Treatment of sex offenders of all ilks

[Flying Crane]

Im not suprised you are married to a defense attorney either. Now.

are you trying to get a rise out of me? Don't hold back. Go ahead and say what's on your mind. If you've got a gripe, feel free to air it. If you are not comfortable doing it publicly, then send me a PM.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Thats great unless you are one of the VICTIMS (who seem to get less attention then the criminals here of late). While I pray nobody here has ever or will ever have their lives shattered by one of these crimes, its easy for people to say "he did the time let him move on". He gets to rape, kill, torture..outright ruin a person for the rest of their lives if not out right kill them and we are all supposed to have sympathy for them after they are released? Not me. Anyhoo. Dont place too much stock in numbers. They are not all that theyre cracked up to be. Make your neighborhood a "sex offender friendly zone" if you like. Keep them out of mine.

http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html

What has come to be termed as "the low base rate problem" has traditionally plagued sex offender recidivism studies (Quinsey, 1980). As noted previously, lack of reporting, or underreporting, is higher in crimes of sexual violence than general criminal violence and may contribute to the low base rate problem. The following studies have found low base rates for sex offender populations:

Hanson and Bussiere (1998) reported an overall recidivism rate of 13 percent.
Grumfeld and Noreik (1986) found a 10 percent recidivism rate for rapists.
Gibbens, Soothill, and Way (1978) reported a 4 percent recidivism rate for incest offenders.
Samples of sex offenders used in some studies may have higher base rates of reoffense than other studies. Quinsey (1984) found this to be the case in his summary of sex offender recidivism studies, as have many other authors who have attempted to synthesize this research. There is wide variation in results, in both the amount of measured recidivism and the factors associated with these outcomes. To a large degree, differences can be explained by variations in the sample of sex offenders involved in the studies. Although this is a simple and somewhat obvious point, this basic fact is "responsible for the disagreements and much of the confusion in the literature" on the recidivism of sex offenders (Quinsey, 1984).
Furthermore, results from some studies indicate that there may be higher base rates among certain categories of sex offenders (Quinsey, Laumiere, Rice, and Harris, 1995; Quinsey, Rice, and Harris, 1995). For example, in their follow-up study of sex offenders released from a psychiatric facility, Quinsey, Rice, and Harris (1995) found that rapists had a considerably higher rate of rearrest/reconviction than did child molesters.

Conversely, Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce (1997) found that over a 25-year period, child molesters had higher rates of reoffense than rapists. In this study, recidivism was operationalized as a failure rate and calculated as the proportion of individuals who were rearrested using survival analysis (which takes into account the amount of time each offender has been at risk in the community). Results show that over longer periods of time, child molesters have a higher failure rate—thus, a higher rate of rearrest—than rapists (52 percent versus 39 percent over 25 years).

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Sex offenses and sex offenders run a wide gamut. The guy convicted of "carnal knowledge of minor" or "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" (or some similar offense) for adult activities with his consenting (maybe even initiating!), 17 year old girlfriend when he was 18 or 20... He's probably not going to be a problem for the cops in the future, I agree.

But the guy who gets off on showing his junk off in public, or who's into kids (like pre-teens) when he's 25 or 30? He's not going to change. That's how he's wired. He's not going to be "rehabilitated" anymore than we can make a homosexual person into a heterosexual. A very few can learn to control and restrain their behavior to a more societally acceptable option... but their wiring remains twisted, and given the right temptation, they'll likely re-offend. The same thing applies to peepers and exhibitionists, with a frightening caveat. Some of the peepers & exhibitionists progress to being rapists...

Rapists are an even more complicated issue; there are different types and degrees of rapists, and their chances of reoffending are different. When you get into some of the date rape scenarios, it gets even worse.

But -- in the end -- it's very simple. If someone's wiring is twisted to youngsters or where they get off on hurting, not sex -- we're not going to change them. Recall the movie A Clockwork Orange; they don't fix the main character -- they just make him even more twisted. These people will always be a threat to their victim class; even the very few that can learn to restrain or redirect themselves will remain a threat, though they don't act on the urges.

Your a LEO. Is there a time expiration on the lower classes of sex offenders? Will that guy who was tricked by an underage girl eventually have the label removed? I could see shortened time periods being allowed for those "peeing behind the bushes" cases. I think some states have 20 yr minimums and that can be extreme in SOME of these cases. Judges should have some leeway.

 

[Empty Hands]

While I pray nobody here has ever or will ever have their lives shattered by one of these crimes, its easy for people to say "he did the time let him move on". He gets to rape, kill, torture..outright ruin a person for the rest of their lives if not out right kill them and we are all supposed to have sympathy for them after they are released? Not me.

So what is enough for you? At what point will you say they have payed enough, and should be treated like a human being again? Banishment? Execution? Bastinado? Waterboarding? If you agree that the punishment should EVER end, then as a member of a rule-of-law society, you should be concerned. After all, it could happen to you - it could happen to any of us. Look to the people who have been on death row, or in jail for 10 or 20 years who have finally been exonerated. The system has categorical, systemic flaws that prevent perfect justice, which is something we need to keep in mind when discussing these punishments, especially after a sentence has ended.

 

[morph4me]

What's so special about the sex aspect of the crime? Why do we get so worked up about it? Why can a premeditated murderer, or an arsonist that horribly kills dozens of people stay in society, while the rapist must go (without testicles or his life, if alot of people have their way)?

I never said premeditated murderers or arsonists should stay in society, I'm pro death penalty. If I had my way they would be turned over to the victims or the families of the victims to be punished in any way that suited them.

 

[jks9199]

What evidence? The FBI stats I have seen show a lower recidivism rate for pedophiles.

Reported recidivism rates, which necessarily follow conviction, doesn't necessarily mean that convicts don't reoffend. The rate doesn't reflect the causation; maybe they don't reoffend because, IF they make it out of jail, the various Megan's Laws, civil commitment laws, and sex offender registries, and strict parole monitoring prevents them from having the opportunity to reoffend. Or, they simply learn how not to get caught... Also -- it's important to distinguish between true pedophiles, who target prepubescent victims, and other sex offenders whose victims are simply young people or pubescent kids. There are differences in the behavior and the sanctions applied...

Yep, that's the stupidity of "strict liability" laws. Almost every other crime requires a mens rea, but not statutory rape. To my knowledge, all the rest of the strict liability crimes are minor traffic offenses.

There are several others, though the ones that come to mind tend to involve children, such as providing or selling alcohol to a minor, or contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

 

[jks9199]

Your a LEO. Is there a time expiration on the lower classes of sex offenders? Will that guy who was tricked by an underage girl eventually have the label removed? I could see shortened time periods being allowed for those "peeing behind the bushes" cases. I think some states have 20 yr minimums and that can be extreme in SOME of these cases. Judges should have some leeway.

It depends on what you mean by "removed."

Expungement is the formal mechanism of "erasing" a criminal conviction based on subsequent good behavior over a (generally years long) period of time. The exact requirements vary by state, and typically judicial review is required. My understanding is that some offenses cannot be expunged. Once a record is ordered expunged, all records relating to it are sealed or destroyed, according to state law. (Note, I'm a cop, not a lawyer. I don't have the details on expungement to hand, since my job usually involves the other end of the process...) I'm not sure what happens to the criminal history records; I believe that they also are removed.

But... Let me use the Duke lacrosse players as a very good example. Today, it appears that they were absolutely innocent. At a very minimum, they've lost a year of their education, been stigmatized during that year, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear about them having trouble getting jobs, especially in certain fields. Despite their innocence, that social stigma remains. Among other things, until the records are expunged -- they'll have to answer "yes" anytime they're asked about being arrested. If I ran them through NCIC today, the record of their arrest and the subsequent dismissal of charges would be there. It won't tell me WHY the charges were dismissed; this can be a good thing (some charges are dismissed in plea deals and do reflect on tendencies, others are dismissed because of technical issues with the case, and so on) or a bad thing -- since it doesn't show that the charges were dismissed due to the actual innocence of the defendant!

Similarly, as was discussed elsewhere, simply being listed in a sex offender registry can cause lots of problems. Especially since many registries don't make it clear what the offense in question was...

So, yes, the formal records can be eliminated. But that doesn't mean records don't exist, and it doesn't mean that problems go away.

 

[jks9199]

That just isn't true. For instance, the following meta-analysis shows that general sex offense recidivism rate was 13.4%, while the child-molester rate was 12.7% (n=23,393, 5 year span). This is less than the general recidivism rate, and the predictors for re-offense were the same for sexual and non-sexual crimes.
http://www.helping-people.info/articles/hanson_98_frame.htm



"Some"? How many? What evidence do you have for it? It better be good to place the extraordinary suspicion and probably public action on non-violent offenders that this sentence implies.

Your study doesn't exam the causation, which is what I mentioned. Nothing I've seen supports that you can change a person with non-standard sexual orientation; you may teach them to control their desires, and restrain themselves -- but the interest remains. As I said -- it's like changing a person from straight to gay or vice-versa. You're not going to do it; it's a significant and established part of their personality. Maybe fewer reoffend than are commonly believed. We don't know why the recidivism rate is lower; it could reflect improved (as in more standard) behavior -- or it could reflect that they've learned to become better criminals, and can cover their tracks better, or that they are incarcerated or committed long enough that they are prevented from reoffending. We do know that "true"* rapists, molestors, and other sexual offenders are not typically arrested after only their first offense, any more than most shoplifters are arrested following their first offense.

I don't have any numbers to show how many peepers/voyeurs or exposers become rapists -- but my reading and education suggests that many rapists do report having committed these lesser offenses (usually peeping) prior to committing rapes. To me, it's enough that SOME do, so that they ALL need to be taken seriously. I don't consider someone peeping into someone's home or exposing themselves to be "nonviolent" or "safe." Yes, there's a certain level of voyeurism that is fairly normal or at least accepted, else there'd be no porn industry. But those who find that they have to satisfy their desire to view others by creeping around and peeping in windows... There's a problem there, especially with the ease of access to pornography today.

*I personally feel, and at least some research supports this, that some "date rapes" and statutory rapes are the results of various forms of miscommunication, immaturity, dishonesty on the part of the victim (primarily in statutory rape cases, often pushed to prosecution by a parent) or otherwise not criminally motivated, there probably should be a seperate consideration of this issue. Just one example is the issue of intoxication; even if the victim (typically female, so I'll use she & he respectively for the roles) is intoxicated and even if SHE initiates and appears to be consenting to the sexual activity, the accused is supposed to know that she can't consent... even if he is equally intoxicated. I don't have numbers, and don't know how often this occurs, and especially how often it leads to criminal charges or conviction -- but it is a problem. Let me be clear; I am not at all suggesting that any form of rape is all right; no absolutely means no.

 

[tellner]

Your study doesn't exam the causation, which is what I mentioned. Nothing I've seen supports that you can change a person with non-standard sexual orientation; you may teach them to control their desires, and restrain themselves -- but the interest remains. .

If they don't reoffend I really don't care what they think or want. There are dozens of people I'd like to throttle. Somehow I get through the day without doing it. My favorite pass-time, the thing with the dwarves, trapeeze, ostrich feathers, liver flavored lube and a walrus with certain anatomical peculiarities, makes people a little queasy. But as long as I don't do it (or at least don't hurt the guinea pigs when I stuff them into the bagpipe) it's my problem, not theirs.

Same for these people. If they can control their desires and not take a piece that isn't offered or screw little children then their private fantasy life is their own business. If they control themselves and don't offend I'll shake their hands and put in a few bucks towards whatever behavioral therapy they want to try.

Once you start on status crimes - based on what people are rather than what they do - you aren't on a slippery slope. You're actually about ten feet past the edge of the cliff and accelerating in a terminal direction.