Posts Tagged ‘recidivism’

Sexual Offender Facts

August 23, 2010 Comments off

BLUESHIFT: The purpose and objective of this site is to distribute data on sexual offender registration laws focusing on Ohio. Including the history and status of proposed legislation and court opinions and ongoing litigation.

Sexual Offender Facts Graphs and Statistics with footnotes and references.


“Today in Ohio nearly 25,000 (or 99.99%) of registered sexual offenders DID NOT re-offend. Only .75 RSOs in Ohio recidivate sexually each day. (.75/25000)*100 = 99.99%.”

“The ten year recidivism rate for the group of sex offenders in this study was 11%. Eight percent of the offenders returned for a new crime. Another 3% were revoked for a parole violation that was sexual in nature (sex crime), or a relapse behavior (sex lapse).”

Facts and Fiction about Sex Offenders

May 24, 2010 Comments off and Fiction about Sex Offenders.

“The political outlash against sex offenders is immense, irrational, and hard for legislators to reverse.”
-Sarah Agudo in the Northwestern University Law Review, 2008

Myth: Sex offenders are dirty old strangers who steal kids from playgrounds

An Ohio prison intake report on sex offenders imprisoned in 1992 revealed that 2.2 percent of child molesters were strangers to their victims, and 89 percent of perpetrators had never been convicted before.

In their 1993 textbook, The Juvenile Sex Offender, Howard Barbaree and colleagues estimated that teenagers perpetrated 20 percent of all rapes and half of all child molestations.

A 2006 report for the Ohio Sentencing Commission said 93 percent of molestation victims were well known to their perpetrators, over half the offenders victimized close relatives, and 93 percent of molesters had never been arrested for a previous sex crime.

A December 2009 study by David Finkelhor of UNH and colleagues for the US Justice Department analyzed national sex crime data from 2004. That year the estimated population of underage sex offenders was 89,000, and they had committed 35.8 percent of all sex crimes reported to police. One in eight juvenile sex offenders was under age 12. The study said that between 85 and 95 percent of young offenders would never face another sex charge.

Myth: Residency restrictions are harmless to sex offenders and protect kids

A 2005 survey of 135 Florida sex offenders by researchers Jill Levenson and Leo Cotter found that residency restrictions had forced 22 percent of this group to move out of homes they already owned. 25 percent were unable to return to their homes after release from prison. Respondents agreed in varying degrees with these statements about the impact of residency restrictions on their lives:

* I cannot live with supportive family members. 30%
* I find it difficult to find affordable housing. 57%
* I have suffered financially. 48%
* I have suffered emotionally. 60%
* I have had to move out of an apartment that I rented. 28%

The Iowa County Attorneys Association issued a position paper in 2006 opposing a 2,000 foot residency restriction against sex offenders from places where kids congregate. Among many criticisms, the prosecutors said, “Law enforcement has observed that the residency restriction is causing offenders to become homeless, to change residences without notifying authorities of their new locations, to register false addresses or to simply disappear. If they do not register, law enforcement and the public do not know where they are living. The resulting damage to the reliability of the sex offender registry does not serve the interests of public safety.”

A 2007 report by the Minnesota Department of Corrections tracked 224 sex offenders released from prison between 1999 and 2002 who committed new sex crimes prior to 2006. The first contact between victim and offender never happened near a school, daycare center or other place where children congregate. The report concluded, “Not one of the 224 sex offenses would likely have been deterred by a residency restrictions law.” The study warned that these laws isolate offenders in rural areas with little social and treatment support, with poor transportation access and with few job opportunities. The resulting increase in homelessness makes them harder to track and supervise. “Rather than lowering sexual recidivism,” the report said, “housing restrictions may work against this goal by fostering conditions that exacerbate sex offenders’ reintegration into society.”

A position paper on the current website of the Iowa Association of Social Workers says that concentrations of Iowa sex offenders are living in motels, trailer parks, interstate highway rest stops, parking lots and tents. The site notes many other unintended consequences:

* Families of offenders who attempt to remain together are effectively subjected to the same restrictions, meaning that they too are forced to move, and may have to leave jobs, de-link from community ties, and remove their children from schools and friends.
* Physically or mentally impaired offenders who depend on family for regular support are prevented from living with those on whom they rely for help.
* Threat of family disruption may leave victims of familial sexual abuse reluctant to report the abuse to authorities, thereby undermining the intention of the law.
* Threat of being subjected to the residency restriction has led to a significant decrease in the number of offenders who, as part of the trial process, disclose their sexual offenses; consequently, fewer offenders are being held accountable for their actions.
* Loss of residential stability, disconnection from family, and social isolation run contrary to the “best practice” approaches for treatment of sex offenders and thus put offenders at higher risk of re-offense.
* No distinction is made between those offenders who pose a real risk to children and those who pose no known threat.

Myth: Treatment is a waste of money on sex offenders

The New Hampshire Prison sex offender treatment program compiled recidivism data in 1999 for a national survey by the Colorado Department of Corrections. Lance Messenger, the New Hampshire program director at the time, reported a 6.2% sex crime re-arrest rate after an average of 4.8 years on parole for 204 men who completed the Intensive Sex Offender Treatment Program. The recidivism rate was 12.4% for 435 sex offenders who received no treatment and had spent an average of 8.6 years in the community. Messenger is now in private practice and recently told this writer his report did not constitute a rigorous scientific study.

A Colorado recidivism study in 2003 led by Kerry Lowden tracked 3338 sex offenders released from prison between 1993 and 2002. After three years in the community, 5.3 percent had been arrested for a new sex crime. Each month an inmate took part in the intensive therapeutic community for sex offenders behind the walls reduced by 1 percent his risk of committing a later sex crime. The report said these treatment programs “profoundly improve public safety as measured by officially recorded recidivism.”

Vermont corrections personnel tracked 195 adult male sex offenders over a six-year period ending in 2006. Those who completed sex offender treatment had a sex-offense recidivism rate of 5.4 percent.

Lorraine R. Reitzel and Joyce L. Carbonell published a meta-analysis in 2006 of nine studies of recidivism among juvenile sex offenders with a combined sample of 2,986 kids. The sex crime recidivism rate was 12.5 percent for young offenders tracked for an average of 59 months. The rate was 7.37 percent for kids who had taken a sex offender treatment program and 18.9 percent for those who had not.

Fact: Most types of sex offenders have low sex-crime recidivism

A report to the Ohio Sentencing Commission in 1989 said 8 percent of sex offenders were convicted of a new sex crime within a decade. The 10-year Ohio recidivism rate for incest was 7.4 percent.

A 1998 Canadian Government study by Karl Hanson and Monique Bussiere, entitled “Predicting Relapse: A meta-Analysis of Sexual Offender Recidivism Studies,” examined 61 research efforts between 1943 and 1995 with a combined sample of 28,972 sex offenders. The overall recidivism rate for new sex offenses was 13.4 percent during the average follow-up period of four to five years. Of the 9,603 child molesters in the combined cohort, the rate was 12.7 percent. Some of these studies dated back to the period when only stereotype serial sex offenders went to prison, thus weighting the results toward greater recidivism.

Roger Hood and three British colleagues followed 162 released sex offenders for four years and tracked 62 others for six years. Their report in 2002, entitled “Sex offenders emerging from long-term imprisonment; A Study of Their Long-term Reconviction Rates and of Parole Board Members’ Judgements of Their Risk,” found 1.2 percent were re-imprisoned for a new sex crime after two years. The report concluded, “These facts need to be more widely recognized and disseminated if there is to be rational debate on this emotive subject.”

A 2000 Iowa Corrections study tracked 233 sex offenders released in 1995 and 1996 under a new sex offender registry law. That group had a 3 percent sex crime recidivism rate after 4.3 years in the community. A similar control group of 201 sex offenders released before the registry law took effect had a 3.5 percent sex recidivism rate in the same length of time. The group supervised under the registry had a somewhat lower average recidivism risk score to begin with, and it had a higher proportion of people on probation as opposed to parole. The difference in recidivism rates was statistically insignificant.

A U.S. Justice Department report in 2003 tracked 9,691 sex offenders released from prisons in New York, California, Ohio and 12 other large states in 1994. Their recidivism rate for new sex arrests and convictions after three years on parole was 5.3 percent. 7.3 percent of child molesters with two or more prior arrests for that crime were charged anew for molesting. That compares with a 2.4 percent sexual recidivism rate for child molesters with only one prior arrest for that crime.

Karl Hanson and Andrew Harris published a 2004 report on 4,724 sex offenders in 10 Canadian and American samples ranging from 191 to 1,138 subjects. The average follow-up period was seven years after release. The overall sexual recidivism rates were 14 percent after five years, 20 percent after 10 years and 24 percent after 15 years. Incest offenders had corresponding rates of 6, 9 and 13 percent. Recidivism was defined as a new sex crime arrest or a new conviction. Counting only new convictions, the recidivism rates were generally half as high.

Karl Hanson and Morton-Bourgon published a similar meta-analysis in 2005 of 73 recidivism studies with a combined cohort of 19,267 sex offenders. After an average of nearly six years in the community they had a new sex crimes recidivism rate of 14.3 percent.

A 2005 report by Robert Barnoski of the Washington State Institute for Public Policy tracked the five-year sexual recidivism rates for 8,359 sex offenders released from Washington prisons between 1986 and 1999. Here are the results by year of release, showing the rate decreased over time.


5-Year Rate


5-Year Rate

A 2006 New York study analyzed the recidivism patterns for 19,827 sex offenders. The rate for new sex offenses after one year in the community was 2 percent. The cumulative rate increased to 3 percent after two years, 6 percent after five years, and 8 percent after 8 years.

A 2006 California study followed 93 adjudicated high-risk sexually violent predators released from civil commitment at the Atascadero State Hospital. Only 4.3 percent of these worst-of-the-worst offenders had committed new sex offenses after six years on the street.

A 2007 study by the Missouri Department of Corrections tracked 3,166 sex offenders released between 1990 and 2002. Twelve percent had been re-arrested for a new sex crime in those 12 years, and 10 percent had been reconvicted. The report also looked at sex offenders released in 2002. In the first three years on parole their sex crime recidivism rate was 3 percent. The report concluded, “Due to the dramatic decrease in sexual recidivism since the early 1990s, recent sexual re-offense rates have been very low, thus significantly limiting the extent to which sexual reoffending can be further reduced.”

An Alaska Judicial Council report in 2007 said 3 percent of sex offenders had committed a new sex crime in their first three years after release from prison.

A 2007 report by the Tennessee Department of Safety found that 4.7 percent of 504 sex offenders released from prison in 2001 were arrested for a new sex offense after three years. The sex crime recidivism rate was zero for offenders whose original crime was incest.

A 2007 Minnesota Department of Corrections study tracked 3,166 sex offenders released from Minnesota prisons between 1990 and 2002. After an average of 8.4 years in the community, 10 percent had been convicted of a new sex offense. Those released in the beginning of the study period were much more likely to reoffend within three years than those released later — 17 percent in 1990 as opposed to 3 percent in 2002.

A 2007 report by Jared Bauer of the West Virginia Division of Corrections tracked 325 sex offenders for three years after release from prison in 2001, 2002 and 2003. The recidivism rate for any return to prison, not just for sex crimes, was 9.5 percent. Only six parolees returned for new sex related crimes, including three for failing to properly register as a sex offender. The sex crime recidivism rate was slightly less than 2 percent. Only 1 percent had an actual sex crime victim.

A 2008 report by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation tracked 4,280 sex offenders paroled in 2003. In the first year 2.43 percent had been arrested for new sex crimes. The cumulative totals were 3.27 percent at the end of the second year and 3.55 percent after three years.

A 2008 study by California’s Sex Offender Management Board reported on 4,204 sex offenders released in 1997 and 1998. 3.38 percent were convicted of new sex offenses in the next decade.

Utah criminologist Larry Bench tracked 389 Utah sex offenders for up to 25 years after release. His 2008 report disclosed that 7.2 percent had been arrested for a new sex crime.

An Indiana Corrections report in the spring of 2009 found that sex offenders released in 2005 had compiled a 1.05 percent sex crime re-conviction rate in three years. The study said this rate was “extremely low” and showed “a great deal of promise.”

Stan Orchowsky and Janice Iwama authored a 2009 study for the U.S. Justice Research and Statistics Association which showed similar low sex crime re-arrest rates after three years for sex offenders released from prison in 2001. The rates by state were as follows: Alaska 3.4%, Arizona 2.3%, Delaware 3.8%, Illinois 2.4%, Iowa 3.9%, New Mexico 1.8%, South Carolina 4.0%, and Utah 9.0%. The comparison three-year national rate was 5.3 percent noted previously for inmates released in 1994.

97% of Sex Offenders in Riverside County are in Compliance

May 14, 2010 Comments off 97 percent of convicted sex offenders in Riverside County are reported to be in compliance.

An unprecedented 97 percent of convicted sex offenders living in Riverside County were in compliance with the state’s registration requirements in April.

District Attorney’s Office spokesman Michael Jeandron said the county’s Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement team, composed of law enforcement officers from 16 agencies, recorded a 3 percent noncompliance rate among sex offenders countywide last month.

The rate of noncompliance had been hovering around 5 percent for the last year, according to officials, who said there are 3,269 convicted sex offenders residing in the county.

This is not, as the article implies, a result of some great effort by law enforcement agencies. As Iowa reported last week, most (92%)of those forced to register do so in compliance with the laws. Despite the lies told to you by the media, the large majority of sex offenders comply with registration as they are required, even though these laws are violating their constitutional rights.

Also know that law enforcement’s definition of “non-compliance” includes those who may make human errors, or try to comply but get caught up in a technicality. This is why you should not trust their statistics on compliance, recidivism, ect.. Of course, statistically, the numbers will be similar across the nation. That is how statistical data works.

CO: Sex Offenders Can Now Be “Cured”

May 12, 2010 Comments off New Colorado Sex Offender Bill Headed for the State Senate.

House Bill 10-1364, a controversial piece of legislature extending Colorado’s Sex Offender Management Board (SOMB), is up for a final review by the state Senate after receiving some last minute changes. The main thrust of the bill, to extend the SOMB for another five years, was met with little resistance. Rather, contention surrounding the original bill centered on a bit of modified language pertaining to the Sex Offender Management Board’s directive, removing language supporting the theory that there is “no known cure” for sex offenders.

This has always been a bogus argument. To believe that an individual who has committed a sex-related crime can never change or rehabilitate (or be “cured” to use their subjective term) is an inane, uneducated viewpoint. There is no more sense or logic behind this belief than there is to believe that murderers, domestic abusers, drunk drivers and drug users can never change. Recidivism rates for sex offenders are lower than those of other offenders.

This was an important omission because, in Colorado, those convicted of sex offenses are offered treatment based on the assumption that there is no known cure for their condition.

Now, that’s a stupid statement. Why even provide treatment to people whom you believe cannot be successfully treated…

In the face of heavy criticism, Democratic House members agreed to a compromise – language directing the SOMB to acknowledge the existence of “some adult sex offenders” who fit into a group for whom there is no known cure.

DE: Sex Offender Registry too Strict

May 12, 2010 Comments off

DelawareOnline: Offender registry called too strict – Delaware’s list includes juveniles as young as 9.

Their youthful faces stare from the pages of Delaware’s online sex offender registry, some obviously scared, some scowling, some expressionless.

These are photographs of children who committed sex crimes. They are branded, a condemnation that can haunt them forever.

Delaware has some of the youngest sex offender registrants in the nation – one as young as 9 – according to backers of legislation that would give Family Court judges some discretion in deciding which juveniles belong on the registry and which do not.

In registering offenders who are younger than 14, Delaware’s registry system is more stringent than required by the federal Adam Walsh Act, a law that some states complain is too strict.

Due to political, legal and social concerns, the push to give Family Court judges a say in the matter has run into a wall of opposition. Attorney General Beau Biden opposes the legislation. Election-minded legislators don’t want to give opponents the opportunity to paint them as soft on sex offenders. Publicity about sex crimes has made the issue of sexual offenses even more politically toxic.

“I can’t even get it out of committee,” said Rep. Melanie George, D-Bear, referring to the bill she introduced last year that would give Family Court judges the power to decide if children younger than 14 should be listed on the registry. It also would give them discretion to decide whether juveniles older than 14 should be listed if they are convicted of certain lower-level offenses.

A law like that might have kept “Kevin’s” name off the registry. But thanks to what critics say is Delaware’s one-size-fits-all system, he’s a marked man. Now in his 20s and living in another state, Kevin agreed to an e-mail interview on the condition that his real name and certain details of his case be withheld.

At age 13, Kevin was caught “messing around” with a younger child and was convicted of two misdemeanor sex offenses. “We were just kids,” he said, describing the encounter as consensual but declining to go into detail. Juvenile records are sealed and not available for review.

Kevin’s listing as a moderate-risk offender put him on the registry — listings of low-risk offenders can be accessed only by law enforcement — and being on the public registry has followed him into adulthood.

Like all registered sex offenders, Kevin must provide his name, date of birth, address, employer, driver’s license number, Social Security number, professional licenses, passport, immigration status and school affiliations to the offender registry. He must update any change in these details of his life within three days or face a felony charge. His photo, name, physical description, address, car license number and crime are on display to anyone. There are restrictions on where he can live, and his status is a red flag on job applications.

“All this has done is made my life difficult. It’s not like the public is being protected. I was just 13,” Kevin said. Kevin said the incident was his one and only legal offense. His name did not appear during a search of Delaware Superior Court and Court of Common Pleas records.

It’s tales such as Kevin’s that bother Lisa Minutola, chief of legal services for the Public Defender’s Office. Minutola has spoken with a few youth offenders whose names still appear on the registry years later, and “they definitely had horror stories of not being able to get employment, not being able to get an education,” she said.
Age limits

According to Minutola, the Delaware registry has one person who was listed at age 9 who is now in his teens. Three individuals were placed on the registry at age 10, she said. The registry, which has 2,725 entries, isn’t searchable by age.

Only six states actually define the youngest age at which an offender must be registered, “which leaves open the possibility that even very young children who evidence sexual behavior problems may be subject to registration,” according to the Center for Sex Offender Management, a project of the U.S. Department of Justice. Of the six states that do define the youngest registration age, North Carolina sets the limit at 11; Indiana, Ohio, Idaho and Oklahoma begin registering offenders at 14, and in South Dakota the minimum age is 15.

Biden took steps to strengthen Delaware’s sex offender registry soon after he took office — and he’s not amenable to legislation he believes would weaken it.

According to Biden and Deputy Attorney General Christina Showalter, keeping juveniles off the registry or easing restrictions would threaten public safety.

Grier Weeks, executive director of the National Association to Protect Children, says “It’s not a black-and-white issue. Are there juveniles who commit sex crimes who do not belong on sex-offender registries? Of course,” Weeks said.


A 2009 study published in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology tracked juvenile sex offenders from adolescence through age 26. Fewer than 2 percent were arrested for an adult sex offense by age 27.

Delaware’s juvenile sex offender statute “is ruining the next generation,” Pittman told a joint meeting of the state House and Senate judiciary committees on March 31. “Delaware has the youngest registrants in the country, and when you say in the country, it means in the world,” Pittman said. “Having offenders who are younger than 14 on the registry is problematic.”

Pittman said recent studies indicate that juvenile sex offenders have a recidivism rate of 5 percent to 14 percent — substantially lower than the rates for other juvenile crimes, which range from 8 percent to 58 percent.

In 2006, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed the Adam Walsh Act, which contains a provision known as SORNA: the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. That act requires juvenile offenders as young as 14 to register for life if convicted of more-serious sex offenses. States that do not comply will lose 10 percent of their funding from the federal Byrne Grant anti-crime program.

Delaware revised its law in an attempt to comply with the act, but in doing so it “cast an overly wide net that will tragically engulf nearly all adolescent sexual behaviors, including those prepubescent-like, exploratory behaviors committed largely out of curiosity,” Pittman said in a prepared summary of her analysis of Delaware’s law.


If the recent studies indicating that juvenile offenders are unlikely to commit another offense are true, Delaware’s law could run counter to the 2002 state Supreme Court decision in Delaware v. Sapp.

In that case, the court advised the General Assembly to keep in mind that the registry statute must be related to the government’s interest in protecting the public from the danger of recidivism of sex offenders.

In other words, statistics must back up any sex offender registry legislation effort. If the statistics aren’t there, these sex offender laws will be killed. This is why you constantly see the falsely-cited high recidivism data in the media. We have posted the actual official USDOJ Recidivism studies multiple times on these blogs. How hard is it for the media to find this data if they truly have an interest in publishing factual information? Politicians and activists do a good job of espousing the false data much more loudly than we can publicize the true data.

Duluth Ordinance to Ban Sex Offenders from Affordable Housing

May 9, 2010 Comments off Ordinance would ban sex offenders from most affordable housing -Three city councilors are proposing an ordinances that would prevent convicted Level 3 sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a church, playground or day care. But critics say the measure would push those offenders back toward a life of crime.

If you look closely, there’s a spot on the Aerial Lift Bridge where Level 3 sex offenders could live.

Otherwise, if an ordinance proposed by three Duluth city councilors passes on Monday, the number of areas sex offenders who are most likely to reoffend can live in Duluth would be severely limited. The ordinance would all but bar them from most low-income housing areas in the city.

That’s according to a map put together by the city of Duluth that shows where the offenders would be banned — which is within 2,000 feet of any church, playground or day care.

Not that the councilors who proposed the ordinance have any problem with that. But some experts disagree. Studies suggest that limiting where sex offenders can live doesn’t reduce the rate of repeat offenses — but actually increases it, said William Donnay, the director of risk assessment and community notification for the Minnesota Department of Corrections.

A Department of Corrections study of all 224 sex offenders from 1990 to 2002 who returned to prison for another offense found that in not a single case would the reoffense been prevented by restricting where the offender could live.

Donnay says other studies show that making it harder for an inmate to find housing increases that person’s instability, leads to homelessness and increases chances of reoffending. An ordinance like the one proposed by the Duluth City Council, he said, provides a false sense of security for residents.

“People conclude because of the residency restrictions, there are never any sex offenders in my neighborhood,” he said. “It’s not where they’re sleeping at night, who they’re hanging out with, who they are associating with. It’s where are they spending their time during waking hours? That’s what we need to look at in terms of recidivism.”

Tom Roy, executive director of Arrowhead Regional Corrections, which supervises the offenders, said he also believes the restrictions might increase the likelihood of reoffending. “We would support efforts that would tend to support sex offenders rather than destabilize their lives,” Roy said.

Offenders would largely be banned from the areas and facilities they typically use for housing now, such as the Seaway Hotel and the CHUM shelter.
———————————————- News Tribune.

It really worries that me experts with the Minnesota Department of Corrections and Arrowhead Regional Corrections say the ban would probably make it more likely that the Level III sex offenders would re-offend. Is it spin? Surely the ordinance would make their jobs harder in finding a place to live for the offenders, but their foremost interest is in making sure their offenders don’t re-offend. So I’ll take their word that the ordinance will make it worse, not better.

If you’re interested in looking through the data cited to me by the DOC, it mostly went with this 2007 study. And it seems pretty conclusive that this ordinance won’t make our neighborhoods safer. One of the things pointed out to me by the DOC that I didn’t quite squeeze into my article: in an overwehelming amount of the re-offenses (89 percent), the victim was known to the offender — meaning the council ordinance would have no real affect on that percentage. Of course, if the council ordinance reduces the 11 percent were strangers number, then that’s a positive, right?

The city council has only received four emails on this topic so far — all in opposition to the ordinance.

Sex Offenders Win Appeal Against Indefinite Inclusion on Registry

April 21, 2010 Comments off Sex offenders win appeal against indefinite inclusion on register – Supreme court backs case of two sex offenders who claim being on register for life without review breaches their human rights.

A UK Supreme Court ruling today has opened the way for hundreds of sex offenders to challenge whether they should remain on the sex offenders’ register for life.

The ruling backed a case brought by two convicted sex offenders who challenged their indefinite inclusion on the register without any right to a review, claiming it breached their human rights.

One, who was convicted of rape when he was 11 years old, argued that being on the register had prevented him taking his family on holiday or playing rugby league. The other offender, Angus Aubrey Thompson, now aged 59, was jailed for five years for indecent assault 14 years ago.

Their lawyers argued they had been labeled for life without any opportunity to demonstrate they had reformed.

The current legislation says that any sex offender sentenced to a prison sentence of at least 30 months is placed on the register for life and has a duty to keep the police informed of any change of address or travel abroad.

The supreme court decision published today follows an appeal by the home secretary against an earlier appeal court ruling that the lack of any review was incompatible with the European convention on human rights, in particular the right to respect for a private and family life.

Lord Phillips, the supreme court president, said: “It is obvious that there must be some circumstances in which an appropriate tribunal could reliably conclude that the risk of an individual carrying out a further sexual offense can be discounted to the extent that continuance of notification requirements is unjustified.”

The judges stressed that the ruling did not mean the sex offenders’ register itself was illegal and said that it was entirely reasonable and lawful to monitor someone for life if they were assessed to be a danger to society.

But the judges rejected the home secretary’s appeal, saying there was no evidence to show it was impossible to identify which sex offenders had reformed. Home Office research submitted during the case showed that 75% of sex offenders who were monitored over a 21-year period were not re-convicted of any offense.

Mike Pemberton, solicitor for F, who was convicted of the rape of a six-year-old boy when he was 11, said his client wanted a fair chance to show that he had reformed.

“This case is important because it considers the right of a child to mature and develop. At present, any child who commits an offense of this type is labeled for life with no consideration being given to the effect of growing older and learning important lessons from previous mistakes.”

He said the men were not arguing to be automatically removed from the register, only for a chance for the risk they now posed to be reviewed.

The supreme court ruling means that an incoming government will need to look again at the law and introduce a review mechanism. Home Office officials will consider the ruling before making any recommendations. The existing requirements on sex offenders to notify the police of their movements remain in force in the meantime.

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”

All Sex Offenders Are Not Equal

April 5, 2010 Comments off All Sex Offenders Are Not Equal.

Laws such as the Walsh Act, often named for victims of crimes the law is trying to prevent, are of course well-intentioned. But they tend not to be based on research, and so do not achieve an optimal level of public safety. Indeed, they can unintentionally make things worse.

For example, if Connecticut officials followed the research, they would not expand the state’s sex offender registry, but reduce it.

All states have sex offender registries to which residents have online access. Some states put offenders on their registries based on their risk to the community. Connecticut is one of the states that place people on the registry because they are convicted of a sex offense.

Many people assume everyone on the registry is either a rapist or pedophile. If that were so, the list would be much smaller. But it also includes an array of porn possessors, voyeurs and people who as older teenagers had consensual sex with an underage girlfriend or boyfriend. As a result, the state now has more than 5,000 people on the sex-offender registry, an increasingly unwieldy group for hard-pressed police departments to monitor.

Some on the list are dangerous and must be watched, but many are not. As the list is now presented, it’s difficult to tell one from the other. They are listed by the crime they were convicted of committing, but it’s not clear whether a conviction for “risk of injury” or “second-degree sexual assault” means the person is a danger to others. (The registry also misses people who pleaded to a lesser offense to stay off it.)

Why does the state list so many offenders? In part, as the Florida attorney general’s testimony suggests, from the widespread belief that sex offenders are likely to re-offend, along with the notions that all sex offenders are alike and that they are not amenable to treatment.

The research contradicts all of these premises.

The Myth Of Incorrigibility

Sex offenders represent a cross-section, ranging from psychotics to a lot of seemingly normal people who have made a serious mistake. “They’ve all done something bad, but they don’t all present the same level of risk,” said David D’Amora, who directs the state’s post-prison sex offender treatment programs for The Connection, a Middletown-based nonprofit.

Treatment works: It can reduce recidivism by as much as 40 percent, according to recent studies. “We have the lowest recidivism with the people we get through treatment, no question,” said William Carbone, director of the Judicial Branch’s Court Support Services Division.

Perhaps the most surprising research finding is that sex offenders as a group have among the lowest rates of recidivism of any category of criminal.

A major U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics study of nearly 10,000 sex offenders released in 1994 found that only 5.3 percent had been arrested for a new sex crime in the ensuing three years. Other studies put the sex offender recidivism rate between 14 and 20 percent.

The major implication to be drawn from this data is that the great majority of sex crimes are committed by new criminals, people who have never been arrested for such an offense before. That strongly suggests that more resources should be shifted upstream, to education and prevention programs in date and dorm rape, domestic violence and similar behaviors. Just focusing on convicted sex offenders ignores the prevalence of sexual violence in the broader culture, which in part is producing sex offenders.

Shrink The Sex-Offender Registry

One way to capture resources would be to shrink the sex-offender registry so that it only lists former violent offenders who may still pose an appreciable risk to the public.

If the list is there to protect the public, it’s not clear why nonviolent offenders should have to register at all. But if they do, they should not be on a list available to the public.

For low-risk offenders who have served their sentences, the additional burden of public humiliation can be devastatingly cruel. They need a home and a job, but when their presence on the sex offender registry becomes known, they not infrequently lose the house and job.

Sometimes they and their families suffer threats, harassment or physical harm, according to several studies. Some experts say the shame, isolation and depression that accompanies the public pillorying can trigger relapse.

Vermont limits public notification to individuals who pose a high risk to the community, as does Minnesota. New Jersey divides offenders into three tiers of risk, and the names on the low-risk tier are shared only with law enforcement agencies. That is the direction Connecticut should head.

Residency Restrictions

Another bill proposed this year, and wisely allowed to die in committee, would have prohibited a registered sex offender from living within 2,000 feet of a school or day care center. Although residency restrictions may make sense in individual cases — and are sometimes imposed as conditions of probation — blanket residency restrictions do not.

They are fueled in part by the notion of “stranger danger,” another myth that most child molesters are strangers, sinister perverts in trench coats lurking around the school playground. The research belies that stereotype and says the vast majority of child sexual abuse victims identify their abusers as family members or acquaintances. A Justice Department study in 2000 of police reports from 12 states found that only 7 percent of sexual assaults on children were perpetrated by strangers.

The data is similar for adult women victims: More than 70 percent of rapes and 85 percent of sexual assaults are carried out by people known to the victim.

This year, thanks to thoughtful leadership on the Judiciary Committee, the legislature resisted some laws that would have been easy “get-tough” targets, but not good policy. Next year, they have the chance to make things better.

Sex Offender Recidivism Rate Studies

January 14, 2010 Comments off

While more information regarding statistical myths and falsehoods is posted in our “Truth over Myth” , we felt driven to re-post this official recidivism data because we continue to see the mythical, ignorant and false assertions being posted online by journalists and readers alike . We hope readers will also publish and educate others online about these statistics.

U.S. Department of Justice Statistics: Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 (latest available):

“Within 3 years following their release, 5.3% of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime.”

U.S. Department of Justice Statistics: Criminal Offender Statistics
Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison –– 5.3 % of sex offenders versus 1.3 % of non-sex offenders.

Child victimizers
* Approximately 4,300 child molesters were released from prisons in 15 States in 1994. An estimated 3.3% of these 4,300 were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison.

State of Michigan, General Recidivism: Parole Board Statistics: 1990 through 2000:
Sex Offenders 2.46% average recidivism.

State of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction -Ohio Official Sex Offender Recidivism Data:
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%

Child Victims:
60% of boys and 80% of girls who are sexually victimized are abused by someone known to the child or the child’s family (Lieb, Quinsey, and Berliner, 1998). Relatives, friends, baby-sitters, persons in positions of authority over the child, or persons who supervise children are more likely than strangers to commit a sexual assault.

The National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted Runaway and Thrownaway Children : Official Most-Recent Study Statistics from The National Criminal Justice Reference Service: “results DO NOT indicate an increase in child abductions by strangers”

The Victimization of Children and Youth: A Comprehensive National Study (University of North Carolina, University of New Hampshire):
“The great majority of sexual victimizations were perpetrated by acquaintances”

U.S. Census statistics do not record statistics related to crime.
“The Census Bureau releases some statistics on the criminal justice system in our data on government employment and finance, but none on crime, criminals, or victims.”
Any statistics you read about sex offenders from U.S. Census statistics is a blatant falsehood.

Furthermore, there is no accurate count of sex offenders within the states or nation, but the numbers are estimated to be approximately 665,000 U.S. citizens who have been convicted of some “sex crime”. That’ s about one person in 455 U.S. citizens, folks.