9-8-2008 National:
Every so often someone dismisses a sex offender study on grounds that make no sense, today we have such a case. The sex offender study is about recidivism (of former sex offenders), and first time sex offenders (former non sex offenders), the study: "Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994" (198281) published by the Department of Justice in November 2003. Follow highlighting of former sex offenders and former non sex offenders.
The claim:Now, on to relevant issues:
This study is no good because it doesn't address registered sex offenders and non sex offenders. Given it does address non sex offenders which I'll explain in a minute, I cannot see why it should address registered sex offenders. The reason is simple, the study includes newly released prisoners in 1994, followed for three years, and the majority of the states did not even have a registration requirement back then.
To the commenter below mentioning additional stats which the USDOJ could have used. Those stats are not relevant to prisoners released in 1994 and followed for three years (94, 95 and 96), nor would those stats change anything in this study. Should the commenter be thinking, the study should have addressed JUST THOSE REGISTERED AT THE TIME, please see "The Iowa Sex Offender Registry and Recidivism, 2000, which found no difference in recidivism before or after the registry. If I am missing something please get back to me. I'm always open to new thoughts and corrections.
This is an excellent study because of who it covers (target subjects). That year there were 272,111 prisoners released from prison in 15 states (Arizona, Maryland, North Carolina, California, Michigan, Ohio, Delaware, Minnesota, Oregon, Florida, New Jersey, Texas, Illinois, New York, and Virginia). Of the 272,111 prisoners 9,691 were former sex offenders and that represented 2/3rds of all released sex offenders in the nation that year. This study included ALL of them, and that makes this study unique.
Here is the breakdown of released prisoners(pg-7):
9,691 Sex Offenders Released
262,420 Other Offenders Released
272,111 Total Offenders Released
Those are KEY facts showing the study covers former sex offenders and former non sex offenders (others offenders). Anyone in prison for a crime other than a sex offense is a former non sex offender.
Who commits more sex crimes, former sex offenders -or- former non sex offenders?
First, a overall recidivism chart created from statistics in the study:
Now, most folks will claim, but sex offenders are 4 times more likely to commit a sex offense than a non sex offender after being released from prison. True, that is what the study says, but thats only PART of what the study says, see:
Rearrest for a new sex crime: Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime. Within the first 3 years following their release from prison in 1994, 5.3% (517 of the 9,691) of released sex offenders were rearrested for a sex crime. The rate for the 262,420 released non-sex offenders was lower, 1.3% (3,328 of 262,420).(pg-7)
Now, notice the under lined portion, that talks about non sex offenders, those who were in prison for other offenses (former non sex offenders). REVELATION, former non sex offenders -after release- went on to commit first time sex offenses, thats a fact!
Statistics can play tricks on one's mind: Notice, 5.3% of the former sex offenders were rearrested for a new sex crime while only 1.3% of the former non sex offenders were rearrested for a sex offense. Sounds like the real bad guys are the former sex offenders, right? WRONG, lets change those percentages into real numbers (real sex crimes): 5.3% = 517 sex crimes, and, 1.3% = 3,328 sex crimes IN THE SAME TIME PERIOD! So, former sex offenders committed 517 sex crimes -and- former non sex offenders committed 3,328 sex crimes. Study that, let it sink in, then look at the chart above. Shocking enough?
Who should society be more concerned about?
The laws targeting former sex offenders MAY prevent some recidivism, but lawmakers have totally ignored the group causing the majority of NEW sex crimes by former prison inmates. Now, for every ONE sex crime committed by a former sex offender, there are SIX sex crimes committed by former non sex offenders.
That folks is something lawmakers simply ignore, and focus on former sex offenders. Now, consider this, all those NEW sex crimes committed by former non sex offenders, is causing further public and lawmaker hysteria of former sex offenders!
What distinguishes this study from many other recidivism studies?
Sex offender recidivism studies can be misleading because often a study will look at a SPECIFIC SUB GROUP of sex offenders, and ignore other sub groups. Frequently, a speaker will latch on to such a study and claim it pertains to ALL sex offenders, and in so doing distorts the truth.
This DOJ study FIRST looks at ALL sex offenders released and provides recidivism statistics that way. So, remember, when discussing ALL SEX OFFENDERS then the overall rates can be used and will be correct.
Now Subgroups: When a study looks at "rapists" or "child molesters" or "pedophiles" or "adult molesters" or "statutory rapists" or "Romeo and Juliet" cases, or "Lolita" cases, or "stranger" cases, or just high profile cases, or other sub groupings of sex offenders, then they are looking for something about that sub group.
Yes, these are different groupings of sex offenders, and when subgroups are addressed. it EXCLUDES all other sub groups of sex offenders. This is done to generate specific stats which is normal if the researcher has a reason to do so, but remember, sub group recidivism rates CANNOT be used when speaking of ALL SEX OFFENDERS.
How are subgroups formed?
Well, the facts of the crime dictates what subgroup an offender will fall into, and an offender can fall into more than one subgroup.
Scenario-1: Suppose a offender commits a sex crime against a minor which the offender does not know. The offender would be a "child molester" and also be grouped as a "stranger" case. If the offender knew the victim or was part of the daily life of the victim, then it would not be a "stranger" case
Scenario-2: Suppose John and Mary are dating and having sex, Mary is a minor and John turns 18. This is tricky because both before and after John turns 18 he is a "child molester" according to the law, because Mary cannot give consent under the law. Now this is also what is known as a "Romeo & Juliet" case hence different subgroups.
Scenario-3: Suppose Sam is attracted to young children and has downloaded hundreds of pictures of child pornography, given those facts he would be a "pedophile." However, suppose Peter, also attracted to children, but has been going to a psychiatrist and has been diagnosed as suffering from "pedophilia" using the DSM-IV (Code 302.2) which is described in the DSM-IV) but has not committed any offense against a child. Is he a "pedophile," yes. Now, suppose George a RSO having committed ONE sex crime against a child and lives down the street from you. Is he a "pedophile," no. George's case does not show facts to indicate he is a "pedophile." i.e., a preference for children (one time conviction, without additional facts, fails to show a preference).
A problem with the dictionary definitions of pedophile: Some are misleading and define "pedophile" as one who prefers sex with children -and others- as one who commits a sex crime with a child (lacking "preference" this may be incorrect).
Failing to include some context of "preference" (which supports the DSM-IV definition), -or- in the case of child pornography above which shows a preference, i.e., downloaded many pictures of child porn. Pedophiles prefer!
Now, is John (the one who was dating Mary above) a pedophile? Given the above facts, no, he is a person in a dating relationship and ab scent facts showing a improper preference for children, he is not a pedophile. So before labeling someone a "pedophile" you need to know facts of the case, lest you be wrong. With all that said, "pedophiles" are one subgroup of sex offenders.
Scenario-4: Now, suppose Luke is attracted to and prefers girls who are about 14-17, he is known as a "EPHEBOPHILE: An adult affected with ephebophilia (age attraction 14-17)." Age is where we get into a problem because "children" in most of today's laws means someone under 18, but in the psych world pedophiles are mostly associated with prepubescent children. This point with be argued for years to come and never settled one way or the other; I'll let it rest here.
I could go on and on with subgroups of sex offenders but I need to get back to the study.
Does the DOJ Study Address ANY subgroups of sex offenders?
Yes, the DOJ addressed subgroups which were important to the public. Before looking at which subgroups a note is important: No other study -bar none- has put the subjects under the microscope and analyzed them, six ways to Sunday as they say, as this study has. That is why this study has more value than any other study at this time.
The DOJ analyzed offenders' crimes and found they fall into the following subgroups (remember, some offenders -based on the facts of their crime- may fall into more than one subgroup, so the sum of the following will be greater than 9,691, total released):
3,115 were rapists;
6,576 were sexual assaulter;
4,295 were child molesters;
443 were statutory rapists.
Now I am going to focus on one subgroup, child molesters, and my reason is, because ALL new laws governing sex offenders nationally, is driven by the cry of "to protect children." Again, from statistics provided in the DOJ study the following chart was compiled to pull together recidivism rates as to children:
This chart shows us that 2.2% of all sex offenders released from prison, and followed for 3 years, went on to be rearrested for a new sex crime against a child. The chart shows the breakdown of that number.
Now, remember my earlier comment "Who should society be more concerned about?", released sex offenders -or- released non sex offenders. The DOJ found that released non sex offenders go on to commmit MORE NEW SEX OFFENSES than released sex offenders.
Well, get ready top be shocked again, released non sex offenders go on to commit approximately FIVE new sex offenses to every ONE committed by a released sex offender AGAINST A CHILD. See the chart, released sex offenders committed 213 new sex crimes against children, BUT, released non sex offenders committed 1,042 in the same time period (3 years).
A fact revealed by the Department of Justice which lawmakers are aware of and do nothing about, non sex offenders are more dangerous to the community!
Residency type laws: Laws prohibiting residing, loitering, etc., within xx feet of schools, playgrounds, parks, day cares, churches and other places where children MIGHT congregate, are targeted to the group LEAST LIKELY to commit a crime against a child. Lawmakers permit other released offenders to reside and enter these areas, and do nothing about them. Why are lawmakers so blind?
Internet Restrictions: Lawmakers are passing laws to gather up e-mail addresses and other Internet IDs and some even go after the paswords. Again, the cry is to protect children! Which released offender is MOST LIKELY to commit a crime against a child? Right, non sex offenders, the statistics prove that. Lawmakers still do nothing with respect to released non sex offenders and Internet restrictions. Again, why are lawmakers so blind?
Parks: Lawmakers are pasing laws and ordinances to prohibit all sex offenders from entering parks. Which released offender is MOST LIKELY to commit a crime against a child? Right, non sex offenders, the statistics prove that. Lawmakers still do nothing with respect to released non sex offenders and parks. Again, why are lawmakers so blind?
So my question is simple, if non sex offenders released from prison are causing 86.6% of all new sex offenses, and, 83% of all new sex crimes against children, why do lawmakers do nothing about this? The evidence is in lawmakers hands, they ignore it. Why?
I'll take an answer from anyone, that is a logical answer.
eAdvocate
7 comments:
Very well done and documented, thanks. Now we need to just send this to all the legislature so they see the TRUTH, which I doubt they will want to see in the first place.
I sent the link to this study, along with a copy of the recent Alaskan study which used the same 3 year template as the fed study, to two of the more liberal lawmakers in my state. They ignored it.
Very good job on this issue. However you stated they did not have sex offender registrys when this study was done. That is true however the USDJ would know who was in Prison for a sex offense as would the states. Under the Uniform reporting requirement for the USDJ wich has been in place since the early 70's or before every state must report crimes to the US Dept. of Justice using uniform reporting requirements. Also each state with a little extra work could report on returned to prison population. They could also report on those charged with a new crime but not convicted, because once you have gone to a county lock up, State Prison or a Federal Prison you have a specail number assigned to your name. Using that number or the Law Enforcement Information Network they could see if you were charged with a new crime, convicted or not. Again this would take some work to pull all this information together. Tim
IF YOU LOOK AT THE OUTRAGEOUS DETAILS OF MR MARK FOLEY AND HOW HE SOMEHOW AVOIDED PROSECUTION, YOUR STATS PROVE A NEW NOT DISTURBING FACT, THE BEST WAY TO AVOID SICK BEHAVIOR IS TO BAIT AND SWITCH IT AND FORCE THE MASSES TO LOOK IN THE OTHER DIRECTION.
TODAY IT HAS BECOME COMMON PRACTICE TO DECEIVE THE PUBLIC FOR OTHERS OWN AGENDAS AND TO KEEP THE FOCUS, ILLEGALLY, ON OTHERS IN ORDER TO HIDE THEIR, WHAT I CALL; SNEAKY, SNEAKY!
MARK
One can't merely forward the study to someone. This takes real public affairs finesse. Articulate, well groomed, knowledgeable spokespersons must go in person, build relationships of trust, establish credibility. Only then can one's voice be heard. I know, I've been there. It works. (And don't forget to pray :)
So my question is simple, if non sex offenders released from prison are causing 86.6% of all new sex offenses, and, 83% of all new sex crimes against children, why do lawmakers do nothing about this? The evidence is in lawmakers hands, they ignore it. Why?
I'll take an answer from anyone, that is a logical answer.
The obvious answer is that nobody votes based upon logic and facts; they vote based on emotions. Those running and rerunning for political office are quite cognizant of this fact.
Former
I appreciate this article very much. I am a registered sex offender tier 2.
My case started is Pennsylvania. In municipality #1, I was arrested without Probable Cause (I didn't even committing a crime) in Violation the Fourth Amendment and Pa Rules of Criminal Procedure 502. Officers took me and two females back to the Station to investigate.
After interviewing them for four hours, I was released. However, not to my car. I was taken by municipality #2 while still in munic #1's jurisdiction In Violation of the Fourth Amendment and 42 Pa.C.S. 8953. After sitting for an hour at muni #2's station, I was questioned by a cop. Based upon my statement, which was not incriminating, I was charged with crimes under PA Law that would not have held up in court and more importantly were not sex crimes. The next day the muni #2 turned over my statement to the FBI.
I was indicted on a Federal Sex offense. After doing my own research in jail, I discovered the unlawaful arrests and presented this to my Federal Public Defender. She agreed that I had meritorious grounds for suppression and that after the evidence was suppressed the case would have to be dismissed. So she filed for 2 more continuances.
I paid $15,000 for a lawyer to argue the suppression. After 6 months of his "services" I filed the motion myself on my own behalf. Few days later he went to the Federal judge and cancelled MY motion that I filed myself, which he has no right to do. The judge allowed this without any proof that I consented, which I didn't. I have proof that he cancelled the motion so I would take the plea deal.
This violated my right to effective assistance of counsel and the judge violated my right to procedural due process. I received 19 months time-served and Lifetime Supervised Release with 25 years of sex offender registration.
i filed a Habeas Corpus (28 U.S.C. 2255)which the judge denied. I requested permission to appeal. I have lost my life to the system. Unable to even look at the old Wal-Mart greeters in the face without thinking "they saw me in the paper, or on the news."
My entire family was in town for the Fourth of July and I couldn't go to the beach with them because I'm a sex offender. I can't go to a park for sledding in the winter with my nephews and nieces because I'm a sex offender. i can't go their school plays or baseball games. I can't have a girlfriend if she has a kid. i had to quit my Delivery job at Domino's Pizza because a "concerned citizen" called the cops and my Probation Officer because I'm a sex offender. That was the same night I started.
Yet, after all of this, I'm considered to be a high-risk of recidivism by Congree, the Courts, Prosecutors and this Sex Offender Therapist that I'm court-ordered to see. Put yourself in my shoes. Would you honestly commit another sex offense after going through this? If you would, is it because you have nothing to live for so you might as well go back to prison?
Great Article! Thanks for the information on Recidivism.
Post a Comment