12-1-2011 Michigan:
Can you be a peeping Tom without leaving your own house?
Dr. Howard Weinblatt is about to find out.
Weinblatt is a 65-year-old Ann Arbor pediatrician whose life, until last week, was unblemished by allegations of criminal or ethical wrongdoing of any kind.
But on Tuesday, the Free Press and other news organizations reported that the Washtenaw County prosecuting attorney had accused Weinblatt of watching through a window as a 12-year-old girl undressed.
I happened to be on the phone with my wife when the news of Weinblatt's arrest appeared on my computer screen, and I read her the first couple of paragraphs of the story.
"Creep," she muttered.
And what parent wouldn't second that emotion, armed with the same cursory facts? We have a 10-year-old daughter of our own. And the image that conjured itself in my wife's head, and my own, was of a depraved old man lurking in bushes outside his victim's house, his silhouette invisible against the darkness as she prepared to bathe or go to sleep in her brightly illuminated room.
Except that Weinblatt apparently wasn't in anyone's bushes on the four occasions last month when he is alleged to have "surveilled an unclothed person," a felony punishable by up to two years in prison. He was in his own home looking out his own window and into a window of his neighbor's house.
And if merely looking into somebody's house from somewhere outside the owner's property is a crime, then it's one I (and every other man who ever walked a dog, went for a bike ride, or slipped out for a smoke after dark) have committed, probably more than once.
Where's the beef?
I know what you're thinking: Surely there's more to the Weinblatt case than that. And I and a lot of other dog owners certainly hope you're right.
But neither the Washtenaw prosecutor's office nor the Ann Arbor police are saying much about the case beyond the boilerplate criminal complaint prosecutors issued last week.
On Wednesday, I asked Washtenaw Prosecutor Brian Mackie's spokesman, Steve Hiller, to confirm that Weinblatt was being charged for surveilling that took place from his own home, without the aid of a telescope, binoculars, or a still or video camera.
"We don't want to comment beyond what we say in the complaint," he said.
Well, I continued, where does the complaint say the defendant was standing when he allegedly spied on his neighbor?
"It doesn't," Hiller said. (Mackie didn't respond to my voicemail seeking elucidation of this cryptic response.)
Larry Margolis, an Ann Arbor lawyer retained by Weinblatt, insisted in an e-mail that all the prosecutor's allegations "are limited solely to conduct allegedly occurring within the confines of his personal residence." Nor, he added, has anyone asserted that his client used a scope or camera to spy on his neighbor.
A new frontier?
Neither Margolis nor Mackie's spokesman could cite a previous case in which an alleged peeping Tom was successfully prosecuted for taking in the view from his own house. "We're researching that very question," Margolis said.
Not that any of this matters much: How many people are going to lead their children into the examination room of a pediatrician who has been charged with ogling naked little girls, even if those allegations are ultimately debunked, reduced or abandoned?
Still, it seems preposterous on its face to suggest a man should or could go to prison for watching anything that unfolds in the next door neighbor's window, absent some evidence that he choreographed it himself.
Although, just to be on the safe side, I'm going to talk to the dog about walking herself. ..Source.. by Brian Dickerson
December 1, 2011
Brian Dickerson: If the blinds were open, was it a crime to look?
March 16, 2008
When Do Courts Think Base Rate Statistics Are Relevant?
April 2001:
ABSTRACT
Sometimes courts regard probability evidence to be relevant and sometimes they do not. This paper identifies a set of the conditions under which appellate and supreme courts are more and less likely to treat background probabilities (i.e., base rates) as relevant evidence. Base rates identify the relative frequency with which an event occurs or an attribute is present in some reference population (e.g., “eighty to eighty-five percent of child sexual abuse is committed by a close relative”). Following an introductory section that reviews the relationship between base rates and Bayes’ theorem, the following section is a critical review of the historical mistrust courts have exhibited toward probability evidence in general and base rates in particular. Next, the probabilistic reasoning literature and high court opinions are used to identify a series of conditions under which courts are likely to view base rates as relevant. This tends to occur when base rates (a) arise in cases that appear to have a statistical structure, (b) are offered to rebut an it-happened-by-chance theory, (c) are computed using reference classes that incorporate specific features of the focal case, or (d) are offered in cases when it is difficult or impossible to obtain evidence of a more individuating sort. The final section is a conclusion. ..more.. by Jonathan J. Koehler, The University of Texas at Austin, McCombs School of Business and School of Law
January 23, 2008
Homicides of Children and Youth
Excerpt p-10: Must read pgs 8-11 for details.
Source:Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reporting Data: U.S. Supplementary Homicide Reports 1980–1997. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, 1997 [machine-readable data files].
October 2001:
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is committed to improving the justice system’s response to crimes against children. OJJDP recognizes that children are at increased risk for crime victimization. Not only are children the victims of many of the same crimes that victimize adults, they are subject to other crimes, like child abuse and neglect, that are specific to childhood. The impact of these crimes on young victims can be devastating, and the violent or sexual victimization of children can often lead to an intergenerational cycle of violence and abuse. The purpose of OJJDP’s Crimes Against Children Series is to improve and expand the Nation’s efforts to better serve child victims by presenting the latest information about child victimization, including analyses of crime victimization statistics, studies of child victims and their special needs, and descriptions of programs and approaches that address these needs.
Murders of children and youth, the ultimate form of juvenile victimization, have received a great deal of deserved publicity in recent years.1 Yet, while images of Polly Klaas and student victims at Columbine High School are vivid in the public’s mind, statistics on juvenile murder victims are not. Substantial misunderstandings exist about the magnitude of and trends in juvenile homicide and the types of children at risk of becoming victims of different types of homicide.
This Bulletin gives a brief statistical portrait of various facets of child and youth homicide victimization in the United States. It draws heavily on homicide data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHRs), which are part of the Bureau’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program; however, it also relies on a variety of other studies and statistical sources.
Highlights of the findings presented in this Bulletin include the following:
u In 1999, about 1,800 juveniles (a rate of 2.6 per 100,000) were victims of homicide in the United States. This rate is substantially higher than that of any other developed country.
u Homicides of juveniles in the United States are unevenly distributed, both geographically and demographically. Rates are substantially higher for African American juveniles and for juveniles in certain jurisdictions. Yet, 85 percent of all U.S. counties had no homicides of juveniles in 1997.
u Homicides of young children (age 5 and younger), children in middle childhood (ages 6 to 11), and teenagers (ages 12 to 17)2 differ on a number of dimensions, suggesting that they should be analyzed separately.
u Most homicides of young children are committed by family members through beatings or suffocation. Although victims include approximately equal numbers of boys and girls, offenders include a disproportionate number of women. Homicides of young children may be seriously undercounted.
u Middle childhood is a time when a child’s homicide risk is relatively low. Homicides of children in middle childhood show a mixed pattern. Some result from child maltreatment and others from the use of firearms. Some are sexually motivated, and some are committed as part of multiple-victim family homicides.
u Homicides of teenagers, most of which involve male victims killed by male offenders using firearms, rose dramatically in the late 1980s and early 1990s but have declined sharply since 1993. ..more.. by David Finkelhor and Richard Ormrod
January 21, 2008
Behavioral Perspectives on Child Homicide
2001
Abstract:
This article reviews existing research on the topics of child abduction and child homicide and attempts to identify and assess potential victim risk factors through a discussion of victim access, vulnerability, and routine activities theory. For example, are children of certain ages or genders more likely to be targeted by offenders? Who are the offenders in child homicides and what are the relationships between the offenders and their victims? Does motive or crime technique differ between offenders who have familiarity with victims versus those who are strangers? Ecological perspectives on child homicide are also discussed, including the concepts of competition, predation, and developmental victimology. Research that addresses these questions directly benefits law enforcement personnel, social workers, and forensic scientists actively working child homicide cases, and social scientists involved in the formulation of child homicide prevention programs and policies. In addition, this information helps improve prevention programs designed to protect children, helps children protect themselves, and provides potential avenues for identifying offenders in such cases. ..more.. by MONIQUE C. BOUDREAUX, University of California, Los Angeles; WAYNE D. LORD, Federal Bureau of Investigation; JOHN P. JARVIS, Federal Bureau of Investigation
July 28, 2007
Recidivism: A Fruit Salad Concept in the Criminal Justice World
Recidivism: A Fruit Salad Concept in the Criminal Justice World
May 2001
Statisticians produce seemingly “scientific” studies of recidivism. Correctional administrators sometimes brag about new programs that drastically reduce recidivism. Program staff present reports to their bosses that describe the success and failure of their programs in terms of recidivism. Politicians have had occasion to use the public pulpit to express dismay about recidivism. But in reality, the numbers to which they refer are often as dissimilar as apples, oranges, and grapes. Recidivism is a fruit salad concept in the criminal justice world.
“Recidivism” and “failure” are not always synonymous when talking about offender programs. “Recidivism,” as defined by Webster’s Dictionary is “a tendency to slip back into a previous criminal behavior pattern.”1 “Failure,” on the other hand, is a broad term that often encompasses both relapse into criminal behavior and the exhibition of non-criminal behavior that is unacceptable in correctional programs. For example, an offender may fail in a drug treatment program because he or she refuses to participate appropriately in group counseling. Although no crime involved, the person may be dropped from the program and counted as a failure. The discussion that follows only deals with recidivism.
In developing an understanding of recidivism, three concepts should be examined: (1) what is counted as recidivism, (2) what is time frame of recidivism, and (3) what is the basis for making sense of the information on recidivism? ..more.. by Allen R. Beck, Ph.D.
July 13, 2007
FBI Develops Eavesdropping Tools
11-22-2001 Washington Post:
WASHINGTON –– The FBI is going to new lengths to be sure it can eavesdrop on high-tech communications, secretly building "Magic Lantern" software to monitor computer use.
Separately, the agency is urging phone companies to change their networks for more reliable wiretaps in the digital age.
At a conference Nov. 6 in Tucson, Ariz. – and in a 32-page follow-up letter sent about two weeks ago – the FBI told leading telecommunications officials that increasing use of Internet-style data technology to transmit voice calls is frustrating FBI wiretap efforts.
The FBI told companies that it will need access to voice calls sent over data networks within a few hours in some emergency situations, and that any interference caused by a wiretap should be imperceptible to avoid tipping off a person that his calls might be monitored.
The Magic Lantern technology, part of a broad FBI project called "Cyber Knight," would allow investigators to secretly install over the Internet powerful eavesdropping software that records every keystroke on a person's computer, according to people familiar with the effort.
The software is somewhat similar to so-called trojan software already used illegally by some hackers and corporate spies. The FBI envisions one day using Magic Lantern to record the secret unlocking key a person might use to scramble messages or computer files with encryption software.
The bureau has been largely frustrated in efforts to break open such messages by trying different unlocking combinations randomly, and officials are increasingly concerned about their ability to read encrypted messages in criminal or terrorist investigations.
The FBI said in a statement Wednesday that it can not discuss details of its technical surveillance efforts, though it noted that "encryption can pose potentially insurmountable challenges to law enforcement when used in conjunction with communication or plans for executing serious terrorist and criminal acts."
The FBI added that its research is "always mindful of constitutional, privacy and commercial equities," and that its use of new technology can be challenged in court and in Congress.
Magic Lantern would largely resolve an important problem with the FBI's existing monitoring technology, the "Key Logger System," which in the past has required investigators to sneak into a target's home or business with a so-called sneak-and-peak warrant and secretly attach the device to a computer.
In contrast, Magic Lantern could be installed over the Internet by tricking a person into double-clicking an e-mail attachment or by exploiting some of the same weaknesses in popular commercial software that allow hackers to break into computers. It's unclear whether Magic Lantern would transmit keystrokes it records back to the FBI over the Internet or store the information to be seized later in a raid. The existence of Magic Lantern was first disclosed by MSNBC.
"If they are using this kind of program, it would be a highly effective way to bypass any encryption problems," said James E. Gordon, who heads the information technology practice for Pinkerton Consulting and Investigations Inc. "Once they have the keys to the kingdom, they have complete access to anything that individual is doing."
At least one antivirus software company, McAfee Corp., contacted the FBI on Wednesday to ensure its software wouldn't inadvertently detect the bureau's snooping software and alert a criminal suspect.
Experts said the FBI software could be used with a court order against criminals, terrorists or foreign spies. People familiar with the project, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the package is being developed at the FBI's electronic tools laboratory, the same outfit that built the bureau's "Carnivore" Internet surveillance technology.
Some experts said Magic Lantern raises important legal questions, such as whether the FBI would need a wiretap order from a U.S. judge to use the technology. The government has previously argued that the FBI can capture a person's computer keystrokes under the authority of a traditional search warrant, which involves less oversight by the courts.
"It's an open question whether the covert installation of something on a computer without a physical entry requires a search warrant," said David Sobel, a lawyer with the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center, a civil liberties group. ..more.. by Ted Bridis, Associated Press Writer
See also: Shedding Light On The FBI's 'Magic Lantern' By Paul Eng, ABCNEWS.com 12-22-1
See also: Feds use key logger to thwart PGP, Hushmail by CNet News.com 7-10-2007
See also: Keystroke Logging and the Constitution by Tech Insider 7-11-2007
July 7, 2007
Recidivism of State FY96 Prison Releases in Iowa, 2001
2001
Abstract
This report presents recidivism data on offenders released from Iowa prisons during State FY1996 (July 1, 1995 – June 30, 1996). ..more.. by Human Rights, Department of.
Recidivism
2001
Preface to the Internet Edition
I started working in the general area of recidivism and correctional measures over 20 years ago, under the assumption that I would be able to make some marginal changes in the measurement of recidivism. What has happened has been quite gratifying. The primary yardstick of the time, the “one-year recidivism rate,” has generally (but not completely) been replaced with measures based on survival analysis, as suggested by this book. It was also gratifying to have the book receive awards in two fields, criminal justice (the Leslie T. Wilkins Book Award) and operations research (the Lanchester Prize). Despite this, the book has been out of print for a number of years, prompting me to retrieve the copyright from Academic Press and publish it on the Internet.
During this period the software environment has changed to a great extent: the FORTRAN programs listed on pp. 206-222 are included more for the sake of historical curiosity than out of any expectation that they will be used. In addition, the use of Cox regression procedures in survival analysis has made the search for covariates simpler than as described in Chapter 10. [However, those who use Cox regression techniques should be aware that, even though it is a nonparametric method, it makes the implicit assumption that the hazard rate of each individual is the same as for that of all other individuals, except for a multiplicative constant.]
One concern that I had at the time I initially wrote this book, and which I still have, is the penchant of some social scientists to use only the standard methods they learned in graduate school, without considering the conditions under which they can and cannot be used. They appear to be wary of going beyond the “tried and true” (or in some instances, “tired and false”) methods.
This is in some sense equivalent to a shoe salesman attempting to sell a size 9 shoe to a person with a size 8 foot, because it’s the only size available. My growing concern about the misuse of methods was detailed in a paper published in November 1994, in the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, “Deviating from the Mean: The Declining Significance of Significance,” and elaborated on in subsequent articles in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology. This book can be used as a primer on how to deal with a measurement problem, by first considering how it has been dealt with in the past, and then attempting to fashion a method based on the characteristics of the problem.
A note on this version: I have tried to keep the same text on this version as on the printed page, so that the index would not have to be redone. This has meant that some of the pages are longer than others. I’ve also taken the opportunity to correct some of the typos; however, as anyone who has scanned material into a computer, new errors are often introduced – one cannot expect the character recognition to be correct everywhere. I would appreciate it if those who find mistakes would communicate them to me Other than that, this version is the same as the original. ..more.. by Michael D. Maltz, Department of Criminal Justice and Department of Information and Decision Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago
July 3, 2007
Juveniles Who Have Sexually Offended: A Review of the Professional Literature
March 2001 NCJ 184739
Executive Summary
Introduction
Sexual abuse is widely recognized as a significant problem in society, and the scope of the problem may be underestimated because juvenile sex offenders who are known to the system may represent only a small proportion of juveniles who have committed such offenses. Studies of adult sex offenders suggest another dimension of the problem: many of these offenders began their sexually abusive behavior in their youth.
The costs of sex offending are substantial for victims and society and for the young offenders and their families. To minimize these costs, timely and appropriate interventions are needed. A review of the professional literature suggests, however, that programs designed to meet the perceived needs of these young offenders frequently apply knowledge and interventions designed for adult offenders without considering developmental issues and needs unique to juveniles.
Characteristics of Juveniles Who Have Committed Sex Offenses
Juveniles who have committed sex offenses are a heterogeneous mix (Bourke and Donohue, 1996; Knight and Prentky, 1993). They differ according to victim and offense characteristics and a wide range of other variables, including types of offending behaviors, histories of child maltreatment, sexual knowledge and experiences, academic and cognitive functioning, and mental health issues (Knight and Prentky, 1993; Weinrott, 1996).
Offending Behaviors
Sexually abusive behaviors and sex offense characteristics. Sexually abusive behaviors range from noncontact offenses to penetrative acts. Offense characteristics include factors such as the age and sex of the victim, the relationship between victim and offender, and the degree of coercion and violence used.
Nonsexual criminal behavior. Juvenile sex offenders frequently engage in nonsexual criminal and antisocial behavior (Fehrenbach et al., 1986; Ryan et al., 1996). A national survey found that most of the 80 juveniles who disclosed sexually assaultive behavior had previously committed a nonsexual aggravated assault (Elliot, as cited in Weinrott, 1996). ..more.. by Sue Righthand -and- Carlann Welch
June 30, 2007
Summary of State Sex Offender Registries, 2001
2001 NCJ 192265:
This factsheet updates the original Summary of State Sex Offender Registries: Automation and Operation 1998. It summarizes information on the status of sex offender registries in the 50 States and the District of Columbia as they operated in February 2001. Information is presented on the organizational location of the State registries, number of offenders in the registries; their level of automation and capability to receive, store, and transmit fingerprints; whether DNA samples are included in registration procedures; and community notification procedures including use of the Internet to post information on registered offenders.
Background and overview
In March 1998 the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) established the National Sex Offender Registry Assistance Program (NSOR-AP).
As a component of the National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP), NSOR-AP assists States in meeting the requirements of the Wetterling Act (Pub. L. 104-145, 110 Stat.1345), as amended by Megan's Law, and the Pam Lychner Act (Pub. L. 104-236, 110 Stat.3093). The program also provides assistance to allow States to participate in the FBI's permanent National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR). The congressional appropriation in 1998 was $25 million. Subsequent funding was provided under the ongoing NCHIP program.
Under NSOR-AP, a project was initiated in April 1998 to survey the States to evaluate the status of State sex offender registries (SOR's) and to identify priority areas, before the awarding of funds. The survey findings were published in a web-only format and are available on the BJS website at
1999 update
Pursuant to section 902 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998, Congress directed the Attorney General to study the feasibility of establishing a national hotline to access the FBI's sex offender registry. In support of this study, BJS was asked to contact the States a second time for an update of their sex offender registry dissemination procedures to reflect conditions as of May 1999.
BJS asked the States to provide information on all existing State notification systems, and also to describe any use of the Internet, CD-ROM's, and hotlines to disseminate information to the public on registered sex offenders.
Of particular interest were those procedures used to disseminate information on sexual predators, or the highest risk offenders in each State's registry.
The report Summary of State Sex Offender Registry Dissemination Procedures, Update 1999, a BJS Fact Sheet, was published in August 1999 and is on the BJS website at
Summary of State sex offender registries, update 2001
In February 2001, BJS contacted the States for a third time to obtain information on the operation of their sex offender registries. In addition to updating procedures relating to community notification, the States were asked to update information on the overall operation and automation of the SOR's. Responses were received from all 50 States and the District of Columbia. Once the information was updated, a draft was sent to the States for final review.
Location of State sex offender registries
In 17 States, the State police (patrol or troopers) were responsible for operating and maintaining the registry. The department of public safety (DPS) was responsible in 11 States. The office of the attorney general operates the registry in six States, and the department of corrections is responsible in three States. In the remaining States some other defined criminal justice agency is responsible for the SOR.
Number of offenders in the registry
Several factors in the authorizing legislation significantly influenced the size of any particular State registry, among them are included the number of different offenses requiring registration, the date that "triggers" the registration mandate, and the duration of the registration requirement. (For example, California includes all adults convicted in a California court of a covered offense since 1944.)
In February 2001, there were approximately 386,000 convicted sex offenders registered in 49 States and the District of Columbia. The number of offenders in individual State Registries ranged from 473 registrants in Maine to 88,853 registrants in California (this represents about a 14% increase in the California registry in a 3-year period), with the registry median being approximately 4,100 offenders.
The legal status of registries was a factor affecting the counts of registered sex offenders. Massachusetts' information is not included in the 386,000, because at the time the survey was conducted a superior court injunction was in place against the Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB), prohibiting registration without first providing the sex offender a hearing. The injunction was appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court. On June 28, 2001, the court concluded that the SORB can require an offender to provide his home and work address prior to providing the offender a hearing to determine whether or not the offender has to register. Under the ruling the SORB may also transmit this data, and other data regarding the offender, to police departments. However, the information may not be disseminated to the public until the board classifies the offender and the offender has an opportunity to challenge the recommended classification at an administrative hearing. Massachusetts estimates that there are about 17,000 offenders identified as qualified to register.
Comparatively, in April 1998, approximately 277,000 convicted sex offenders were registered in 49 States and the District of Columbia. (At the time the survey was conducted in 1998, Connecticut did not have a centralized sex offender registry and thus did not provide information on the number of registered offenders.) ..more.. by
June 27, 2007
Age and Sexual Recidivism: A Comparison of Rapists and Child Molesters
Table 1 shows all the underlying studies used. However, those studies are based on varying "Recidivism Criteria" sometimes convictions or charges or readmissions to prison. Many of these are not even crimes.
Further, the total sample size (4,673) includes 1,137 (24%) from a already questioned California study of civil commitment persons. i.e., already known to be recidivists. Such slants the statistics making the study not a good cross section of all sex offenders.
In addition, two of the underlying studies are from 1976 and 1983 released inmates who had no therapy programs available to them. Again slanting the input towards known recidivists.
2001:
Abstract
This study examined the relationship of age to sexual recidivism using data from 10 follow-up studies of adult male sexual offenders (combined sample of 4,673). Rapists were younger than child molesters and the recidivism risk of rapists steadily decreased with age. In contrast, extrafamilial child molesters showed relatively little reduction in recidivism risk until after the age of 50. The recidivism rate of intrafamilial child molesters was generally low (less than 10%), except for the intrafamilial offenders in the 18 to 24 year old age group, whose recidivism risk was comparable to that of rapists and extrafamilial child molesters. The results are discussed in terms of developmental changes in sexual drive, self-control, and opportunities to offend. ..more.. by R. Karl Hanson
Department of the Solicitor General Canada
June 26, 2007
The Decline in Child Sexual Abuse Cases
January 2001:
Introduction:
Of all crimes against children, sexual abuse has arguably captured the greatest share of attention from child advocates, professionals, policymakers, and the general public. During the 1980’s, increasing numbers of victims were identified each year (American Association for the Protection of Children, 1988) and concerns about this crime intensified. However, a dramatic shift in child sexual abuse trends has occurred. Data from child protective services (CPS) agencies across the country indicate that the increases of the 1980’s were followed by an extensive period of marked declines in the 1990’s. Unfortunately, little effort has been expended to uncover the reasons why fewer cases of child sexual abuse have been identified each year. The decline in child sexual abuse cases is being highlighted as a part of OJJDP’s Crimes Against Children Series to illustrate the importance of tracking and investigating trends in child victimization. This Bulletin uses data from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) and the Annual Fifty State Survey conducted by Prevent Child Abuse America to present evidence about the decline in reported and substantiated child sexual abuse cases since the early 1990’s. Several explanations for the decline are considered, and corresponding policy implications are discussed.
Highlights
The analysis of child sexual abuse cases presented in this Bulletin reveals the following:
Substantiated cases of child sexual abuse decreased from a national estimated peak of 149,800 cases in 1992 to 103,600 cases in 1998, a decline of 31 percent.
A decline in substantiated cases has occurred in the majority of States, with no clear regional pattern. Out of 47 States with complete data, 36 recorded a decline of more than 30 percent since their peak year. The average decline for all States was 37 percent.
For most States, the decline was gradual, rather than abrupt, and occurred over several years.
Although cases of other types of child maltreatment have also declined in recent years, the decrease in child sexual abuse cases has been more marked. Substantiated cases of physical abuse declined 16 percent from a 1995 peak, compared with a 31-percent decline in child sexual abuse cases.
In addition to the decline in the number of substantiated cases, child sexual abuse reports also decreased from an estimated 429,000 in 1991 to 315,400 in 1998, a 26-percent decline.
Possible explanations for the decline include a real underlying decline in the incidence of child sexual abuse or changes in attitudes, policies, and standards that have reduced the amount of child sexual abuse being reported and substantiated. It is possible that both of these processes are affecting trends in child sexual abuse. ..more.. by Lisa Jones and David Finkelhor
The Geographic Link Between Sex Offenders and Potential Victims: A Routine Activities Approach
2001:
Abstract
Despite the publicity surrounding several high-profile sex offender incidents in the 1990s, relatively little research has been done on sex offenders themselves. This article reports on a study of sex offenders in one Arkansas county who had children as victims. Specifically, we examined the relationship between where the offenders live and where children congregate to see whether offenders choose to reside in areas with high concentrations of children. We use routine activities theory as a foundation for explaining our results, and conclude with a discussion of the policy implications of the findings. ..more.. by Jeffrey T. Walker -and- James W. Golden -and- Amy C. VanHouten
Justice and Research Policy
June 23, 2007
Three State Recidivism Study
September 2001:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Correctional Education Association conducted the Three State Recidivism Study for the United States Department of Education Office of Correctional Education. The study was designed to see if education, independent of other programs, could have significant impact on the behavior of inmates after release. Data on about 3,200 inmates, who were released from Maryland, Minnesota and Ohio prisons in late 1997 and early 1998, are reported in this longitudinal study. The research design, which uses educational participation while incarcerated as the major variable, measures the impact of education while incarcerated on post release behavior, primarily recidivism and employment. The states pooled their data in a format that allows for individual state as well as aggregate reports. Within each state the correctional, parole and probation, education and work force agencies cooperated in the data collection.
When the study began each state determined 1,000 or more people about to be released from their state prisons. This type of research design, called a release cohort, provides for a framework with internal control groups.
The research tools were designed by a number of correctional researchers. The Pre-Release Survey was developed to gather information from the inmates themselves on factors closely correlated with criminal behavior. These included information on socio-economic factors, criminal behavior, family life, educational experiences and work history. The Educational/Institutional Data Collection Form contained questions that included criminal behavior, demographic information, institutional behavior and education history during incarceration. The Parole/Release Officer Survey contained questions designed to collect data on subsequent criminal behavior, employment and educational experiences. Post Release Criminal History Data was collected to measure recidivism. Employment data was collected to find out about the kinds of jobs and the amount of wages earned after release.
Inmates, about to be released, were assembled in the various institutions where the Pre-Release Survey was administered by trained staff. Those who did not want to take the survey were excused. The refusal rate was very low. Inmates put their answers on scan sheets. Criminal history and educational data from the education and correction records were collected from the various agencies using the Educational/Institutional Data Collection Form in either an electronic or a scan sheet format. After release the parole officers were sent the Parole/Release Officer Survey for behavioral, educational and employment information for the ex-offenders under their supervision. In two states, the state departments of labor were able to contribute Employment Data for post release employment and wage information. Finally, re-arrest, re-conviction and re-incarceration data were collected from state Criminal History Data files. The federal Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics commonly uses these three areas to describe recidivism.
All the information obtained from the surveys and state databases were entered into one large database to allow for individual state and aggregate reports. Over 500 variables were collected on each of the study participants, resulting in a very large quantity of information. There are demographic data on family and community background, economic status and employment, educational experience, offender perspectives on education and motivational factors that correlate highly with criminality as well as educational, correctional and criminal history. This is the first study to collect extensive information from the inmates themselves.
Another unique aspect of the study is the collection of individual wage data from two of the states labor databases. Data was collected from each state, but only Maryland and Minnesota was useable. The Ohio data was in a format that could not be read by the researchers.
The analysis of the data indicates that inmates who participated in education programs while incarcerated showed lower rates of recidivism after three years. For each state the three measures of recidivism, re-arrest, re-conviction and re-incarceration were significantly lower. The employment data shows that in every year, for the three years that the study participants were followed, the wages reported to the state labor departments were higher for the education participants compared to the non-participants.
The following report narrates the overall design, execution of the study, data analysis, discussion of the results and conclusions. ..more.. by Dr. Stephen J. Steurer -and- Dr. Linda Smith -and- Dr. Alice Tracy, Correctional Education Association
June 19, 2007
AGE AND SEXUAL RECIDIVISM
May 2001:
Question: Does the risk of sexual offending decrease with age?
Answer: On average, the rate of sexual recidivism decreased with age. The effect was not large and the patterns were different for rapists, extrafamilial child molesters and intrafamilial child molesters (incest offenders). For rapists, the highest risk age period was between 18 and 25 years, with a gradual decline in risk for each older age period. There were very few old rapists (greater than age 60) and none were known to recidivate sexually. In contrast, the highest risk period for extrafamilial child molesters was between the ages of 25 and 35, with only modest declines in their recidivism risk until after the age of 50. Incest offenders were less likely to recidivate than either rapists or extrafamilial child molesters; however, incest offenders in the 18 to 25 year age group were among the offenders most likely to sexually reoffend. The observed pattern of results is consistent with developmental changes in sexual drive, self-control, and opportunities to offend. ..more.. by R. Karl Hanson, Ph.D., Solicitor General Canada Study available
May 30, 2007
Child abuse and the media
[[[[[SNIP]]]]]
NAMING AND SHAMING
Identifying the perpetrators
Throughout the Western world, awareness of child sexual abuse has led to action by members of the public to draw attention to horrific crimes against children (Goddard 1997a). British newspapers have carried many articles on the dangers created for children when convicted child sex offenders are released from prison. The British media demonstrated that they were prepared to identify or "out" the perpetrators. A selective review (Goddard 1997a) demonstrated that tabloid newspapers carried particularly graphic studies.
The Liverpool Echo on 17 June 1997, for example, devoted almost its entire front page to an "exclusive" by Jason Teasdale (1997) to the effect that a "convicted paedophile" would soon be released. Broadsheet newspapers, for example The Guardian, also carried such stories. Interestingly, The Guardian, exactly one week earlier, had carried the news that this particular man was to be released, under the headlines "In a few days this man, a convicted child rapist, will be released. Police say he is ‘incredibly dangerous’. Should you be told if he moves in next door?", and "Nightmare on any street" (Bowcott and Clouston 1997). The story in The Guardian was accompanied by a photograph of the man, who had been detained after being found carrying a bag of books and toys. He admitted to the police that he was searching for a child (Bowcott and Clouston 1997).
The Guardian story summarised the issues in its opening: "Newspapers are ‘outing’ paedophiles and their homes are consequently being fire-bombed. Do child molesters deserve a second chance after they have served their sentences? Or has the public the right to know when such a menace moves in next door? (Bowcott and Clouston 1997: 2)
The role of newspapers in "outing" convicted child molesters is examined in another piece in the same paper by Gary Younge (1997). Paul Horrocks, acting editor of the Manchester Evening News, a paper described as exposing several child molesters, is quoted as saying that a newspaper takes risks when it does so: "The paper must balance children’s safety with the threat of mob rule; it pits the chance that a paedophile may re-offend against the fact that he has served his time and may be denied the right to resume a normal life. ‘There is a risk that people will take the law into their own hands. But there is a greater risk that children will be hurt. If you can’t take risks to protect children, then when can you?’ [Paul Horrocks] says." (Younge 1997: 3)
Risks there certainly are: "One of those ‘outed’ by the Manchester Evening News suffered physical and verbal abuse from his neighbours and moved away as a result. Horrocks describes as ‘regrettable’ a case of mistaken identity in which an innocent man was attacked by an angry mob" (Younge 1997: 3).
The anger and the potential for tragedy are described in the piece by Bowcott and Clouston (1997: 3): "In May 1994, a girl aged 14 called Samantha Penell died after the house in which she had been staying was burnt down. Those who set fire to the building were looking for a paedophile."
They recount other stories: a convicted child molester stabbed to death in Edinburgh, and a man in Manchester badly beaten by a gang who wrongly believed that he was a child rapist(Bowcott and Clouston 1997). Such problems also occur in Australia. The release in New South Wales of convicted child killer John Lewthwaite prompted a considerable degree of media attention. After his release his new home was attacked by local residents, angry at his presence in their community.
[[[[SNIP]]]] ..more.. by Chris Goddard and Bernadette J. Saunders
MONSTERS WITH HUMAN FACES, The Guardian
9-17-1997 United Kingdom:
[[[[SNIP]]]]
Paedophiles are the most feared and loathed men in our society.
All over the country there are groups, some no bigger than a coffee circle of concerned mothers, whose sole aim is to hunt down and hound out paedophiles in their neighbourhoods. The names of these ad hoc campaigns - Campaign Against Paedophiles, Parents Against Child Abuse, People Power, Know Your Neighbour, Parents Aiming to Right Abysmal Sex Offender Laws, Unofficial Child Protection Unit - reveal their simple missionary zeal. It is a movement from the streets upwards. Local newspapers often provide them with the raw material; trawling through back numbers, they turn up details of long-past child abuse cases.
The Oxford Mail and Bournemouth Echo keep informal registers of sex offenders, and the Scottish Daily Record published a "Gallery of Shame" of 38 convicted paedophiles. The Sunday tabloids devote pages and reporters to doing nothing else but hunting "child sex monsters".
Paedophilia has become a national obsession.
Such outings inevitably lead to violence. In May 1994, the home of Dennis Butlin was firebombed and a young girl inside burnt to death; in February 1995, Lawrence Leydon was stabbed to death in Edinburgh; last August in Teignmouth, 44-year-old David Moist was severely battered after vigilantes broke into his flat brandishing a fire extinguisher; in the same month in Belfast, 53-year-old Desmond Moonan was found strangled in his flat. They were all vicious attacks. But when we insert "paedophile" before these men's names, our hearts harden: they got what they deserved.
Whatever has been done to them and however they are treated, we have no sympathy for paedophiles. What they do strips them of any possibility of redemption. Who could defend the rights, the life even, of a man who wants to bugger a four-year-old? Schemes are continually proposed to provide indefinite monitoring, from electronic tagging to chemical castration.
[[[[SNIP]]]]
..more.. by The Guardian
"PEADOPHILES OUT!"
Thanks mainly to 'The Guardian' (19 ii '97), I can begin to provide a historical record of recent paedo-hysteria in Britain.
MAY, 1994. Samantha Pennell, aged 14, was killed after the house of paedophile Dennis Butlin was firebombed. Butlin himself escaped.
FEBRUARY, 1995. Lawrence Leydon, a convicted paedophile, was stabbed to death in his home in Edinburgh, nine months after being released on probation.
JUNE, 1996. Residents on the Kingsmead estate in Hackney, east London, warned of vigilante action if Sidney Coke, part of a paedophile ring that tortured to death a local teenager, was allowed to return.
AUGUST, 1996. The 'Manchester Evening News' publishes details of local paedophiles, following a trend set by the 'Sunday Express' (London) and the Bournemouth Evening Echo. Other local papers followed suit.
SEPTEMBER, 1996. 53-year Brixton mother of mentally handicapped boy bludgeons newly released 65-year "paedophile" with a metal spring and smashed bricks through all his car's windows. (Awarded 4 months prison, suspended for 18 months, plus 18 months probation, plus £150 compensation.) (South London Press, 1 xi '96.)
NOVEMBER, 1996. George Taylor fled his Birmingham flat under police escort after residents discovered he had been jailed for a child sex offence.
JANUARY, 1997. A mob surrounded a Department of Social Security hostel in Stirling, demanding that Alan Christie, a convicted paedophile, be forced to leave.
FEBRUARY, 1997. Parents in Dunoon, Argyll, warned they would take action amid fears that up to 10 convicted child sex offenders had moved in nearby.
FEBRUARY, 1997. 'Anti-Paedophile March' in Manchester used placards drawn up as follows "Peadophiles Out!" {sic} and "COUNSIL PUTTING OUR ChilDREN AT RISK!" {sic, though an effort had been made to correct the mis-spelling}. A pensioner mistaken for a photographed paedophile was assaulted and had his wrist broken.
FEBRUARY, 1997. UK police, civil liberties campaigners and child protection groups....warned that the plan [for a register of paedophiles] would lead to violence against those named while doing nothing to protect children.
MARCH, 1997. The 47-year-old East Lothian father of a newly released paedophile had both his legs broken by a mob.
MARCH, 1997. Lewisham[?] Borough Council (London) release many details of the appearance and convictions of a recently discharged "paedophile" prisoner so that a lynch mob can be prepared for his arrival on a particular council estate. ..more.. by
