Sex Offenders - A Reality Based Discussion

NY Enacts New Sex Offender Law Which Increases Danger to Public

2011-10-03T12:35:00.011-04:00

On September 23, Gov. Cuomo announced a list of bills that he has approved. Among them was a bill that requires Level 2 registered sex offenders to report their employment addresses. (Level 3 offenders are already required to do so). This new law requires these employment addresses to be posted on the Internet registry. This law applies retroactively to all Level 2 registered sex offenders, including those who have lived and worked safely in the community for up to 15 years. (While most with criminal convictions find that the consequences of their convictions decrease over time, the consequences of a conviction for a sex offense often increase with the passage of time).

A recent study has found that such policies make communities less safe. Recidivism is more likely in the absence of stable employment and stable housing. This law will cause some former offenders to lose their jobs and make it much harder for others to find employment.

This new law is not based on any facts or research, quite the opposite. Illinois lawmakers recently pointed out that the main reason lawmakers vote for such laws is that they are afraid not to. There is too much political risk in appearing soft on sex offenders, even if legislation is counter productive. Sadly, elected officials would rather increase the risk to communities than increase the political risk to themselves.

Startling new statistics on sex offender recidivism

2011-06-21T17:48:00.010-04:00

I just ran across an article in the Albany Times Union, Did the government fail to protect victim from predator? The article described the case of Keith Dare, who was recently convicted of a repeat sex offense. The article shared some statistics which were related by Peter Cutler, a spokesman for the state prison system:

Cutler said statistics suggest Dare's case is an anomaly. Of the 663 inmates who were released in 2006 after serving prison time for sex offenses, only 49 -- or 7.3 percent -- returned to prison over the next three years, Cutler said. And of those 49, he said, only three returned for sexual offenses.

I discovered that the Department of Corrections report on 2006 releases was available online.

Mr. Cutler's figures were a little off. The recidivism rate is actually lower.

A total of 990 sex offenders (not 663 as indicated by Mr. Cutler) were released from state prisons in 2006. Mr. Cutler was correct in stating that 49 of these were returned to prison within 3 years for a new crime, making a recidivism rate for any new crime of 4.9% (not 7.3% as the article indicates).

The article was correct that only 3 of these were returned for new sex offenses. This indicates a recidivism rate of 0.3% for sex offenders released in 2006 in terms of committing new sex crimes.

You can check these figures for yourself by looking at the charts on pages 10, 45, & 46.

This is notable in that the NY legislature keeps passing new sex offender legislation which includes such language as "The rate of recidivism among sex offenders is very high."

P.S. There is a chart on page 11 of the report that indicates that sex offenders have a "return rate" of 37.1%. It is important to note that this includes those who have been returned to prison for parole violations, not just those who were convicted of new crimes. This overall return rate is somewhat less than that for all prison releases. When anyone (politicians or otherwise) quotes recidivism rates, it is important to pay attention to the details.

The New Urban Myth---The Danger of Registered Sex Offenders at Halloween

2010-10-18T20:22:00.009-04:00

It's almost time for the annual Halloween sex offender hysteria. This seemingly has replaced the urban myths about poison candy and razor blades in apples. I was interested to find that there has actually been a recent empirical study of the issue. An article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, "Halloween sex-offender monitoring questioned," describes it:

...Elizabeth Letourneau, a researcher with the Medical University of South Carolina's Family Services Research Center in Charleston, S.C., said, "There is zero evidence to support the idea that Halloween is a dangerous date for children in terms of child molestation."

Paul Stern, a deputy prosecutor in Snohomish County, Wash., agrees.

"People want to protect kids; they want to do the right thing and they make decisions based on what at first glance may make some sense. Sex offenders, costumes, kids -- what a bad combination," he said.

"Unfortunately, those kinds of policies are not always based on any analysis or scientific evidence," said Stern, who started prosecuting sex offenders who victimized children in 1985.

Stern, Letourneau and two others published a paper last year for the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers called: "How Safe Are Trick-or-Treaters? An Analysis of Child Sex Crime Rates on Halloween."

The study looked at more than 67,000 sex crimes in 30 states against children 12 and younger from 1997 -- before many Halloween sex-offender programs began -- through 2005, well after many were under way...

"These findings raise questions about the wisdom of diverting law-enforcement resources to attend to a problem that does not appear to exist," the study concluded.

Letourneau said, "There's just no increase in sex offense on that day, and in all likelihood that's because kids are out in groups or they're out with their parents and they're moving around, they're not isolated and otherwise at risk." She said a better use of police on Halloween night would be to help protect children from traffic.

"We almost called this paper 'Halloween: The Safest Day of the Year' because it was just so incredibly rare to see anything happen on that day," she said.

The entire study is available for purchase. An authors' summary is available for free.

Interestingly, the study found that sex crimes increased substantially during summer months and that the summer would be a more appropriate time for increased vigilance. More from the study:

It might be argued that Halloween sex offender policies are worthwhile even if they prevent only a single child from being victimized. However, this line of reasoning fails to consider the cost side of the cost–benefit equation. The wide net cast by Halloween laws places some degree of burden on law enforcement officers whose time would otherwise be allocated to addressing more probable dangerous events. For example, a particularly salient threat to children on Halloween comes from motor vehicle accidents. Children aged 5 to 14 years are four times more likely to be killed in a pedestrian–motor vehicle accident on Halloween than on any other day of the year (Centers for Disease Control, 1997). Regarding criminal activity on Halloween, alcohol-related offenses and vandalism are particularly common (Siverts, 2002). Although we do not know the precise amount of law enforcement resources consumed by Halloween sex offender policies, it will be important for policy makers to estimate and consider allocation of resources in light of the actual increased risks that exist in other areas, such as pedestrian–vehicle fatalities. Our findings indicated that sex crimes against children by nonfamily members account for 2 out of every 1,000 Halloween crimes, calling into question the justification for diverting law enforcement resources away from more prevalent public safety concerns.

...the data set did not contain variables that would have
been valuable for even more precisely focusing the study incidents, such as information about whether the perpetrator was a registered sex offender or whether the incident specifically involved a trick-or-treat context.

Literally thousands of articles have been published in recent years about the danger presented by registered sex offenders at Halloween. Absent from all of them has been any mention of any specific incident in which a registered sex offender has attacked a Trick-or-Treater---not one, ever! If you know of any such incident, please e-mail me or post a comment below. I bet you can't find one. This is a new urban myth. We always need some sort of monster on Halloween. It's the nature of the holiday.

NY Senate Committee Points in a New Direction for Sex Offender Management in New York State

2010-10-14T23:13:00.006-04:00

The New York Senate Committee on Crime, Crime Victims, and Corrections has just published their 2009-2010 report. The report's section on "Effective Sex Offender Management in New York State," points in a new direction for sex offender management in the state. This new direction is based on facts and research, rather than mythology and hysteria. Reforming the laws in the ways this report suggests will make our communities safer and will potentially be more cost effective.

XIV. EFFECTIVE SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT IN NEW YORK STATE

In March 2010, the Committee conducted two roundtables which included experts in the field of effective sex offender management. Staffs of both parties were present and engaged in a question and answer period. From these meetings the following policy goals were suggested and we now share them with our readers.

1. Convene public hearings on effective sex offender management and public safety to begin to develop comprehensive legislation that will better facilitate the goal of improving public safety and reducing the risk of sexual assault. After fourteen years of sex offender registries and a growing list of restrictions in place in New York, there is little evidence that any of these measures have contributed to a decrease in sexual assault. There is, however, a growing body of research suggesting that some laws relating to registration, notification, and overly harsh laws restricting where sex offenders can be and how they can engage with their communities may exacerbate the risk that they will reoffend. We should engage in a conversation to consider developing a comprehensive sex offender management plan that embraces new research and is aimed at reducing recidivism.

2. Re-examine the method of assessing risk of re-offense among registered sex offenders currently used by the New York State Board of Examiners and appoint a commission to choose among the various assessment tools available today one that would provide the most reliable determination of risk. New York’s Risk Assessment Guidelines were developed more than fifteen years ago, at a time when experts in the state knew far less about how to measure the risk that someone once convicted of a sex crime would reoffend. It is our belief—one shared by many experts—that there are far too many people in New York who are misclassified in the higher levels of risk, and therefore unnecessarily diverting limited resources away from likely re-offenders.

3. Reject additional further residency restriction proposals and instead reinforce the ability of individual probation and parole officers to assess whether there are residences that are inappropriate for certain individuals such that they would pose an unacceptable risk of re-offense. The legislature should also pass affirmative legislation that would require counties to create plans for safe and stable housing for sex offenders. All of the empirical research examining the effectiveness of residency restrictions shows that residency restrictions do not work to reduce the risk of harm to children. They have been shown to discourage offenders from reporting their whereabouts to law enforcement, and they destabilize offenders’ lives, creating roadblocks to successful re-integration into society and increasing the risk of recidivism. Housing stability is a key to reducing recidivism, and a comprehensive sex offender management plan must include provisions to ensure stable housing for offenders.

4. Many states have declined to adopt the federal Adam Walsh Act that would expand community notification via the state’s Internet registry to include registered offenders who pose the lowest risk of re-offense; require that anytime affirmative community notification is undertaken that law enforcement concurrently conduct community education to ensure that risk is communicated in a way that makes sense; monitor acts of vigilantism and take action against anyone found to have abused the use of the Internet registry to harass or harm a registered offender or his family. Community notification has been found to have no demonstrable impact on sexual recidivism. In fact, some studies suggest that community notification may aggravate stressors that lead to increased recidivism³², and requiring broad community notification via the Internet may discourage some victims of sexual abuse from reporting incidents to the authorities. Victims may be reluctant to report offenses out of concern for a perpetrator who is close to them ( a relative, a step-parent), or out of concern for their own privacy.³³ The Adam Walsh Act would take New York in a dangerously opposite direction, besides the fact that experts agree that it would cost more to implement than the state would stand to lose in federal grant money.

5. Pass the Healthy Teens Act,³⁴ a bill pending in both the Assembly and the Senate, which would establish an age-appropriate and medically accurate program of comprehensive sex education, including instruction on avoiding unwanted verbal, physical and sexual advances. Each year, New York adds another restriction on those already convicted of sex offenses as a means to prevent sexual violence against children. However, the overwhelming majority (around 95%) of sex offenses, including rape and child molestation, are committed by those who have never before been convicted of an offense. This means that New York concentrates all of its legislative efforts on preventing only 5% of all sex crimes against children, and completely ignores the threat posed by first-time offenders. The Healthy Teens Act would provide young people with age-appropriate comprehensive sex education that would include instruction about how to avoid becoming a victim—perhaps the .most valuable and effective tool way to reduce the incidence of childsexual assault.

³² Naomi J. Freeman, The Public Safety Impact of Community Notification Laws, Crime & Delinquency (2009) (“Empirical research has suggested that sex offenders do not always commit crimes within their areas of residence and, thus, the areas in which notification occurs. Indeed, studies in Colorado and Minnesota found that sex offenders are unlikely to offend close to their homes and within the area that notification occurs; rather, sex offenders may travel, on average, 3 to 5 miles to gain access to victims.”).

³³ Jeffrey C. Sandler, Does a Watched Pot Boil? A Time-Series Analysis of New York State’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Law, Psychology, Contextualizing Sex Offender Management Legislation and Policy: Evaluating the problem of Latent Consequences in Community Notification Laws, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology (2001).

³⁴ Assembly Bill 1806A (Assemblyman Gottfried)/Senate Bill 3836 (Senator Duane).

Should registered sex offenders be coaches?

2010-06-21T09:25:00.007-04:00

Should registered sex offenders be coaches? Senator Charles Schumer says, "No!"

"Convicted sex offenders should not be able to hold any job or volunteer position where they have interaction with children in New York or across the country, period," Schumer said. "The fact that these sex offenders are able to coach our children's teams, operate rides at fairs, and teach them dance and music is beyond scary and we must take immediate action to stop it. My hope is that my new legislation closes this huge loophole so no children are put into harm's way."
Additional jobs that could come under the measure would be tutors, youth mentors, workers at recreation centers, video arcades, and children's museums.
The measure would require states to pass laws prohibiting employment of sex offenders in those private sector jobs or lose out on specific federal funding.

On the surface, such a law seems to make sense, as many of these sex offender laws do. Unfortunately, the label, "sex offender", is applied all too broadly. Consider the young man in college who attends a party with his girlfriend. They have too much to drink. Lines are blurred. She says that he crossed one. He takes a plea deal to avoid going to jail. He has to register as a sex offender. He later marries and has a family and lives a productive life in society. Should he be prohibited from being a coach of his son's Little League baseball team?

Of course, such a federal law is a long away from being passed. Even if such a federal mandate is enacted, states may well choose to ignore it, as they recently have other federal sex offender laws.

Governor Paterson Proposes Legislation to Strengthen Sex Offender Laws. Will It?

2010-04-19T00:20:00.021-04:00

Governor Paterson has proposed legislation for the stated purpose of strengthening sex offender laws. All things considered, the proposed legislation (the text of which is not yet available) makes some relatively minor changes around the margins of a marginally effective tool.

New York States admits that the Sex Offender Registry is only of very limited value in preventing sex crimes. According to the NY Office of Sex Offender Management web site, "The vast majority of sex crimes are committed by someone who is not on the Sex Offender Registry. During 2005-2006, approximately 94% of the persons arrested for sexual offenses in New York State had no prior sex convictions. As a result, these people would not have been on the Sex Offender Registry."

The legislation does fix one glaring inconsistency in current law. Currently, the exact home address of Level 2 ("moderate risk") offenders is listed on the state sex offender registry web site, but the law allows local law enforcement to share only the zip codes of Level 2 offenders.

Another fix also is warranted: "Require high-risk sex offenders and sexual predators to personally appear before the local law enforcement agency within 10 days of release or relocation, instead of the current 90 days."

The other changes are of questionable value, at best, and some present real reasons for concern.

The legislation would open the door to listing juveniles on the sex offender registry, a very serious step.

The legislation would: "Make it a felony for a sex offender to fail to report his or her address as required, even if he or she has not moved from that address."

Sean M. Byrne, Acting Commissioner of the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), said: "Though it is currently a felony for an offender to fail to verify their address, if they have not moved and simply refuse to obey the law and send in the verification form, there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. Consequently, we are constantly asking law enforcement to find people who, more than 75 percent of the time, aren't missing at all. That is a terrible waste of police resources and an indefensible flouting of the law by these sex offenders. Governor Paterson's bill would address that legal absurdity, and implement several other common sense reforms."

Although one can sympathize with the Governor's desire to cut administrative and compliance costs, having taxpayers pay to incarcerate an individual for at least a year for simply not mailing a return post card hardly seems cost effective.

Another proposal would: "Require that Level 2 sex offenders have a new photograph taken every year, rather than every three years." What's the point? This adds very little value for additional cost.

Another proposal will: "Ensure that all sex offenders registered in other states who move to New York are required to register here...[because] Sex offenders from other states who move to New York State may not have to register in this State."

This proposal is particularly problematic. Under current law, anyone who moves to New York from another state wherein they have committed a crime which requires registration under New York law must register when they move to New York. Under the new proposal, registered sex offenders which move to New York State must register as sex offenders even if their offense is not considered a crime in New York State. For example, New York State does not criminalize consensual sex between an eighteen year old and a sixteen year old as some other states do. (NY requires at least a four year difference in ages to bring criminal charges). Here the Governor is seeking for New York to treat citizens from other states differently than New York citizens. This raises constitutional concerns in relation to the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It also bloats the New York sex offender registry with those who present no risk. (Imagine if one of these no risk "offenders" who moves to New York fails to mail in his or her annual address verification post card. New York taxpayers would then have to pay for their imprisonment for a year).

According to the press release: "Mary B. Kavaney, Deputy Secretary for Public Safety, said: 'Over time, and partially as a result of some piecemeal amendments, portions of SORA have become inconsistent with the original intent of the legislation.'

Actually, New York's sex offender registry has strayed even further from the intent of the original law than Kavaney indicates. Under the original version of New York's sex offender registration law, only high risk offenders (violent offenders, repeat offenders, those who targeted strangers) were placed on the public registry. All others were known only by law enforcement. As lower risk individuals have been added to the public registry, its effectiveness has been diluted. Also under the original law, those former offenders who lived safely in the community for ten years were to be dropped from the registry. (After ten years of living safely in the community, chances of recidivism are near zero for most former offenders). The law was subsequently changed so that, to this point, no one has been dropped from the registry. The registry now numbers 30,000, and it (and taxpayers' costs) continue to grow.

If New York would like to get rid of some of its registered sex offenders, it could easily do so with a simple change in the law. Under current law, New York offenders must continue to register in New York even if they move to a state where they are not required to register. If New York no longer required registration of out of state offenders, no doubt some would chose to move to other states.

It is noteworthy that one study has shown that New York's Sex Offender registry has had no effect in reducing crime. A federally funded study by the New Jersey Department of Corrections had similar findings.

NY Attorney General Cuomo announces NY Division of Criminal Justice Services to commit misdemeanor!

2009-12-10T14:47:00.012-05:00

Of course, Andrew Cuomo did not put it in so many words, but his latest press release has announced that Classmates.com, as well as a host of other social networking sites, have signed up to receive Internet identifiers of registered sex offenders.

New York's e-STOP allows the internet identifiers of registered sex offenders to be released to any "authorized internet entity," defined as " any business, organization or other entity providing or offering a service over the internet which permits persons under eighteen years of age to access, meet, congregate or communicate with other users for the purpose of social networking."

The Terms of Service of Classmates.com require users to be at least 18.

I have not yet checked all of the other sites listed in the press release.

As I have written elsewhere, this is basically a placebo law. An article from CNET News contains this statement from Hemanshu Nigam, chief security officer for MySpace parent company News Corp: “There are still zero cases reported of any registered sex offender who was booted off MySpace being prosecuted for illegal contact occurring on MySpace.”

It is one thing for Attorney General Cuomo to advocate an unconstitutional law, but another to arrange breaking the same law. New York's Sex Offender Registration law states: " The unauthorized release of any information required by this article shall be a class B misdemeanor."

The Misuse of Statistics by Parents for Megan's Law

2009-05-14T16:30:00.034-04:00

I've been exploring Parents for Megan's Law's web site. It actually has some pretty good material with which I agree, like their tips on prevention.

Parents for Megan's Law actually gives some helpful statistics which make it clear that most children are victimized by family members and acquaintances, not by strangers. Unfortunately, they do not point out that 95% of those arrested for sex crimes in New York State (their base of operations) are first time offenders and thus are not listed on any registry. They also do not point out that the vast majority of sex offenders in New York State are not arrested for a repeat offense.

Unfortunately, they also do their share of twisting and misusing statistics:

Their offender statistics page states: "The typical pedophile commits an average of 280 sexual crimes during his lifetime." The source given is Able, G., et al. Self-reported Sex Crimes of Nonincarcerated Paraphiliacs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2:3-25, 1987

You can find the quoted number (actually 281.7) on p. 16 of the study. Parents for Megan's Law states that the number applies to a "typical pedophile." Apparently, they think the typical pedophile does not target girls. The number quoted refers only to offenders with male nonincest victims. Actually, the majority of pedophiles in the study targeted girls and committed an average of 23.2 offenses (far fewer than those who targeted male victims). If you define the "typical pedophile" as someone who was diagnosed as being a pedophile (not everyone who has molested a child is a pedophile) who targeted both male and female nonincest victims, the accurate statement would be that the offenders committed an average of 128 offenses (less than half the number Parents for Megan's Law reports).

But wait, there is even more! The numbers above give the "mean" (average) number of offenses. The study also lists the "median" number of offenses. It is important to know the difference between "mean" and "median." Mean is the average number of offenses per offender. Median gives the halfway point---half the offenders have committed more or less than this number of offenses.

In the Abel study, the offenders with male nonincest victims committed an average of 281.7 offenses. The median number of offenses was 10.1. This means that half of the offenders committed less than 10.1 offenses. The median number of offenses for those with female nonincest victims was 1.4. This means that a small percentage of offenders in the study are responsible for a disproportionately large amount of the offenses.

If you included all pedophiles with nonincest victims, an accurate statement would be that half of the pedophiles in the Abel study committed 4 or fewer offenses and had 3 or fewer victims. This is a far cry from Parents for Megan's Law's claim: "The typical pedophile commits an average of 280 sexual crimes during his lifetime."

This is just some of the "fun" some can have with the numbers. The study has other problems as well.

The sexual abuse of children is a serious issue. One does not need to hype the numbers in order to raise hysteria.

E-STOP - Another Placebo Sex Offender Law

2008-05-15T10:54:00.009-04:00

On May 14, New York Governor David Paterson signed legislation intended to protect children who access social networking sites from convicted sex offenders. The Electronic Security and Targeting of Online Predators Act (e-STOP) would, among other things, require all registered sex offenders to submit their e-mail addresses and online identifiers to the state. In turn, the state would make the addresses available to social networking sites, like MySpace, and other online services. At least in regard to this provision, this is a placebo law that will protect no one and is likely unconstitutional.

If this law provides any protection, it is minimal at best. It is hard to imagine that any knowledgeable person could dispute the proposed law’s ineffectiveness. E-mail addresses are easily created using fake or anonymous information.

In past months, MySpace has announced that they have discovered 36,000 registered sex offenders who signed up as members of their site. Several of these have been arrested for possible parole violations. I have kept a close eye on these developments and am aware of only two who have been charged with an attempt to solicit a minor online.

This issue came to the fore with MSNBC’s “To Catch a Predator” sting. Apparently, lawmakers did not pay very close attention to the show. As reported to a hearing held by the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee last October, out of the over 229 perpetrators caught in the sting, only 4 were registered sex offenders.

A panel of experts recently reported to the Internet Safety Technical Task Force that "the risk of a child being forced into sex from an online predator is almost non-existent. And in the relatively few cases where a youth does engage in sex with someone they first met online, both the meetings and the sex are usually voluntary."

The law also likely has constitutional problems. The e-mail addresses are to be supplied to social networking sites and “other online services” so that these individuals may be monitored or blocked from the sites. Who are these “social networking” sites and “other online services”? Would they include Internet discussion forums provided by many news outlets? Would they include YouTube or blogging sites where anyone can publish their views? Would these sites block the participation of registered sex offenders?

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission states: “Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.”

This legislation is also based on other faulty premises. The New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's press release which announced the proposal of this law states: “Sex offenders have been shown to have recidivism rates far higher than those who commit other types of crimes.” Governor Paterson stated that sex predators have a 90% recidivism rate.

This statement is contrary to New York State’s own research. A recent New York study reports that "sex offenders are arrested and/or convicted of committing a new sex crime at a lower rate than other offenders who commit other new non-sexual crimes." (“Research Bulletin: Sex Offender Populations, Recidivism and Actuarial Assessment,” New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives, May, 2007, p. 4). This study of 19,827 offenders on the New York State Sex Offender Registry on March 31, 2005 found that 8% had been arrested for a new sex crime within 8 years of their date of first registration.

A registered sex offender might want to publish the real facts online. Unfortunately, this legislation may make it impossible for him to do so. In our society, the right of free speech must be protected even for “unpopular individuals.” If not, we may all be denied the right to hear and speak the truth.

A Detailed Analysis of Sex Offender Recidivism in New York State

2008-05-15T10:40:00.007-04:00

New York State provides a wealth of studies on sex offender recidivism. While the thought of statistical studies causes the eyes of many to glaze over, any who are concerned that public policy be based on fact rather than mythology are grateful to have some hard data. It is extremely informative to look at the data gathered over the last 20 years.

The earliest study in this period was a New York Department of Corrections study (Profile and follow-up of sex offenders released in 1986, prepared by Canestrini, K., State of New York Department of Correctional Services) which followed 556 sex offenders released from state prisons in 1986. A total of 49% of these were returned to prison within the 9 year follow-up period. It should be noted that only 6% of these (34 out of 556) were returned to prison for a new sex crime. Most were returned for parole violations (27%) or for committing other crimes such as drug offenses. The study includes the clear statement: “These findings suggest that sex offenders are a diverse population and that when looking at sex offender recidivism it is important to distinguish total criminal activity from sexual reoffending.” (p. 34) Unfortunately, politicians and the media often do not do this. It also should be noted that this study was conducted before New York's Megan's Law was enacted.

New York regularly publishes 3 year follow-up studies of all those released from state prisons. Between 1985 and 2002 a total of 12,863 sex offenders were released. Only 272 of these (2.1%) were returned to prison for new sex crimes within three years of their release. (2002 Releases: Three Year Post Release Follow-up, State of New York Department of Correctional Services, p. 18) Of course, as in the above mentioned study, recidivism rates are higher if one counts those returned to prison for parole violations or for committing other crimes such as drug offenses. In terms of this overall rate of recidivism, it is important to note that sex offenders have a lower 3 year rate of recidivism (31%) than the general prison population (42%). Only 8% of sex offenders were returned to prison as a result of a conviction for a new crime. Most were returned for parole violations.

The latest sex offender recidivism study, Research Bulletin: Sex Offender Populations, Recidivism and Actuarial Assessment (New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives, May, 2007) is unique in that it also includes those sentenced to probation and county jails. Most recidivism studies (including those previously cited) examine only those who were sentenced to prison. The study examined 19,827 offenders on the New York State Sex Offender Registry on March 31, 2005.

The heart of the study is contained in the following excerpts:

Probation is the most common sentence for sex offenders in New York State. Of the 2,944 sentences for offenses requiring registration on the Sex Offender Registry (SOR) in 2006, 1,206 were to probation, representing 41.0% of the total. Sentences to prison accounted for 31.0% (913) and sentences to local jails accounted for 16.9% (500). There were 325 offenders in the “other” sentencing category, including fines and conditional discharges. A small number of sentences were categorized as unknown (120). ( p. 1)

Table One: Proportion of Registered Sex Offenders Rearrested (Among 19,827 offenders on the registry on March 31, 2005)
Time from Registration Date	Any New Arrest	Any New Registerable Sex Offense
~1 Year	15%	2%
~2 Years	24%	3%
~5 Years	41%	6%
~8 Years	48%	8%
Source: DCJS: NYS Sex Offender Registry and NYS Computerized Criminal History Data Base

The DCJS data above included probationers, as well as parolees, those under custody and offenders whose sentence had expired...

...sex offenders are arrested and/or convicted of committing a new sex crime at a lower rate than other offenders who commit other new non-sexual crimes. (emphasis mine) (p. 3-4).

The report did not specify the reasons for arrests other than those arrested for new sex offenses. It is likely (as seen in the previously mentioned studies) that most of these were for parole or probation violations. In addition, many of these arrests were for Failure to Register. Sex offenders must update their registration at least once a year (and many, more often). Another New York study reports that between 2002 and 2006, 1730 sex offenders were convicted (and certainly more were arrested) for Failure to Register. (Sex Offender Management 2006 Crimestat Update, New York Division of Criminal Justice Services, p.11) If these figures and those from other years are eliminated that would bring the re-arrest rate down considerably.

In a sense the registry law "creates" crimes. This vicious cycle will likely increase as sex offender residency laws continue to proliferate. More registered sex offenders (RSOs) will be arrested for violating those. In turn, more RSOs will fail to register because the residency laws make it impossible for them to find housing. These new laws create an increasing "crime wave" by sex offenders which will, no doubt, increase calls for even more laws. Meanwhile the rate of arrest for new sex crimes remains relatively stable and low.

Has Megan's Law reduced sex offender recidivism in New York State? There is no evidence that it has. This is apparent when one compares this latest study with the earlier pre-Megan's Law study. That study reported that within 9 years of their release, 49% were returned to prison (including for parole violations), but only 6% were returned for committing a new sex crime. The latest study shows a total re-arrest rate after 8 years of 48% and an 8% re-arrest rate for sex crimes.* It is not completely valid to compare these two studies. They involve different populations and recidivism is measured differently (return to prison vs. re-arrest), but it is striking that after more than 10 years experience with sex offender registration laws in New York State there has been no significant change in sex offender recidivism. It has remained relatively stable and low.

*Within 8 years of the initial date of registration, 11% of Level 3 offenders (highest risk), 7% of Level 2 offenders, and 6% of Level 1 offenders were arrested for another sex crime. (see more)

Watching Those Who Watch Sex Offenders; Does Watch Systems, Inc. use deceptive statistics to hype danger?

2008-05-15T10:00:00.008-04:00

There is money to be made off of sex offenders. Consider Watch Systems, Inc., a Louisiana based company, which sells their Offender Watch system to counties and sheriffs' departments all over the United States. Their service makes it possible for local residents to see information on sex offenders in their area on local web sites such as that of the county sheriff. Residents also may sign up for e-mail alerts when a registered sex offender moves into their area. Counties pay several thousand dollars for this service. Often this is covered by a grant for the initial year with the county picking up the cost in subsequent years.

It should be of no surprise that fear plays a part in their sales approach. Their web site reminds government entities that they should be afraid of their citizens: “The public has zero tolerance for law enforcement who minimally comply with sex offender laws. How would the public grade your office on sex offender address verification, registration and community notification?”

They also fan the fears of the public. Their online presentation which is incorporated into all their local web sites contains this statement: 50% of sex offenders re-offend." This statement is puzzling, to say the least. It is at variance with the largest study of sex offender recidivism ever done in the United States, a 2003 U.S. Department of Justice report--Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994. Its findings: “In 1994, prisons in 15 States released 9,691 male sex offenders. The 9,691 men are two-thirds of all the male sex offenders released from State prisons in the United States in 1994. This report summarizes findings from a survey that tracked the 9,691 for 3 full years after their release… Within the first 3 years following their release from prison in 1994, 5.3% (517 of the 9,691) of released sex offenders were rearrested for a sex crime… Of the 9,691 released sex offenders, 3.5% (339 of the 9,691) were reconvicted for a sex crime within the 3-year followup period.

I e-mailed Watch Systems and asked them for the source of their 50% recidivism figure. I received this response from Mark A. Wilson, their Vice President of Marketing: “…we are not trying by any means to exaggerate the recidivism statistics nor to create hysteria – the numbers we use are widely reported in various channels and media and by various experts in the field. They are based in part on this and other studies from the Dept of Justice http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/soo.pdf"

The source of their information was Sex Offenses and Offenders; An Analysis of Data on Rape and Sexual Assault by Lawrence A. Greenfeld, Statistician, Bureau of Justice Statistic, February 1997. It is important to note that this study is ten years older than the Department of Justice study referenced above. When one looks at the details of the study, one finds that Watch Systems' use of the statistics contained therein is questionable, at best. Here are some direct quotations from the report:

Offenders convicted of rape and sexual assault composed just over 4% of those discharged from prisons in the 11 States in 1983. Over the 3-year period following prison release, an estimated 52% of discharged rapists and 48% of discharged sexual assaulters were re-arrested for a new crime. Their criminal history records also evidenced a lower percentage of sex offenders who were reconvicted and reimprisoned during the followup period than was the case for all violent offenders discharged from prison...

Nearly 28% of released rapists were re-arrested for a new violent crime within 3 years (figure 27). For nearly 8% of released rapists, the new arrest for a violent crime was another charge for rape. (p. 26)

The study reports that 52% of discharged rapists and 48% of discharged seuxal assaulter were re-arrested for a new crime. This includes crimes of any type, e.g. drug offenses. Note that the study states clearly that violent sex offenders have a lower recidivism rate than other offenders. If one does the math, the study reports that only 2.24% of rapists are returned to prison for committing another rape. (8% of 28%)

The statement by Watch Systems, Inc. that "50% of sex offenders re-offend," clearly implies that 50% of registered sex offenders commit new sex crimes. This statement is clearly deceptive and does raise unwarranted hysteria about sex offenders.

New York regularly publishes 3 year follow-ups of all those released from state prisons. Between 1985 and 2002 a total of 12,863 sex offenders were released. Only 272 of these (2.1%) were returned to prison for new sex crimes within three years of their release. (2002 Releases: Three Year Post Release Follow-up, State of New York Department of Correctional Services, p. 16)

A recently published study was done of 19,827 offenders on the New York State Sex Offender Registry on March 31, 2005 (including those sentenced to probation (41%) or local jails. It found that the re-arrest rate for a new sex crime within 8 years of the date of first registration was 8%. The study also found that "sex offenders are arrested and/or convicted of committing a new sex crime at a lower rate than other offenders who commit other new non-sexual crimes." (Research Bulletin: Sex Offender Populations, Recidivism and Actuarial Assessment, New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives, May, 2007, p. 3-4). (Read a detailed analysis of sex offender recidivism in New York State)

Watch Systems’ online presentation also states: “More than half of rape/sexual assault incidents happened within a mile of the victim’s home.” This statement is contained in the Department of Justice report. Of course, the report also states that almost 40% of the assaults occur in the victim's home. This is obviously because a large number of these offenses occur within the family. The determining factor in these crimes is usually not geography, but relationships.

While a sex offender registry has its place as one tool among many, its worth should not be over emphasized. The face of danger is more likely to be in a family snapshot than in a mug shot on a sex offender registry. The vast majority of sex crimes (95% in New York state) are committed by someone not listed on a sex offender registry. The vast majority of registered sex offenders never commit another sex crime.

The statistics offered by Watch Systems are not only misleading, they are dangerous---in that they disguise the real problem of sexual abuse.