September 1998
Twelve states have statutes that authorize the confinement and treatment of highly dangerous sex offenders following completion of their criminal sentence: Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin. These laws are commonly referred to as "sexual predator" laws. This report describes sexual predator laws and compares several of their key provisions.
As of the summer of 1998, more than 520 sexual predators have been committed in these 12 states. Sexual predator laws conform in many aspects. Key similarities include the following:
· Commitment follows a criminal sentence.
· The laws target repeat sex offenders.
· Evidence regarding the individual’s likelihood of future violence is central to decisionmaking.
In comparing state statutes, some differences emerge:
· Most states require the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used in criminal proceedings as the burden of proof for commitment; others use the lower standard of "clear and convincing evidence."
· A few states specifically provide that juveniles are eligible for commitment, while
others stipulate that petitions can only be filed on persons who are 18 years of age
or older.
· California’s law calls for a time-limited confinement of two years, while the remaining eleven states authorize indeterminate periods of commitment.
The earliest statutes, in Washington and Kansas, were quite similar, although each law has been slightly modified since its passage. With the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1997 upholding the constitutionality of Kansas' law, the next wave of statutes is likely to show more individuality.
In 1998, legislative proposals for post-release confinement of sexual predators were introduced in at least 21 states. ..more.. by Roxanne Lieb and Scott Matson
October 20, 2007
SEXUAL PREDATOR COMMITMENT LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES: 1998 UPDATE
August 17, 2007
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries
April 1998, NCJ-168965
Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH conference
Foreword
Americans have become increasingly angry in recent years in response to a series of violent and highly publicized sexual assaults, primarily against children, committed by individuals with extensive prior sexual offense histories. This outrage has been intensified by the perception, justified or not, that systems traditionally used by justice agencies to monitor law-breakers returned to the community do not adequately protect the public from that unique category of individual known as the sex offender.
Seeking to address the public’s concern, the U.S. Congress established three statutes that collectively require States to strengthen the procedures they use to keep track of sex offenders: the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (enacted in 1994), the Federal version of “Megan’s Law” (enacted in 1996), and the Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act (also enacted in 1996).
In brief, the statutes require States to establish registration programs so local law enforcement will know the whereabouts of sex offenders released into their jurisdictions, and notification programs so the public can be warned about sex offenders living in the community. (The Lychner Act also requires the creation of a national sex offender registry, and it requires the FBI to handle registration in States that lack “minimally sufficient” programs.) The States were assigned a difficult task. They were given until September 1997 to comply with the Wetterling Act and Megan’s Law, and until October 1999 to comply with the Lychner Act. Those that failed to meet the compliance deadlines risked losing 10 percent of their appropriation from the Federal Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, which provides funding for State and local
crime eradication efforts.
Compliance was complicated by the fact that both Megan’s Law and the Lychner Act amended portions of the Wetterling Act, creating confusion as to whether the requirements of one statute superceded those of another. There were also questions as to whether the registration and notification programs, once implemented, would survive constitutional challenges based on claims of excessive punishment, invasion of privacy and denial of due process. Another hurdle was the growing number of individuals who fell under the statutes’ requirements. According to data compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the number of sex offenders jumped 300 percent between 1980 and 1994. In 1994, there were approximately 234,000 sex offenders under the care, custody or control of corrections agencies — 60 percent under conditional supervision in the community — on any given day.
States experiencing difficulty meeting the compliance deadlines were given the opportunity to request 2-year, “good-faith-effort” extensions. Forty-two of the 56 States and territories required to comply with the statutes requested deadline extensions. It appeared the States needed guidance and clarification to help them comply with the registration and notification statutes.
To assist the States, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, along with SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, cosponsored the National Conference on Sex Offender Registries, held July 16-17, 1997, in Bellevue, Washington. This publication presents the proceedings of that 2-day conference.
The conference featured presentations by Federal officials who explained the requirements of the registration and notification statutes in detail and who answered the questions of State representatives. Representatives from several States presented information on programs that their States had implemented in response to the Federal requirements. Elected officials provided a legislative perspective to the proceedings, and experts updated participants on the status of legal challenges to registration and notification programs.
Many of the problems and issue areas identified in these proceedings were subsequently addressed or ameliorated in Federal legislation and regulations. The issue of sex offending is as sensitive and emotionally charged as any faced by society. The federally required programs are relatively new or redesigned approaches to controlling sex offenders, and a period of time must elapse before quantitative study can be conducted to ascertain whether they are effective. I hope these proceedings serve during this period as a valuable reference tool and also as a contribution to the ongoing debate over the methods used to control sex offenders.
Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.
Director
..more..
July 24, 2007
STEP 3: AN EVALUATION OF THE PRISON SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT PROGRAMME
NOVEMBER 1998 United Kingdom:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study was commissioned by the Home Office to evaluate the efficacy of treatment for sex offenders in Category C prisons. The work is third part of the STEP (Sex Offender Treatment Evaluation Project) research.
The first part (reported by Barker & Morgan, 1993) outlined a framework for evaluating community-based treatment. The second part (Beckett, Beech, Fisher & Fo rdham, 1994) rep o rted an evaluation of seven representative community treatment programmes run by, or for, the Probation Service. The STEP team is currently investigating the impact of the Core Programme on a sample of men who have offended against adult victims and/or are sexual murderers .
The Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP) began in 1991 as part of a national strategy for the integrated assessment and treatment of sex offenders. It is currently run in 25 establishments.
The central part of the SOTP is the Core Pro gramme, whose pri m a ry purpose is to increase the offender’s motivation to avoid re-offending and to develop the self-management skills necessary to achieve this.
Comprehensive assessment is also an integral part of the programme which informs decisions about the nature of future risk of the offe n d e r. The ‘ori ginal’ ve rsion of the Core Pro gramme consisted of 35 to 40 two - h o u r sessions but was later ‘revised’ to approximately 86 sessions including additional elements such as role play.
Group-work, known to be an effective way of delivering treatment, has been central to the SOTP strategy, as by joining a group, a sex offender publicly acknowledges his need to change. Group-work also provides a context in which socially acceptable values are conveyed and ‘normal’ social interactions reinforced.
The treatment approach used is ‘cognitive-behavioural’ which research indicates to be particularly effective in the treatment of child abusers.
• The ‘cognitive’ aspect involves recognising the patterns of distorted thinking which allow the contemplation of illegal sexual acts and understanding the impact which sexually abusive behaviour has on its victims.
• The ‘behavioural’ component of treatment invo l ves reducing sexual arousal to inappropriate fantasies of forced sexual activities with children and adults.
Establishments running the SOTP are subject to accreditation by an international panel of experts. The panel assesses the quality of treatment, written outcome reports, tutor availability and management support. ..more.. by Anthony Beech, Dawn Fisher and Richard Beckett
June 27, 2007
Assessing Violent Recidivism in Sexual Offenders
1998:
ABSTRACT:
Forensic and clinical psychologists have long been asked to make predictions about violence, despite the fact that, in the past, such predictions have been notoriously inaccurate. Several states now have sexual predator laws which require predictions to be made concerning the likelihood of recidivism. Since the U.S. Supreme Court in Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) upheld Kansas's sexual predator laws, such requests are likely to increase in the future. Fortunately, there is now ongoing empirical research which has improved psychologists' ability to predict violence in high risk groups. Several schemes for predict violence are in the process of research and development. ..more.. by Hollida Wakefield and Ralph Underwager
June 9, 2007
Dynamic Predictors Of Sexual Recidivism, 1998-1
1998-1
Executive Summary
Given the importance of effective community supervision of sexual offenders, there is surprisingly little research indicating when sexual offenders are likely to re-offend. In the present study, information on dynamic (changeable) risk factors was collected through interviews with community supervision officers and file reviews of 208 sexual offense recidivists and 201 non-recidivists. The sexual offenders were selected from all regions of the Correctional Service of Canada and from all provinces (except P.E.I.). The recidivists had committed a new sexual offense while on some form of community supervision (probation, parole, mandatory supervision). The non-recidivists were matched to the recidivists on victim type, criminal history, geographical region and jurisdiction. The study examined approximately equal numbers of rapists, boy-victim child molesters and girl-victim child molesters.
Despite efforts to match the recidivistic and non-recidivistic groups, some differences remained in static, historical variables. In comparison to the non-recidivists, the recidivists had a greater history of sexual deviance, such as diverse types of victims, stranger victims, juvenile offenses and paraphilias (e.g., exhibitionism, cross-dressing). As well, the recidivists showed more signs of an antisocial lifestyle than did the non-recidivists. The recidivists were more likely to meet criteria for antisocial personality, psychopathy (PCL-R), and had higher scores on objective risk scales (SIR and VRAG).
Officer interviews indicated that the recidivists displayed more problems while on supervision than did the non-recidivists. In particular, the recidivists 1 were generally considered to have poor social supports, attitudes tolerant of sexual assault, antisocial behaviour, poor self-management strategies and difficulties cooperating with supervision. The overall mood of the recidivists and non-recidivists was similar, but the recidivists showed increased anger and subjective distress just prior to re-offending.
More of the recidivists than the non-recidivists were using sex drive reducing medications (anti-androgens). A possible explanation is that officers insisted on medication only for the most severe cases. The study was not intended to test the efficacy of hormonal treatments; nevertheless, officers should be aware that sexual offenders still present considerable risk for sexual offense recidivism after the introduction of sex drive reducing medication.
The offenders’ attitudes and behaviour during supervision continued to be strongly associated with recidivism even after controlling for pre-existing differences in static risk factors (overall R = .60, p < .001). The dynamic factors identified in the interview data were reflected (to a lesser extent) in the officers' contemporaneous case notes, which suggests that the interview findings cannot be completely attributed to retrospective recall bias.
Carefully monitoring the risk indicators identified in this study should help officers to provide graduated and responsive interventions well before the point of no return. ..more.. by R. Karl Hanson -and- Andrew Harris, Corrections Research, Department of the Solicitor General Canada
