerous Sex Offenders
Sec. 301. The attorney general will issue grants to states to establish or enhance civil commitment programs. A state must establish a program, or submit a plan for the creation of one, to be eligible for a grant. (Does not mandate state provisions.)
Sec. 302. Creates “civil commitment of a sexually dangerous person,” procedures for persons in federal custody against whom criminal charges have been dismissed solely due to the mental condition of the person (at U.S. Code 4248.) The attorney general “shall make all reasonable efforts to cause a state to assume such responsibility” for the custody and treatment of such people. If the state will not assume responsibility, the attorney general must place the individual in a suitable facility until a finding that he is no longer sexually dangerous, at which time he may receive conditional discharge. If the director of a facility in which a person is placed under federal civil commitment certifies that a person is sexually dangerous for reasons not related to a mental condition, the attorney general will release that person to the state for purpose of state proceedings for civil commitment; or, absent the state assuming responsibility, will release the person.
Title IV: Immigration Law Reforms to Prevent Sex Offenders From Abusing Children
This title amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to designate failure to register as a sex offender as a deportable offense and prohibits aliens who have committed sex offenses against children from having family-based petitions for citizenship approved unless determined appropriate by the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. No sections appear to affect state statutes.
Title V: Child Pornography Prevention
Asserts interstate commerce aspects of the child pornography market, which relies substantially on mail and Internet. Establishes definitions, procedures and penalties under federal law. Includes provisions governing simulated sexual conduct. May preempt some state laws.
Title VI: Grants, Studies, and Programs for Children and Community Safety
Sec. 603 - 617. Authorizes mentoring grants under the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention specifically to Big Brothers Big Sisters of America and the National Police Athletic League at-risk youth program.
Sec. 621. Grants are authorized from the Department of Justice to states, localities and tribes to assist with programs to utilize active, real-time monitoring devices for supervision of sex offenders, including equipment and personnel costs. Sets out minimum standards for the monitoring, and the attorney general will report to Congress by 2010 on effectiveness of electronic monitoring of sex offenders. Funding is authorized at $5 million per year for FY 2007-2009.
Sec. 622. Addresses treatment and management of sex offenders in the federal Bureau of Prisons.
Sec. 623. Creates a new section of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, to authorize grants to states, localities and tribes to assist in the enforcement of sex offender registration requirements, and grants to assist in the treatment of juvenile sex offenders. For registration requirements, authorizes appropriations for FY 2007-2009, with no monetary amount specified. Authorizes $10 million per year for FY 2007-2009 for juvenile sex offender treatment grants.
Sec. 624. The attorney general may provide grants to train and employ personnel to assist in cases cleared through DNA backlog elimination. Authorizes appropriations 2007 through 2011, with no amount specified.
Sec. 625. The Bureau of Justice Assistance may provide grants to law enforcement jurisdictions with 50,000 or more residents to hire additional law enforcement or train current staff in combating sexual abuse of children, investigating the use of the Internet in the sexual abuse of children, and/or purchase computer equipment to investigate sexual abuse and facilitate the creation of sex offender registries. Jurisdictions with fewer than 50,000 residents may apply, based on need. The attorney general is to prioritize the awarding of the grants based on need. Authorization provided for FY 2007-2009, with no amount specified.
Sec. 627. The attorney general is to create a program authorizing grants to state, localities, and tribes for the purpose of creating voluntary finger-printing programs for children, hiring law enforcement to conduct these programs, and providing the necessary computer equipment for these programs. Limitations for the use of the children’s fingerprints are included, with criminal penalties for violating the restrictions. Beginning in FY 2007, $20 million total is authorized for a five-year period.
Sec. 628. Authorizes grants to Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, for victim assistance services, for FY 2007-2010.
Sec. 630. The attorney general will make grants to states, localities and nonprofit organizations to establish programs to educate children and parents on Internet safety. These grants are subject to the availability of appropriations, and no specific amount is named.
Sec. 631. The attorney general may award grants to state, localities and tribes for the purpose of periodically verifying the residence of all or some registered sex offenders in their jurisdiction. The attorney general is required to report to Congress on the effectiveness of this activity. Authorizes sums as necessary to carry out this section for FY 2007-2009.
Sec 632. Authorizes funds to United States Marshals Service for "fugitive safe surrender program."
Sec. 633. The secretary of Health and Human Services and the attorney general will create a national registry of substantiated cases of child abuse or neglect. States and/or localities are to provide the information to be listed in the registry via electronic means and containing specific information decided by the secretary. Allows that an existing state or local equivalent registery of child abuse cases will suffice for the national registry.
Sec. 636. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of using driver’s license registration processes within the states to improve compliance with sex offender registration requirements, assess systems capabilities in the states, and determine potential costs to states.
Title VII: Internet Safety Act
This title creates federal offenses and penalties for child exploitation via the Internet and for knowingly embedding words and digital images into web source code for the purpose of deceiving minors into accessing material constituting obscenity. It also instructs the attorney general to increase the number of computer forensic examiners to be dedicated to investigating crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children, and forms additional Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces. No sections appear to affect state statutes.
Full text of the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006
..more.. by Updated July 27, 2007 NCSL Law & Criminal Justice Committee Susan Parnas Frederick, 202-624-5400 Donna Lyons, 303-364-7700
Federal funding comes with strings attached
9-15-2007 Arizona:
The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution never has been amended or revoked:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
However, this brief and powerful declaration has been rendered almost meaningless as Congress and the federal bureaucracy seem able to reach into every nook and cranny of our lives. There are many reasons for this, but one of the most important is the addiction of states to federal tax dollars.
Congress frequently offers million of dollars to entice state governments to carry out new policies. Over time, states have become completely dependent on these cash transfers and wouldn’t know how to operate without them. Earlier this year, the governor and the Legislature debated for months on how to use $10.6 billion in state taxes. In truth, the state will spend more than $26 billion this fiscal year, with nearly $12.9 billion coming from the federal government.
With the states hooked, the federal government now can dictate almost anything and the states generally go along to keep the money spigot flowing. Arizona wants its $500 million in federal highway dollars? Then the state must have a mandatory seat belt law. Arizona can’t get by without $40 million in federal funds that makes up two-thirds of its child enforcement budget? Then the state had better turn over employment records and other “private” information about its residents.
Only rarely does a politician step forward to defend the principle of federalism enshrined in the 10th Amendment and point out that states have ceded too much to Washington for this cash. One of those occasions happened last week when Sen. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa, suggested Arizona ignore a federal mandate to participate in a national sex offender registration program.
In 2006, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act to require all states join the national database and to dictate how every state provide key details to the public. It just so happens the federal law conflicts with changes made earlier this year by the Arizona Legislature to treat some underage sexual offenders differently than adults.
State lawmakers recognized that lifetime registration and probation requirements were unduly harsh when applied to juvenile, immature experimentation. In some cases, juveniles were forced to receive “counseling” alongside adults in a manner more likely to turn the teens into predators themselves.
The 10th Amendment says states should decide on their own how or when to join a national registration program. But the Adam Walsh act threatens to take away federal money for combating drug smugglers if states don’t follow the federal rules. For Arizona, that would amount to more than $1 million if we don’t comply by July.
Johnson fought long to get her colleagues to look beyond their natural disgust for sex offenders to see some juvenile cases in a different light. She doesn’t want that hard work to be undermined by a inflexible federal law.
We have disagreed with some of Johnson’s stances on other issues related to questions of federalism. But we wish her well this time as she tries to convince other state officials to walk away from the federal money pushers. ..more.. by Tribune Editorial
Attorneys decry child molester law
9-16-2007 South Carolina:
AIKEN - It seemed like a good idea: a law that would harshly punish child molesters, especially repeat offenders.
But prosecutors in Aiken County say that since Jessie's Law went into effect last year, the tougher penalties have made getting convictions harder.
Before, accused child molesters would plead guilty more easily, Assistant Solicitor Brenda Brisbin said. That saved victims - often very young children - from having to testify, she said.
But now, defendants often force a trial rather than accept a minimum, mandatory sentence that could put them in prison for 25 years, force them to be tracked by GPS monitoring devices for life or send them to death row.
"When legislators pass these laws, they think they're getting tough on child molesters," Ms. Brisbin said. "That's what they say. But in reality, they're making it more difficult to get convictions on child molesters. We don't want them passing these laws."
In effect since July 1, 2006, Jessie's Law was named for Jessica Lunsford, who was murdered in 2005 in Florida by a convicted sex offender.
It increased the minimum sentence for someone convicted of raping a child younger than 11 to 25 years to life in prison, up from at most 30 years behind bars. Offenders convicted more than once of raping a child younger than 11 can face the death penalty.
People convicted of committing lewd acts on a minor are monitored by GPS for the rest of their lives, and sex offenders have to register twice a year.
Ms. Brisbin said her proof of how the law has affected her cases comes from what defense attorneys tell her.
"I don't have any record of people who say, 'I'm not going to plea because I don't want to wear a GPS device for life.' But we hear that all the time from defense attorneys," she said.
It's the same for people facing a minimum of 25 years in prison or the death penalty, she said.
Even defense attorneys don't like that provision.
"It's a bad thing," said Aiken's chief public defender, Wallis Alves.
If a client was accused of criminal sexual conduct with a minor before, she said, defense attorneys could work out a plea deal with prosecutors to get the charges dropped to committing a lewd act on a minor.
That would be difficult now that the client would have to wear a GPS tracking device for life, she said.
"The clients may not be willing to do that," Ms. Alves said.
She said she's OK with other provisions in Jessie's Law - the mistake of age section and the "Romeo" clause, which is meant to protect teens having sex with other teens.
She said she hasn't had one of her cases reach the point where Jessie's Law will affect her defense. But when that happens, she said, it will likely cause her some heartburn.
"Victims didn't have to come to court and testify" with plea bargains, she said. "Not everybody was happy, but now we can't do that."
Ms. Brisbin said that ideally, she would always have enough evidence to guarantee a conviction. But she says it often comes down to what the child says and what the accused says.
"People seldom molest children in front of witnesses," she said. "That is the reality of child molestation. Fondling a child does not result in physical evidence. All you've got is a 5-year-old's word for it. And juries will not convict based on a 5-year-old's word."
Ms. Brisbin said that instead of increasing penalties for sex crimes, legislators should ask prosecutors what would really help them secure convictions: the ability to tell the jury when someone has a prior sexual assault conviction.
That's not permissible in South Carolina, she said, though other states allow it and it's a federal rule of evidence that hasn't been adopted by South Carolina.
Ms. Brisbin isn't convinced the harsher penalties will deter child molesters.
Statistics show most children don't report the abuse right away, if at all, she said, and most children are abused by family members.
That's why she also doesn't put much faith in sex offender registries.
"It provides a very false sense of security for people," she said, "because the fact is, few children are molested by the stranger down the street." ..more.. by Sandi Martin| South Carolina Bureau Chief
September 16, 2007
The Crime of Stalking: How Big Is the Problem?
November 1997
Scientific information on stalking in the United States has been limited, despite unprecedented media, legal, and legislative attention to the subject over the past decade. To better understand the broader context of violence in which stalking occurs, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) collaborated in a comprehensive survey of violence against
women. The National Violence Against Women Survey, conducted by the Center for Policy Research, collected data from 8,000 women and 8,000 men 18 years of age or older on a broad range of issues related to violence.
This Research Preview discusses the stalking aspects of the study. Further findings from the survey are anticipated by spring 1998. With regard to stalking, the survey
collected data on:
- The prevalence of stalking.
- The characteristics of offenders, victims, and stalking behaviors.
- Victims’ perceptions of why they are stalked.
- The co-occurrence of stalking and domestic violence.
- Victims’ responses to stalking, including their involvement with the justice system.
- The psychological and social consequences of stalking.
Survey findings indicated that stalking is a bigger problem than previously thought, affecting about 1.4 million victims annually. The survey showed that stalking was
strongly linked to the controlling behavior and physical, emotional, and sexual abuse perpetrated against women by intimate partners. About half of all female stalking
victims reported their victimization to the police and about 25 percent obtained a restraining order.
To screen for stalking victimization, the survey asked about specific harassing and threatening behaviors respondents had experienced repeatedly from marital and
cohabitating partners, friends, acquaintances, relatives, and strangers. The word “stalking” was not used in the survey. Researchers defined stalking conservatively—as “a course of conduct directed at a specific person that involves repeated physical or visual proximity, nonconsensual communication, or verbal, written, or implied threats” sufficient to cause fear in a reasonable person.1
The survey was fielded between November 1995 and May 1996. The national sample of households was generated through random-digit dialing; interviews averaged 25 minutes and were conducted using a computer-assisted telephone interviewing system. Of those who started the interview, 97 percent of women and 98 percent of men completed it. ..more.. by Patricia Tjaden, Ph.D., Center for Policy Research
FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH VIOLENCE IN STALKING AND
2002
Abstract:
Differentiating which stalkers represent a significant risk of violence from those who pose less risk has significant implications for victims, clinicians, and the legal system. The authors analyzed 204 stalking and harassment cases referred for court-ordered mental health evaluation in New York City between 1994 and 1998 to identify correlates of violent behavior. Violence, defined as any unwanted physical contact or confrontation with a weapon, occurred in 34% of cases, although severe violence occurred in only 12 cases. A multivariate logistic regression analysis containing five variables (age below 30, less than high school education, minority race, prior threats, and previous intimate relationship between victim and offender) was applied to an ROC analysis, yielding an area under the curve of .803. The implications of these data for risk assessment in stalking and harassment are discussed. ..more.. by BARRY ROSENFELD, Fordham University, RONNIE HARMON, Bellevue Hospital Forensic Psychiatry Clinic
Fact Sheet on Stalking
2000
Stalking: Define the Crime
Stalking is a repetitive pattern of unwanted, harassing or threatening behavior committed by one person against another. Acts include: telephone harassment, being followed, receiving unwanted gifts, and other similar forms of intrusive behavior. All states and the Federal Government have passed anti-stalking legislation. Definitions of stalking found in state anti-stalking statutes vary in their language, although most define stalking as "the willful, malicious, and repeated following and harassing of another person that threatens his or her safety" (1).
How common is Stalking?
The National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAW) is a landmark study that collected information about stalkingm a nationally representative sample of 8,000 women and 8,000 men across the United States (2). The survey found that 8% of women and 2% of men have been stalked at some time during their lives. This means that 1 out of every 12 women, and 1 out of ever 45 men have been stalked during their lives (2).
Who stalks whom?
Men commit most stalking. Four out of every five stalking victims are women (2). While, high-profile celebrity stalking cases generate considerable media attention, they are relatively rare. Most stalking occurs between people who know each other. Less than one-fourth of women, and about one-third of men are stalked by strangers. Women are most likely to be stalked by a current or former intimate partner during the relationship, after it ends, or at both points in time. ..more.. by National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center © Copyright 2000
THE TOLL OF STALKING: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FEATURES OF STALKING AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGY OF VICTIMS
December 2000
Abstract
Information on the psychological consequences of stalking on victims is scarce. Research has not reported yet about standardised measures of psychopathology or the impact of specific stalking features on victims’ psychopathology. The present study aimed to investigate whether stalking victims have a heightened prevalence of psychopathology, and the extent to which symptom levels are associated with stalking features. Stalking victims (N=246) completed the General Health Questionnaire and provided information on specific features of their stalking experiences. High levels of psychopathology were found among stalking victims. Symptom levels were comparable to those of psychiatric outpatients. Seventy-seven percent had a symptom level indicating a diagnosable psychiatric disorder. The frequency, pervasiveness, duration and cessation of stalking were associated with symptom levels, but explained only 13 percent of the variance of the level of distress. It is concluded that stalking victims generally have many symptoms of psychopathology. The symptoms are largely independent of features of their stalking experience. These findings indicate that better therapy outcomes can be expected from therapies focusing on boosting general coping skills and on decreasing general vulnerability than from therapies focusing on specifically dealing with the stalking situation.
Excerpts:
Respondents
The sample consisted of 246 victims who all reported stalking episodes over a minimum of one month, and involving more than one intrusive behaviours. Eighty-nine percent were female and 11% were male. The youngest victim was 19 years old and the oldest 82 years (M=43.5 years, SD=10.1). The majority of the victims were living alone (70%), employed (59%) and having children (76%). Twelve percent were local or national celebrities, of which one had become a national celebrity after she had killed her stalker. In 67% of the cases, there was a prior intimate relationship with the stalker, 27% were prior acquaintances and 7% of the stalkers were strangers. 87% of the victims were stalked by a male stalker.
Results
Features of stalking behaviour
All victims reported multiple stalking behaviours. Many victims reported receiving harassing telephone calls (see Table 1). More than half of these telephone calls were made at night and included continuous pleas, negative remarks, death treats or continuous silence. One victim reported approximately 50 telephone calls each day and night. Large numbers of victims reported that stalking behaviours included following, surveillance, receiving harassing letters, unwanted approach, unlawful entry in their homes, damage/theft of property, receiving threats, and physical assaults. Approximately half (52%) spontaneously reported other stalking behaviours, such as rumour spreading, ordering of goods, false accusations, injuring of pets and abduction. A small minority reported bizarre or even unlikely behaviours. One woman claimed to be stalked by her gynaecologist who “wanted to see her naked again”. Another woman claimed to be stalked by the police and by two strangers who allegedly spoke to her through the walls of her living room. A third woman claimed to be followed “everywhere, 24 hours per day by people who were never seen”. There were also some cases whereby fairly normal behaviours were reported to be stalking behaviours. For instance, one woman living nearby a dancing school claimed that groups of people were sometimes loitering nearby.
Of the ten stalking behaviours that were explored in the present study, the victims reported a median number of six stalking behaviours (Range 2-10, M=6.1, SD=1.7). Only 7 percent reported that they were not exposed to intrusive following behaviours (surveillance of victim’s home, following, unlawful entry, unwanted approach) and only 15 percent reported that they were not exposed to violent behaviours (destruction/theft of property, threats, assaults). The majority of victims reported exposure to several intrusive behaviours (Median=3, M=2.6, SD=1.2) and several violent behaviours (Median=2, M=1.6, SD=1.0). These findings indicate that the stalking behaviours were generally pervasive in the present study.
In Table 1 it can be seen that many stalking behaviours have fairly equal distributions in the different samples of victims. The vast majority of the victims in all studies reported that direct unwanted approach, following, surveillance of their homes and receiving harassing telephone calls were the most common stalking behaviours. Direct unwanted approach and physical assault appear somewhat more common in the Dutch sample, whilst receiving letters appears somewhat less common in the Dutch sample. Due to the fact that destruction of property also included theft in the Dutch study, this stalking behaviour was more common in the Dutch sample. Nonetheless, the fairly equal distributions on the different stalking behaviours indicate that to a large extent these are similar in different countries. ..more.. by E Blaauw, F W Winkel, Department of Clinical Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands, E Arensman, Division of Clinical & Health Psychology, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Prevalence and Health Consequences of Stalking
Prevalence and Health Consequences of Stalking --- Louisiana, 1998--1999
Stalking is a form of violence that may lead to physical injury or homicide and may have disabling social and psychological consequences (1,2). Although the legal definition varies among jurisdictions, all 50 states have antistalking laws (3). Louisiana defines stalking as the willful, malicious, and repeated following or harassing of another person with the intent to place that person in fear of death or serious bodily injury (4). Information is limited on the prevalence of stalking
and its impact on the victim (3,5). To gather population-based surveillance data on stalking and other forms of interpersonal violence, the Louisiana Office of Public Health conducted a random-digit--dialed telephone survey among residents regarding experiences and perceptions related to safety and violence. This report summarizes the results of the survey, which indicate that 15% of the women surveyed reported being stalked during their lifetime.
Data were collected from Louisiana residents aged >18 years on a monthly basis from July 1, 1998, to June 30, 1999. Eligible households were selected randomly from a list of possible telephone numbers that had been filtered to eliminate unused and business exchanges. The respondent interviewed from each household was selected randomly. If an eligible household refused to participate or if the desired respondent could not be reached, a substitute number was selected randomly from the list. The survey ensured confidentiality, and respondents gave informed consent
for participation.
Of 4763 eligible respondents, 1808 (38%) completed the interview; 1171 (65%) were women. This report describes the findings among women respondents. Age and race of survey participants matched the 1990 census data for Louisiana, except that women aged 18--24 years composed 8% of the survey sample and composed 14% of women in Louisiana. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 99 years (median: 46 years); 71% were white, and 28% were black, whereas among female Louisiana residents aged >18
years, 69% were white, and 29% were black. Participants were classified as having ever been stalked if they answered "yes" to the question, "Have you ever been stalked, harassed, or threatened with violence for more than one month by someone who would not leave you alone?" Women who reported having been stalked also were asked whether they had experienced physical injuries and stress-related problems and the level of fear invoked by stalking.
One hundred seventy-six (15%) women reported having been stalked during their lifetime, and 23 (2%) women reported currently being stalked. Of the 176, 132 (75%) women reported they believed the stalking to be somewhat dangerous or life threatening; of these, 89 (67%) indicated they had reported the situation to the police. Other measures reported to stop harassment included changing usual behavior (70%), moving (36%), purchasing a gun (11%), and obtaining a restraining order (11%) (Table 1). Forty-two (32%) of the 132 women reported injuries from being assaulted by their stalker, such as swelling, cuts, scratches, bruises, strains or sprains, burns, bites, broken teeth, or knife or gunshot wounds. Seventy-one (55%) women reported experiencing stress that interfered with their regular activities for >1 month.
Among the women who perceived their stalking to be dangerous or life threatening, 67 (51%) identified the perpetrators as someone with whom they had had an intimate relationship (i.e., boyfriend, former boyfriend, spouse, or former spouse); no stalking was reported among same sex partners. Forty-three (33%) women identified the perpetrator as someone known to them but other than an intimate partner (i.e.,
relative, acquaintance, friend, or other). Seventeen (13%) women were stalked by a stranger, and five (4%) were stalked by a perpetrator that they were unable to identify.
Those women who had been in an intimate relationship with their stalker were more than four times as likely to report that they had sustained an injury than those women who had not been in an intimate relationship with their stalker (35 of 67 versus seven of 60; relative risk=4.5; 95% confidence interval=2.2--9.3). None of the women who reported having been stalked by a stranger and who believed the stalking was somewhat dangerous or life threatening reported sustaining an injury.
Reported by: M Kohn, MD, State Epidemiologist, Oregon Health Div. H Flood, MPH, J Chase, MSPH, PM McMahon, PhD, Injury Research and Prevention Section, Louisiana Office of Public Health. Family and Intimate Partner Violence Prevention Team, Div of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC.
Editorial Note:
The findings in this report indicate that 15% of women surveyed in Louisiana reported having been stalked during their lifetime. Social and psychological sequelae of stalking were more prevalent than physical sequelae. More women reported experiencing stress from being stalked than experiencing physical injury.
The findings in this report are consistent with data from the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) (3); both surveys showed that stalking had adverse psychological and social consequences. NVAWS did not measure physical injuries resulting from stalking because their definition of stalking precluded physical contact; however, NVAWS separately measured physical violence and found that 81% of those reporting stalking also reported having been physically assaulted by the
same person (4).
The findings in this report are subject to at least two limitations. First, quantifying the validity of self-reports of stalking is difficult because no "gold standard" exists for comparison. Additional research is needed on experiences of violence to determine the validity and reliability of different data collection methods (e.g., face-to-face interviews, telephone surveys, and paper and pencil surveys). Second, the population surveyed may not be representative of Louisiana. Because persons without telephones were not surveyed, and because of the low
response rate, nonparticipants may differ from participants on study outcomes. However, the racial composition of survey participants was representative of the state.
The data in this report suggest that reliable estimates of stalking may be difficult to obtain using traditional data sources (e.g., health-care providers and law enforcement agencies) because 68% of the women who experienced stalking did not sustain a physical injury and 33% did not report the stalking to the police. A population-based survey may help characterize the burden of stalking and other types of interpersonal violence. However, the identification of victims in health-care and law enforcement settings also may help characterize persons at high risk for injury from stalking and enable referral of those persons for services and secondary prevention activities.
Surveillance is the basis for the epidemiologic approach to public health problems (6). If violence prevention is to be approached using the public health model, an accurate description of the problem is the first step (7). State- and local-level data on the prevalence of interpersonal violence can assist health departments in tailoring intervention programs to the specific needs and conditions in their
communities.
References
1.Meloy JR. Stalking: an old behavior, a new crime. Psychiatry Clin
North Am 1999;22:85--99.
2.Pathe M, Mullen PE. The impact of stalkers on their victims. Br J
Psychiatry 1997;170:12--7.
3.Tjaden P, Thoennes N. Stalking in America: findings from the National
Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of
Justice, and US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, April
1998; publication NCJ 169592.
4.The National Center for Victims of Crime. Stalking legislation:
Louisiana: Rev. Stat. Section 14.40.2 Stalking. 1992. Amended 1997.
Available http://www.ncv.org/law/stlk.la.htm. Accessed July 2000.
5.Fremouw WJ, Westrup D. Stalking on campus: the prevalence and
strategies for coping with stalking. J Forensic Sci 1997;442:666--9.
6.Teutsch SM, Churchill RE, eds. Principles and practice of public
health surveillance. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
7.Foege WH, Rosenberg ML, Mercy JA. Public health and violence
prevention. Current Issues in Public Health 1995;1:2--9.
TABLE 1. Characteristics of stalking among women reporting the
experience as dangerous or life threatening -- Louisiana, 1998-1999*
Characteristic No. (%)
Measures taken to stop stalking †
Changed routine 93 (70.5)
Reported stalking to police 89 (67.4)
Moved 48 (36.4)
Purchased a gun 15 (11.4)
Obtained a restraining order 14 (10.6)
Experienced physical injuries
as a result of stalking 42 (31.8)
Experienced stress
as a result of stalking § 71 (55.5)
Identity of stalker
Former or current intimate
partner acting alone 62 (47.0)
Some other known person acting alone 43 (32.6)
Former or current intimate partner
and another known person 5 ( 3.8)
Stranger 17 (12.9)
Unable to identify stalker 5 ( 3.8)
* n=132.
† Numbers may exceed total because respondents could report taking
multiple measures.
§ Four persons were excluded from this specific analysis because of
interviewer error. ..more.. by
Stalking and its effects
Pak J Med Sci. January - March 2002, 18(1) 36-41
Objective: To examine the social, occupational, psychological and emotional effects of stalking.
Method: A group of 100 subjects of stalking who attended psychiatry O.P.D. at Jinnah Hospital and Private Clinic of the authors for advice and help were included in this study.
Subject: One hundred subjects (88 females and 12 males) with age range 18-45 years from city of Lahore.
Results: Majority of the victims were subjected to multiple forms of harassment including being followed, repeatedly approached, received many letters and telephone calls for period varying from 6 weeks to 6 months. Threats were received by 58 subjects and 38 were physically assaulted; majority (94%) victims made major changes in their social and work lives with 52% having decreased work capacity and 12% moving their place of residence. Increased levels of anxiety were reported by 83%, aggressive or guilt thoughts 65%, intrusive recollections by 55%, with changes in appetite 48%, disturbance in sleep 74% and suicidal ruminations were acknowledged by 12% of the subjects. Forty seven percent full filled criteria for diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder with further 38% having the evidence of numbness to responses.
Conclusion: This study indicates the extent of the social, occupational and psychological damage sustained by the subjects of persistent stalking and underlines the inadequacy of current legal, medical responses to the needs of these subjects. ..more.. by Shamaila Ijaz Haider -and- Ijaz Haider (Have PDF Copy on Disk)
Evaluating Community Sex Offender Treatment Programs: A 12-Year Follow-Up of 724 Offenders
April 2004 Canada
Abstract
Although some studies suggest positive effects of treatment for sexual offenders, most studies have been hampered by the unknown influence of selective attrition (e.g., volunteers and drop-outs). In the 1980s, the Correctional Service of Canada began to require weekly community treatment sessions for all sex offenders released in the Pacific Region. This policy change provided a unique opportunity for comparing an unselected cohort of treated sex offenders (n = 403) to an untreated cohort (n = 321) released in earlier years. After an average 12-year follow-up period, no differences were observed in the rates of sexual (21.1% vs 21.8%), violent (42.9% vs. 44.5%) or general (any) recidivism (56.6% vs 60.4%) for treated and untreated groups, respectively. The outcome remained comparable after controlling for length of follow-up, year of release, age, and seven static risk factors coded from official criminal history records. Retrospective ratings of the treatment quality also showed no relationship to observed recidivism rates. The static risk factors coded in the current study accounted for considerable variance in recidivism and could easily be used to improve statistical controls in future evaluations. ..more.. by Hanson, R. K., Broom, I., & Stephenson, M. (2004). Evaluating community sex offender treatment programs: A 12-year follow-up of 724 offenders. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 2, 87-96.
===========
Providing treatment for sexual offenders is controversial. Narrative reviews all stress the weakness of existing studies (Furby, Weinrott, & Blackshaw, 1989; General Accounting Office, 1996; MacKenzie & Hickman, 1998), precluding strong conclusions regarding program effectiveness. The central problem concerns potential differences between the treatment and comparison groups. The standard method for minimizing differences is to randomly assign offenders to treatment and no-treatment groups; such designs, however, are difficult to implement and sustain in criminal justice settings. On average, the observed sexual recidivism rate for untreated sex offenders is approximately 15% after 5 years and 20% after 10 years (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998; Hanson & Thornton, 2000). When long follow-up periods are required, there is ample opportunity for the research design to be corrupted (e.g., "untreated" offenders receive treatment, administrative support collapses). Consequently, most sex offender treatment outcome studies were not initially designed as such; instead, they have taken advantage of "natural experiments."
The following examples illustrate the challenges faced when comparison groups are not randomly assigned. One of the early influential studies was Marshall and Barbaree's (1988) evaluation of their community treatment program for child molesters. All of the offenders were assessed at Marshall and Barbaree's clinic and all initially expressed interest in receiving treatment. The comparison group included those who subsequently decided against attending the program (e.g., lived too far away, incarcerated, no longer interested). Based on official criminal records as well as informal reports from police and child welfare agencies, the sexual recidivism rate was 13.2% for the treatment group (9/68) compared to 34.5% for the comparison group (20/58) after an average 3.5 years follow-up period. Because the offenders themselves made the decision whether to attend treatment or not, critics could argue that the differences in recidivism rates were due to pre-existing differences between the groups (e.g., lifestyle instability).
Another approach to examining treatment effects is to compare offenders released before and after the implementation of a treatment program. For example, Proctor (1996) used a cohort design that compared all the sex offenders (rapists, exhibitionists, child molesters) who started a community treatment program between 1989 and 1992 with a matched group from the same jurisdiction released between 1986 and 1989 when no treatment was available. After a fixed 5-year follow-up period (the same for both groups), the sexual reconviction rate was 5.6% for the treatment group (3/54) compared to 13.0% (7/54) for the comparison group. The difference was not statistically significant.
Proctor's (1996) study is among the better studies of treatment outcome with sexual offenders. A common problem with his study, and many similar studies, is that little information was provided concerning the screening processes by which the treatment group was selected from all potential candidates. Consequently, the "unscreened" comparison group would be expected to contain offenders who would be unable to receive treatment due to factors such as language difficulties, major mental illness, cognitive impairment, or lack of motivation. Another problem with cohort designs is that there can be systematic differences in the criminal justice response to sex offenders during different years (Friendship & Thornton, 2001).
Researchers attempt to address the threat of preexisting group differences through matching or posthoc statistical controls. Exact matching on more than two variables is difficult, and often fails in practise (Hanson & Nicholaichuk, 2000; Proctor, 1996). Posthoc statistical controls are useful, but only provide limited protection because there could always be unmeasured variables that systematically vary across groups. Statistical controls are most persuasive when they consider a wide range of variables to be related to recidivism, which is rarely observed in the existing recidivism studies.
In the absence of strong evidence, narrative reviewers have come to contradictory conclusions concerning the effectiveness of sex offender treatment effectiveness (e.g., Furby et al., 1989; Harris, Rice, & Quinsey, 1998; Polizzi, MacKenzie, & Hickman, 1999). Meta-analytic reviews (Gallagher, Wilson, Hirshfield, Coggeshall, & MacKenzie, 1999; Hall, 1995; Hanson et al., 2002) offer a number of advantages over the earlier qualitative, narrative reviews. By explicitly defining the criteria upon which the studies are aggregated, reviewers can transform their subjective impressions into hypotheses open to empirical scrutiny. As well, given that single studies typically lack the statistical power to detect small effects, many apparent inconsistencies can often be attributed to the chance fluctuations expected among studies with varying sample sizes (Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2000).
Hall's (1995) meta-analysis included 12 studies that appeared after Furby et al.'s (1989) narrative review. In contrast to earlier reviews, Hall only considered studies that compared a treatment group to a comparison group. Hall reported a small, positive treatment effect, with the most effective treatment being cognitive-behavioural and hormonal. One major limitation of this study was that the observed treatment effect was mainly derived from comparisons between treatment completers and noncompleters (Hall). Given that men who fail to complete treatment are younger, less educated, and more antisocial than treatment completers (Wierzbicki & Pekarik, 1993), critics have interpreted Hall's study as further evidence of the stability of individual differences in recidivism potential (Harris et al., 1998).
In the next major meta-analysis, Gallagher et al. (1999) examined 22 studies (25 treatment comparisons). Gallagher et al., like Hall (1995), found a significant treatment effect for cognitive-behavioural treatment, but did not find an effect for hormonal treatments. Gallagher et al. focused on the best available studies, but some of these studies had significant threats to validity. For example, some of the studies involved comparisons between treatment completers and treatment drop-outs, and others were preliminary reports contradicted by later versions.
The first report of the Collaborative Data Project (Hanson et al., 2002) examined all the relevant studies in the Hall (1995) and Gallagher et al. (1999) reviews, as well as many recent studies (42 usable studies; 20 published, 22 unpublished). Hanson et al. focused on two questions: 1) To what extent could the different research designs (e.g., random assignment, incidental assignment, drop-outs versus completers) inform the evaluation of treatment effectiveness? and 2) What was the evidence for treatment effectiveness given the best available research designs and treatment programs that meet current standards? In response to these questions, Hanson et al. found that studies comparing treatment drop-outs to completers consistently found higher recidivism rates among the treatment drop-outs - regardless of the type of treatment received. Such a finding confirmed previous concerns that the results of drop-out studies are largely determined by selective attrition of high-risk cases rather than by differences in the amount of treatment received. Surprisingly, Hanson et al. did not find any difference in the sexual recidivism rates between offenders who explicitly refused treatment and those who volunteered.
There were too few random assignment studies (k = 3) to make meaningful conclusions about this method. Consequently, most of the results of the Hanson et al. (2002) meta-analysis were based on matching/incidental assignment studies. In incidental assignment studies (k = 17), the comparison groups were selected from offenders in which there were no a priori reasons to expect differences from the treatment group. Based on the random and incidental assignment studies, Hanson et al. found a significant difference between the older (pre-1980) forms of treatment and the current treatment programs for sexual offenders. Current treatments (cognitivebehavioural and systemic) were associated with significant reductions in sexual (17% to 10%) and general recidivism (51% to 32%) after 4-5 years of followup. No treatment effects were found for older treatments (purely behavioural, unspecified psychotherapy).
The Hanson et al. (2002) study said very little about which current forms of treatment are most effective. Sex offender treatment has evolved during the last decades based partly on theory (e.g., Laws, 1989), and partly on progress made in the "what works" literature for general offenders (e.g., Andrews et al., 1990; Losel, 1995). For general offenders, programs that target criminogenic needs are skills based, and are delivered in a manner consistent with the learning styles of the offenders, are most effective (Andrews et al.; Losel). There has been insufficient research to know whether the features important for treating general offenders are also important for treating sexual offenders. Recent treatment approaches for sexual offenders find stronger treatment effects than the earlier studies, but such changes could also be attributed to general changes in the offenders, the victims, or the criminal justice system during the past 20 years.
Reviews are only as good as the studies that go into them. Almost all of the studies in the sex offender treatment reviews were secondary analyses of natural experiments. Given the difficulties associated with random assignment studies, it is likely that our information about sexual offender treatment will be based on such natural experiments for many years to come. Consequently, it is important that researchers using "incidental" assignment studies carefully address potential threats to validity in order to contribute to knowledge of sexual offender treatment.
During the late 1980s, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) implemented a policy of mandatory treatment for all sexual offenders released in the Pacific Region (British Columbia). The systematic introduction of the Community Sex Offender Program (CSOP) provided a unique opportunity to observe the potential effects of treatment with minimal concerns about selection biases (CS/RESORS, 1991). A limited amount of treatment had been offered to sex offenders in the Abbotsford Regional Treatment Centre since 1972. It was not until 1983 that sex offender specific group treatment was offered in the community (CS/RESORS, 1991). After the local CSOP start date, all sex offenders received weekly sex offender treatment until the end of their sentences (no attrition without re-incarceration). The initial comparison between offenders released before, and released after, the program suggested little overall differences in the recidivism rates (CS/RESORS, 1991). The CSOP treatment providers varied, however, in orientation. The most promising results were associated with well-managed, cognitive-behavioural programs that rigorously targeted sex offence specific issues (Stephenson, 1991).
The current research built on the original evaluation of the CSC community treatment program operated in the 1980s. The original CSOP evaluation was promising, but the follow-up period for the original study was too short (less than 4 years) to justify strong conclusions. In the present study, the followup period was extended to 12 years, with sufficient increases in the recidivism base rates/statistical power to detect moderate to small treatment effects (see discussion by Barbaree, 1997). The current study also improved upon the previous CSOP evaluation (and most other sex offender treatment evaluations) by controlling for several relevant risk factors, including time-at-risk, year of release, treatment quality, age, and seven static risk factors derived from official criminal records.
Method
Participants
Participants were the complete sample of male sexual offenders released between 1980 and 1992 onto community supervision in the Pacific Region of Correctional Service of Canada. Of the 870 cases in the original CSOP roster, valid follow-up information was obtained for 724 unique cases. Duplicate cases were excluded by randomly selecting one release date as the index offence. Also excluded were cases with release dates prior to 1980, cases with no identifiable sexual or violent offence linked to index date, and cases in which no criminal history records could be matched to the identifying information. All the men had received a sentence of two years or more for an explicitly sexual offence (contact offence against adults or children) or for an offence with a sexual motivation (e.g., sexually motivated assault). Participants were divided into two groups: treated (n = 403) and comparison (n = 321). Groups were assigned based on the year of implementation of the CSOP treatment programs. The comparison group included offenders whose release date occurred prior to the CSOP program implemented in their specific location (1980-1991). The treated group comprised offenders released after the implementation of the program (1981-1992). Treatment in this context refers only to the CSOP program; some offenders received treatment during, or prior to, incarceration, although the amount of other treatment was unknown.
As dictated by the research design, the comparison offenders were released, on average, about 1.5 years earlier than the treated offenders (see Table 1). The average age of the two groups was similar (37-38 years old). Unexpectedly, the treated offenders were at higher risk to re-offend than the comparison offenders, as indicated by the number of prior sexual offences.
Procedure
The CSOP treatment was provided by nine different therapists (psychologists) contracted by the Correctional Service of Canada. Table 2 provides an overview of these programs according to geographic region. The type of treatment delivered by each therapist was consistent within region, with the exception of Program D, in which the therapists adopted divergent approaches (psychodynamic versus cognitive-behavioural).
Treatment quality. Ratings of treatment quality (better or worse) were based on detailed information collected during the original evaluation conducted in 1990/1991 (CS/RESORS, 1991), as well as telephone interviews conducted in 2002 with five of the nine service providers. The original evaluations included reviews of program descriptions along with interviews of both therapists and offenders. The recently conducted telephone interviews, lasting approximately one hour, closely followed CSC Accreditation Criteria (CSC, 1998). These criteria are intended to identify programs that are likely to have an effect on reducing criminal recidivism:
a) the treatment must be based on an explicit, empirically based model of change;
b) the problems addressed in the program must be related to criminal behaviour (criminogenic needs);
c) the amount of treatment received must be sufficient;
d) the program must be delivered in a manner consistent with the learning styles of the offenders (responsivity);
e) the methods used for delivering treatment must be proven to be effective with offenders;
f) offenders should learn new skills;
g) there should be a continuity of care such that offenders have opportunity for follow-up practice and booster session; and
h) there must be mechanisms in place to monitor program integrity, protect against therapist burn-out, and prevent program drift.
The CSC Accreditation Criteria were closely modeled after those developed by Her Majesty's Prison Service (England and Wales), which were based on meta-analytic reviews of "what works" in correctional treatment for general offenders (Lipton, Thornton, McGuire, Porporino, & Hollin, 2000). In addition to the ratings based on the accreditation criteria, ratings of program quality were also provided in the original CSOP evaluation (CS/RESORS, 1991). Given that the international accreditation criteria were not available in 1991, the criteria used in the original evaluation were as follows: a) the treatment orientation must be predominantly cognitive-behavioural, but other techniques should be included; b) treatment should also address factors relating specifically to sexual offending such as deviant sexual drive, crime cycle, pathway to the offence, relapse-prevention, and awareness of factors increasing risk to re-offend, and c) the program must focus on countering denial. Both the original and the accreditation approaches sorted the providers into two groups ("better" and "worse") with relatively little difference within the groups. Comparison between the original and current ratings found that the group placement was identical for eight of the nine providers (Kappa = .78).
It is interesting to note, however, that none of the programs would have met current CSC Accreditation Criteria. The most common weaknesses concerned a lack of mechanisms for controlling program drift, and an insufficient dose of treatment (treatment time was confined to the time remaining in the offenders' sentences).
Recidivism
Recidivism information was based on official police records obtained in October 1999, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC). The RCMP records contain all indictable convictions in Canada, and may contain summary convictions as well as charges that did not result in convictions. Three types of recidivism were examined: sexual, violent, and general (any) recidivism. Sexual recidivism was defined as any charge or conviction for a sexual offence committed after the index offence. Violent recidivism included any charge or conviction for nonsexually violent or sexual offences. Sexual and nonsexual violent offences are commonly combined in sexual offender research because it gives a policy-relevant measure of "serious" recidivism (e.g., Dempster & Hart, 2002). General criminal recidivism included a charge or conviction for a sexual, violent, or nonviolent offence. Parole revocations were not included unless they were accompanied by new charges.
Control Variables
Static risk instrument. Given observed differences in prior criminal history between the treatment and comparison groups (see Table 1), some method was required to control for pre-existing differences on static risk variables. Although it would be desirable to use an established risk instrument, the only information that was consistently available were the offenders' ages and criminal records. Consequently, a risk scale was created that included age and criminal history items from Static-99 (Hanson & Thornton, 2000) and Static-2002 (Hanson & Thornton, 2003): age greater than 25, any conviction for noncontact sex offence, index conviction for nonsexual violence, any conviction for prior nonsexual violence, four or more prior sentencing dates, prior sex offence (using Static99 coding), any breach of conditional release, and less than 4 years at liberty prior to index conviction. All items were scored as "0" or "1" except for the number of prior sex offences (0-3). The maximum total score of the instrument was 10 (alpha = .62). This risk instrument was significantly related to sexual recidivism (AUC of .63), violent recidivism (AUC of .70), and general (any) recidivism (AUC of .74).
Release dates. Initial analyses searched for systematic differences in recidivism rates based on the year released. Given that the offenders released early were at liberty longer than offenders released later, these analyses used a fixed 7-year follow-up period (the minimum follow-up period). In other words, if an offender was released in 1990 and first re-offended in 1998, he would be considered a nonrecidivist because the follow-up period was more than 7 years. The year of release showed small negative correlations with recidivism among both the treatment and comparison groups. For the treatment group, the correlations were -.06, -.02, and -.08 with sexual, violent, and general recidivism, respectively. For the comparison group, the correlations with sexual, violent, and general recidivism were -.06, -.03, and -.12, respectively. Only for the comparison group was the correlation between any recidivism and year released statistically significant. Nevertheless, the direction of all correlations indicated that those released early were more likely to be identified as recidivists than those released later (a bias favouring the treatment group). Given that this pattern could be the result of selective attrition of old, inactive records (see Hanson & Nicholaichuk, 2000), year of release was included as a control variable.
Planned Analyses
This study comprised two main sets of comparisons. First, the overall effect of treatment was examined for the treatment and comparison groups. Second, the treated group was divided into those who received "better" and "worse" treatment. Group differences in recidivism rates were identified using proportional hazard survival analyses (Allison, 1984). Survival analysis has the advantage of controlling for time-at-risk, while examining how recidivism rates are influenced by categorical variables (e.g., treated or not) or continuous variables (e.g., risk scores). Proportional hazard analyses were conducted using the Cox Regression procedure from SPSS for Windows Version 10.0 (SPSS, 1999). In this study, offenders were censored if they did not re-offend or if they were lost to follow-up by being continuously incarcerated for another type of offence.
Similar to logistic regression, exponents of the Cox regression weights can be interpreted as odds ratios. For example, given relatively low base rates, an odds ratio of .50 would mean that the observed recidivism rate of the treatment group would be approximately half the recidivism rate of the comparison group (Fleiss, 1994). In our tables, odds ratios less than 1 indicate a positive effect of treatment, while odds ratios more than 1 indicate the treatment group did worse than the comparison group. When the 95% confidence interval contains 1.00, the differences between the groups should not be considered statistically significant. For continuous variables, the odds ratio represented the relative change in recidivism rates for each unit increase in the predictor variable.
Results
After an average follow-up time of 12.5 years (ranging from 7 to 14 years), the sexual, violent, and general recidivism rates were 21.4%, 43.6%, and 58.2%, respectively (total sample size of 724 for all analyses). Based on the complete follow-up period, the unadjusted sexual recidivism rates were 21.1% (85 out of 403) for offenders who received treatment compared to 21.8% (70 out of 321) for the comparison group (odds ratio of .96, 95% C. I. of .67-1.37; see Table 3). The violent (42.9% vs. 44.5%) and general (56.6% vs. 60.4%) recidivism rates were also similar for the treatment and comparison groups. None of these differences approached statistical significance. Given that the treatment group had a shorter followup time (M = 11.7 years, SD = 1.9) than the comparison group (M = 13.2 years, SD = 2.7), Table 3 also reports the recidivism rates after a fixed 7-year follow-up period. Again, none of the differences were statistically significant (sexual recidivism: odds ratio of 1.07, 95% C. I. of .70 to 1.61; violent recidivism: odds ratio of 1.14, 95% C. I. of .83 to 1.56; general recidivism: odds ratio of .98, 95% C. 1. of .73 to 1.32).
The next set of analyses (see Table 4) control for individual differences in static risk factors and for the year of release. Cox regressions were calculated for each outcome criteria (sexual, violent, any) using three predictor variables: static risk score (0-10), release date (year), and treatment condition (1 = CSOP; O = comparison). Risk was significantly related to all three recidivism criteria (p
The second set of comparisons examined the recidivism rates of those who received "better" and "worse" treatment. The overall recidivism rates for those who received better treatment were not significantly different than the rates for those who received worse treatment: unadjusted overall sexual recidivism rates of 18.5% versus 21.8%, violent recidivism rates of 35.9% versus 45.1%, and general recidivism rates of 54.3% and 57.5% for those who received better versus worse treatment, respectively (see Table 5). When Cox regression was used to control for time-atrisk, year of release, and static risk scores, the differences between the groups were still nonsignificant. Contrary to expectation, the direction of the effect now favoured those who received the "worse" treatment: The odds ratio was 1.23 for sexual recidivism, 1.03 for violent recidivism, and 1.34 for general recidivism (see Table 6).
Discussion
This study had two aims. The first aim was to evaluate a specific sex offender treatment program and thereby contribute to the cumulative knowledge of treatment effectiveness. The second aim was to demonstrate ways to improve upon previous cohort studies. The major virtue of the current study was the continuous, unselected sample - an opportunity rarely available. The other innovations, however, can be easily applied in cohort designs. Researchers can check whether the recidivism rates vary according to year released, and they can control for a substantial amount of the individual differences in risk level by using a simple scale coded from criminal history records.
The treatment program examined in this study did not appear to be effective in reducing recidivism. Although some analyses slightly favoured one group or the other, the differences between the treated and untreated groups was virtually zero after controlling for year of release, follow-up time, and static risk factors. The sample size was sufficiently large (300 to 400 in each group) that the 95% confidence intervals rule out any large effects of treatment in this sample. Given that the absolute differences in the 7-year recidivism rates was only + 0.8% for sexual recidivism, + 2.9%) for violent recidivism, and - 0.4% for general recidivism, it is reasonable to conclude that the overall program did not have any meaningful effect on recidivism rates. The average sexual recidivism rate (21 4% after 12.5 years) was similar to that found in samples of untreated sexual offenders (e.g., 22% after 10 years in Hanson & Thornton, 2000).
Examination of the individual treatment programs did not yield any significant differences in recidivism rates. Treatment programs that were judged to approximate contemporary standards had slightly better outcomes than the "worse" programs (median odds ratio of .87), but any apparent effects disappeared after controlling for risk (median odds ratio of 1.23). Limited confidence, however, can be placed in the judgments of treatment quality given that they were based on the summaries completed for the previous evaluation (CS/RESORS, 1991) and telephone interviews conducted more than 10 years later. Nevertheless, the information was sufficient to determine that none of the programs would meet CSC's current accreditation standards. The intensity of treatment was determined by sentence length, not the offenders' criminogenic needs. As well, none of the programs had formal methods for monitoring treatment delivery or systematically evaluating treatment gains.
The study does not allow conclusions about what was effective or ineffective in the CSOP interventions. The findings do suggest, however, that some highly plausible interventions may have little overall effect. The CSOP program was well regarded at the time, and the initial evaluation was encouraging (Stephenson, 1991). Given that very similar programs are still being offered in other jurisdictions, we still have much to learn about how best to intervene with sexual offenders.
The findings of the current study contrast with the positive effects of cognitive-behavioural treatment found in previous reviews (Gallagher et al., 1999; Hanson et al., 2002). No single study is sufficient to determine whether treatment works or not. Those inclined to believe that treatment is effective will emphasize that the interventions examined in the current study did not meet contemporary standards; those inclined to doubt the effectiveness of treatment will emphasize the methodological weaknesses in the other studies that have shown positive treatment effects. The current study is unique, to our knowledge, for the lack of selection bias in the treatment and comparison groups. Understanding of sex offender treatment will advance as individual studies improve, and the cumulative results of these studies are meaningfully integrated through meta-analyses.
Another objective of the current study was to demonstrate practical ways of improving commonly used cohort designs. These studies compare treated sex offenders to an untreated group released prior to the implementation of the treatment program (e.g., Bakker, Hudson, Wales, & Riley, 1999; Martin, 1998; Proctor, 1996). Assuming equal follow-up times, there is no a priori reason for expecting group differences; however, such difference may still exist due to yearby-year variation in the sample or in the response of the criminal justice system. Friendship and Thornton (2001), for example, found substantial differences in sexual offender reconviction rates based on the year of release.
In the current study, two opposing cohort effects were detected: a) offenders released in earlier years were more likely to be recidivists than those released later (controlling for follow-up time and static risk); and b) those released later were higher risk on static risk factors than those released earlier. The first cohort effect could be attributable to the selective attrition of inactive records (Hanson & Nicholaichuk, 2000). The second cohort effect awaits explanation, but does suggest that sexual offenders in CSC changed during the 1980s. Both effects, however, reinforce the need to consider the potential changes (other than the introduction of treatment) that could influence the typical cohort design. The information needed to conduct these analyses is readily available, if rarely used.
The current study addressed these cohort effects by statistically controlling for follow-up time, year of release, and eight static risk factors. Although any number of unmeasured factors could still be influencing the results, these control variables accounted for a significant amount of variability of the recidivism criteria. Given the case with which they can be collected, routine consideration of these (or similar) control variables should be considered the minimum requirements for future studies of sexual offender treatment outcome.
References
Allison, R D. (1984). Event history analysis: Regression for longitudinal event data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A psychologically informed metaanalysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404.
Bakker, L., Hudson, S., Wales, D., & Riley, D. (1999). "And there was light": An evaluation of the Kia Marama treatment programme for New Zealand sex offenders against children. Unpublished report. New Zealand.
Barbaree, H. (1997). Evaluating treatment efficacy with sexual offenders: The insensitivity of recidivism studies to treatment effects. Sexual Abuse: A journal of Research and Treatment, 9,111-128.
Correctional Service of Canada (August, 1998). Criteria for program accreditation. Ottawa, ON: Author.
CS/RESORS Consulting (1991). An evaluation of community sex offender programs in the pacific region. Report presented to the Correctional Service Canada Regional Headquarters (Contract no. 21803-0-A602/01-XSB). Vancouver, BC: Author.
Dempster, R. J., & Hart, S. D. (2002). The relative utility of fixed and variable risk factors in discriminating sexual recidivists and nonrecidivists. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14,121-138.
Fleiss, J. E. (1994). Measures of effect size for categorical data. In H. Copper & L. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 245-260). New York: Sage.
Friendship, C., & Thornton, D. (2001). Sexual reconviction for sexual offenders discharged from prison in England and Wales. British Journal of Criminology, 41, 284-292.
Furby, L., Weinrott, M. R., & Blackshaw, L. (1989). Sex offender recidivism: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 3-30.
Gallagher, C. A., Wilson, D. B., Hirschfield, P., Coggeshall, M. B., & MacKenzie, D. L. (1999). A quantitative review of the effects of sex offender treatment of sexual reoffending. Corrections Management Quarterly, 3,19-29.
General Accounting Office (1996). Sex offender treatment: Research results inconclusive about what works to reduce recidivism. Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives. Washington, DC: LS. General Accounting Office.
Hall, G. C. N. (1995). Sexual offender recidivism revisited: A meta-analysis of recent treatment studies, journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 802-809.
Hanson, R. K., Gordon, A., Harris, A. J. R., Marques, J. K., Murphy, W., Quinsey, V. L., & Seto, M. C. (2002). First report of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of psychological treatment for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 169-194.
Hanson, R. K., & Nicholaichuk, T. (2000). A cautionary note regarding Nicholaichuk et al. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 12, 289-293.
Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2000). Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behaviour, 24,119-136.
Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2003). Notes on the development of Static-2002. User Report 2003-01. Ottawa, ON: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Quinsey, V. L. (1998). Appraisal and management of risk in sexual aggressors. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4, 73-115.
Laws, D. R. (1989). Relapse prevention with sex offenders. New York: Guilford Press.
Lipton, D. S., Thornton, D., McGuire, J., Porporino, F. J., & Hollin, C. R. (2000). Program accreditation and correctional treatment. Substance Use & Abuse, 35,1705-1734.
Losel, F. (1995). The efficacy of correctional treatment: A review and synthesis of meta-evaluations. In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending guidelines from research and practice (pp. 79-111). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
MacKenzie, D. L., & Hickman, L. J. (1998). What works in corrections? An examination of the effectiveness of the type of rehabilitation programs offered by Washington Department of Corrections: Report to the State of Washington Legislature Joint Audit and Review Committee. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.
Marshall, W. L., & Barbaree, H. E. (1988). The long-term evaluation of a behavioral treatment program for child molesters. Behavioural Research and Therapy, 26, 499-511.
Martin, I. (1998). Efficacite; d'un programme cognitif-behavioral institutionnel pour delinquants sexuels. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Montreal, Quebec.
Polizzi, D. M., MacKenzie, D. L., & Hickman, L. J. (1999). What works in adult sex offender treatment? A review of prison- and non-prison-based treatment programs. International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology, 43, 357-374.
Proctor, E. (1996). A five-year outcome evaluation of a community-based treatment program for convicted sexual offenders run by the probation service. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 2, 3-16.
Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2000). Meta analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 59-82.
SPSS Inc. (1999). SPSS advanced models W.O. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
Stephenson, M. (1991). A summary of an evaluation of the community sex offender program in the Pacific region. Forum on Corrections Research, 3(4), 25-30.
Wierzbicki, M., & Pekarik, G. (1993). A meta-analysis of psychotherapy dropout. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 24,190-195.
Received January 17, 2003
Revised August 7, 2003
Accepted October 2, 2003
R. KARL HANSON, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada
IAN BROOM, Carleton University
MARYLEE STEPHENSON, CS/RESORS Consulting Ltd.
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.
Correspondence should be addressed to R. K. Hanson, Corrections Research, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, 340 Laurier Avenue, West, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A OP8 (E-mail: hansonk @sgc.gc.ca).
Copyright Canadian Psychological Association Apr 2004
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved
