There’s a house in my neighborhood that’s mostly like any other, with its tidy trim, its agave-dotted yard and its slightly askew metal mailbox. Anyone living nearby has driven past it hundreds of times without a second glance.
In this house dwells a man few of us have ever seen, though we already know his face, and we know a bit about his past.
You see, we were told by U.S. mail. The card arrived one morning, with the man’s picture and a warning. A sex offender had moved in, we read. This has made for interesting, if tentative, conversations beneath the old mesquites lining our narrow sidewalks.
Should we take precautions against this man who exposed himself to a minor 10 years before? If so, what precautions? Or do we greet our well-announced newcomer as we would any other, with a smile and a nod?
Some months after the stranger moved in, this otherwise unremarkable home has become a testing ground for suppositions long and perhaps too faithfully held. At least by me.
According to the Arizona Department of Public Safety, there are 14,549 registered sex offenders statewide, and 1,574 in Pima County. Most are clustered in poorer parts of town.
Want to know how many sex offenders live in your neighborhood? Simply go online (azsexoffender.org). The faces are right there to see, some defiant, some woebegone, a few quite frightening, others seemingly baffled.
But know this as well: Statistically, sex offenders don’t tend to recommit near their homes.
If that doesn’t make you feel any better, consider these numbers: According to the federal Center for Sex Offender Management, between 60 and 80 percent of young victims are molested by a friend or relative. More than 75 percent of female rape victims were assaulted by current or ex-husbands, dates or live-in partners. Only about 30 percent of rapes are ever reported, and most perpetrators will never spend a day in jail.
It’s believed that sexual crimes against children are also vastly underreported; researchers estimate that less than 10 percent of sex offenders are under law enforcement or court supervision. That leaves 90 percent who have never been caught.
In other words, the guys on the postcards are probably less of a worry than the guys who are not.
But there’s another point to be made: True sexual predators count for just a small fraction of those convicted of sex crimes, and hype over sensational cases has prompted a flurry of hard-fisted laws that increasingly snag innocent and trivial offenders in their web.
They can be the college freshman hooking up with some minor at a beer bash, or the guy caught whizzing on a tree, or the husband in a custody battle who gets pegged as a molester by his soon-to-be ex-wife.
Depending upon the circumstances, all of these “perps” can be marked for life. Try getting a job or an apartment or a decent life with “sex offender” on your resume.
All sex crimes are obviously not equal. There truly are monsters out there—predators and child molesters and sociopathic freaks. But those they have attacked aren’t their only victims. In a very real way, they’ve made victims of us all.
Another neighborhood, not far away. He’ll talk if I don’t use his name. We sit outside under a concrete canopy, and we measure our words. Because he’s a man of faith, I’ll call him Father Ted. By request, I won’t offer a description, except to say that he’s a big man, bearing that wily hybrid of street smarts and hard religion common to Gospel Rescue Missions. With which, it happens, Father Ted was affiliated after pulling a year in an Oregon jail for narcotics.
I should also mention that I’ve tried several times to arrange interviews with registered sex offenders, working through counseling agencies and halfway houses, with no success. Little surprise that none of those men—and nearly all are men—care for more of a spotlight than they already command. I suppose I could visit the faces on the Internet, but in those grim mug shots, they do not look like fellows who wish to be bothered. So I go for the next best thing, which is Father Ted.
He operates a sprawling, melancholy Tucson apartment complex that rents exclusively to ex-cons, including a half-dozen sex offenders at any given time. “That’s the most I can have,” he says, “before the neighbors start screaming.”
To Father Ted, this suggests a bit of hypocrisy. “They complain that I bring an unsafe element into the neighborhood. Now I’ll tell you what—for five years, we’ve tried to get a dope house around the corner busted. When they finally busted the house, everybody else in the neighborhood acted like they didn’t know the guy was a dope dealer—when he’d already been busted for dealing in that house a couple of years before.”
Even so, every time the folks around here get reminded that Father Ted has sex offenders on the premises, they make his life miserable. So, along with his tenants, Father Ted prefers a low profile.
This does appear to be a tight operation. No dope, no booze, no women. Obviously no kids. And anyone hoping to relocate here is first treated to a fierce tête-à-tête. “They all sit down and have an intense little interview with me,” says Father Ted. “I don’t take stalkers. I don’t take repeat offenders, regardless of what the (DPS) website says. When the guys are coming here from prison, I look over a lot more stuff than just whether they can pay for a bed.”
These offenders face an equally rigorous regime from probation officers. “They have to fill out a form every week saying where they’re at, when they’re going to be there, when they’re going to get home,” Father Ted says. “Not to exaggerate, but they almost have to tell the cops when they’re going to take a shower, because if their surveillance officer shows up here, and they’re in the shower, and there isn’t an answer at the door, these guys in (intensive probation) get in trouble for not answering the door.”
Still, Father Ted’s tenants have it better than many others. According to a 2007 report by Human Rights Watch, residency restrictions in several states effectively banish registered sex offenders from most communities. They can be prohibited from living with their families or returning to their own homes after prison. Some offenders in Miami, says the report, have taken to dwelling beneath bridges—one of the few areas where they’re allowed under city residency restrictions.
As we talk, I gaze around this broad, dusty drive dotted by cottages. Metal chairs fill a few porches. On some of those chairs, men in T-shirts sit and gaze at the mid-morning sun. There’s a grapevine that brings such men to this quiet place, and it weaves among probation officers and social workers and ex-cons and guys still in the joint. Here, life is a constant inquiry—cameras dot the property, and probation officers are thick—but it beats some fleabag hotel on Benson Highway. It’s definitely better than living under a bridge.
According to Father Ted, law enforcement likes his establishment because so many offenders are bunched together. That makes keeping tabs a lot easier. And Father Ted doesn’t pity most guys who come to him. Still, there are a few for whom he feels sympathy.
Such as the 24-year-old who had a 17-year-old girlfriend. He worked two grunt jobs. The girlfriend was live-in. So was her mom, in the second bedroom.
The mom was scoring free rent, until she wasn’t. “Girlfriend got pregnant, and the mom turned him in,” says Father Ted. “She was losing her free rent, because they needed her room for the baby.”
Father Ted readily admits that this fellow didn’t make the smartest moves. “But it wasn’t some 49-year-old guy and a 16-year-old girl,” he says. “And now the guy has to live with ‘sex-offender’ attached to his name for the rest of his life.”
Eric Janus is dean of Minnesota’s William Mitchell College of Law, and author of Failure to Protect: America’s Sexual Predator Laws and the Rise of the Preventive State. He writes that hype about sexual predators—starting with high-profile cases such as the 1994 rape and murder of 7-year-old Megan Kanka in New Jersey—prompted a series of get-tough laws that may actually hurt more than they help.
This hysteria has driven “preventive” statutes such as those in Arizona, which allow for the indefinite commitment of “sexually violent persons” in secure mental wards after their prison sentences are complete. It has led to broader definitions of what constitutes a sex crime—including so-called “Romeo and Juliet” laws that land teenagers in prison for having underage sex. It also led to “Megan’s Law,” named after Megan Kanka, which compels states to maintain a public sexual-offender registry.
Not only are these laws largely ineffective, says Janus, but they also distort the way we view sexual violence, resulting in what he calls a “vicious cycle” of bad policy. “We have this idea in our heads of the sexual predator hanging out in parking lots and attacking women or kids out of the blue, and often murdering them,” he says. “Of course, that happens, but it’s extremely, extremely rare. It’s not the pattern of most sexual offenses.”
He says this phenomenon dates back to the mid-1990s, when there was a spike in the number of news stories about sexual violence and sexual offenders—and an even sharper increase in the use of the words “sexual predator.”
The trend dovetailed with “determinate” sentencing laws, which emerged in the 1980s as part of the war on drugs, and required long, non-negotiable prison terms for certain crimes. “This came out of Reagan conservatism that considered the old way too soft-headed, and based on therapy and everything,” says Janus. “Now we were really going to punish these people, and that meant you put them away for a certain number of years.”
In earlier times, many of those same offenders would have been put on tightly supervised parole, he says. But under the new “determinate” policies, when offenders’ sentences were up, they were simply released. “There wasn’t any way of keeping them, even if the authorities were really, really worried about them as a matter of safety. So what you saw was lot of really horrendous crimes by recently released offenders.”
That coincided with a new consciousness, largely driven by the feminist movement, he says, about the seriousness and scope of violence against women. “Put all of those things together, and there was a coming realization that we weren’t doing enough to protect against sex crimes.”
From that came community-notification laws, and the civil commitment of violent sex offenders. It’s no coincidence that many new statutes from that period were called “sexually violent predator” laws, thus feeding what many considered to be mass panic. “Once you have the spotlight on these horrendous but rare crimes,” says Janus, “people get the notion that, ‘My God, that could happen to anybody!'”
So starts the vicious circle. “The more attention paid to these crimes, the more worried people become—and the more they demand perfect safety, and closing the all the loopholes, tightening the laws—spreading the net wider.”
The result? “You get the laws where now we’re doing community notification on tens of thousands of (offenders),” says Janus. “And it becomes useless, because all you know is that somebody who exposed themselves 10 years ago is living in your neighborhood. Well, what are you going to do with that information?”
His perspective is reinforced by a 2009 report from New York’s Vera Institute of Justice. Commissioned by the U.S. Justice Department, the research shows that saddling sex offenders with increasingly longer sentences for a wider variety of crimes—often without the possibility of parole—may result in more pre-trial plea bargains, and potentially less reporting of sexual abuse by family members who balk at condemning a relative to decades in jail.
And though registration helps police track suspects, the study shows that rates of registration compliance are dropping, and law-enforcement agencies are often too resource-strapped to track down scofflaws.
Website postings and notification by mail appear to have the same mixed results, says the report. While such postings may make people feel more secure, research suggests that most offenders are already known to their victims. Such notification has the corollary effect of making it harder for offenders to obtain jobs and housing—boosting the likelihood that they’ll re-offend.
Underlying all of this, critics contend, is raw political expediency.
“It’s one of those issues that, when someone is running for office, it’s a no-lose to get tough about, whether there’s a reason to do it or not,” says Tucson defense attorney Richard Lougee. As a result, “every year, the law gets more punitive, and irrationally so.”
That creates victims on both sides, he says. “There is no constituency for the falsely accused. Nobody really cares about this issue until the police knock on their door at 7 in the morning and say that their ex-wife is accusing them (of molestation).”
Such charges are also notoriously difficult to defend, says Lougee, who has specialized in sex-offender cases since the early 1980s. “There are no types of cases where there are more false convictions. That makes these geologic sentences even more troubling.”
He estimates that, among inmates in the Arizona prison system’s sex-offender units, “somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 or 30 percent of them are factually innocent.” That occurs, he says, because the system is rigged against them. “Prior acts of misconduct—which are not admissible in other cases—come into play. There is a whole body of pseudo literature—created by the child advocates—about the truthfulness of (children’s) allegations when they are made. There’s a whole universe of tools and techniques which have been crafted for these types of cases which do not ensure reliable convictions.”
The most egregious miscarriages involve divorce and custody battles, he says, with the mother accusing the father. “There’s no faster way of taking care of child custody than pushing that button.”
All of which leads to wrenching decisions. It’s not unusual, says Lougee, for him to advise clients he knows are innocent to plea bargain rather than face decades in prison.
Lougee also blames a crusading Pima County Attorney’s Office for a number of false convictions. “There is a policy in that office that, when something comes in the door, it doesn’t get thrown out,” he says. “I’ve had many cases where my client has faced life in prison on the original charges, and I’ve proven to the prosecutor that my client couldn’t have done it—that he was innocent—and he was still required to plea to something, so that he wouldn’t face the risk of these geologic sentences.”
However, County Attorney Barbara LaWall says the numbers argue otherwise. Over the past five years, for example, she points to 122 violent sexual-assault cases presented—and 108 dismissals. During that same period, 436 child-molestation cases landed in the county attorney’s office, “and we only filed on 230 of them,” she says.
The picture changes a bit for sex-exploitation charges, where 83 out of 108 cases were pursued between 2004 and 2009. “You can see that there’s a higher filing rate,” says LaWall. “These are folks with child pornography on their computers, or who have engaged in chat groups where they are exploiting or luring children for sexual acts. The evidence is clearer, more definitive and generally not a child’s word against an adult’s word.”
But even those prosecutions require reams of evidence, she says. “We have an ethical responsibility—which we take very seriously—of not bringing cases to the grand jury unless we have sufficient evidence to present the case and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s our burden.”
The burden only grows when child molestation is alleged, she says. “Those are probably the most difficult cases we have. You have to look at everything surrounding the situation: What did the child say happened? How old was the child? To whom did they report? How quickly did they report? Was there any physical evidence? Sometimes there’s bruising; sometimes there are tears. Is there any evidence of other behaviors surrounding the offense?
“We look at everything. It’s not just the word of a child.”
In prison, sex offenders are segregated into special units. This is for their own protection; they are routinely beaten and killed by other inmates. In that jungle of base human instincts, they have become modern pariahs.
On the outside, if they ever get that far, sex offenders face a new thicket of probation officers and piss tests and surprise visits that are decidedly not of a social nature.
Kathy Waters is director of adult probation services for the Arizona Supreme Court. She says sex offenders face more post-release rigors than other former inmates. In most areas of the state, “they’re basically on lifetime supervision if convicted of certain crimes—especially dangerous crimes against children.”
But that doesn’t necessarily mean garden-variety sex offenders are unusually likely to commit another crime. “Maricopa County has done many studies,” she says, “and they’ve found that, of the many people on their caseloads in adult probation, (sex offenders) are the lowest group of recidivists.
“You can be a sex offender and not a child predator,” she adds, pointing to television shows that “paint sex offenders with a very broad brush. There are different degrees of offenses. But it depends upon what the laws are. You could be a sex offender for urinating in public.”
According to Waters, Arizona currently has 45,000 sex offenders on standard probation, and 2,200 on intensive probation. Another 38,000 fall under what’s called “administrative probation,” meaning they could be in treatment, or are being supervised in another state.
Annual costs for intensive probation are about $7,000 per offender, per year. Standard probation is approximately $1,200 annually.
But that money is spent precisely, says Waters, who ranks Arizona’s probation system among the nation’s most effective. “What we’re trying to do … is have the right people under supervision,” with monitoring geared to their risk of re-offending. For instance, those placed on intensive probation “would be the higher-risk offenders. … It would be because they have things going on—a criminogenic risk—which got them into trouble to begin with, and which they need to work on.”
While such extensive monitoring isn’t cheap, she says it’s far less costly—and far more productive—than keeping every offender behind bars. “I would rather see people on probation than in prison. It’s one of the best sentencing options our courts have, rather than incarceration. And I think that our courts use it that way—as long as they can ensure public safety, they utilize probation. The courts here have a lot of confidence in their probation department.”
It’s a cloudy day, and a gray light sifts into the hushed, midtown offices of Counseling and Consulting Services, which, among other things, operates court-ordered therapy sessions for sex offenders. Agency co-founder Dave Harvey has the knee-crossed intensity of a man who must conjure compassion when compassion does not always freely flow. One of his psychologists, Dr. Serena Gorgueiro, sits across from Harvey, while I take up a small couch.
Treatment here ranges from reining in drug and alcohol habits to keeping offenders from isolating themselves—something of a challenge when society would prefer they all congregated in outer space. “That’s an issue that we struggle with in group quite often, helping them become more social,” says Gorgueiro. “But as they become more social, they have to disclose their offense—especially if they’re on probation, because probation has to approve the people they’re around, run a Social Security number and everything.”
That means they have to get comfortable with talking about the intimate details of their offense—even when they’re out on dates. “Your life is no longer your own,” says Harvey. “You have to be accountable for where you’re going to be during the week. People are going to check and see if you went to work when you said you were going to work. They’re going to check to see if you showed up at the Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. If you’re interested in dating somebody, they’re going to want to meet that person.”
In most cases, of course, probation fills a vital need. And according to experts like Kathy Waters, it’s also effective. By contrast, therapy can be a relative matter. “There are different types of sexual proclivities,” says Dr. Gorgueiro, “that are more difficult to treat than others.”
Pedophilia ranks high among them. “Usually, when we look at progress, in most cases, that doesn’t mean we’re going to see someone with the (pedophile) diagnosis totally changing their sexual interest in children,” she says. “We certainly want to help them expand and develop relationships with age-appropriate folks. But most of the progress is measured by how they develop their self-management skills—how do they not get into situations where they’re around children? How do they not get in positions where they’re tempted to offend—or just in a position where someone’s going to accuse them of that?”
These therapists tap into a number of tools to reach that point. Among the most powerful is helping true sex offenders develop empathy for their victims, which means peeling back layers of twisted thinking. “We call it ‘significant cognitive distortion,'” says Harvey. “We sometimes hear offenders say something like, ‘Well, if that 4-year-old hadn’t been so seductive and hadn’t been flirting with me.’ Those kinds of things.”
Enter reality. “Part of developing empathy,” Harvey continues, “is (the client) moving from, ‘Well, you know, I touched her, and she really liked it, and people aren’t as nice to her as I am,’ to really understanding the trauma you’re creating with that type of offense.”
He insists that breakthroughs do occur. “Within the parameters we’re talking about, I think it’s a treatable subset of the population,” he says. “But people within that population are always going to be ‘risk-managed.'”
Gorgueiro reaches for her notepad and readies to leave, presumably for an afternoon session. Then she stops. “It’s not a curable disease,” she says. “We’re not here to cure. We’re here to treat, to prevent.”
The examining table at the Southern Arizona Children’s Advocacy Center looks like a little blue bus, with tiny headlights, square gray windows and a teddy bear perched on top. It’s designed to keep kids from flipping out while doctors poke and probe to learn if the children have been raped or otherwise molested by an adult. Waiting rooms here are likewise populated by rocking chairs and quilts and plush toys. Grinning flowers sprout up from the couch, and a stuffed turtle peeks from beneath elfin pillows.
It is a sad place, dressed up to seem happy, and kids arrive here for a variety of heinous reasons. Some have been beaten. Some have been burned. Others were subjected to long-running sexual assault. In this one-stop-shop for abuse, they are simultaneously calmed and coaxed to share details.
Upstairs resides a small contingent of detectives with the Pima County Sheriff’s Department. Down the hall is space for the county attorney, a state Child Protective Services’ sex-abuse unit, and bunking quarters for doctors who do on-call forensic exams.
There’s a room with computers to scan for Internet child porn and a VCR to review video child porn. In the interview room, a small chart is taped to the back of the door. It lists euphemisms for a penis that children might hear, words such as “Captain Winkie” and “wiener dog” and “tally wacker.”
This place is engineered to handle human-inflicted trauma in the smoothest possible way, with a tight choreography that separates child from parent, provides a safe zone for interviews, and brings kids around to that examining table shaped like a little blue bus. “The children go in kind of a racetrack format, from what they need to do first to what they need to do next,” says Wilene Lampert, the center’s executive director. “Each is a spot where they can comfortably stay before they go to the next step.”
We’re joined by Sgt. Sonia Pesqueira, a no-nonsense cop who runs the units for the sheriff’s department that deal with crimes against children and adult sex abuse.
With cases that land here, she says, nailing the abusers means catching every detail. “These investigations are done just so, and they’re very consistent. That makes it harder for the (perpetrators) to have a defense for some of the things they do.”
It also helps prevent abuses on the other side, says Lampert. “The interviews are much more carefully designed to avoid those big cases that happened, for example, with the child-care centers.”
She’s referring to the string of child-sex-ring scandals in the 1980s that ensnared teachers at the McMartin Preschool in Manhattan Beach, Calif., and the Wee Care Nursery School in Malden, Mass.
Those cases prompted hysteria about day-care centers. Although the allegations were eventually debunked—and in some cases, the children’s testimony appeared to be coached by adults—they nonetheless helped launch today’s sex-offender statutes. “But the detectives now have a much better and broader knowledge of what’s involved, and how best to gather those facts, so that you don’t have some of the errors that were made in the 1980s,” says Lampert.
Says Pesqueira, “It’s not just one-sided, ‘Let’s get this guy put in jail,’ and we’re done with it.” Instead, questions likely to be raised by the defense attorney are pondered. “You’d better meet those head-on from the beginning, and try to dispel any of them to have an ironclad case for prosecution.”
It’s quite obvious that Pesqueira despises the offenders who force children to come here. She tells me she’s seen victims of everything from minor beatings “to the most horrendous sexual abuse, repeated sexual abuse every time that child comes home from school.”
Society “calls it child molestation,” she says. “Those are kind of patterned words—sexual conduct with a minor, sexual abuse. But it’s a lot more horrendous than that. It is full-blown rape. That’s what some of these children are suffering from, from the time that they were toddlers.”
From her perspective, those who prey on children are beyond rehabilitation. “Once it’s there, it’s always there,” she says. “Pornography now is so widespread and prevalent that a lot of them are acting on their impulses. Especially when they have access to things such as live video footage of children being tortured and sexually assaulted.”
There are online chat rooms, she says, where offenders discuss how to groom a child for penetration, and mastering the art of man-child love. “These are the things they talk to each other about when they’re not in the counselor’s office. They’re going to have validation from each other, and they’re going to re-offend.”
But Pesqueira also believes that the effectiveness of sex-offender notification is limited, at best. Those faces on the Internet don’t necessarily pose the greatest risk, she says. “It’s the one who has never been caught but has been in the picture the whole time—the janitor at the school, or the nearby neighbor. Those are the ones who are the successful offenders, who continue to re-offend, and have never been prosecuted.”
Polly Klaas was just 12 years old on the night in October 1993 when she was snatched from a slumber party in Petaluma, Calif. When Richard Allen Davis was convicted in her kidnapping and subsequent murder, the ex-con with a history of assaulting women raised both middle fingers to the court. When he was later sentenced to death, he accused Polly’s father of molesting her. Marc Klaas lunged toward Allen, before relinquishing to deputies who led him from the courtroom.
Today, Marc Klaas is president of the KlaasKids Foundation, which advocates for safer communities, and stiffer sentences for violent and repeat offenders. He disagrees with Pesqueira’s take on notifications. “Back in the 1990s, we didn’t have registries, and we didn’t know who these guys were,” he says. “And their privacy was more important than our kids’ safety. In light of that, Megan’s Law was passed, putting children’s safety as a higher priority than the privacy of people who would commit crimes against them. It gives law enforcement the ability to jumpstart investigations by knowing who these guys are and where they are.
“In balance, I think the sex-offender registries are necessary and important,” Klaas says. “I just wish the government would take them more seriously.”
He points to the San Diego case of John Gardner, who in April admitted killing two teens and raping one of them. Gardner had “a history of violence and a successful prosecution for sex crimes, and as such—knowing who this guy was—they could have taken action to civilly commit him,” says Klaas. “And no steps were taken. As a result of that, he was released from prison and went on to murder two young girls.”
In California, he says, “Jessica’s Law” requires law-enforcement authorities to evaluate violent sexual offenders when they’re released from prison, to see if they should be civilly committed to secure mental facilities. While the practice raises serious civil-rights questions, Klaas says it saves lives. The alternative, he says, “is putting these guys back on the streets to commit more mayhem and murders.”
On May 17, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on the side of Klaas and other advocates, ruling that some sex offenders can be held indefinitely under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The law is named for a 6-year-old child who was abducted and killed in 1981.
I‘m on the northwest side of Tucson, in a tidy trailer park run by yet another man who asks that I not use his name nor otherwise describe him and his small establishment. That is not because he is a sex offender, but because, like Father Ted, he takes them in. And just like at Father Ted’s place, none of his tenants will talk to me.
I will call this man Albert. According to Albert, his trailers are always full since he started renting to these offenders 15 years ago. “They just find me,” he says. “Sometimes the parole department tells the guys about it. Sometimes they have friends in prison who are getting out.”
Albert says he gained this clientele “by accident, really. A guy needed a place to live, and he was (a sex offender), and I said, ‘OK,’ and I started renting to him. Then the parole department asked me if I had any more trailers, and they filled them all up.”
Such livelihoods require a keen eye to detail. For instance, each renter is thoroughly screened before they move in. “Sometimes,” says Albert, “when you sit down and talk, they’re not as bad as how their record looks, and sometimes they’re not as good as how their record looks.”
We sit on Albert’s porch, and he leans forward with his hands on his knees as he talks. He nudges the concrete with a toe of his boot. “Yes, they’re sex offenders,” he says, “and I can hate what they did. But I can’t hate them. I mean, these are some pretty good old boys. They just made an awful mistake.”
However, like Father Ted, Albert doesn’t leave room for any future mistakes. “They can’t have any women back here unless they call me. No drinking. If there’s any drugs, they’re history.”
It’s a clean, no-bullshit operation, and Albert is not without compassion for the men who have rehashed their lives around him. He pauses and looks out at the trailers, lined up nearly to the road. Then he leans back in his chair.
“Listen, I don’t pass judgment,” he says. “But I can tell you they have a hell of a time finding a job or anything else. All they want to do have a place to live, have a car, go out to see a movie, and have some fun. These guys don’t bother anybody. But they’ll carry that brand around forever.”
This article appears in May 20-26, 2010.
http://www.oncefallen.com/
This is a decent article; my chief complaint, however, is that it did not bring up the constant threat of abuse of registry information, in particular, vigilante violence. As many as 40% of registrants and about an equal number of loved ones of the registrants face property damage, harassment, assaults, and even murders by people whipped up into a frenzy over the sex offender list. Look up Stephen Marshall, the man who killed two Maine Registrants in 2006, for example (with a similar double homicide in Washington state). I’ve been a victim of vigilante violence as well.
Each and everyone of us is just one false accusation away from being a sex offender.
The Elimination of Constitutional Rights
Prosecutors and the child saving industry have convinced the legislature that merely creating hysteria is not enough to insure conviction for those accused. In addition, rights originally created in our constitution to protect the criminal defendants must be eliminated.
The Rules to Have Changed to Secure Convictions
All across our nation, state legislatures have supported child advocacy special interest groups. The following illustrates how constitutional rights have been taken away in child sexual assault trials:
No Right to Confront Your Accuser:
Criminal law codes have been rewritten to where in many cases, the child accuser does not have to appear in court and face the accused. Instead, the state can offer the child’s testimony through a video tape made by agents of the prosecution.
“Hearsay Evidence”:
Hearsay is defined as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” (Tex. Rules. Evid. 803 (2)). In Layman’s terms, “Hearsay” evidence is when a witness testifies about something they do not personally know, but were told by someone else. Hearsay is considered unreliable and is normally inadmissible as evidence against an accused. In child abuse cases however, hearsay evidence is admitted as evidence of guilt. A so called “outcry” witness can testify as to what a child supposedly said to them regarding the alleged abuse.
“Syndrome Evidence” Is Admissible Against the Accused:
In most states, the prosecution can have an expert witness testify that the child is suffering from “Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome”(CSAAS). This psychological “mumble jumble” is an unscientific theory of supposed traits of abused children. The psychologist who came up with this syndrome many years ago has since indicated that this theory is not reliable evidence in a court of law. Prosecutors do not care! This junk science makes its appearance in courtrooms across the country daily.
With Syndrome Evidence, the State Replaces Its Lack of Real Proof with Speculation.
CSAAS theorizes that because an alleged victim is supposedly demonstrating certain behavioral patterns that he/she must have actually been abused. Unfortunately, a big problem with this and other syndromes is that the character traits offered to show abuse are also common for non-abused children. If the child has been crying, he/she must have been abused. If the child has nightmares, he/she must have been abused. If the child is withdrawn, he/she must have been abused. If the child is outgoing, he/she must have been abused. If the child is happy around the accused, its because the child enjoyed the abuse. The list of factors goes on forever. But to a jury, when an expert witness is connecting typical childhood behavior with indicators of abuse, the testimony is extremely damaging to the falsely accused.
Convictions Without Physical Evidence:
Our prisons are full of persons who have been convicted of child molestation without any physical evidence ever introduced against them at trial. In other words, the typical evidence in which the state offers to convict a defendant, such as body fluids, blood, semen, hair, DNA, are not introduced at trial to link the accused to a crime.
Medical nurses and employees whose livelihoods depend upon their contracts with child advocacy centers will give opinions that a child was abused. Failure to give the right opinion will mean the contract is not renewed. These opinions from medical “experts” will say the findings are “consistent with” sexual abuse. Of course, “consistent with” is not a true medical diagnosis. This testimony, as demonstrated by a competent defense attorney will reveal the findings given as “consistent with abuse” are just as “inconsistent with abuse”.
Prosecutors Secure Convictions by Manipulating the Juries’ Fear of
Releasing a Child Molester Back Into the Community.
Instead of physical and medical evidence, the falsely accused are convicted upon theories, inferences, and speculation. Prosecutors secure convictions by manipulating the juries fear of releasing a child molester back into the community. This fear will be combined with hearsay, expert witness “syndrome evidence”, misleading medical testimony, and the biased opinions of child advocacy investigators.
To support this speculation, a biased child protective services caseworker will produce a video taped interview of the child. This biased interviewer will use leading, suggestive, and coached questions to easily obtain an “admission” from a child. Many times the child does not make a statement that abuse occurred, but merely agrees with the adult authority figure who informs the child of the abuse.
After an outcry, it is easy to find witnesses who can place the accused in circumstances in which he was alone with the alleged victim.
RARE CRIMES? 1 in 4 women will be molested or raped in her lifetime. Having been the victim of a recidivist who never should have been released back into society, I was disappointed by the outlook of this reporter.
I would like to note that as a former occupant of “Father Ted’s” place, and I would like to clarify some things. They do not dislike him because of who is there. They dislike him because he routinely breaks the law himself. The buildings he keeps are not up to code, with mold and such growing there. He does not keep tabs on the occupants, he leaves that up to probation. Many have to stay their probation terms there. Once off, they are then allowed to leave, and after Probation stops monitoring them, he does as well and basically lets them do whatever they want. Drugs run rampant in that place.
Out of respect for his anonymity, I will not reveal the mans identity either, but I will let you know that he did not want to be outed out of fear for people like me doing this.
The man is a slum lord who found an easy way to make a buck off the unfortunate. His main concern is profiting off of these people.
When I moved out, he had my property seized and ‘thrown away’ when I was not there. He committed a major act of theft against me after assuring me it would be safe for three days(of which rent was still paid) and continued to steal my property anyway.
The man does not try to help the community, he only seeks to so whatever he can to make money at the expense of the local community.
If you have served your time, you’ve served your time. You should be a 100% citizen again once you’re free again, with all the responsibilities and privileges pertaining thereto.
I don’t believe in this half-citizenship stuff, such as not being able to buy a gun, not being able to vote, and being on a pariah list of sexual “offenses.” All rubbish. However, I also do not believe in probation or parole. If you’re in and serving time, you’re in and serving time. Hard time is hard time.
If you are out, then you are deemed fit to rejoin society and there should be no restrictions. Otherwise, lock ’em up!
Kudos to Tim for getting into the nitty-gritty of this topic and arguably examining it from all sides.
This article raises some pertinent questions, namely, are we safer using scant resources to track these people? I know someone who was a minor when he had consensual sex with his minor girlfriend. The day he turned 18, her parents went to the police and the Pima County Attorney’s Office had him prosecuted as a sexual offender. He is now in his late 30s and has been unable to find steady unemployment or housing because he’s on the sex offender registry, despite the fact that the only infraction since he went to prison when he was 20 is for not reporting so he could get a job and housing. There is no way he could repeat his crime because he’s not a child molester. Yet our tax dollars have been spent on keeping track of him.
And guess what? Now he’s on welfare because he can’t support himself, though he would like to.
One thing the article doesn’t mention is that in Arizona, THERE IS NO MECHANISM for getting OFF the sex offender list. You can murder someone, go to prison, get out and then petition a judge to have all your rights restored (except for owning firearms), but if you are a sex offender, even if you have been out of prison for decades without reoffending, you are still going to be on the list.
That’s wrong.
Nobody wants children or adults to be victims of sexual assault, but this is NOT keeping us safe.
Millions of tax dollars as well as police manhours are wasted on these registries. There are a handful of predatory offenders who warrant registration as well as community notification compared to the thousands of men who are stuck in this lifetime registration for crimes such as statutory rape, indecent exposure, etc… commited when they were young foolish men. The laws are too widespread and need to be reevaluated. Problem is that no politician is going to mention this waste of resources to the public when pushing more sex offender laws makes for a great reelection platform. I feel for the many men who suffer with this Scarlet letter throughout their entire lives for one stupid mistake. Its hell. I know Ive been doing it for 18 years now since i was 23 years old. It changes you life forever. I never sought to hurt anyone. nor would i today. Just a young stupid kid. You become kind of a social recluse. Always in fear of persecution, hatred or even violence against you or your loved ones. Finding a decent job or decent housing requires hours and days of leg work if it can b found at all. I was once homeless for 3 years and that is always the biggest fear. And for what because i decided to drink and have sex with a teenage girl i met at the grocery store one time 18 years ago. Im sure shes long forgotten it by now as it was kinda a game to toy with my life to her. I will remember everyday of my life just like it was yesterday. Would i ever do it again? No way. I always give strong warning to young men i see with underage girlfriends that what they are doing is a real bad idea. But it happens its always gonna happen and these registries arent gonna change that. All theyre really gonna do is absolutely demolish the lives of the few young men who do actually get caught. But you know if it wins votes whats a few casualties?
Great discussion. Real sex predators must be prosecuted and kept away from potential victims. But the zeal for prosecution has gone way too far. Take the case of the immature 18-year old UA student with no priors (never into drugs, alcohol, no porno web surfing, etc.) and a great high school record who was bored one day and put an ad on Craig’s list asking for an experienced woman. He was caught in this first act by an undercover cop posing as underage who begged him to meet her in 26 text messages after which he finally gave in and biked to a park to meet “her.”
9 months later, no longer a UA student, he still awaits prosecution for a felony and the sex offender label. Parents have gone deeply into debt to pay a good lawyer, the kid has lost his chance for a University education, and will have trouble finding a job or a home if he is convicted and labeled.
The kid made a really dumb mistake and benefitted from being caught, but to mark an 18-year for life for his first offense that didn’t even harm anyone except himself is excessive. If convicted he will never be the fine science teacher he could have been. If his parents could not have scraped up the money for a good lawyer, lived out of state, or had minors in the home, he would probably be in jail today, learning to be a criminal.
Has society benefitted from this zealous prosecution/persecution? Wouldn’t we all have been better off with programs that would help these kids head in the right direction after a really good scare? What would the impact of a jail term be on a naive kid in adult prison?
How many adults never made a dumb mistake when they were 18 or even older?
The laws need to be changed so that real predators, serial rapists and the like are convicted, but so that much less serious offenders are headed in the right direction and not turned into criminals with much less chance of becoming tax-paying members of society. We need to reward our County Attorneys and police officials not for how many people they put in jail, but for how many people they prevent from taking up a life of crime.
The “one in four women will be raped” is a lie made up years ago by fanatic advocates, and have been disproven time and time again.
Secondly ” The burden only grows when child molestation is alleged, she says. “Those are probably the most difficult cases we have. You have to look at everything surrounding the situation: What did the child say happened? How old was the child? To whom did they report? How quickly did they report? Was there any physical evidence? Sometimes there’s bruising; sometimes there are tears. Is there any evidence of other behaviors surrounding the offense?”
Is also untrue.
As posted from the http://www.paulstuckle.com site, a defense attorney in Texas advising his clients why the enormous costs of defense are justified, child abuse convictions are a sure winner for prosecutors. They build their careers on them, and God help any innocent person who gets in their way.
No evidence is needed, no time elaspe is considered, Rape Shield laws hide the fact they or their mothers have made false accusations before, and the majority of those innocent accused will cut their inevitable losses by accepting a plea rather than risk prison rape.
I know this for a fact. My son is one of the innocent, falsely accused as a juvenile. These false accusations are an absolute railroading.
Thank you for this well-written article. My son was falsely accused of sexual abuse by an 8 YEAR OLD GIRL !! years ago. Some people can’t understand anyone taking a plea when they are innocent. Those people have never been falsely accused of sexually abusing a child. The weight of the criminal justice system and a lawyer that thinks my son looks bad (and he did…he is mentally ill , had bad skin, bad teeth and she was a a lovely looking child). Years later, she grew up and recanted. Why did she do it? Well, it’s a long story but her mom and older sister were both prostitutes and drug addicts. She also lived with 3 criminal uncles, one was out of prison from a murder rap, another for violence against a biker gang, another for raping a blind teenager. They lived in one of Baltimore’s highest crime areas, full of prostitution and drugs. My son had no criminal record but was naive as hell. He was on disability and found a whole house to rent in that neighborhood and was thrilled to get a whole house.
Anyway, he fell in love with this girls’ older sister who was using him, of course. This child might not have thought of doing this but her grandmother and a nosy, neighborhood watchwoman gave her the idea, she later said . They told her they didn’t like my sons’ looks, thought he was “wierd” (he was too friendly with everyone, trusted everybody too much) and the states attorney also used that word about my son.
Long story short she said she was trying to think of a way she could get him away from her sister. When I met this child (now an adult prostitute/drug addict), she bragged to me about how she lied as a child. She said she lied so much, she believed her own lies. When she finally told the truth to an ex homicide commander of a Md. police dept., she said how good it felt to finally tell the truth. For those who are interested, read:
http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id…
My son is STILL on the registry, almost 20 years later. Few care. I wish I could say this is rare. It may not be common but I have learned there are more cases like this than you would believe. If you want to know more, go to Reform Sex Offender Laws.org or False Allegation Support Team.com FAST and RSOL Justice can be very swift when it gets the wrong person and glacier slow to try to correct it.
I don’t know what causes a s-e-x offender to become one. With that being said, I can’t say for sure that MY OWN son or daughter won’t be afflicted with some abnormality that effects who they are sexually attracted to. I DO know however that if you do the crime you have to do the time in order to deserve a second chance. As much as I want my kids safe, I can’t agree with a law that effectively bars a second chance by ostracizing them from the community. I especially agree with that knowing that the politicians always show up to work when there’s a s-e-x offender law to be passed. I mean my God, it screams “I wanna be tough on crime so it’ll look good to get elected regardless of anything else” I don’t want someone who wants to “do things” with my kids around my kids, but I sure won’t lower the bar on civil liberties just to make myself safer. Don’t people know that when they swing a sword they should find out whether it’s double edged?
This is an excellent article, covering many of the areas of concern I have about all the sex-offender legislation brought about by public hysteria and punk politicians looking for a vote.
I do agree with the first comment regarding vigilante justice – names, faces and addresses are published in the registries for anyone to see and to commit violence against. It’s time for legislators to wake up and change the laws. Murderers are treated better after prison than “sex offenders.”
PubMed is a search engine researchers use to find relevent articles in their disciplines. A PubMed search of the literature calls up the following articles (titles, journals, authors, and abstracts).
1: Int J Law Psychiatry. 2007 Jan-Feb;30(1):36-48. Epub 2006 Dec 8. Links
Loathing the sinner, medicalizing the sin: why sexually violent predator statutes are unjust.
Douard J.
New Jersey Office of the Public Defender, 31 Clinton Street, Newark, New Jersey 07001, USA. Douard@rci.rutgers.edu
In seventeen states, persons convicted of one or more sexually violent offenses may be involuntarily civilly committed at the end of their criminal terms if they suffer from a mental disorder that renders them likely to reoffend sexually. These statutes place the burden on states to show that the sex offender meets the United States Constitutional standard of dangerousness. The key to proving dangerousness is proof of a mental disorder. However, the United States Supreme Court recently found that the offender need not be mentally ill. He need only “suffer” from “mental abnormality” or “personality disorder” that affects his cognitive, emotional or volitional capacities such that he is highly likely to sexually reoffend. These statutes are expressions of disgust: a fear of contamination by persons who engage in sexual conduct that forces us to confront our dark impulses. We do not merely hate the sin; we hate the sinner, and we want the sinner to be removed from our presence. Moreover, the emotions these statutes express are the source of widespread moral panic not warranted by data about recidivism risk. Laws that express disgust are likely to result in the unjust treatment of sex offenders.
Sex Abuse. 2006 Oct;18(4):343-55. Links
Does Static-99 predict recidivism among older sexual offenders?
Hanson RK.
Corrections Research, Public Safety Canada, 340 Laurier Ave., West, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0P8, Canada. karl.hanson@psepc-sppcc.gc.ca
Static-99 (Hanson & Thornton, 2000) is the most commonly used actuarial risk tool for estimating sexual offender recidivism risk. Recent research has suggested that its methods of accounting for the offenders’ ages may be insufficient to capture declines in recidivism risk associated with advanced age. Using data from 8 samples (combined size of 3,425 sexual offenders), the present study found that older offenders had lower Static-99 scores than younger offenders and that Static-99 was moderately accurate in estimating relative recidivism risk in all age groups. Older offenders, however, had lower sexual recidivism rates than would be expected based on their Static-99 risk categories. Consequently, evaluators using Static-99 should considered advanced age in their overall estimate of risk.
Sex Abuse. 2009 Sep;21(3):279-307. Epub 2009 Jun 16. Links
The impact of prison-based treatment on sex offender recidivism: evidence from Minnesota.
Duwe G, Goldman RA.
Minnesota Department of Corrections, St. Paul, MN 55108-5219, USA. GDuwe@co.doc.state.mn.us
Using a retrospective quasi-experimental design, this study evaluates the effectiveness of prison-based treatment by examining recidivism outcomes among 2,040 sex offenders released from Minnesota prisons between 1990 and 2003 (average follow-up period of 9.3 years). To reduce observed selection bias, the authors used propensity score matching to create a comparison group of 1,020 untreated sex offenders who were not significantly different from the 1,020 treated offenders. In addition, intent-to-treat analyses and the Rosenbaum bounds method were used to test the sensitivity of the findings to treatment refuser and unobserved selection bias. Results from the Cox regression analyses revealed that participating in treatment significantly reduced the hazard ratio for rearrest by 27% for sexual recidivism, 18% for violent recidivism, and 12% for general recidivism. These findings are consistent with the growing body of research supporting the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral treatment for sex offenders.
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2008 Aug 26. [Epub ahead of print] Links
Public Perception of Sex Offender Social Policies and the Impact on Sex Offenders.
Schiavone SK, Jeglic EL.
This study examines the public perception of sex offender policies and the perceived impact of sex offender policies on the sex offenders themselves. Specifically, this study explores how the community feels about the effectiveness of policies such as registration and community notification (Megan’s Law), and housing restrictions in reducing sexual recidivism. Data are collected from 115 participants from a nationwide online community message board. Results suggest that although most individuals support Megan’s Law, they do not feel the policy reduces recidivism. Furthermore, the majority of the participants also do not believe that housing restriction statutes are effective in reducing sexual recidivism. When questioned about the policy impact on sex offenders, the majority of respondents agree that as a consequence of Megan’s Law, sex offenders are afraid for their safety; however, they do not believe that residence restrictions hinder sex offenders’ employment opportunities. Findings from this study are discussed as they pertain to public policy and sex offender reintegration.
Sex Abuse. 2008 Jun;20(2):218-40. Links
The quality of community reintegration planning for child molesters: effects on sexual recidivism.
Willis GM, Grace RC.
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. gwenda.willis@pg.canterbury.ac.nz
Research on the causal factors underlying sex offender recidivism has not considered the success or failure of the reintegration process by which the offender rejoins the community after prison. The authors developed a coding protocol to measure the quality and comprehensiveness of reintegration planning for sex offenders. The protocol was retrospectively applied to groups of recidivists and nonrecidivists who were matched on static risk level and follow-up time. The protocol demonstrated adequate reliability. Compared to nonrecidivists, recidivists had significantly lower scores relating to accommodation, employment, and the Good Lives Model secondary goods, as well as lower total reintegration plan scores. ANCOVAs showed that when IQ and level of sexual deviance were controlled for, accommodation (a place to live) was significantly related to sexual recidivism and the Good Lives Model-secondary goods was significantly related to any recidivism. These results suggest that poor reintegration planning may be a risk factor for recidivism.
Sex Abuse. 2008 Jun;20(2):188-205. Links
The impact of specialized sex offender legislation on community reentry.
Mercado CC, Alvarez S, Levenson J.
John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
The authors sought to examine the impact of notification and residence restriction statutes on sex offender reintegration. Although previous research has primarily sampled sex offenders receiving treatment, the authors examined the impact of these policies on a broad sample of registered sex offenders subject to notification via the Internet. Findings from a survey of 138 community sex offenders revealed that a high percentage perceived residence restriction and community notification legislation to negatively affect employment, housing, and social relations. Consistent with prior research in this area, these findings suggest that such policies might hamper offenders’ efforts toward community reintegration, which ultimately could serve to inflate rates of recidivism. Directions for future research and implications for practice and policy evaluation are discussed.
J Interpers Violence. 2009 Mar;24(3):522-36. Epub 2008 May 5.
Outcome evaluation of a high-intensity inpatient sex offender treatment program.
Olver ME, Wong SC, Nicholaichuk TP.
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. mark.olver@usask.ca
The treatment outcome of a high-intensity inpatient sex offender treatment program was evaluated by comparing the sexual recidivism rates of 472 treated and 282 untreated sex offenders. The program is designed for moderate- to high-risk sex offenders and follows the principles of effective correctional treatment. The current investigation is an extension of an earlier study (Nicholaichuk et al., 2000) with the addition of 176 participants, an extra 4 years follow-up, and the use of Cox regression survival analysis to control for three potentially confounding variables: age of release, sexual offending history, and length of follow-up. Treated offenders sexually recidivated significantly less than the comparison group over nearly 20 years of follow-up, even after controlling for the aforementioned variables. The substantive findings suggest that treatment adhering to the what works principles can reduce long-term sexual recidivism for a moderate- to high-risk group of sex offenders.Clin Psychol Rev. 2008 Jul;28(6):917-32. Epub 2008 Feb 8.
Sex offender care for adolescents in secure care: critical factors and counseling strategies.
Underwood LA, Robinson SB, Mosholder E, Warren KM.
Regent University, School of Psychology and Counseling, 1000 University Drive, CRB 215, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23464, USA. leeunde@regent.edu
Sexual offenses perpetrated by adolescents have reportedly reached epidemic proportions. Adolescent sex offenders have been transferred to secure care facilities for their primary care. The elevated awareness and recognition of the problematic growth of adolescent sexual offenses has stimulated discussion among psychologists concerning the etiology, characteristics, classification, assessment, treatment interventions, and risk of recidivism. This article explores the critical factors and counseling strategies of those adolescents who have been adjudicated of sexual offenses.
{Note: The “Explosion” of child sex offenses is undoubtedly due to the criminalization of what was once considered normal – though unfortunate – behavior. These “crimes” were dealt with by the parents of children involved, and criminal justice was not involved. It seems that our justice system is making things worse}.
Sex Abuse. 2006 Oct;18(4):319-42.
Risk factors for adolescent sex offender recidivism: evaluation of predictive factors and comparison of three groups based upon victim type.
Parks GA, Bard DE.
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA. gregory-parks@ouhsc.edu
This study investigated differences in recidivism risk factors and traits associated with psychopathy among 3 groups of male adolescent sexual offenders (N=156): offenders against children, offenders against peers or adults, and mixed type offenders. Furthermore, those same variables were examined for their association with sexual and nonsexual recidivism and the 3 groups were compared for differences in rates of recidivism. Based upon both juvenile and adult recidivism data, 6.4% of the sample reoffended sexually and 30.1% reoffended nonsexually. Retrospective risk assessments were completed using the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (JSOAP-II) and the Psychopathy Checklist:Youth Version (PCL:YV). Comparisons of the 3 preexisting groups for differences on scale and factor scores were conducted using analyses of variance (ANOVAs). Differences among groups for recidivism were measured using survival curve analysis. Associations between risk scales and recidivism were measured using Cox regression analyses. Results suggest significant differences among the 3 offender groups on multiple scales of the JSOAP-II and PCL:YV, with mixed type offenders consistently producing higher risk scores as compared to those who exclusively offend against children or peers/adults. The Impulsive/Antisocial Behavior scale of the JSOAP-II and the Interpersonal and Antisocial factors of the PCL:YV were significant predictors of sexual recidivism. The Behavioral and Antisocial factors of the PCL:YV were significant predictors of nonsexual recidivism. Results supported previous research indicating that most adolescents who sexually offend do not continue offending into adulthood. Such results can lead to improved treatment by targeting specific risk factors for intervention and better use of risk management resources in the community, while preserving the most restrictive treatment options for the highest risk offenders.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2007;35(4):454-68.
Predicting the likelihood of future sexual recidivism: pilot study findings from a California sex offender risk project and cross-validation of the Static-99.
Sreenivasan S, Garrick T, Norris R, Cusworth-Walker S, Weinberger LE, Essres G, Turner S, Fain T.
Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. shoba.sreenivasan@med.va.gov
Pilot findings on 137 California sex offenders followed up over 10 years after release from custody (excluding cases in which legal jurisdiction expired) are presented. The sexual recidivism rate, very likely inflated by sample selection, was 31 percent at five years and 40 percent at 10 years. Cumulatively, markers of sexual deviance (multiple victim types) and criminality (prior parole violations and prison terms) led to improved prediction of sexual recidivism (receiver operating characteristic [ROC] = .71, r = .46) than singly (multiple victim types: ROC = .60, r = .31; prior parole violations and prison terms: ROC = .66, r = .37). Long-term Static-99 statistical predictive accuracy for sexual recidivism was lower in our sample (ROC = .62, r =.24) than the values presented in the developmental norms. Sexual recidivism rates were higher in our study for Static-99 scores of 2 and 3 than in the developmental sample, and lower for scores of 4 and 6. Given failures to replicate developmental norms, the Static-99 method of ranking sexual recidivism risk warrants caution when applied to individual offenders.
{Note that small sample size and lack of definition of what constitutes a “sex offender” can make recidivism rates appear worse}.
1: Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2007 Aug;51(4):369-83.
Comment in:
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2007 Aug;51(4):367-8.
Sex offender legislation in the United States: what do we know?
Cohen M, Jeglic EL.
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY 10019, USA.
In the United States there has been increased public pressure to create legislation to monitor and confine sex offenders. However, to date, there has been very little empirical evidence suggesting that these laws are effective in preventing future recidivism. This article reviews the current trends in sex offender legislation, including mandatory sentencing, civil commitment, community notification, monitoring, and supervision and the impact these policies may have on sex offender recidivism and treatment.
Sex Abuse. 2007 Jun;19(2):107-13. Epub 2007 May 26.
Sexual offense adjudication and sexual recidivism among juvenile offenders.
Caldwell MF.
Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1202 W, Johnson St., Madison, WI 53706, USA. mfcaldwell@wisc.edu
This study compares the recidivism patterns of a cohort of 249 juvenile sexual offenders and 1,780 non-sexual offending delinquents who were released from secured custody over a two and one half year period. The prevalence of sex offenders with new sexual offense charges during the 5 year follow-up period was 6.8%, compared to 5.7% for the non-sexual offenders, a non-significant difference. Juvenile sex offenders were nearly ten times more likely to have been charged with a nonsexual offense than a sexual offense. Eighty-five percent of the new sexual offenses in the follow-up period were accounted for by the non-sex offending delinquents. None of the 54 homicides (including three sexual homicides) was committed by a juvenile sex offender. The implications of the results for recent public policy trends that impose restrictions that are triggered by a sexual offense adjudication are discussed.
PMID: 17530405 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
1: J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005 Dec;73(6):1154-63. Links
The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: a meta-analysis of recidivism studies.
Hanson RK, Morton-Bourgon KE.
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0P8, Canada. Karl.Hanson@psepc-sppcc.gc.ca
A meta-analysis of 82 recidivism studies (1,620 findings from 29,450 sexual offenders) identified deviant sexual preferences and antisocial orientation as the major predictors of sexual recidivism for both adult and adolescent sexual offenders. Antisocial orientation was the major predictor of violent recidivism and general (any) recidivism. The review also identified some dynamic risk factors that have the potential of being useful treatment targets (e.g., sexual preoccupations, general self-regulation problems). Many of the variables commonly addressed in sex offender treatment programs (e.g., psychological distress, denial of sex crime, victim empathy, stated motivation for treatment) had little or no relationship with sexual or violent recidivism.
{We already are able to spot the most dangerous offenders; no need to lump all offenders under the draconian title of “sex offender.”}
Sex Abuse. 2005 Jul;17(3):313-31.
Juvenile sex offender re-arrest rates for sexual, violent nonsexual and property crimes: a 10-year follow-up.
Waite D, Keller A, McGarvey EL, Wieckowski E, Pinkerton R, Brown GL.
Department of Juvenile Justice, Behavioral Services Unit, Richmond, Virginia, USA. dennis.waite@djj.virginia.gov
We report the results of a 10-year follow-up recidivism study of two sex offender treatment programs for incarcerated juvenile sex offenders (JSOs) in Virginia. The programs vary in environment and intensity. The more intense JSO program (“self-contained”) operates in specialized living units that are separate from those of the general juvenile incarcerated population. In the less intense program (“prescriptive”), JSOs remain housed with the general population of juvenile offenders. Arrest and incarceration data through January 2003 were obtained for 261 male JSOs released between 1992 and 2001. The inclusion of adult incarceration data allowed for a more accurate assessment of the actual time at risk for sexual re-offending. Outcomes are re-arrest rates, length of time to re-arrest and type of offense (property, nonsexual assault, sexual) on re-arrest, with analyses using survival curve functions. For both groups, actual re-arrest is most likely to be for a nonsexual person offense (31 and 47%, respectively) and least likely to be for a sexual offense (<5% for both groups). Comparing the nonequivalent groups, the self-contained treatment group has a lower predicted re-arrest rate and a longer mean time to re-arrest, for all types of offenses, than the prescriptive treatment group. In addition, juveniles who indicate high levels of impulsive/antisocial behaviors are significantly more likely to recidivate compared to juveniles with low-levels of impulsive/antisocial behaviors, regardless of treatment type. This is the first 10-year follow-up study of treatment outcomes for a relatively large sample of males who were incarcerated for sexual offenses as juveniles.
PMID: 16121841 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
{Juvenile sex offenders are less than 5% likely to committ another sexual offense after treatment}
Arch Sex Behav. 2005 Jun;34(3):277-83. Links
Hostility and recidivism in sexual offenders.
Firestone P, Nunes KL, Moulden H, Broom I, Bradford JM.
School of Psychology and Department of Psychiatry, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. fireston@uottawa.ca
In this study, we examined the association of hostility, as measured by the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI), with offence characteristics and recidivism in 656 adult male sexual offenders. Hostility was significantly associated with having prior violent charges, the use of violence in the index sexual offence, sexual recidivism, and violent recidivism. After controlling for risk level, as measured by a modified version of the Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offence Recidivism (RRASOR-mod), the significant association between hostility and sexual and violent recidivism remained. When examined by type of offender, hostility was significantly associated with recidivism in intrafamilial and extrafamilial child molesters, but not in rapists or mixed offenders. Given the predictive value of hostility independent of the RRASOR-mod, the present findings confirm and encourage treatment efforts directed toward the management of hostility and anger in sexual offenders.
{Hostility and anger may make offenders more likely to reoffend. These laws may make the situation worse and our communities less safe.}
Specifically about Child Pornography:
BMC Psychiatry. 2009 Jul 14;9:43.
The consumption of Internet child pornography and violent and sex offending.
Endrass J, Urbaniok F, Hammermeister LC, Benz C, Elbert T, Laubacher A, Rossegger A.
Department of Justice, Canton of Zurich, Switzerland. jerome.endrass@ji.zh.ch
BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing debate on whether consumers of child pornography pose a risk for hands-on sex offenses. Up until now, there have been very few studies which have analyzed the association between the consumption of child pornography and the subsequent perpetration of hands-on sex offenses. The aim of this study was to examine the recidivism rates for hands-on and hands-off sex offenses in a sample of child pornography users using a 6 year follow-up design. METHODS: The current study population consisted of 231 men, who were subsequently charged with consumption of illegal pornographic material after being detected by a special operation against Internet child pornography, conducted by the Swiss police in 2002. Criminal history, as well as recidivism, was assessed using the criminal records from 2008. RESULTS: 4.8% (n = 11) of the study sample had a prior conviction for a sexual and/or violent offense, 1% (n = 2) for a hands-on sex offense, involving child sexual abuse, 3.3% (n = 8) for a hands-off sex offense and one for a nonsexual violent offense. When applying a broad definition of recidivism, which included ongoing investigations, charges and convictions, 3% (n = 7) of the study sample recidivated with a violent and/or sex offense, 3.9% (n = 9) with a hands-off sex offense and 0.8% (n = 2) with a hands-on sex offense. CONCLUSION: Consuming child pornography alone is not a risk factor for committing hands-on sex offenses – at least not for those subjects who had never committed a hands-on sex offense. The majority of the investigated consumers had no previous convictions for hands-on sex offenses. For those offenders, the prognosis for hands-on sex offenses, as well as for recidivism with child pornography, is favorable.
Sex Abuse. 2007 Dec;19(4):449-65. Epub 2007 Nov 16.
Characteristics of internet child pornography offenders: a comparison with child molesters.
Webb L, Craissati J, Keen S.
Oxleas NHS Trust, Dartford, Kent, UK.
The aim of this exploratory study was to compare internet sex offenders with a matched group of child molesters in the Greater London Area. Over an 8-month period 210 subjects were assessed, of whom 90 were internet sex offenders and 120 were child molesters. A wide range of background data was collected, including a number of psychometric measures to determine risk and personality traits. The research identified a number of similarities between internet sex offenders and child molesters on background variables. Specifically, in comparison to the child molesters, the internet offenders reported more psychological difficulties in adulthood and fewer prior sexual convictions. The socio-affective characteristics of internet offenders and child molesters look similar, but the antisocial variables, such as, ‘acting out’ and breaking social rules underlines their difference. The follow up research was carried out after a short period of time at risk-averaging 18 months-but suggested that internet sex offenders were significantly less likely to fail in the community than child molesters in terms of all types of recidivism.
Sex Abuse. 2005 Apr;17(2):201-10.
The criminal histories and later offending of child pornography offenders.
Seto MC, Eke AW.
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Michael_Seto@camh.net
The likelihood that child pornography offenders will later commit a contact sexual offense is unknown. In the present study, we identified a sample of 201 adult male child pornography offenders using police databases and examined their charges or convictions after the index child pornography offense(s). We also examined their criminal records to identify potential predictors of later offenses: 56% of the sample had a prior criminal record, 24% had prior contact sexual offenses, and 15% had prior child pornography offenses. One-third were concurrently charged with other crimes at the time they were charged for child pornography offenses. The average time at risk was 2.5 years; 17% of the sample offended again in some way during this time, and 4% committed a new contact sexual offense. Child pornography offenders with prior criminal records were significantly more likely to offend again in any way during the follow-up period. Child pornography offenders who had committed a prior or concurrent contact sexual offense were the most likely to offend again, either generally or sexually.
{Note that more restrictive laws inflate the statistic for “reoffending.}.
BMC Psychiatry. 2009 Jul 14;9:43.
The consumption of Internet child pornography and violent and sex offending.
Endrass J, Urbaniok F, Hammermeister LC, Benz C, Elbert T, Laubacher A, Rossegger A.
Department of Justice, Canton of Zurich, Switzerland. jerome.endrass@ji.zh.ch
BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing debate on whether consumers of child pornography pose a risk for hands-on sex offenses. Up until now, there have been very few studies which have analyzed the association between the consumption of child pornography and the subsequent perpetration of hands-on sex offenses. The aim of this study was to examine the recidivism rates for hands-on and hands-off sex offenses in a sample of child pornography users using a 6 year follow-up design. METHODS: The current study population consisted of 231 men, who were subsequently charged with consumption of illegal pornographic material after being detected by a special operation against Internet child pornography, conducted by the Swiss police in 2002. Criminal history, as well as recidivism, was assessed using the criminal records from 2008. RESULTS: 4.8% (n = 11) of the study sample had a prior conviction for a sexual and/or violent offense, 1% (n = 2) for a hands-on sex offense, involving child sexual abuse, 3.3% (n = 8) for a hands-off sex offense and one for a nonsexual violent offense. When applying a broad definition of recidivism, which included ongoing investigations, charges and convictions, 3% (n = 7) of the study sample recidivated with a violent and/or sex offense, 3.9% (n = 9) with a hands-off sex offense and 0.8% (n = 2) with a hands-on sex offense. CONCLUSION: Consuming child pornography alone is not a risk factor for committing hands-on sex offenses – at least not for those subjects who had never committed a hands-on sex offense. The majority of the investigated consumers had no previous convictions for hands-on sex offenses. For those offenders, the prognosis for hands-on sex offenses, as well as for recidivism with child pornography, is favorable.
Sex Abuse. 2007 Dec;19(4):449-65. Epub 2007 Nov 16.
Characteristics of internet child pornography offenders: a comparison with child molesters.
Webb L, Craissati J, Keen S.
Oxleas NHS Trust, Dartford, Kent, UK.
The aim of this exploratory study was to compare internet sex offenders with a matched group of child molesters in the Greater London Area. Over an 8-month period 210 subjects were assessed, of whom 90 were internet sex offenders and 120 were child molesters. A wide range of background data was collected, including a number of psychometric measures to determine risk and personality traits. The research identified a number of similarities between internet sex offenders and child molesters on background variables. Specifically, in comparison to the child molesters, the internet offenders reported more psychological difficulties in adulthood and fewer prior sexual convictions. The socio-affective characteristics of internet offenders and child molesters look similar, but the antisocial variables, such as, ‘acting out’ and breaking social rules underlines their difference. The follow up research was carried out after a short period of time at risk-averaging 18 months-but suggested that internet sex offenders were significantly less likely to fail in the community than child molesters in terms of all types of recidivism.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2007 Apr;82(4):457-71.
A profile of pedophilia: definition, characteristics of offenders, recidivism, treatment outcomes, and forensic issues.
Hall RC, Hall RC.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Pedophilia has become a topic of increased interest, awareness, and concern for both the medical community and the public at large. Increased media exposure, new sexual offender disclosure laws, Web sites that list the names and addresses of convicted sexual offenders, politicians taking a ‘get tough’ stance on sexual offenders, and increased investigations of sexual acts with children have increased public awareness about pedophilia. Because of this increased awareness, it is important for physicians to understand pedophilia, its rate of occurrence, and the characteristics of pedophiles and sexually abused children. In this article, we address research that defines the various types and categories of pedophilia, review available federal data on child molestation and pornography, and briefly discuss the theories on what makes an individual develop a sexual orientation toward children. This article also examines how researchers determine if someone is a pedophile, potential treatments for pedophiles and sexually abused children, the risk of additional sexual offenses, the effect of mandatory reporting laws on both physicians and pedophiles, and limitations of the current pedophilic literature.
PMID: 17418075 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
Swiss Med Wkly. 2005 Aug 20;135(33-34):488-94.
Paedophilia on the Internet–a study of 33 convicted offenders in the Canton of Lucerne.
Frei A, Erenay N, Dittmann V, Graf M.
Psychiatrische Klinik, Kantonsspital Luzern, Switzerland. andreas.frei@ksl.ch
BACKGROUND: The connection between the consumption of pornography and “contact-crimes” is unclear. The Internet has facilitated the mass consumption of pornography in general and specifically illegal pornography such as child-pornography. In 1999, the owners of “Landslide Production Inc.”, an international provider of child-pornography in the USA were arrested and the credit-card-numbers of their clients were put at the disposal of the law enforcement agencies of the countries concerned. METHODS: Roughly 1300 Swiss citizens were subsequently arrested in the course of the nationwide action “Genesis”. In the canton of Lucerne 33 men were identified. The police-files of these men were screened for psychosocial, criminological and psychosexual data. RESULTS: Most of these middle-aged men held comparatively elevated professional positions, only ten were married, eleven had never had an intimate relationship to a woman, and only thirteen of them had children. Only one of them had a relevant criminal record. The level of abuse depicted in the illegal material was high, all but one consumed pornography from other fields of sexual deviation. The personal statements of the offenders in general were hardly reliable, in three cases, however, the diagnosis of sexual deviation could be established from the files. The estimated time some of the offenders must have spent online in order to retrieve the material allows the diagnosis of Pathological Internet-Use. CONCLUSIONS: Deviant sexual fantasies seem to be widespread also among men otherwise not registered for any offences. The consumption of even particularly disgusting material may not be a specific risk factor for “contact” crimes.
Sex Abuse. 2005 Apr;17(2):201-10.
The criminal histories and later offending of child pornography offenders.
Seto MC, Eke AW.
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Michael_Seto@camh.net
The likelihood that child pornography offenders will later commit a contact sexual offense is unknown. In the present study, we identified a sample of 201 adult male child pornography offenders using police databases and examined their charges or convictions after the index child pornography offense(s). We also examined their criminal records to identify potential predictors of later offenses: 56% of the sample had a prior criminal record, 24% had prior contact sexual offenses, and 15% had prior child pornography offenses. One-third were concurrently charged with other crimes at the time they were charged for child pornography offenses. The average time at risk was 2.5 years; 17% of the sample offended again in some way during this time, and 4% committed a new contact sexual offense. Child pornography offenders with prior criminal records were significantly more likely to offend again in any way during the follow-up period. Child pornography offenders who had committed a prior or concurrent contact sexual offense were the most likely to offend again, either generally or sexually.
Sadly all these laws make it easier for those who want to reoffend to do so. First there should be a way to step down and off the list. I would say 10 yrs for each level is good enough and the few really bad ones should be given a lifetime committment( reviewed annually). That way we do not end up with nursing homes fill with sex offenders who have been law abiding for 50 years. It’s a fact Sex offenders are only 7% likely to re offend and I am sure gets lower after many years of no new offenses. As for lifetime probation it is another knee jerk reaction that has overtaxed the Probation officers. AGAIN too many laws make it harder to track the offenders who need to be tracked and easier for repeat offenders to offend without getting a second look.
The focus of any acts of violence is always on the victim. As the perpetrator you’ve cast your dice and have to live with the consequences. Good article here: Child sex offenders: therapy, prison or death? – http://www.abusewatch.net/CSA_sentencing.p…