Sex Offender Recidivism Fact Based Research Statistics
AVNETNEWS – The following Sex Offender Recidivism Fact Based Research Statistics show that “facts are stubborn things”, refuting the shill, rants and other myths, such as the unsupported “frighteningly high recidivism”. We must read this and understand these laws hoping to protect kids are in reality destroying kids and their families,
A Perspective on Recidivism
Most studies of recidivism begin with the statistics gathered on re-offending. Typically, these figures are assembled by states over three year periods, and this data is appropriately criticized for two principle reasons—that these figures do not reflect accurately what happens over a longer period of time, and that they cannot reflect crimes that are not prosecuted. But these studies do provide a tool by which to compare sex offender recidivism to recidivism for other crimes. And the recent sex offender recidivism numbers (which are included further down here) are lower than any other category of crime.
Persons working in the field—treatment providers and parole officers particularly—tend to rely more heavily on actuarial tools developed that provide predictions about the likelihood of reoffending. Not surprisingly, these tools yield higher rates than the three-year recidivism studies, but rates are often quoted in the 20% range
The myth of very high recidivism seems to rest on a handful of poorly designed studies. I include them here.
| Year | Study | Rate | Comments |
| 2004 | Ron Langevin—Canada“Lifetime Sex Offender Recidivism: A 25 year Follow-Up Study”
320 sex offenders referred to a single clinic for eval between 1966 and 1974 |
61.1% sex crime recidivism88.3% including confessions in counseling and new arrests that did not result in conviction; another measure that only included offenders outside their own family yielded a 94.1% rate | Criticized as a non-random sample limited to a group who were referred for major prosecutions (“the worst of the worst”).The sample only dealt with period before prisons included a vastly wider range of offenders now arguably less prone to recidivism.
Study eliminated everyone whose records were lost or purged from system after 15 years because of no new crimes or charges, eliminating most non-recidivists from the study Since at least 50% of the sample were already recidivists by Langevin’s definition, obviously he would dramatically inflate his figures, since the commonly accepted definition of recidivism is a new crime committed after release In response to his critics, Langevin himself has cautioned against making claims about all sex offenders based on his data. |
| 1997 | Robert PrentkyStudy of 136 rapists and 115 child molesters released from Bridgewater civil commitment center in Mass. 1959-1986. | 32% sex crime recidivism for molesters; 25% for rapists (over widely varied periods).Over 25 years, he estimated rates of 52% and 39% | Covers approximately the same period as Langevin studyAlso only considers narrow range of offenders; average child molesters had 3.6 offenses already and average rapist had 2.5 offenses. By Langevin’s definition, the recidivism rate would have been almost 100% Even the Prentky team said, “The obvious marked homogeneity of sexual offenders [in this sample] precludes automatic generalization of the rates reported here to other samples.” |
| 2000 and 2009 | Andres Hernandes study at Butner FCI – sample of 155 child porn offenders in treatment | 85% admitted in treatment to a previous hands-on offense, suggesting that child porn users overwhelmingly are also hands-on abusers | The methods of the study are widely criticized for its poor research model. Confessions were coerced by the threat of dismissal from the program with resultant return to the general population bearing the stamp of sex offender. Like the Langevin study, this study also raises serious questions about definitions of recidivism. The study has been dismissed by judges as lacking credibility on multiple grounds. The 2000 study was never accepted for publication; although the 2009 article was accepted for publication by The Journal of Family Violence, the BOP requested that the article be withdrawn (it was not), and a bureau official wrote: “We believe it unwise to generalize from limited observations gained in treatment or in records review to the broader population of persons who engage in such behavior.” The journal’s peer review process has also been criticized as remarkably lax—it is alleged that the journal allows authors to suggest their peer reviewers and to blackball reviewers they wish to avoid. Thus far, we have not confirmed that charge. |
Comparisons of who actually commits new sex crimes
According to a recent New York study:
- 95.88% of arrests for all registerable sex crimes are of persons previously non-convicted of a sex offense.
- 95.94% of arrests for rape are of previous non sex-offenders.
- 94.12% of arrests for child molestation are of previous non sex-offenders.
(Sandler, Jeffrey C, et. Al., Does a Watched Pot Boil? A Time-Series Analysis of New York State’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Law. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2008 Vol. 14, No. 4, 290)
These results are closely parallel to figures compiled by the US Department of Justice that show that 93% of child sex abuse is committed by a person whom the child knows. In 47% of the cases, the perpetrator is a member of the family. Only 7% of offenses are committed by strangers.
If sex offender recidivism were not exceptionally low, these figures could not be this high. The hugely disproportionate number of sex offenses committed by previously non-convicted persons raises questions about the utility and justice of a registry which subjects over 20,000 Oregonians to crippling restrictions, none of which address the source of the vast majority of sexual abuse.
Recent Reported Rates of Sex Offender Recidivism*
Most of these studies are based on the standard 3 year reporting system. More details are provided on the next page, including exceptions to the 3 year period. These recent rates are noticeably lower than reported rates a decade ago. This difference probably reflects at least two factors:
- crime rates in general have been falling during this period, and sex
offender recidivism seems to reflect that trend;
2) current studies appear to include a larger and different demographic than a decade or so earlier when both statutes and enforcement procedures were substantially different.
In all cases but two here, the rates are 4% or lower. In more than half, they are 3% or lower. Taken together, these figures seem to underline the reason that the researchers in the last study (Connecticut) wrote:
These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The real challenge for public agencies is to determine the level of risk which specific offenders pose the public. [emphasis added]
* All rates come from studies explained with references on the following pages.
Studies since 2007
| 2007 | Missouri DOC study of 2,777 offenders released from 1998-2007 | 1.9% after 3 yrs.; 3.5% after 5 yrs. | These rates were 1.1% and 2.7% for offenders who completed MOSOP, a mandated treatment program. |
| 2007 | Alaska Judicial Council report | 3% in 3 yrs. | Sex offenders had the lowest rate of reconviction for category of offense |
| 2007 | Minnesota DOC study 3,166 offenders released between 1990 and 2002 | 3% in 3 yrs. in 2002 | 10% av. rate over 8.4 yrs; in 1990, rate was17% in 3 yrs. This might suggest that rates are falling substantially in recent decades. |
| 2007 | Jared Bauer of West Virginia DOC 325 offenders tracked for 3 years from 2001, 2002 and 2003 | 1% for sex crime w/ victim | This rate might be inaccurate, since victimless crimes are not included, although there is little evidence to suggest that the other cohort would have a higher rate. 9.5% of sample returned to prison for other reasons. |
| 2008 | California SOMB report | 3.55% in 3 years | Cites figures from CDCR for prisoners released in 2003 |
| 2009 | Endrass et al—Swiss study of 431 users of underage porn | .8% w/ hands-on sex offense; 3.9 % w/ hands-off sex offense | Study covered 6 years; concluded that child pornography alone is not a risk factor for hands-on offenses. |
| 2009 | Orchowski and Iwama study of offenders released in 2001 for US Justice and Research Association | AK – 3.4%IA-3.9%
AZ – 2.3% NM—1.8% DE – 3.8% SC – 4.0% IL – 2.4% UT – 9.0% |
Comparison national 3 yr. rate was 5.3% for offenders released in 1994 |
| 2010 | Maine study tracked releases for 2004-2006 | 3.8% in 3 yrs. | |
| 2010 | California CDCR report | 5% in 3 yrs. | |
| 2012 | Connecticut Criminal Justice and Planning Division Study of 746 offenders released in 2005 | 1.7% returned to prison | Study covered 5 years, not 3. It showed 3.6% arrests; 2.7% convictions. |
Links:
2007 Missouri Study
<http://doc.mo.gov/documents/publications/Offender%20Profile%20FY07.pdf>
2007 Alaska Study
<http://www.ajc.state.ak.us/reports/1-07CriminalRecidivism.pdf>
2007 Minnesota Study
<http://www.doc.state.mn.us/documents/04-07SexOffenderReport-Recidivism.pdf>
2007 Jared Bauer West Virginia study
<http://www.wvdoc.com/wvdoc/Portals/0/documents/recidivism2001-2003.pdf>
2008 California SOMB study
2009 Indiana study
<http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/IDOCRecidivism.pdf>
2009 Endrass et al study
<http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-244X/9/43>
2009 Orchowski and Iwama study
<http://www.jrsa.org/programs/sex-offender-final-report.pdf>
2010 California CDCR report
2010 Maine study
2012 Connecticut study
New York offender study
http://www.rethinking.org.nz/images/newsletter%20PDF/Issue%2078/C%2002%20watchedpot.pdf
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What bothers many of us is the realization of how vulnerable the justice system seems to be to manipulation. Many wonder if real justice is even possible anymore. It seems as though in simpler times issues were more clear-cut and justice, along with its companion liberty, was available to all. Justice, however, is not merely a victim of clever and diabolical minds in the modern and postmodern world. Justice is ultimately a hard needle to thread, because we live in a world that is inherently unjust…a fact that was proven in a thoroughly rigged trial two thousand years ago when the Righteous Judge of the earth was tried in a kangaroo court and found guilty on trumped-up charges through the testimony of false ‘experts’. Jesus had declared Annas and his ‘religious’ crowd corrupt and apostate. His accusers had allowed their own personal goals and agenda dictate the final outcome. Roman leaders, previous enemies, had forged a friendship out of injustice, convenience, and expediency. Politicians do the same thing nowadays. One of this nation’s greatest leaders, Abraham Lincoln, did what he thought was right, knowing it might cost him half the nation. Many of today’s politicians don’t do what is right because they think it might cost them votes. Choices under pressure reveal character. If leadership is to accomplish anything, it must display true depth of character…character that is called upon in times of crisis. Many politicians today fear people…voters…more than God. Perhaps that is why there is such an absence of justice in our culture today…we dismissed justice from the cultural landscape when we determined to be a ‘truth optional’ society.
Okay have done years of research and spent a lot of times writing articles about re-offense rates. The way this came across really upset me so, I thought I would leave a comment, nope you can’t do that so then I thought I would do the normal things that I do which is contact the author and the editor and send them actual facts. Guess what No way to contact them through the article. So I went to the contact page for the website which turns out to be great if I want to buy some water or fruit or sign up for their newsletters. But there is no contact person this is quite obviously a hack website and this information should be pulled from all advocate websites, we don’t need to promote the higher re-offense rates that they are professing, People on the registry have a re-offense rate of less than 1% in any given year. Studies that look at subgroups of people on the registry do a great disservice to all advocates. Everybody that is on the registry is affected by the laws thereby only studies that look at everybody on a registry rather it is state or national is the only way to evaluate the actual re-offense rates for the registry and in this study should only use reconviction rates. If you want accurate information about the re-offense rate go to SOSEN.org and look through the older articles on our front page for example http://sosen.org/blog/2017/09/16/what-is-a-valid-evaluation-or-study-of-recidivism.html or http://sosen.org/blog/2017/06/26/so-why-are-the-reconviction-rates-so-important-2.html
Will, I agree. These websites who have a one sided opinion with no user interaction from the general public should not be considered a source for information and should be suppressed from distribution as they are not legitimate sources for information. CDCR for example is a legititate organization which knows first hand the numbers and thus as a government agency is required to share that information with the public and so we can take it for what it is at face value. We can’t trust CDCR completely so why would we trust a news website or random blog more? We shouldn’t.
Since it’s been proven time and time again that Sex Offenders have the LOWEST REOFFENCE RATE of all crimes, And Book and others continue to LIE about us, Couldn’t we all File a Defamation of Character lawsuit against him and everyone else spewing these LIES ?? I mean this is Florida and Defamation is still Against the law here !!. Why can’t we start using Florida against itself ???
Under the 14th amendment laws have to have a rational based. Given all of these studies about recidivism to my thinking there is no threat to public safety therefore no rational bases for these laws. It is my understanding that is a substitutive due process claim. Justice Hardin in a dissenting opinion arguement in the slaughter house case in 1877 established the concept of substantive due process has been used in the 1954 brown case and other cases before the court to over turn laws. The sixth circuit use it to declare the Michigan law unconstitutional. These are civil regulations and should be challenged on the bases of them not being rational therefore having not just cause for their existence.
I don’t fully understand the sample sizes used in these studies. The State curates a list of every KNOWN sex offender and their pertinent sexual convictions.
A quick Google search says Florida is home (you and I know the registry contains many people who haven’t been to Florida for years though) to 69,654 registered sex offenders.
So of those almost 70,000 people you would select any offenders with more than one unique conviction date.
Those with successive conviction dates would then have to be researched to filter out offenders who were subsequently convicted of offenses predating their first sexual conviction.
What you’d be left with is a list of all KNOWN sex offenders who were determined by the state to have beyond a shadow of a doubt committed a new sexual crime and at what interval.
All recidivism would be measured from the point the state officially intervened in an offenders life.
The difference between statistics and probability is that statistics uses a sample to extrapolate a trend in a community whereas probability uses a known community to determine the likelihood that one member of or a sample will have certain trait.
The state has identified 100% of all convicted sex offenders on any given day but researchers are trying to forward predict the recidivism of the whole from a sample instead of backwards calculate the probability from the known data.
Don’t ask me though, I just passed statistics, I don’t do it for a living.
FAC,
Actual studies and FACTS are such pesky little things. Ron will keep “denying & deflecting” what the truth actually says because it doesnt advance HIS narrative.
Poor, sad little man Ron Book.