Archive for April 15, 2010

Ohio Official Sex Offender Recidivism Data

April 15, 2010 Comments off

This is an Official Report from the State of Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
April 2001

Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up Of 1989 Sex Offender Releases

Understand that “re commitment for a new crime” includes minor probation violations ranging from not reporting, to any failure to abide by any probation requirement. We know for a fact that probation officers often use any excuse possible to re-arrest a sex offender and they do. In one case, in Ohio, a released sex offender on probation was re-arrested because he shared a name with another sex offender in the county. In another, possession of an “R”-rated movie named “Kids” was used to re-arrest a sex offender on probation. And in another case, a sex offender on probation was threatened with arrest and charges for having a video security system at his residence.

The category of “re-committment for a technical violation ” indicates that the sex offender was found to be in violation of his probation and re-incarcerated for violating some probation requirement (see above) . Therefore, the focus on this data should be on re-arrest for another sex crime. After all, this is what all the societal hysterical concern is all about:

The baseline recidivism rate of sex offenders followed-up for ten years after
release from prison was 34%. This rate was comprised of:

Recommitment for a New Crime 22.3 %

  • For Sex Offense 8.0 %
  • For Non-Sex Related Offense 14.3 %

Recommitment for a Technical Violation 11.7 %

  • For Sex Offense 1.3 %
  • For Sex Lapse 1.7 %
  • For Non-Sex Related Offense 8.7 %

The total sex-related recidivism rate, including technical violations of
supervision conditions, was 11.0%.

Recidivism rates differed considerably based on a victim typology:

Sex offender type…………………General recidivism………….. Sex recidivism

Rapists – (adult victims) ………..56.6% …………………………..17.5%

Child Molester – extrafamilial ..29.2% ……………………………8.7%

Child Molester – incest …………13.2% …………………………… 7.4%

Sex offenders who returned for a new sex related offense did so within a few years of release. Of all the sex offenders who came back to an Ohio prison for
a new sex offense, one half did so within two years, and two-thirds within
three years.

Paroled Sex offenders completing basic sex offender programming (level 1)
while incarcerated appeared to have a somewhat lower recidivism rate than those
who did not have programming. This was true both for recidivism of any type
(33.9% with programming recidivated compared with 55.3% without
programming) and sex-related recidivism (7.1% with programming recidivated
compared with 16.5% without programming).


The recidivism rate for child -victim sex offenders (outside family) for a new sex-related crime in Ohio is 8.7%
The recidivism rate for all sex offenders for a new sex-related crime in Ohio is 8.0%

This is hardly the exaggerated claims of recidivism made by the media and hysterical society.
Spread the word, educate society. Ignorance is dangerous.

These Ohio statistics are in line with federal United States Department of Justice data, which reports:

Recidivism Rates of Sexual Offenders (5.3% re-arrested, 3.3% of Child Victimizers re-arrested)
Recidivism Rates for NON- Sexual Offenders (67% re-arrested, 47% re-convicted)

See this page for USDOJ report:


“Research has shown that sex
offenders recidivate at a lower rate than other offenders.

A review of 61 recidivism research studies
involving 24,000 sex offenders found that only 13.4 percent committed a new sex offense (Hanson and Morton-Burgon 2004). It further shows that when sex offenders do recidivate, they are more likely to commit a non-sex offense”

MI: 5 Homeless Sex Offenders Join Lawsuit Against School Zones

April 15, 2010 Comments off Fifth homeless sex offender from Grand Rapids joins lawsuit against state over emergency housing in school zones. Lawsuit filed on behalf of homeless sex offenders seeking shelter in Grand Rapids.

A fifth man, identified only as “Larry Loe,” has asked to join four other homeless people in a U.S. District Court lawsuit against Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Attorney General Mike Cox, state police Director Peter Munoz and Kent County Prosecutor William Forsyth over a law that prevents those on the state’s sex-offender registry from residing within 1,000 feet of a school.

Attorney Miriam Aukerman filed suit to determine whether staying the night at a shelter constitutes residency. All three of the city’s emergency shelters are within school zones.

In her suit, Aukerman cited last year’s freezing death of Thomas Pauli, found dead in a salvage yard. She said her clients were not convicted of serious crimes; three were high-court misdemeanors.

Loe wrote in his affidavit that he was convicted of attempted third-degree criminal-sexual conduct for having sex with a 15-year-old girlfriend when he was 19. He said she admitted to police that she told him she was 17.

Aukerman wrote Forsyth, the prosecutor, and asked that Loe be allowed to stay at Guiding Light. She noted a recent state Court of Appeals ruling said homeless sex offenders cannot be prosecuted for failure to register addresses if they have no address.

Forsyth responded in an April 5 letter: “While I can appreciate Mr. (Loe’s) multitude of problems, absent a change in the law or the issuance of an injunction, I am not willing to allow him to violate the law by continuing to sleep at the Guiding Light Mission. … Whether Mr. (Loe) should be allowed to register as homeless, however, is a decision to be made by Grand Rapids Police Department.”

Records showed that Loe signed a Grand Rapids Police Department form acknowledging he was advised his address, at Guiding Light, is within 1,000 feet of a school. The form read, “I have been advised that charges will be sought for my arrest for a residency violation of the Sex Offender — School Safety Zone if I have not moved, or have moved and not advised the appropriate law-enforcement agency of my new address … .”

The state has not yet responded to the federal lawsuit. Degage Ministries and Mel Trotter Ministries also are plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The agencies said sex offenders were “generally denied admission” because the agencies are within school zones.