HomeMy WebLinkAbout_WorkshopIowa County Attorneys Association
Hoover State Office Building O let Floor O Des Moines, Iowa 50319
Telephone: (515) 281-5428 <�> Fax: (515) 281 -4313
STATEMENT ON SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS IN IOWA
December 11, 2006
The Iowa County Attorneys Association believes that the 2,000 foot residency restriction
for persons who have been convicted of sex offenses involving minors does not provide
the protection that was originally intended and that the cost of enforcing the requirement
and the unintended effects on families of offenders warrant replacing the restriction with
more effective protective measures.
The ICAA has the following observations concerning the current restriction:
1. Research shows that there is no correlation between residency restrictions and
reducing sex offenses against children or improving the safety of children.
2. Research does not support the belief that children are more likely to be victimized
by strangers at the covered locations than at other places.
3. Residency restrictions were intended to reduce sex crimes against children by
strangers who seek access to children at the covered locations. Those crimes are
tragic, but very rare. In fact, 80 to 90 percent of sex crimes against children are
committed by a relative or acquaintance who has some prior relationship with the
child and access to the child that is not impeded by residency restrictions. Only
parents and caretakers can effectively impede that kind of access.
4. 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.
5. There is no demonstrated protective effect of the residency requirement that
justifies the huge draining of scarce law enforcement resources in the effort to
enforce the restriction.
6. The categories of crimes included in the restriction are too broad, imposing the
restriction on many offenders who present no known risk to children in the
covered locations.
7. A significant number of offenders have married or have been reunited with their
victims; and, in those cases, the residency restriction is imposed on the victims as
well as the offenders.
8. Many offenders have families whose lives are unfairly and unnecessarily
disrupted by the restriction, causing children to be pulled out of school and away
from friends, and causing spouses to lose jobs and community connections.
9. Many offenders are physically or mentally disabled but are prohibited from living
with family members or others on whom they rely for assistance with daily needs.
10. The geographic areas included in the prohibited 2,000 foot zones are so extensive
that realistic opportunities to find affordable housing are virtually eliminated in
most communities. The lack of transportation in areas not covered by the
restriction limits employment opportunities. The adoption of even more restrictive
ordinances by cities and counties exacerbates the shortage of housing
possibilities.
11. The residency restriction has no time limit; and, for many offenders, the
restriction lasts beyond the requirement that they be listed on the sex offender
PA
registry. For this reason, there are many offenders who are subject to the
residency restriction but who are not required to inform law enforcement of their
place of residence, making enforcement nearly impossible.
12. There is no accommodation in the current statute for persons on parole or
probation supervision. These offenders are already monitored and their living
arrangements approved. The restriction causes many supervised residential
placements to be unavailable even though they may be the most appropriate and
safest locations for offenders to live.
13. Many prosecutors have observed that the numerous negative consequences of the
lifetime residency restriction has caused a reduction in the number of confessions
made by offenders in cases where defendants usually confess after disclosure of
the offense by the child. In addition, there are more refusals by defendants
charged with sex offenses to enter into plea agreements. Plea agreements are
necessary in many cases involving child victims in order to protect the children
from the trauma of the trial process. This unforeseen result seriously jeopardizes
the welfare of child victims and decreases the number of convictions of sex
offenders to accurate charges. Consequently, many offenders will not be made
fully accountable for their acts and will not be required to complete appropriate
treatment or other rehabilitative measures that would enhance the safety of
children. Similar unintended negative effects often accompany well- intended
efforts to increase prison sentences with mandatory provisions.
14. The drastic reduction in the availability of appropriate housing, along with the
forced removal of many offenders from established residences, is contrary to
well- established principles of treatment and rehabilitation of sex offenders.
Efforts to rehabilitate offenders and to minimize the rate of reoffending are much
more successful when offenders are employed, have family and community
connections, and have a stable residence. These goals are severely impaired by
the residency restriction, compromising the safety of children by obstructing the
use of the best known corrections practices.
For these reasons, the Iowa County Attorneys Association supports the
replacement of the residency restriction with more effective measures that do not
produce the negative consequences that have attended the current statute. For
example, the ICAA would support a measure that includes the following:
® A statute creating defined protected areas ( "child safe zones ") that sex
offenders would be prohibited from entering except in limited and safe
circumstances. Such areas might include schools and childcare facilities.
® Entrance into the protected areas would be allowed only for activities
involving an offender's own child and only with advance notice and
approval from those in charge of the location.
® The restriction should cover offenses against "children" (under age 14),
rather than "minors" (under 18).
• The statute should specifically preempt local ordinances that attempt to
create additional restrictions on sex offenders. Such ordinances result in a
variety of inconsistent rules and promote apprehension among local
authorities that they must act to defend themselves from the perceived
effects of the actions of other communities.
• Most important, any restriction that carries the expectation that it can be
effectively enforced must be applied to a more limited group of offenders
than is covered by the current residency restriction. This group should be
H
identified by a competent assessment performed by trained persons acting
on behalf of the state. The assessment should be directed at applying the
statutory restriction only to those offenders that present an actual risk in
public areas to children with whom the offender has no prior relationship
• Children will be safer with clarification and strengthening of certain child
sex abuse laws, including, sex abuse by deception, sexual exploitation of a
person "reasonably believed to be a minor," using a position of authority
to cause children to engage in a sex act, and requiring admission at trial of
a defendant's prior acts of sexual abuse.
• Sex offender treatment both inside and outside of prison should be fully
funded and improved.
• Measures should be enacted that aim at keeping all young people safe
from all offenders. This should include programs that focus on the danger
of abuse that may lie within the child's family and circle of
acquaintances. It is important to help children and parents recognize the
signs and dangers of sex abuse by persons with ordinary access to
children.
• Recognize that child safety from sex offenses is not amendable to simple
solutions by creating a Sex Offender Treatment and Supervision Task
Force to identify effective strategies to reduce child sex offenses.
These observations of Iowa prosecutors are not motivated by sympathy for those
committing sex offenses against children, but by our concern that legislative
proposals designed to protect children must be both effective and enforceable.
Anything else lets our children down.
The Iowa County Attorneys Association strongly urges the General Assembly and
the Governor to act promptly to address the problems created by the 2,000 foot
residency restriction by replacing the restriction with measures that more effectively
protect children, that reduce the unintended unfairness to innocent persons and that
make more prudent use of law enforcement resources, and strengthen the child sex
abuse laws and prosecution. The ICAA stands ready to assist in any way with this
effort.
Contact Information:
Corwin Ritchie, Executive Director
Phone: 515- 281 -5428
Email: corwin.ritchie@ag.state.ia.us
A T S A
SO Residence Restrictions (USA) 12008
• , •
Definition
A state law (or local ordinance) restricting where sexual offenders can live. Examples include 500 to 2500
feet from places where children /minors might congregate, such as schools, playgrounds, day cares, parks,
and recreation centers. Sometimes this restriction also includes bus stops. Some states limit the
restriction to only those sexual offenders who are convicted of the most serious offenses, offend against
minors, or are judged highly likely to reoffend, while others apply the law more broadly to all sex
offenders.
Background
Beginning in the mid 1990's, due to the emergence of registration and notification laws, residents became
more aware of sexual offenders living in their neighborhoods. This led to the notion that laws could
restrict sexual offenders from living within close proximity to areas where children congregate.
Application
At least 30 states and many cities have implemented some form of residence restriction, including
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. In some of these states, the
constitutionality of residence restrictions is under review.
Current Research Highlights
Residence restrictions attempt to prevent predatory sexual recidivism, despite the fact that approximately
93% of all sex crimes are perpetrated by offenders known to the victim prior to the offense (Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 2002). The majority of sexually abused children are victimized by someone well known
to them and approximately 60% of offenses take place in the victim's home or the home.of someone they
know (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997).
Currently, only one study (Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2007) has investigated the potential
effectiveness of sexual offender residence restrictions to reduce recidivism. The authors examined the
offense patterns of 224 sexual offenders released between 1990 and 2005. The results demonstrated that
residence restrictions would not have prevented any re- offenses. Of the 224 offenders, only 27 (12 %)
established contact with their victim(s) within one mile of the offenders' home and not one established
contact near a school, park, or playground.
The Colorado Department of Public Safety (2004) used mapping software to examine the residential
proximity to school and daycare centers of 13 sexual offenders who sexually recidivated in a study of 130
sexual offenders over a 15 -month follow -up period (15 offenses by 13 offenders). The results
demonstrated that recidivists were randomly located and were not significantly more likely than non -
recidivists to live within 1,000 feet of a school or daycare.
Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers — Public Policy Briefs
www.atsa.com
A T S A
SO Residence Restrictions (USA) 12008
What Promotes Effective Sex Offender Management?
Current research regarding treatment effectiveness suggests (in brief):
• Studies suggest sexual offenders can benefit from treatment and that sex offender therapy can help
reduce recidivism.
• Sexual offenders require supportive environments that focus on addressing mental health,
developmental, and behavioral issues in order to reduce the likelihood of recidivism. Support includes
access to housing, employment opportunities, and transportation.
• Social stability and support increases the likelihood of successful reintegration.
Do Residence Restrictions Help or Hinder Treatment?
The unintended consequences of residence restrictions include transience, homelessness, and instability.
Offenders are often pushed to areas that are more rural (the higher the population density the more likely
neighborhoods include schools, parks, etc.). These conditions can lead to:
• diminished access to specialized treatment and probationary supervision,
• employment and housing disruption, and
• separation from supportive and /or dependent family members.
These factors can hinder effective treatment and may interfere with the overall goal of reducing
recidivism and re- victimization. In fact, unemployment, unstable housing, and lack of support are
associated with increased criminal recidivism. Thus, residence restrictions, aimed at improving community
safety, may inadvertently create an environment in which offenders are more at risk to reoff end.
Alternatives
Rather than applying a blanket policy that treats all sexual offenders the same, regardless of offense
behavior or victimization patterns, a subset of sex offenders, considered high -risk to re- offend, require
more intensive supervision and management strategies. Risk management should be commensurate with
the level and type of risk presented by a given sexual offender. Strategies to limit victim access, including
housing restrictions, can be applied by a supervising officer and treatment provider on an individual basis.
Risk assessment and evidence -based application of residence restrictions, close monitoring, and social
support systems incorporating community engagement and responsibility are viable alternatives.
Conclusions
Studies suggest that sexual recidivism is more likely to be result from a pre- existing relationship between
the sexual offender and the victim rather than residential proximity to schools. There is no research to
support the effectiveness of residence restrictions in reducing sex offender recidivism. It is recommended,
therefore, that states (and local jurisdictions) seek out other, more effective methods to limit the risk to
the community from convicted sexual offenders.
Additional Resources
• http: / /www.cga.ct.gov /2007 /rpt /2007- R- 0380.htm
• http: / /www,csom.org/
• http: / /www.csom.org /ref /residencerestrictions.pdf
• http: / /www.dc.state.ks.us /publications/ sex - offender - housing - restrictions
• http: / /www.library.ca.gov /crb /06/08/06- 008.pdf
Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers — Public Policy Briefs
www.atsa.com
AT SAO
Making Society Safer
Sex Offender Residence Restrictions
An Abridged Bibliography*
History and implementation of residence restrictions in the United States
Bain, C. (2007). Next - Generation Sex Offender Statutes: Constitutional Challenges to
Residency, Work, and Loitering Restrictions. Harvard Civil Rights -Civil Liberties Law
Review, 42, 483 -501.
CALCASA. (2006). Opposition to California's Jessica Lunsford Act, from
http : / /www.calcasapubliepolicy.or/
Doe v. Miller, 405 F. 3d 700 (8th Circuit 2005).
Doe v. Miller and White (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa 2004).
Kansas Sex Offender Policy Board. (2007). Annual report. Topeka: Kansas Criminal Justice
Coordinating Council.
Levenson, J. S., Zgoba, K., & Tewksbury, R. (2007). Sex offender residence restrictions:
Sensible crime policy or flawed logic? Federal Probation, 71, 2 -9.
Mann v. Georgia Department of Corrections et al. (Supreme Court of Georgia 2007).
Meloy, M. L., Miller, S. L., & Curtis, K. M. (2008). Making Sense Out of Nonsense: The
Deconstruction of State -Level Sex Offender Residence Restrictions. American Journal of
Criminal Justice, 33(2), 209 -222.
NAESV. (2006). Community management of convicted sex offenders: Registration, electronic
monitoring, civil commitment, mandatory minimums, and residency restrictions. Retrieved
4/2/06, from www.naesv.org
Nieto, M., & Jung, D. (2006). The impact of residency restrictions on sex offenders and
correctional management practices: A literature review. Sacramento, CA: California
Research Bureau.
State v. Seering, No. 34 / 03 -0776 (Iowa Supreme Court 2005).
Public and Legislator Perceptions
Bain, C. (2007). Next - Generation Sex Offender Statutes: Constitutional Challenges to
Residency, Work, and Loitering Restrictions. Harvard Civil Rights -Civil Liberties Law
Review, 42, 483 -501.
Fortney, T., Levenson, J. S., Brannon, Y., & Baker, J. (2007). Myths and Facts about sex
offenders: Implications for practice and public policy. Sex Offender Treatment, 2, 1 -17.
Levenson, J. S., Brannon, Y., Fortney, T., & Baker, J. (2007). Public perceptions about sex
offenders and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy,
7,1-25.
Sample, L. L., & Kadleck, C. (2008). Sex Offender Laws: Legislators' Accounts of the Need for
Policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 40 -62.
Effectiveness of Residence Restrictions
Colorado Department of Public Safety. (2004). Report on safety issues raised by living
arrangements for and location of sex offenders in the community. Denver, CO: Sex
Offender Management Board.
Duwe, G., Donnay, W., & Tewksbury, R. (2008). Does residential proximity matter? A
geographic analysis of sex offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 484 -504.
Minnesota Department of Corrections. (2003). Level three sex offenders residential placement
issues. St. Paul: author.
Minnesota Department of Corrections. (2007). Residential proximity and sex offense recidivism
in Minnesota. St. Paul, MN: MN Department of Corrections.
Housing Availability and Placement of Sex Offenders
Barnes, J. C., Dukes, T., Tewksbury, R., & De Troye, T. (2008). Predicting the Impact of a
Statewide Residence Restriction Law on South Carolina Sex Offenders. Criminal Justice
Policy Review, Online First (doi:10.1177/0887403408320842).
Chajewski, M., & Mercardo, C. C. (2008). An analysis of sex offender residency restrictions in
Newark, New Jersey. Sex offender law report, 9, 1 -6.
Mustaine, E. E., Tewksbury, R., & Stengel, K. M. (2006). Residential location and mobility of
registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 177 -192.
Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) 2
Sex Offender Residence Restrictions — Abridged Bibliography
Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. (2008). Where Registered Sex Offenders Live: Community
Characteristics and Proximity to Possible Victims. Victims and Offenders, 3, 86 -98.
Tewksbury, R., Mustaine, E., & Stengel, K. M. (2008). Examining Rates of Sexual Offenses
from a Routine Activities Perspective Victims and Offenders, 3, 75 -85,
Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2006). Where to find sex offenders: An examination of
residential locations and neighborhood conditions. Criminal Justice Studies, 19, 61 -75.
Walker, J. T., Golden, J. W., & VanHouten, A. C. (2001). The Geographic Link Between Sex
Offenders and Potential Victims: A Routine Activities Approach. Justice Research and
Policy, 3, 15 -33,
Zandbergen, P. A., & Hart, T. C. (2006). Reducing housing options for convicted sex offenders:
Investigating the impact of residency restriction laws using GIS. Justice Research and
Policy, 8, 1 -24.
Zgoba, K., Levenson, J. S., & McKee, T. (2008). Examining the Impact of Sex Offender
Residence Restrictions on Housing Availability. Criminal Justice Policy Review, Online
First (DOI 10.1177/0887403408322119).
Criminal Re- entry, Housing Instability, and Recidivism
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct (3rd ed.). Cincinnati,
OH: Anderson Publishing.
Hanson, R. K., & Harris, A. J. R. (1998). Dynamic predictors of sexual recidivism (No. 1998-
01). Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
La Vigne, N., Visher, C., & Castro, J. (2004). Chicago Prisoners' Experiences Returning Home.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2001). Understanding desistance from crime. Crime and Justice,
28, 1 -69,
Meredith, T., Speir, J., Johnson, S., & Hull, H. (2003). Enhancing Parole Decision- Making
through the Automation of Risk Assessment. Atlanta: Applied Research Services, Inc.
Nelson, M., Deess, P., & Allen, C. (1999). The First Month Out: Post - Incarceration Experiences
in New York City. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
Petersilia, J. (2003). When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA)
Sex Offender Residence Restrictions — Abridged Bibliography
Schulenberg, J. L. (2007). Predicting noncompliant behavior: Disparities in the social locations
of male and female probationers. Justice Research and Policy, 9, 25 -57.
Travis, J. (2005). But the all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Washington,
D.C.: Urban Institute Press.
Williams, F. P., McShane, M. D., & Dolny, M. H. (2000). Predicting parole absconders. Prison
Journal, 80, 24 -38.
Unintended consequences
Iowa County Attorneys Association. (2006). Statement on sex offender residency restrictions in
Iowa. Des Moines: Author.
Levenson, J. S. (2008). Collateral consequences of sex offender residence restrictions. Criminal
Justice Studies, 21(2), 153 -166.
Levenson, J. S., & Cotter, L. P. (2005). The impact of sex offender residence restrictions: 1,000
feet from danger or one step from absurd? International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 49,168-178.
Levenson, J. S. & D'Amora. D. (2007). Social policies designed to prevent sexual violence: The
emperor's new clothes? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18, 168 -199,
Levenson, J. S., & Hem, A. (2007). Sex offender residence restrictions: Unintended
consequences and community re- entry. Justice Research and Policy, 9, 59 -73.
Mercardo, C. C., Alvarez, S., & Levenson, J. S. (2008). The impact of specialized sex offender
legislation on community re- entry. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment.
NAESV. (2006). Community management of convicted sex offenders: Registration, electronic
monitoring, civil commitment, mandatory minimums, and residency restrictions. Retrieved
4/2/06, from www.naesv.org
Tewksbury, R. (2007). Exile at home: The unintended collateral consequences of sex offender
residency restrictions. Harvard Civil Rights -Civil Liberties Law Review, 42, 531 -541.
* Links to selected articles cited here are available on the Public Policy page of the website
of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA). See:
http: / /www.atsa.com /pubPPapers.html.
Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) 4
Sex Offender Residence Restrictions — Abridged Bibliography
Recommended Reading:
Duwe, G., Donnay, W., & Tewksbury, R. (2008). Does residential proximity matter? A geographic analysis
of sex offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 484 -504.
http: / /cib,sagepub.com /cgi/ reprint /35/4/ 484 ?iil<ev= ONL.WYYZbhMfU &keVtVpe= ref &siteid =spcib
Iowa County Attorneys Association. (2006). Statement on sex offender residency restrictions in Iowa. Des
Moines: Author.
Levenson, J. S., Zgoba, K., & Tewksbury, R. (2007). Sex offender residence restrictions: Sensible crime
policy or flawed logic? Federal Probation, 71(3), 2 -9.
Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault, Inc.
600 Williamson St., Suite N2 • Madison, Wisconsin • 53703
Voice /TTY (608) 257 -1516 • Fax (608) 257 -2150 • www.wcasa.org
Testimony
To: Members of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance,
Campaign Finance Reform and Housing
From: Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault (WCASA)
Date: April 1, 2010
Re: SB 548 — Conditions of Sex Offender Release
Position: Support
Thank you for your time this morning. My name is John Keckhaver, and I represent the
Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault (WCASA). WCASA is a statewide organization
that was created in 1985 to support and complement the work of Wisconsin's community -
based sexual assault service provider programs and other organizations working to end
sexual violence. We support SB 548 and I want to thank Senator Taylor and the Assembly
sponsors of this bill for bringing such an important proposal forward.
Ensuring that sex offenders are effectively supervised is of the utmost importance to all of
us here today. Protecting children in all of our communities from sexual predators as much
as possible is certainly a goal we all share. We at WCASA believe that the effective
management of sex offenders is best accomplished through a number of strategies,
including: community notification and awareness, regular and intensive supervision and
tracking, behavioral treatment, residential stability, and the existence of support networks in
the communities offenders reside. Another important component to public safety, and one
not focused on enough, is public education of sexual offenses in general — where they most
occur, by whom, and so on. These strategies and conditions are what we believe are most
effective in promoting public safety, and are the kinds of efforts that will help protect
children, and all residents, from the dangers posed by sexual predators.
We believe that local residency restrictions can be counter - productive. By severely limiting
residency options they can result in increased numbers of those who choose to not comply
with the state's Sex Offender Registry and whose whereabouts are therefore, unknown.
They can force offenders away from possible support provided by friends or family.
Residency restrictions can also increase an offender's instability through making
employment more difficult to find and maintain and by increasing homelessness. Such
ordinances can make residents less vigilant against potential crimes and suspicious
behavior due to a false sense of security — false because of the fact that many sex
offenders do not locate their victims by location, but by association and relation.
We support SB 548 because it will allow experts at the Department of Corrections to
continue to focus on effective strategies for managing the state's sex offenders, it will
impose significant punishment upon those offenders who violate its provisions regarding
prohibited areas, and it will ensure that understandable but counter - productive strategies
are not employed at the local level, strategies that in fact may well serve to make our
communities less safe.
SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION
THERE iS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPICAL SEX OFFENDER!
98% of Sex Offender Registrants are Male
84% of Victims are Female
79% of Victims are under 18
67% of Assaults happened in the Victim's Home
93% of the Victims knew the Offender
How did Wisconsin stet this-Law?
Jacob WeUerling Act — Mandates Registration
Megan Kanka (Megan's Law) — Mandates Community
Notification,
Wisconsin Act 440 Statutes 301.45 & 301.46 -- Enacted
June 1, 1997
Who is Reguired to Register? On or after 12/26193
Offenders on supervisloMncarcerated or convicted, adjudicated or .
committed in a Wisconsin Circuit Court for certain crimes,
9 Offenders committed under the Sexually Violent Persons Law.
WHO HAS ACCESS TO INFORMATION?
✓ Law Enforcement WILENET
✓ Victims: http : /NVIVictimsVoice,org
✓ Citizens: www.WIDOCoffenders.org
■ NAME OR ZIPCODE
Address listed
■ MappingSystem /Email Notification
✓ 1- 800 - 398 -2403 FIRST / LAST NAME AND AGE,
✓ National Sex Offender Registry www,nsopr.gov
Offenders convicted of certain offenses where the court has NON- COMPLIANCE:
determined that the offense was sexually motivated. • ® Must report Changes within 10 days of the change.
Offenders from other jurisdictions — States, Military, Tribal Courts, a Must respond to all mailings within 10 days.
♦ Must provide accurate Information.
Must attend photo sessions.
HOW LONG DO THEY HAVE TO REGISTER?
Failure to comply with the registry is a Class H Felony,
LIFE: (Adult Conviction) First and Second Degree Sexual Assault,
First and Second Degree Sexual Assault of a Child, Repeated Acts of
Sexual Assault of a Child, Two separate convictions (cases) for a OTHER LAWS RELATED TO SEX OFFENDERS:
registerable offense, While on Lifetime Supervision, Person Committed • 948.13 Prohibits certain sex offenders working with
Under Chapter 980, 213 of registered sex offenders = LIFE children
16 YEARS: All other registrants' convicted /adjudicated in a Wisconsin a 948.14 Prohibits sex offenders from taking photos of it
Circuit Court. Registered throughout incarcerationrsupervision and 16 minor without parent's written permission
years following discharge. "301.47 Prohibits sex offenders from changing name or
Identifying themselves by a different name.
10 YEARS: Offenders from other jurisdictions — States, Military, Tribal
Courts. At least 10 years following their release from confinement or
placement on supervision or how long they are required to register in the
state of committing offense.
WHAT INFO IS REPORTED?
RESIDENCE — EMPLOYMENT — SCHOOL — VEHICLE - INTERNET ID'S
Sex Offender Registry 9
COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION
SPECIAL BULLETIN NOTIFICATION: They are completed
on certain offenders upon their release from prison.
o All 2 Strike offenders
♦ All offenders committed under the Sexually Violent
Persons Law
♦ Discretionary
Active, written notification is sent to the Local Police Chief
and Sheriff prior to Offender's release.
A Core Team meets to ASSIST Law Enforcement in making
a Notification Decision.
LEVELS OF NOTIFICATION:
Most often associated with Special Bulletin Notifications, but
Law Enforcement can notify on any registered sex offender.
Level :
♦ The offender presents a minimal threat to the
community.
o Release of information would be harmful to the
victim.
Level 2:
Level 3:
♦ POLICE NOTIFICATION ONLY.
e The offender presents a moderate threat to the
community.
e The offender targets certain groups.
♦ TARGETED NOTIFICATION.
♦ Notification widespread.
♦ Door to Door flyers.
♦ Media releases.
♦ COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION MTG
LE can do notification on Adult and Juvenile Realstrants
Supervision of Sex Offenders:
Electronic Monitoring Program — Rules — Polygraph — GPS —
Treatment — intensive Supervision.
REGISTERABLE OFFENSES
940.225(1) First Degree Sexual Assault - 940.225(2) Second
Degree Sexual Assault — 940.225(3) Third Degree Sexual
Assault — 940.22(2) Sexual Exploitation by Therapist —
940.30 False Imprisonment (victim was a minor and not the
offender's child) — 940.30(2) Human Trafficking (if
940.302(2)(a)1b applies) - 940.31 Kidnapping (victim was a
•minor and not the offender's child) -- 944.01 Rape (old
statute) — 944.06 Incest — 944.10 Sexual Intercourse with a
Child (old statute) — 944.11 Indecent Behavior with a Child
(old statute) — 944.12 Enticing Child for Immoral Purposes
(old statute) — 948.02(1) First Degree Sexual Assault of a
Child — 948.02(2) Second Degree Sexual Assault of a Child
— 948.025 Repeated Acts of Sexual Assault of a Child —
948.05 Sexual Exploitation of a Child -- 948.051 Trafficking
of Child - 948.055 Causing a Child to View or Listen to
Sexual Activity -- 948.06 Incest with a Child — 948.07 Child
Enticement — 948.075 Use of Computer to Facilitate a Child
Sex Crime - 948.08 Soliciting a Child for Prostitution —
948.085 Sexual Assault of a Child Placed in Substitute Care
- 948.095 Sexual Assault of a Student by School
Instructional Staff — 948.11 Exposing Child to Harmful
Material (felony sections only) — 948.12 Possession of Child
Pornography — 948.13 Convicted Child Sex Offender
Working with Children -- 948.30 Abduction of Another's Child
— 971.17 Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Disease of a listed
sex offense — 975.06 Sex Crimes Law Commitment — 980.01
Sexually Violent Person Commitment
The court has discretion under Wisconsin Statutes to
require In a court order that a person register for
violating these statutes: Chapter 940 Crimes Against Life
and Bodily Security — Chapter 944 Crimes Against Sexual
Morality — Chapter 948 Crimes Against Children — 971.17
Not Guilty by reason of Mental Disease or Defect — 943.01 to
943.15 Certain Crimes Against Property — 942,08 invasion of
Privacy.
LOOKING FORWARD:
SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION
ACT /ADAM WALSH ACT
Sex Offender Registry 2
M A P'T E R 980 PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING: After petition is filed, a
Probable Cause Hearing will be scheduled In the county of
T H IE WISCONSIN SEXUALLY conviction or county of proposed residence upon release. if
VIOLENT PERSON LAW bound over, the offender is remanded to bepartment of Health
and Family Services (DHFS) for a Pretrial F valuation. The
THE LAW CREATED A PROCESS FOR THE offender is then detained, placed Into custody, and transferred
i N DEFINITE CIVIL COMMITMENT, FOR within a reasonable time to the Wisconsin Resource Center or the
Sand Ridge Treatment Center.
TREATMENT PURPOSES, OF PERSON
PERVIOUSLY CONVICTED, ADJUDICATED, PRETRIAL EVALUATION: Clinical evaluation completed by
OR COMMITTED FOR CERTAIN SEXUALLY DHFS. Same three criteria as listed above must be present. If the
clinician finds the offender does meet the criteria of the law, a
VIOLENT OR SEXUALLY MOTIVATED
commitment trial Is scheduled.
OFFENSES.
COMMITMENT TRIAL: The commitment trial held before the
z �f� � yG` r x �". court must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the criteria for
,m 1n1..05R �i lei #, �al -
���z z #��m commitment have been met. If the offender Is found to be a
e" .� Selz &plr2ein y [ ti]@ hC21 e
Sexually � Vtoleni Person, the court remands the offender to the
Ct _ i s o pthTr oth= oia e �, custody of DHFS, and the offender is placed at a DHFS facility.
PERIODIC EXAMINATIONS: Periodic examinations will take
place to determine whether the offender has made sufficient
s y process for the court to consider supervised release or discharge.
a . ~` v, PETITION FOR SUPERVISED RELEASE: The offender
r •., s
may petition the court to authorize supervised release under the
Y following conditions:
nr.e e i Ipn. 1. At least 18 months have elapsed since the initial
- - commitment order was issued.
2. At least 6 months have elapsed since the most recent
��� .�,� �; �'` `• '��-- release petition was dented.
�
it `� = 3. At least 6 months have elapsed since the most recent
#���riia 'ye% °xas'tA �Yt t
order for supervised release was revoked.
SUPERVISED RELEASE: If the court finds the offender
appropriate for supervised release, the court notifies DHFS.
DHFS Is responsible for preparing a plan that Identifies treatment
and services to be received by the offender in the community. An
order for supervised release places the offender In the custody
and control of DHFS. If the offender violates the supervised
release plan, the offenders supervised release can be revoked.
DISCHARGE: The Secretary of DHFS can authorize the
offender to petition the committing court for discharge if they
determine the offender is no longer a sexually violent person. The
offender, without the approval of the Secretary, can petition the
court for discharge. If the court determines the offender Is.no
longer a sexually violent-person, the offender is discharged from
custody or supervision of DHFS.
Registry 3
•
•
I
•
•
•
•
Sex Offender Registry 4
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Division of Community Corrections
DOG-10 (Rev. 02014)
OFFENDER NAME
WISCONSIN
Wisconsin Statute
s.8y3.10
Administrative Code
Chapter DOC 328A 331
RULES OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
DOC NUMBER: ISID NUMBER:
Notice: If you aro released-from prison, the highest possible sentence upon revocation will be the total sentence less
time already served in prison or jail In connection with the offense,
In accordance with Wisconsin Administrative Code, s, DOC 328,12, you have an opportunity for administrative review of
certain types of decisions through the offender complaint process.
The following rules are governed by administrative-code, court ordered conditions, and any goals or objectives set by the
Department of Corrections. Failure to meet these expectations may result' in progressive sanctions up to and including
revocation.
You shall:
1. Avoid all conduct which Is in violation of federal or state statute, municipal or county ordinances, tribal law or which Is
not In the best Interest of the public welfare or your rehabilitation,
2. Report all arrests or police contact to your agent within 72 hours.
3.. -Make every, effort to accept the opportunities and cooperate with counseling offered during supervision to include
addressing the identified case plan goals, This Includes authorizing the exchange of information between the
department and any court ordered or agent directed program for purposes of confirming treatment compliance; and
subsequent disclosure to parties deemed necessary by the agent to achieve the purposes of Wisconsin
Administrative Code Chapter DOC 328 and Chapter DOC 331. Refusal to authorize the exchange of information and
subsequent disclosure shall be considered a violation of this rule,
4. Inform your agent of your whereabouts and activities as he /she directs.
5. Submit a written report monthly and any other such relevant information as directed by DCC staff.
6. Make yourself available for searches including but not limited to residence, property, computer, cell phone or other
electronic device under your control,
7. Make yourself available for tests and comply with ordered tests by your agent including but not limited to urinalysis,
breathalyzer, DNA collection and blood samples.
8. Obtain approval from your agent prior to changing residence or employment, In the case of an emergency, notify
your agent of the change within.72 hours.
9. Obtain approval and a travel permit from your agent prior to leaving the State of Wisconsin,
10. Obtain written approval from your agent prior to purchasing, trading, selling or operating a motor vehicle.
11, Obtain approval from your agent prior to borrowing money or purchasing on credit.
12. Pay court ordered obligations and monthly supervision fees as directed by your agent per Wisconsin Statutes, and
Wisconsin Administrative Code; and comply with any department and /or vendor procedures regarding payment of
fees.
13, Obtain permission from your agent prior to purchasing, -possessing, owning or carrying a firearm or other weapon, or
ammunition, Including incapacitating agents, An offender may not be granted permission to possess a firearm if
prohibited under federal or state law. _.
14, Not vote in any federal, state or local election as outlined in Wisconsin Statutes s.6,03(1)(b) if you are a convicted
felon, until you have successfully completed the terms and conditions of your felony sentence and your civil rights
have been restored,
15. Abide by all rules of any detention or correctional facility in which you may be confined
16. Provide true, accurate, and complete information In response to Inquiries by DOC staff.
17, Report as directed for scheduled and unscheduled appointmehts,
18. Comply with any court'ordered.conditions and /or any additional rules established by your agent. The additional
rules established by your agent may be modified at any time.as appropriate.
Distd6utlon: Original — Case File; Copy — Offender
I have reviewed and explained these rules to the offender,
i have received a copy of these rules,
AGENT SIGNATURE
AREA NUMBER
OFFENDER SIGNATURE
DATE SIGNED
Distd6utlon: Original — Case File; Copy — Offender
DEPARTMENT OFCORRECTIONS WISCONSIN
DOG10S (. Community 272008) Corrections Chapter DOC 301, 328, 332
STANDARD SEX OFFENDER RULES 42U.S,C.ss200I)D3,290ee -3
Federal Regulation
42 C.F.R. Part 2
OFFENDER NAME DOC NUMBER
Notice: If you are on parole and sentenced for crimes committed on or after June 1, 1984, or have choden to have the new Good Time Law
apply to your case acid you violate these rules, the highest possible parole violator sentence will be the total sentence less time already
served in prison or Jail in connectionwith the offense,
As established by Administrative Rule DOC 328.11, you have an opportunity for administrative review of certain types of decisions through
the offender complaint process.
The following rules are in addition to any court - ordered conditions. Your probation, parole or extended supervision may be revoked If you do
not comply with any of your court- ordered conditions or if you violate any of the following rules.
1. You shall have no contact with nor any prior victims of your offenses nor their family
members without prior agent approval. This includes face -to -face, telephone, mail, electronic, third party, or "drive by" contact,
2. You shall have no contact with anyone under the age of 18 without prior agent approval and unless accompanied by an adult sober
chaperone approved by your agent. This includes face -to -face, telephone, mail, electronic, third party, or "drive by" contact,
3. You shall not establish, pursue, nor maintain any dating and/or romantic and/or sexual relationship without prior agent approval.
d. You shall fiilly cooperate with, participate in, and successfully complete all evaluations, counseling, and treatment as required by your
agent, including but not limited to sex offender programming. "Successful completion" shall be determined by your agent and
treatment provider(s), If sex offender treatment is required, you must attend and account for the details of the behavior committed in
your conviction offense(s), failure to admit the offense(s) or provide a detailed description will be considered a violation of your
supervision and may result in disciplinary action including the recommendation for revocation of your supervision. Information
revealed in treatment concerning your conviction offense(s) cannot be used against you in criminal proceedings,
5. You shall not reside nor "stay" overnight in any place other than a. pre-approved residence without prior agent approval.
"Overnight!'. is defined as the daily period of time between the hours of p.m, and a.m. unless redefined by your agent
in advance.
6. You shall permit no person to reside nor stay in your designated residence between the hours of p.m, and a.m. without
prior agent approval,
7, You shall not possess, consume, nor use any controlled substance nor possess any drug paraphernalia without a current prescription
from a physician from whom you are receiving medical treatment, Verification must be provided to your agent as directed.
8. You shall not possess nor view any sexually explicit material - visual, auditory, nor computer - generated - without prior agent approval.
9. You shall seek, obtain, and maintain employment as directed by your agent. You shall obtain agent approval before accepting any
offer of employment and prior to begirming any volunteer work.
10. You shall not purchase, own, nor manage any residential rental properties without prior agent approval,
11. You shall fully comply with all sex offender registry requirements as applicable and directed by your agent and/or required by statute,
You shall immediately respond to all correspondence from the Sex Offender Registry Program,
12. You shall fully comply with Wisconsin Statute 165.76 requiring a biological specimen to be submitted to the State Crime Lab for
DNA testing as applicable and as directed by your agent.
13. You shall pay all court ordered financial obligations and treatment co- payments as directed by your agent in accordance with your
established payment plan.
14, You shall not purchase, possess, nor use a computer, software, hardware, nor modem without prior agent approval.
I have reviewed and explained these rules to the offender,
I I have received a copy
of these rules,
AGENT SIGNATURR AREA NUMBER
OFFENDER SIGNATURE
DATE SIGNED
1
Facts and Fiction about Sex Offenders
L-
o"
Y Ri
W_her crlmltl; °�_10;tic n vet- sleeps --
Facts and Fiction about Sex Offenders
By Chris Dornin, Retired Statehouse reporter,
Published: 05/2212010
The political oullash against sex offenders is immense,
irrational, and hard for legislators to reverse.
Sarah Agudo in the No.-Ili western Universlry Law
Review, 2008
Myth: Sav offenders are dlro, old strangers
who steal kirk front 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 sew offenders andprotect 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
http; / /www.corrections,com/news /article /24500 - facts- and - fiction- about - sex - offenders 6/5/2014
Facts and Fiction about Sex Offenders
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.
Alyth, Treatment Is a ipaste 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 study in 2000 by the Vermont Corrections Department tracked 190 sex offenders released a decade earlier. The arrest rate
over 10 years for new sex offenses was 3.8 percent for people who had completed the sex offender treatment program. It
was 22.4 percent for those who started the program, but dropped out or got kicked out. Those who never attended had a 27
percent recidivism rate.
A 2003 New Zealand study led by Ian Labie entitled, "Paedophile programmes work," found that 175 offenders who
completed treatment while on parole had an average sexual recidivism rate of 5 per cent over four years. Two control groups
without treatment attained rates of 21 and 25 percent.
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, 53 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, compared with 30 percent for people who
never took that treatment.
http: / /www,corrections.com /news /atlicle /24500- facts- and - fiction- about- sex - offenders 6/5/2014
Facts and Fiction about Sex Offenders
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,
A 2009 report by Robin Goldman of the Minnesota Department of Corrections compared two samples of 1,020 sex
offenders released between 1999 and 2003, One group had taken an intensive sex offender treatment program and the other
had not, The treated group had a 27 percent lower sex crime recidivism rate. The report concluded, "These findings are
consistent with the growing body of research supporting the effectiveness of cognitive - behavioral treatment for sex
offenders."
Myth., Sev offenders have a 94 percent recidivism rate
Proponents of tough sanctions against sex offenders often cite a Canadian study published in 2004, "Lifetime Sex Offender
Recidivism: A 25 year Follow -Up Study," led by Canadian researcher Ron Langevin. The authors looked at 320 Canadian
sex offenders referred to a single clinic for psychiatric evaluations between 1966 and 1974, when treatment programs for
this group were uncommon. The report used an unusual definition of a recidivist as someone who had committed two or
more sex crimes in their lifetime, even crimes they did before researchers began to follow them.
Langevin reported a 61.1 percent sex crime recidivism rate, including 5 LI percent for incest. The researchers also tabulated
confessions the offenders made during counseling and new arrests that failed to bring convictions. Adding those presumed
crimes to actual convictions increased the overall sexual recidivism rate to 883 percent, including 84.2 percent for incest.
Measured this way, molesters of young children outside their own family had an even higher rate, 94.1 sex crime recidivism
over 25 years. To this writer's knowledge, that is the highest reported rate in any of the hundreds of existing recidivism
studies. It underlies much of the widespread belief that all sex offenders are incurable and unrepentant,
Critics of Langevin claim his cohort was the worst of the worst offenders. Canadian researcher Karl Hanson has called it a
nonrandom sample chosen for evaluations in connection with major prosecutions, civil commitment proceedings or insanity
defense cases. This group also came under scrutiny in a different era when sex offender treatment programs were rare and
experimental. The ensuing revolution in child protection and sex abuse prosecution over half a century has swollen
American prison populations of sex offenders by fifty- and a hundred -fold. The group in prison now is arguably less prone
to recidivism than members of the Langevin study.
Canadian researcher Cheryl Webster and colleagues have called the Langevin study so flawed it lacks any scientific
integrity. In a rebuttal entitled "Results by Design: The Artefactual Construction of High Recidivism Rates for Sex
Offenders," Webster said more than half the individuals in the sample were already recidivists by Langevin's definition at
the time of their evaluations, thus ensuring at least a 50 percent recidivism rate, In the rest of the literature on criminology
and in the popular press, recidivism generally means a new crime committed after release from prison.
Webster noted the Langevin sample was much larger at first. His team removed any people from the study whose criminal
records had been lost or purged from the justice system after 15 years for lack of new crimes or charges, hu effect, the
scientists deleted most of the non- recidivists and thereby skewed the recidivism rate. In a reply to his critics, Langevin
cautioned against making claims about all sex offenders based on this sample. He defended his definition of recidivism as
one of many legitimate ways to measure it,
Those promoting tough sex offender laws rely as well on a 1997 study led by Robert Prentky. His group looked at 136
rapists and 115 child molesters released from the Bridgewater sex offender civil commitment center in Massachusetts
between 1959 and 1986, The sexual recidivism rates based on new sexual charges were 32 percent for molesters and 25
percent for rapists. But the length of time the men were free in the community varied widely. If all had been at large the full
25 years covered in the study, the authors estimated the sexual recidivism rates would have been 52 percent for molesters
and 39 percent for rapists.
This research dates from the same period as the Langevin findings and looked at a narrow sample of men already
adjudicated to be an acute risk to reof#end, The average rapist had 2.5 sex crimes on his record before the crime that sent
him to Bridgewater. The child molesters averaged 3.6 sex offenses prior to the crime that triggered civil commitment. Using
Lengevin's method, the recidivism rates for both groups would have been nearly 100 percent. The Prentky researchers
concluded, "The obvious, marked heterogeneity of sexual offenders precludes automatic generalization of the rates reported
here to other samples."
Fact, Most types of sett offenders have low sev -crime recidivist
http: / /www.cotTections.com/news /article /24500- facts - and - fiction - about - sex - offenders 6/5/2014
Facts and Fiction about Sex Offenders
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. Somb 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. 73 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 now 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 fi•om Washington prisons between 1986 and 1999. Here are the results by year of
release, showing the rate decreased over time.
Year
5 -Year Rate
Year
5 -Year Rate
1986
6%
1993
8%
1987
7.5%
1994
6%
1988
7.5%
1995
4.4%
1989
6%
1996
3%
1990
7%
1997
2%
1991
8%
1998
3%
1992
6%
1999
3.7%
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.
httpJ /www.corrections.conVnews /article /24500- facts - and - fiction- about -sex- offenders 6/5/2014
Facts and Fiction about Sex Offenders
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.
Chris Dornin is a retired newspaper journallst and volunteer into NH Prison who watched the New Hampshire legislature
enact its recent sex offender laws, He can be reached at 603 -228 -9614 begin of the skype_highlighNng 603 -228-
9610 end of the skype highlighting or cldornin@aol.com ('mailto:c1dorn1n0_ao1 coW
Other articles by Dornin lhttp : / /www corrections.com/news /result? keyword =& from= 05 %2F18 %2F2000 &to =05 %2Fl8%
2F2024 &name[id1 =99j
r
4v a
1 'a,
4
5 6,
A, 9
0;;
ff
3
<
o
M
CL M
'0
0
® �
0 :r (P
Ka =r V,
m A
m
< a --4 19
2� q ia ,
()
11 m. — C5::
1
' 3 cZ C
c
A
i i.
D C,
_4 j
o
rn
n
t- >
j 1 , ir . ii
cr CL >
3 70 Q-
;cf o
F
- C
0
1 J
r
3 Z Z
FL
0 c
)�
r
4v a
1 'a,
4
5 6,
A, 9
0;;
ff
3
<
o
M
CL M
'0
0
® �
0 :r (P
Ka =r V,
m A
m
9 :F n
0
10 o
M
SARI -
IOU
0
0 0
-'o c
0, 2,
CL og
> -i C) 0 :E V)
> 0 0 m c M
n z
l< c
0 b .1 ra 0 "o, as A m
>
0
C)
G7 a -4
a CL 0
m
Z a sc
>
:r
C
c I CL
>
cr c
2L r
0-
A U3
o a
C
0
ip c
e.) w 0 'o :5 c
0 ! 3
0
TO
n c
c
c cr lo: O fl. n
0 x
> c o
et z
On 05 'a
rnr >
a 0 3 0
P q '02"
0
pr v 0
3-
Z
CL
to r I & , IW 3
A
8 c
AMP .NIP
< a --4 19
2� q ia ,
()
11 m. — C5::
1
' 3 cZ C
c
s C,
i i.
rn
n
t- >
j 1 , ir . ii
cr CL >
, — m
— �4
>
;cf o
F
- C
0
1 J
r
3 Z Z
FL
0 c
)�
-j 35 n
n
>
z
97
m 0
rn
>
Q 6
0
; 0
9
>
g
rq
Z
G-
7,
A
OC
ID
A,
T
a,
R Z,
0
In
9 :F n
0
10 o
M
SARI -
IOU
0
0 0
-'o c
0, 2,
CL og
> -i C) 0 :E V)
> 0 0 m c M
n z
l< c
0 b .1 ra 0 "o, as A m
>
0
C)
G7 a -4
a CL 0
m
Z a sc
>
:r
C
c I CL
>
cr c
2L r
0-
A U3
o a
C
0
ip c
e.) w 0 'o :5 c
0 ! 3
0
TO
n c
c
c cr lo: O fl. n
0 x
> c o
et z
On 05 'a
rnr >
a 0 3 0
P q '02"
0
pr v 0
3-
Z
CL
to r I & , IW 3
A
8 c
AMP .NIP