Evidence on pedophiles doesn't support concerns

6-7-2008 Australia:

Emotion should not be the main determinate in managing sex offenders.

YESTERDAY it was reported that Australian Federal Police had arrested 70 people since April as part of Operation Centurion, the nation's biggest anti-pedophile investigation. A few days earlier, Derryn Hinch named two sex offenders released under the state's Extended Supervision Order scheme and was possibly in violation of a suppression order imposed by the courts.

While there is no information yet to suggest that any of the people recently arrested had previous convictions, both cases raise important issues about the management of sex offenders and the rights of victims and offenders as well as the broader interests of the community.

Sex offenders are often seen as the most dangerous kind of offender. Their crimes have a devastating impact on their victims. There is great community concern about the risk that if they are released they will commit more offences.

On the one hand are people who believe that sex offenders should never be released from prison. However, if released under some form of supervision, they are of the view that the community needs to know who these sex offenders are and where they live so that they can protect their children.

Sometimes that "protection" can be taken to extremes. In October 2006 the house of a suspected pedophile was burnt to the ground by people who were never caught. The demands for "naming and shaming" should not be another way of ensuring that sex offenders are never released into the community, regardless of expert and judicial assessments of the risks of reoffending.

On the other hand there are those who argue that the best way to protect the community from sex offenders who have finished their sentence is to ensure that they are properly rehabilitated. This is a difficult and emotive debate. But decisions about the best way to protect the community and to reduce reoffending should be based on evidence, not emotion.

Researchers and professionals who treat sex offenders have been studying the recidivism (reoffending) rates of sex offenders for many years and have amassed a large body of evidence.

And this evidence is clear: recidivism rates of sex offenders are much lower than people often think. Even the highest estimates of recidivism rates show that most sex offenders do not reoffend.

Last year the sentencing council asked its senior criminologist, Dr Karen Gelb, to examine the research on sex offenders and collect the best studies on recidivism and the treatment of sex offenders.

Many of the findings are well known, though sometimes counter-intuitive. First, it is known that the stranger is not the main danger. An Australian Bureau of Statistics study of victims of crime found that almost half of the victims of child sexual offences were sexually abused by a relative and about a third by an acquaintance. Only 11% were abused by a stranger.

A Queensland survey of prisoners convicted of offences against children found that 57% were living with the victim when they committed the offence.

Second, although ascertaining recidivism rates for sex offenders is highly problematic because many offences are not reported to police, surveys of victims and offenders and official statistics all point to the same conclusion - that reoffending among sex offenders is much lower than for other types of crime.

These results are similar in other parts of the world. Overall, about 14% of sex offenders go on to commit another sexual offence. Property offenders have a nearly 50% recidivism rate.

Third, the research also indicates that recidivism rates vary over time. Those who commit child sex offences against girls have a 9% recidivism rate over five years, which reaches 16% after 15 years. In relation to offences against boys, the rate varies from 23% after five years to 35% after 15 years. Offenders who are 50 or older when released from prison have lower recidivism rates than those under 50.

Finally, and again possibly contrary to public understandings, the evidence shows that sex offender treatment programs, especially those in the community, can significantly reduce recidivism rates. An analysis of many studies of the treatment of sex offenders has found that the average recidivism rate for treated offenders was 12% and for untreated offenders was 17%. Another study that focused on child sex offenders found that treated offenders had a 14% recidivism rate, compared to a 26% recidivism rate for untreated offenders.

We have to be careful about how we think of sex offenders, especially those who commit offences against our children. Yes, these represent some of the worst and most devastating crimes that have a life-long impact on the victims. These offenders must be appropriately punished for their crimes and the courts are handing down long sentences.

But in deciding on the best way to protect the community, we need to keep in mind what the evidence shows us: that sex offenders do not inevitably reoffend and that treatment of sex offenders, especially in the community, can have a significant impact. As The New York Times observed recently, the explosion of recent laws relating to sex offenders is as much about managing public fear as it is about managing actual risks and rehabilitating people.

Good decisions are not based on emotion alone. They are also based on evidence.

Arie Freiberg is chairman of Victoria's Sentencing Advisory Council. ..News Source.. by Arie Freiberg