From the Governor’s Office of Crime Control & Prevention:
The Governor’s Office of Crime Control & Prevention today announced grants totaling almost three-quarters of a million dollars to local jurisdictions to monitor sex offender compliance.
A total of $728,916 has been awarded to all 23 counties and Baltimore City under the Sex Offender Compliance and Enforcement in Maryland (SOCEM) grant program. The 24 designated law enforcement agencies in these jurisdictions are responsible for the registration and compliance enforcement of sexual offenders on the Maryland Sex Offender Registry (SOR). Currently there are 7,990 individuals on Maryland’s SOR.
“There should be absolutely no mercy shown to anyone who harms a child in our state, and our laws impose the strictest standards of supervision to ensure that Maryland’s children are protected,” said Governor Martin O’Malley. “Our laws monitoring sex offenders provide law enforcement and the residents of our communities the information they need to keep our neighborhoods safe from predators.”
Offenders found guilty of the most serious offenses such as first and second degree rape, are required to re-register every three months for the rest of their lives, and they are under the constant supervision of specially trained, multi-disciplinary teams throughout Maryland, known as COM/ET (Collaborative Offender Management/Enforced Treatment).
Those guilty of less serious offenses are required to register every six months for 25 years or annually for 15 years, depending on the severity of their crime. Offenders who say they are homeless are required to check in with local law enforcement once a week and let the authorities know where they can be found.
The funds will assist law enforcement agencies in their duties of sex offender registration, compliance verification, and enforcement. Agencies can use the funds for expenses including personnel costs and the cost of equipment such as hardware and software.
Sex Offender Compliance and Enforcement in Maryland
SOCEM Grants – July 1, 2012
Allegany – $20,470
Anne Arundel – $38,269
Baltimore City – $187,565
Baltimore County – $103,267
Calvert – $12,650
Caroline – $8,280
Carroll – $16,330
Cecil – $21,620
Charles – $21,200
Dorchester – $7,130
Frederick – $22,268
Garrett – $7,245
Harford – $25,256
Howard – $11,960
Kent – $2,750
Montgomery – $40,940
Prince George’s – $95,802
Queen Anne’s – $3,495
Somerset – $5,290
St. Mary’s – $16,064
Talbot – $5,405
Washington – $26,450
Wicomico – $20,700
Worcester – $8,510
TOTAL – $728,916
Harford County would have gotten more than the measily $25,000.00 if it wasn’t for the fact that the Harford County State’s Attorney Office and the Judges of the corrupt Harford County Circuit Court are so leniant on sex offenders. The State’s Attorney Office likes sex offenders because they are eager to become confidential informants and jail informants in order to get a good deal come sentencing time. I have never seen a jurisdiction that treats sex offenders so well! They get special treatment in jail, are given more TV stations to watch and better living conditions than standard inmates. Harford County, wake up! The powers that be, are nothing more than sleaze………
Clarified, I am wondering if you can provide some evidence to back up your claim that SO’s in Harford Co. are treated better than anyone else. Have you been in these prisons yourself to hear about it? I don’t mean that in a negative way – I’m just very curious. I know a LOT of folks who have served time for sexual offenses (obviously, given my advocacy work), and I have not heard of special treatment (unless it is more solitary, to protect somebody from other inmates.)
Sex Offenders are automatically taken to the “R” dorm. During my incarceration in 2009, I was housed with these baby touchers. Don’t get me wrong, the “R” dorm housed no risk inmates and medical patients as well. It was just astonishing to witness that these child molestors were brought straight to this dorm that had two TV’s connected to Satellite with remote controls for the inmates. Other inmates had to go thru the classification stage that could take a week, but if you were a child molestor or rapist they took you to the “R” dorm immediately. Also, “R” dorm had 2 man cells, plenty of room to sit and eat at tables and their very own recreational court consisting of a basketball court and a handball area. Board games were available as well as a small library that you could access anytime you wanted. NO WHERE ELSE IN THE JAIL WERE THESE ADVANTAGES GIVEN EXCEPT THE WORK RELEASE DORM. Standard inmates are housed in open dorms that didn’t have enough beds, one tv was available and you couldn’t change the channel or hear it, no room to sit and eat your food and absolutely no way to exercise. HARFORD COUNTY CATERS TO THE CHILD MOLESTOR!
In the end that’s how it plays out. Not the best of circumstances, but in the interests of inmate safety the best choice currently available. The upside is that Harford County does not have enough child molesters to justify a housing area dedicated just to them. Thank God!
Well, just for your information, of about 60 of the inmates housed in the “R” dorm, about 40 of them were baby touchers, rapists or sexual offenders of some sort. There were even two homosexuals that had an ongoing relationship that ended very badly. Something about AIDS, I don’t know, nor did I want to know, too much information. The really odd thing was the way the cops didn’t want anyone to talk about the cases, yet we would read all about the cases in the newspapers. The cops acted like it was a crime to talk about your case or tell one of the molestors that they were sick bastards. Thats no way to prepare for DOC, where they were going to get the worst of what DOC had to offer. One last thing, The Harford County State’s Attorney Office offered and honored deals for informing on inmates. One guy got only 6 years for baby raping his 4 year old cousin multiple times in the anus and vagina. In open court, when asked if he had anything to say in his defense he said,”I thought she was six years old”. Like that makes it better. And just think in another 3 and a half years he’ll be out. The system is perverse……….
I am one of those ‘out-of-staters’ who was told earlier that I know nothing about MD issues, but the reason for what you are describing seems obvious. Those convicted of sexual crimes are at much higher risk of being targeted for violence. If the powers that be in MD are putting those inmates in the unit or wing where they will be as safe as possible from being beaten, raped, or killed, that is to their credit. It isn’t about giving them ‘special treatment’ except what is needed to prevent violence against them. I know prison is a violent place, but those with sexual convictions live in constant terror of those who feel it is their right to mete out additional punishment, even death.
Shelly, you said,”I know prison is a violent place, but those with sexual convictions live in constant terror of those who feel it is their right to mete out additional punishment, even death.” Rapists and child molestors should live in constant terror as it suits their crime. Other than murder, these crimes are the most serious. You can never restore the dignity that is lost when someone molests you, especially in children whose organs are not up to the task…….
THEN EVERYONE WHO CONDONES THE USE OF THE PUBLIC REGISTRY SHOULD BE SHOWN NO MERCY!!! Sorry but someone who uses the registry, whether it be for outright murderous vigilantism, or just for public shaming and ostraciszation, causing registrants to lose jobs and homes IS HARMING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN!!!!
Please expand on how you think using the registry to shame a child molester harms “hundreds of thousands of children.”
Unfortunately, this country does not have the funds to indefinitely confine those likely to reoffend and pedophiles are almost impossible to rehabilitate, so we’re forced to allow such perverts to live among us. Parents do need to be vigilant and realize that not every child molester is on the registry, but showing the convicted molesters’ picture and providing vital details such as their car information, allows citizens to help law enforcement if one is witnessed in a child-oriented area.
In case you are unaware, the registry IS NOT primarily made up of child molesters and pedophiles.
A very high percentage of those on the registry have never touched a child.
There are at this time, more than 200 crimes which are considered registrable offenses, a number of which are non-sexual in nature.
How does the registry harm children? Many registrants have families and are struggling to put food on the table and keep a roof over their children’s heads. Because of people who believe that ALL sex offenders deserve to be punished for the rest of their lives, many families are included in this process. Many are forced from their homes and denied decent employment, thus punishing the entire family. Their children are bullied in school, many have committed suicide because of the treatment of their peers. If the registrant is a threat to children, they are not allowed to return to their homes until their children are grown. The fact that a person has been allowed to return home and raise their children, in itself should tell you that these families should be allowed to live a normal life, but none of them are.
Please cite examples of children of registered sex offenders that have killed themselves due to the treatment of their peers, if it happens as often as you claim it should be easy.
If you want to stay with your family, not hear derogatory comments at work (and not be limited to digging ditches in the boonies), not have to register with the Sheriff or live far away from any day care, school or sports field, why not try refraining from sexually assaulting other people? The age of the victim is only one factor in what the offender did, bad touching is still bad touching and I would want to know if my neighbor was convicted of raping a 14yo or a 54yo.
Yes, there are some people on the registry that might not deserve the label, such as the stereotypical guy taking a leak in the bushes behind a bar. But those cases are few and far between. Look at the MD registry and you will see the offenses they were convicted of and their hazard level. There is no question that someone listed for “forcible rape” was not really just taking a leak when the wrong car drove by.
“There is no question that someone listed for ‘forcible rape’ was not really just taking a leak when the wrong car drove by.”
You are doing some generalizing that indicates you don’t have a realistic grip on who’s on the registry or the terminology. Look up a guy named Frank Rodriquez on the TX registry. You’ll see a conviction of sexual assault of a child and lifetime registration. Sounds like one of those seriously bad guys that you believe represent most on the registry, right? Frank was 19 and a h.s. senior. The ‘child’ was his 15 y-o freshman girlfriend Niki. No, of course they shouldn’t have been having sex; her mom didn’t think so either and turned him in to ‘teach them a lesson.’ That was about 20 years ago. Frank and Niki have been married over 15 years now and have 4 children. He’s still on the registry and probably always will be. Great husband, great father, wouldn’t hurt a child to save his own life. No threat or danger whatsoever to anyone. I guess he is representative of most on the registry after all.
BTW, providing the vehicle information also targets the family, not just the registrant. In the instance that the family only has one car (which is the case MOST of the time), who do you suppose is targeted by the blood thirsty vigilante when Mom is driving the kids to school or picking them up? And if they are blessed enough to have more than one vehicle, they are all required to be posted on the registry file, even if the person who is required to register is NOT a licensed driver.
Another avenue in which children are damaged is that many of them, some as young as 9 years old are on the registry. Approximately 25% of those on the registry were convicted when they were juveniles. So if you see a registry listing where their conviction is listed as “sexual contact with a minor” or anything of that nature, it could be anything from childhood exploratory behavior, teen consensual behavior up to and including rape. Soooo… how do you tell the difference? You can’t, so consequently they are all tagged “child molesters” when for the greater part, they were only kids and teens doing what kids and teens do.
Thus the wonders of posting the offender’s picture alongside the vehicle information. Suzie Soccermom with kids in tow at the park is very different from Chester the Molestor sitting in the same vehicle with a pair of binoculars or a camera watching the 12U soccer game.
The MD registry lists the conviction date and the offender’s birth day. Anyone can do simple math, someone born in 1985 with a conviction in 1999 for sexual contact with a minor is different than someone with the same birthday yet their conviction was 2009. But, there are 14 year olds that commit rape, not every case is due to over-protective parents calling the cops when they find their princess in bed with a boy.
Would you please tell me what good having the offender’s picture next to the vehicle information does when that vehicle is moving down the road and the carload of vigilantes tags the vehicle make, model and plate as that of a sex offender? Someone bent on “taking out” a “child molester”(aka sex offender, because most people think they are all the same) doesn’t even look to see who is in the vehicle, let alone who is driving it.
Kharn, do you have ANY idea how easy it is to be accused AND CONVICTED of a sex crime? Sex crimes are the ONLY crime category that ARE allowed to convict on hearsay evidence. Ask any lawyer.
Yes, there are people on there for rape and child molestation, those are the ones the registry was created for, but there is also a very high incidence of false and wrongful convictions and many other situations that figuring out the math does not tell you.
No one even insinuated that EVERY case was due to overprotective parents catching a boy in bed with their “princess”. Teens (and kids) now are bombarded with sex from every angle, in the media, on their phones, on the internet, influence from peers,etc. Do you realize if a boy receives a suggestive picture from a girl (even if he DID NOT ask for it) if the girl is underage for their state, he can (and many have been) be arrested for receiving CP? Did you date in high school? Couples who have been dating for several years can have their lives suddenly turned upside down when the boy turns 18, if the girl is 16 or even 17 in some states, it legally becomes statutory rape as the age of consent has been raised to 18 in at least a dozen states.
How many times have “vigilantes” used the MD registry to physically harm a convicted offender?
Are you seriously claiming that someone just driving along is 1) going to spot an offender’s license plate on another moving vehicle, 2) recognize that plate as belonging to an offender, and 3) do something to harm the occupant(s) of that vehicle? Lets see some citations of such behavior, either against the registered offender or against a non-offender who happened to be driving the offender’s vehicle. Anyone can make up hypothetical scenarios, but the proof is in the pudding.
The jury is the final say in the courtroom, twelve citizens voted unamiosly that the accussed committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
A little Google work and it seems you have more skin in the game than you’d like to admit: Your son was convicted of a sexual offense against an underage girl in Michigan. You have posted on numerous other blogs about percieved problems with the sexual registries of other states and you are a supporter of the group Reform Sex Offender Laws.
FYI I have never hidden the fact that my son is on the registry, his story is quite well known to many. If I was attempting to hide anything, I would not have used my real name (unlike you) on this or any comment board. So if you think mentioning the fact discredits either me or my position on the laws please feel free to google The sex offender down the street is my son. His story has been featured on MANY blogs and websites, including that of Free Range Kids, where there were well over 200 comments, some of which were from people such as attorneys, parents, and moms of other young men who are the registry for very similar reasons.
And BTW there was NO jury of anyone who decided anything beyond a reasonable doubt, as we had no money to fight the charges and were lead to believe, by his court-appointed attorney, that his ONLY choice was to take a plea bargain, regardless of guilt or innocence. As I pointed out in another comment, sex offenses are the only crime allowed to be convicted on nothing more than hearsay evidence. If you are arrested on a sex offense, YOU are considered guilty until YOU can prove your innocence. There is NO BURDEN OF PROOF required in a sex offense.
And one more little thing, I as a family member have experienced the vigilantism. So I am speaking from experience, as a carload of vigilantes ran my daughter off the road in her car in an attempt to kill her for being RELATED to a registered offender. We as a family have been harassed, had property damage, been forced from our home and received death threats.
We are very blessed in the fact that despite the above vigilantism, we are FAR better off than many others who have suffered far worse.
And yes, I do support the reform of sex offender laws, for a very good reason, they DO NOT PROTECT anyone and they DO NOT PREVENT future victims.
FYI I have never hidden the fact that my son is on the registry, his story is quite well known to many. If I was attempting to hide anything, I would not have used my real name (unlike you) on this or any comment board. So if you think mentioning the fact discredits either me or my position on the laws please feel free to google The sex offender down the street is my son. His story has been featured on MANY blogs and websites, including that of Free Range Kids, where there were well over 200 comments, some of which were from people such as attorneys, parents, and moms of other young men who are the registry for very similar reasons.
And BTW there was NO jury of anyone who decided anything beyond a reasonable doubt, as we had no money to fight the charges and were lead to believe, by his court-appointed attorney, that his ONLY choice was to take a plea bargain, regardless of guilt or innocence. As I pointed out in another comment, sex offenses are the only crime allowed to be convicted on nothing more than hearsay evidence. If you are arrested on a sex offense, YOU are considered guilty until YOU can prove your innocence. There is NO BURDEN OF PROOF required in a sex offense.
And one more little thing, I as a family member have experienced the vigilantism. So I am speaking from experience, as a carload of vigilantes ran my daughter off the road in her car in an attempt to kill her for being RELATED to a registered offender. We as a family have been harassed, had property damage, been forced from our home and received death threats.
We are very blessed in the fact that despite the above vigilantism, we are FAR better off than many others who have suffered far worse.
And yes, I do support the reform of sex offender laws, for a very good reason, they DO NOT PROTECT anyone and they DO NOT PREVENT future victims.
This is from a recent study by Dr. Jill Levenson on collateral damage, who is an expert in the field and works with sex offenders. SORN refers to the public sex offender registry.
“The public disclosure to which sex offenders are exposed is unprecedented, and therefore SORN is unique in the degree to which invisible sanctions are inadvertently imposed upon and experienced by loved ones of offenders. As such, SORN creates impacts that are broad, and as illustrated in this study, deep and lasting. Family members, even those who do not live with RSOs, experience harassment, threats, violence, economic hardships, difficulties with housing, and psychological stresses simply because they are related to a sex offender. Whether intended or not, the criminal justice system, via SORN policies, extends punishments to a wide swath of society beyond sex offenders.
In particular, the impact on children of sex offenders is worthy of contemplation. Whether we like it or not, many sex offenders have children of their own, and they encounter stigmatization as a result of their parent’s RSO status. What remains unclear is the myriad of
ways in which these experiences will impact their psychosocial development, their interpersonal relationships, and their sense of self. Furthermore, the ways in which their relationship with their
RSO parent is impacted is crucial and can influence their own future criminal and non-criminal behaviors. Those who are truly without culpability – and many times already victims – are punished through SORN polices and their consequences.
Here’s the problem with your arguments Kharn. They are based on hearsay and emotion, from what I can tell. Maybe you have been through something egregious yourself and therefore support the registry. But as PhD candidate in history who studies the combined effects of moral panic and the law in the 20th century, I can tell you that the people who lobby for changes in sex offender laws, the registry, and restriction are a highly informed group of activists. They have to be, because their cause is so very, very unpopular. Unpopularity however, does not preclude the fact that a great many sex offender laws are unconstitutional.
Furthermore, What precisely is wrong with “having skin in the game”? Who ELSE is going to support reform?? Blacks are the ones who supported the abolition of segregation, it was women who lobby for equal opportunity, and gay people who form the base for support of gay rights reform. You may or not support any of these yourself, but grassroots movements are usually a result of having your own grass trampled on. So I wouldn’t demonstrate your ignorance of history, Kharn, by using Ms. Folster’s personal experiences with sex offender legislation as a disparaging talking point.
One last comment here. Maybe we should start asking why people “offend” in the first place. there is a very good talk on TED TV by Philip Zimbardo that discusses the effects of the oh-so-easily-obtaine-internet porn on today’s young men and why they are sliding behind women in nearly all areas of life. (I’d add the link, but I don’t think they are allowed here.)
Why don’t we ask what is going on in society that causes so many sex crimes (if indeed, there really are as many as we are led to believe.)
And lastly, why don’t we examine why exactly it is that we have become a society in which there are now over 200 actions that could would lead to inclusion on the sex offender registry? Surely you don’t think people have thought up any new sexually related acts? They are doing the same stuff they have always done. Only now more of it is illegal. Which may explain the impression that there is more sex crime than in the past. No there isn’t. We have just made more acts illegal.
Hey Lila,
There are a number of inaccuracies with your statements.
“Sex crimes are the ONLY crime category that ARE allowed to convict on hearsay evidence.” – This is not true. Any crime may be tried (and convicted) on hearsay evidence. The prosecutor simply has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
“If you are arrested on a sex offense, YOU are considered guilty until YOU can prove your innocence. There is NO BURDEN OF PROOF required in a sex offense.” – No, that is simply not true. The prosecutor must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
“And BTW there was NO jury of anyone who decided anything beyond a reasonable doubt, as we had no money to fight the charges and were lead to believe, by his court-appointed attorney, that his ONLY choice was to take a plea bargain, regardless of guilt or innocence.” – That may have been his best option at the time. However, it was his choice to accept the plea deal. He took the deal.
“A very high percentage of those on the registry have never touched a child.” – Please, cite proof for this.
“There are at this time, more than 200 crimes which are considered registrable offenses, a number of which are non-sexual in nature.” – Yes, a small number. Most are sexual in nature.
“The fact that a person has been allowed to return home and raise their children, in itself should tell you that these families should be allowed to live a normal life, but none of them are.” – No, that doesn’t tell me that at all. It tells me a predator has much easier access to a victim.
Anyways….
Anne,
I feel that the worst offenders should be incarcerated until rehabilitated. If that means until the end of natural life (most pedophiles cannot stop lusting after children, it is a mental disease, etc), so be it, the damage done by a convicted offender to another victim is even more unacceptable than the crimes against the original victim because the justice system failed to rehabilitate the offender.
If you look at history, you will find many people stood up for oppressed groups even while they were not members of the affected group. For example, Charlton Heston marched for the end of desegregation and civil rights.
Crimes against children are illegal because those children are not adults and cannot make adult choices. Offenders harm others for many reasons, power, perceived love, hatred, etc, but in the end, they have harmed others who either could not or did not consent and that is why they are punished with jail time. The recidivism rate of sexual offenders and the degree of harm of their crimes (how many people spend years in therapy for witnessing an illegal arms sale?) makes them, on average, more dangerous to society than any other group and thus society has declared that they are further restricted after being released from prison.
You and Lila should take your astroturfing elsewhere.
There are some who seem determined to argue that the public registry doesn’t harm children. I suppose that being convinced of that is necessary to supporting it. I’m sorry, but you are deluding yourself.
“If it saves one child….” Even though we cannot know if “it” has, that statement is responsible for the abuse and even death of many children.
There is no actual evidence that the registry has saved even one child; however, we do know that many, many thousands have had their lives made a living hell because of it. These are the children of those on the registry, some of whom committed violent crimes, but many, even most, who did not. All on the registry, with their families, are subject to the whims of local and state restrictions including, but by no means limited to, severe restrictions on where they may live; denial of access to libraries, parks and beaches with their children; and restrictions barring the registered parent from often even being within a 1000 feet of the school his child attends. Very recently a woman took the picture of a registrant that she printed from the Internet to the school where the registrant’s five-year-old son was a kindergarten student; she showed it around, warning children about this man. His little boy stood and cried. The registry doesn’t differentiate. It doesn’t make it clear to people who threaten, harass, and do physical violence to registrants, their property, and their families whether daddy raped someone or whether he had sex with mommy before they were married when she was a year too young or whether he looked at an illegal image on a computer or whether he was innocent and falsely accused. And, sadly, most don’t really care. The perception is that everyone on the registry has committed a serious crime and that most if not all offended against children. And if they have children of their own who are harmed, as so many have been and so many more will be, it is just collateral damage because the registry might—MIGHT—save one child.
California study: Recidivism of Paroled Sex Offenders, 10 year study 1997 to 2007 (2008) California Sex Offender
Management Board
Recidivism after 1 year of release: 2.21%
Recidivism after 2 years of release: 2.94%
Recidivism after 5 years of release: 3.3%
Recidivism after 10 years of release: 3.38%
NOTEWORTHY FINDINGS: The total of sexual recidivists is lower than some might have believed. Most re-
offenses and parole violations occur in the initial period of reentry after release. Sex offenders are more likely
to commit some other type of offense than to commit a new sex offense.
Indiana Three Year Recidivism Rate 2005-2007 (2009) Indiana Department of Corrections
The percentage of identified sex offenders that return to incarceration within three years of their release, for
a new identified sex offense, remains comparatively consistent over all three years. The graph below shows
that slightly more than 5% of all identified sex offenders who return to the Indiana Department of Correction,
do so for the conviction of a new sex offense.
2005: 5.3%, 2006: 5.2%, 2007: 5.7%
A follow-up of Indiana sex offense re-conviction rates for sex offenders in 2009 was reported as 1.03%, the
lowest in the USA.
New York recidivism study (2009) NY Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS)
Sex offence recidivism rate after 1 year: 2%; 2 years: 3%; 5 years: 6%; 8 years: 8%
Orchowski and Iwama study (2009) Justice Research and Statistics Association
Three year recidivism rates by state: 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%.
Maine 3 Year Recidivism Study (2010) USM Muskie School of Public Service
Sex crime rearrest rate of registrants within 3 years: 3.9% (22 registrants)
Arrests of non-registrants for sex crimes: 0.6% (66)
Connecticut 5 year Recidivism Study (2012)
In 2005, 746 offenders who had served a prison sentence for a least one sex-related offense were released
or discharged from prison. Over the next five years:
27 (3.6%) of these men were arrested and charged with a new sex crime.
20 (2.7%) were convicted for new sex offense, and
13 (1.7%) were returned to prison to serve a sentence for a new sex crime.
US Department of Justice, “Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released into the Community in 1994.”
Three-year follow-up period
9,641 sex offenders released in 15 states
262,420 non-sex offenders released in same 15 states in 1994
517 sex offenders (5.3% of all sex offenders) were arrested for a sex crime within 3 years
3,228 non-sex offenders (1.3% of all no-sex offenders) were arrested for a sex crime within the same three
year period
3.5% of sex offenders re-convicted
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, “Ten Year Recidivism Follow-up of 1989 Sex Offender Releases.”
8% of sex offenders were recommitted in the 10-year period
3% of sex offenders committed a sexually-related violation of probation/ parole
Half of recidivists re-offended within two years of release
2/3 of recidivists re-offended within 3 years of release
Treatment found to reduce recidivism (16.7% w/o treatment, 7% w/ treatment)
Michigan DOC Parole Board Stats for parolees 1990-2000 (3 year follow-up)
4762 SO paroled, 993 total failures, 702 technical violations, 291 returned to prison, 117 committed sex
crimes (2.46%), 6.11% total recidivism (apparently based on return to prison)
Lowest total (general) recidivism: Homicide (6.03%), Sex Offenders (6.11%), Embezzlement (8.44%), Arson
(8.64%), Motor Vehicle Offenses (10.75%)
Lowest same crime (specific) recidivism: Embezzlement (0.44%), Murder (0.99%), Arson (1.49%), Sex
Offenses (2.46%), Assault (2.83%)
Sex Offender Sentencing In Washington State: Recidivism Rates (5 year + 1 year for adjudication, based on
conviction rates)
General SO Recidivism 13%; Sex Offense Recidivism 2.7%; among child victim offenders, 2.3%; among
rapists, 3.9%
Arizona Dept. of Corrections follow up of SO released from 1984-1998 (up to 12 year follow-up period)
3,205 released SO; 25.2% general recidivism; 5.5% sex crime; Indecency SO recidivists, 9.3%; Rapists, 5.9%;
sex abuse 5%; sex conduct with minor, 3.5%
Arizona Three year study (2009) AZ Criminal Justice Commission
Rearrest for a new sex crime within three years Of the 290 released sex offenders, 2.4% were rearrested for
a new sex crime. By comparison, sex offenders were nearly six times more likely to be rearrested for a new
sex crime than non-sex offenders. Among a sample of non-sex offenders, 0.4% (six out of 1,699) were
rearrested for a new sex crime.
Utah Sentencing Commision/ Larry Bench study (2007) 25-year follow-up
Bench, also a University of Utah criminology professor, conducted what he calls one of the most
comprehensive studies on convicted sex offenders. In the study of 389 Utah prison inmates tracked as far
back as 25 years, he found 7.2 percent were convicted of new sex crimes.
Minnesota Recidivism study (2007) Minn. Dept. of Corrections
Sex Offense Recidivism
After three years, seven percent of the 3,166 offenders had been rearrested for a sex offense, six
percent reconvicted, and three percent reincarcerated.
By the end of the follow-up period (an average of 8.4 years for all 3,166 offenders), 12 percent had
been rearrested for a sex offense, 10 percent reconvicted, and seven percent reincarcerated.
Prior sex crimes, stranger victims, male child victims (i.e. male victims under the age of 13), failure in
prison-based sex offender treatment, and a metro-area county of commitment each significantly
increased the risk of timing to a sex reoffense.1
Intensive supervised release (ISR), supervised release, supervised release revocations, and
successful participation/completion of sex offender treatment each significantly reduced the risk of
timing to a sex reoffense.
Alaska three year recidivism study (2007) Alaska Judicial Council
3% of the persons who were convicted of a Sexual offense in a 1999 case had at least one new Sexual
conviction.
Sexual offenders were the group least likely to be convicted of the same type of offense that they were
convicted of in the 1999 sample.
Driving offenders were eight times more likely to have a new Driving conviction than Sexual offenders were
likely to have a new Sexual conviction.
SO specific recidivism rate, 3%; SO arrested for any crime (gen. recid.) 39%; All criminals general recidivism,
60%. Factors correlated with higher recidivism: Youth, substance abuse, mental illness, poor
So, how many studies does one need before those denying recidivism rates are low before they can admit defeat?
Paul, thank you for pointing me to a study I was not familiar with. You seem to have left out a few key points, though, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you were not trying to deliberately mislead but rather just did not read thoroughly. This is from the study:
Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?
J.J. Prescott
University of Michigan Law School
Jonah E. Rockoff
Columbia Business School – Finance and Economics; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
February 2011
Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 54, No. 1, February 2011
Columbia Business School Research Paper
Abstract:
Sex offenders have become the targets of some of the most far-reaching and novel crime legislation in the U.S. Two key innovations in recent decades have been registration and notification laws which, respectively, require that convicted sex offenders provide valid contact information to law enforcement authorities, and that information about sex offenders be made public. Using the evolution of state law during the 1990s and 2000s, we study how registration and notification affect the frequency of reported sex offenses and the incidence of such offenses across victims. We find evidence that registration reduces the frequency of sex offenses by providing law enforcement with information on local sex offenders. As we predict using a simple model of criminal behavior, THIS DECREASE IN CRIME is concentrated among “local” victims (e.g., FRIENDS, ACQUAINTANCES, NEIGHBORS) with NO EVIDENCE OF LESS CRIME occurring against STRANGERS. We also find evidence that NOTIFICATION HAS REDUCED CRIME, but NOT, as legislators anticipated, by disrupting the criminal conduct of CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS. Our results instead suggest that notification deters NONREGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS, and MAY, in fact, INCREASE recidivism among registered offenders by reducing the relative attractiveness of a crime-free life. This finding is CONSISTENT with work by criminologists showing that NOTIFICATION IMPOSES SOCIAL and FINANCIAL COSTS on registered sex offenders, perhaps OFFSETTING the relative benefits of forgoing criminal activity. We regard this latter finding as important, given that the purpose of notification is to reduce recidivism.
I have put in caps the significant omissions from your summary of the report. Unless the registered offenders that you feel the ordinary citizen needs to be protected against are friends, acquaintances, or neighbors rather than strangers, I see no safety value here. Almost all sexual crime against children is committed by ‘friends, acquaintances, or neighbors’–and of course family, and they are seldom on the registry.
I believe the rest speaks for itself.
No more bickering or sarcasm, please; we both want the same thing, safety for communities and children. We just disagree about the value of the present system, and it is certainly your right to believe as you wish.
I hope you have a nice day.
The Registry is harming families and children. It is placing them in danger of vigilantes and it is responsible for the loss of jobs and homes.
Please read the following article written by Shana Rowen: http://iloveasexoffender.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-child-safety-lottery.html
I’d like to see you show 3 separate instances of any offender’s family members being harmed by “vigilantes,” with links to stories in the public news media, not offender-advocacy groups. With how everyone keeps throwing around the term, it must be a nation-wide problem with multiple reported incidents.
Wow, you must be daft, Kharn.
Do I have to limit myself to “just three instances” of vigilante violence? Just three?
Strike 1.
http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20120607/NEWS/306079993/clallam-prosecutor-may-seek-death-penalty-in-double-homicide-case
strike 2.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5355980
Strike 3.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002456680_sexoffender30m.html
And you’re out, Kharn. Back to the dugout for you.
You cited articles where offenders were murdered, not innocent family members. The claim was that non-offenders are inadvertently targeted by vigilantes.
Kharn, if your father was murdered when you were a child, would your life have been just fine? Children ARE harmed in these instances, emotionally, financially and physically.
I don’t know why the media continues to push incorrect information except for the ratings they receive from “sex” topics.
This website is full of information on recidivism(reoccurance) of crimes, prevention and also what can and will land you on the registy including non-sexual offenses. http://www.oncefallen.com/
Also the Dept. of Justice reports that the recidivism rates for robbery/burglary is at 74.4% and the sale of illegal weapons is 78.8% while sex offenses are at 3.5%.
I think we are worrying about the wrong offenses and a registry for any crime does not prevent crime nor does it protect anyone. Neither do our laws. If our laws worked our prisons would be nearly empty but then again the government wouldn’t have their cash cow to make themselves BIGGER and play on our “fear” to keep the money coming in.
These are the requirements for listing on the SOR which is required by Megan’s Law.
Q1. Who Must Register?
Individuals convicted by a court of law of a sexual offense must register. The term and category of registration depends on the crime of conviction, the age of the victim and the date that the offense was committed.
“Convicted” means when the person:
(1) Is found guilty of a crime by a jury or judicial officer;
(2) Enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere;
(3) Is granted a probation before judgment** after a finding of guilt for a crime if the court, as a condition of probation, orders
compliance with the requirements of this subtitle; or
(4) Is found not criminally responsible for a crime.
NOTE: See the SOCEM home page to download a PDF Chart of qualifying sexual offenses and their categories.
Tier I – These registrants have been convicted in Maryland of a crime listed below or convicted in another jurisdiction of a Tier I offense. These registrants register for 15 years.
4th Degree Sex Offense – Criminal Law Article, § 3-308 or Art. 27 § 464C
Visual Surveillance with Prurient Intent- Criminal Law Article, § 3-902 or Art. 27 § 579B
Possession of Child Pornography – Criminal Law Article, § 11-208 or Art. 27 § 419B
Engaging in Illicit Conduct in Foreign Places – 18 USC § 2423(c)
Failure to File Factual Statement About an Alien Individual – 18 USC § 2424
Misleading Domain Names on the Internet – 18 USC § 2252B
Misleading Words or Digital Images on the Internet – 18 USC § 2252C
Sex Trafficking by Force, Fraud or Coercion – 18 USC § 1591
Transmitting Information About a Minor to Further Criminal Sexual Conduct – USC § 2425
Travel w/Intent to Engage in Illicit Conduct -18 USC § 2423(b)
Tier II – These registrants have been convicted in Maryland of a crime listed below or convicted in another jurisdiction of a Tier II offense. These registrants register for 25 years.
Abduction of a Child under16 for Prostitution – Criminal Law Article, § 11-305 or Art. 27 § 1
Distribution of Child Pornography – Criminal Law Article, § 11-207or Art. 27 § 419A
Hiring a Minor for a Prohibited Purpose – Criminal Law Article, § 11-209 or Art. 27 § 420
House of Prostitution – Criminal Law Article, § 11-306 or Art. 27 § 431
Human Trafficking (Formerly Pandering) – Criminal Law Article, § 11-303 or Art. 27 § 428
Sale of a Minor – Criminal Law Article, § 3-603 or Art. 27 § 35E
Sexual Conduct between a Correctional or DJS employee and an inmate or confined child Criminal Law Article, § 3-314 or Art. 27 § 464G
3rd Degree Sex Offense – (Statutory Offense) – Criminal Law Article, § 3-307(A)(4) or Art. 27 § 464B(4)
3rd Degree Sex Offense – (Statutory Offense) – Criminal Law Article, § 3-307(A)(5) or Art. 27 § 464B(5)
Sexual Solicitation of a Minor – Criminal Law Article, § 3-324
A registrant with two Tier I convictions must register in the Tier II category
Tier III – These registrants have been convicted in Maryland of a crime listed below or convicted in another jurisdiction of a Tier III offense. These registrants register for life.
Assault with Intent to Rape, or Sexually Abuse – Art. 27 § 12A
Child Kidnapping – Under the age of 12 or Abduction of a Child under 12 – Criminal Law Article, § 3-503 or Art. 27§§ 2, an 338
Continuing Course of Conduct with a Child – Criminal Law Article, § 3-315
False Imprisonment of a Minor – Common Law
Forcible Sodomy – Criminal Law Article, § 3-321 or Art. 27 § 553
Incest – Criminal Law Article, § 3-323 or Art. 27 § 335
Kidnapping – Criminal Law Article, § 3-502 or Art. 27 § 337
Murder w/ intent to Rape, Sexually Offend, or Sexually Abuse a Minor – Criminal Law Article, § 2-201(a)(4)(viii), (x), or (xi) or Art. 27 § 410
1st Degree Rape – Criminal Law Article, § 3-303 or Art. 27 § 462
2nd Degree Rape – Criminal Law Article, § 3-304 or Art. 27 § 463
Sexual Abuse of a Minor – Criminal Law Article, § 3-602
Sale of a Minor – Criminal Law Article, § 3-603 or Art. 27 § 35E
1st Degree Sex Offense – Criminal Law Article, § 3-305 or Art. 27 § 464
2nd Degree Sex Offense – Criminal Law Article, § 3-306 or Art. 27 § 464A
3rd Degree Sex Offense – (force, threat, weapon, aided and abetted) – Criminal Law Article, § 3-307(a)(1) or Art. 27 § 464B(a)(1)
3rd Degree Sex Offense – (victim who is mentally defective or incapacitated, or physically incapacitated) – Criminal Law Article, § 3-307(a)(2) or Art. 27 § 464B(a)(2)
3rd Degree Sex Offense – Criminal Law Article, § 3-307(a)(3) or Art. 27 § 464B(a)(3)
Sexual Conduct between a Correctional or DJS employee and an inmate or confined child – Criminal Law Article, § 3-314 or Art. 27 § 464G
Forcible Unnatural or Perverted Practice – Criminal Law Article, § 3-322 or Art. 27 § 554
Attempted 1st Degree Rape – Criminal Law Article, § 3-309 or Art. 27 § 464F(b)
Attempted 2nd Degree Rape – Criminal Law Article, § 3-310 or Art. 27 § 464F(a)
Attempted 1st Degree Sex Offense – Criminal Law Article, § 3-311 or Art. 27 § 464F(b)
Attempted 2nd Degree Sex Offense – Criminal Law Article, § 3-312 or Art. 27 § 464F(a)
A registrant with two Tier II convictions, or a Tier I and Tier II convictions, must register in the Tier III category
I think Lila and Lori are just fronts for an organization that has other agendas.
My “agenda” is to break the cycle of child sexual abuse and help prevent future abuse victims. That includes reforming laws that put children and teens on the registry for behavior that is considered psychologically and physically normal, but now has been deemed illegal by law enforcement.
it was not law enforcement that made your son’s actions illegal, it was the legislature. Every state in the US has separation of powers with 3 branches carrying our different roles.
Law enforcement may have not made it illegal but they do enforce the laws even when they don’t agree they are right, which the officer in his case didn’t, but she was required to do her job. The lawmakers did and some of them were wise enough to allow a mistake of age defense in some states in the event that a young lady misrepresents her age which was what happened in my son’s case. He was 17 she said she was 16 and she looked and acted at least 16.
You’ve posted on other blogs that the girl was 14, wrote in her diary that they made love, when her mother found the diary she called the police. You claimed the girl was distraught and did not want your son to be charged, but he chose the plea bargin. Why not put the girl on the stand and have her testify that they kept it PG and the diary was just a hormonal teenager’s fantasy? Having the author explain that it was fiction would make it very hard to get unamious jury to vote guilty.
If your “agenda” is “break the cycle of child sexual abuse and help prevent future abuse victims.” then your actions are severely misguided. You should instead be looking for longer sentences to keep these “people” off the streets. Rapists, molesters, pervs, and kiddie porn offenders are a very, very small segment that should not be allowed to mingle with the rest of society as you seem to advocate.
I copied these from your list of crimes that require one to be listed on the sex offense registry.
Engaging in Illicit Conduct in Foreign Places – 18 USC § 2423(c)
Failure to File Factual Statement About an Alien Individual – 18 USC § 2424
Misleading Domain Names on the Internet – 18 USC § 2252B
Misleading Words or Digital Images on the Internet
Illicit conduct in foreign places? Anything illegal is illicit, so, by that definition, if I steal a purse in Italy, I can go on the SOR here?
The last two, with their use of the word “misleading,” are also open to just about any interpretation. So if I write a post and use my full name Shelomith, which most assume to be a male, am I ‘misleading’ the reader about my gender? And the second in my list–how is failure to provide accurate info about an alien individual a sex crime?
How does listing these sorts of things, along with consensual teens and misdemeanors, along with the serious crimes, create a registry that accomplishes any good purpose?
Reeeeaaalllllyyyyy???????
For someone advocating a point and claiming “legal” knowledge, you don’t know squat. Even a non-legal type can do a quick internet search on Yahoo or Google to find the answers to this one. I did a quick search which found the Cornell Law site.
Sinply check the referenced US Code next to each bullet for clarification and definition.
Look them up and then back your statements out.
“Engaging in Illicit Conduct in Foreign Places – 18 USC § 2423(c)
Illicit conduct in foreign places? Anything illegal is illicit, so, by that definition, if I steal a purse in Italy, I can go on the SOR here?”
2423 makes it illegal to leave/enter the US for the purposes of committing acts overseas that would be sexual crimes in the United States.
“Failure to File Factual Statement About an Alien Individual – 18 USC § 2424”
From the law: Failure to inform the INS that you are keeping a foreign national in the US for purposes of prostitution or other immoral purposes. So, you think convicted sex traffickers should not be on the registry?
“Misleading Domain Names on the Internet – 18 USC § 2252B”
Using a name that would attract visitors to an obscene site with an unsuspecting domain name
“Misleading Words or Digital Images on the Internet”
Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined
You really need to do more research into the areas you proclaim to be an expert.
It is interesting to me how the media continues to publicize incorrect information while dozens of books and articles written by prominent legal scholars, psychologists, and other academics who have researched the efficacy of these laws, the myths that fuel them, and concluded that:
they are not fact based.
they are useless in preventing crimes,
cost taxpayers millions of dollars,
support cottage security businesses that make money off the fear of the public and misery of others.
I’ll tell you what’s wrong with the media – they are missing a golden opportunity. If they want ratings, they should be interviewing these researchers because they would surely generate greater controversy than the sex crimes and govt measure they usually report on.
Here’s the bottom line – we are never going to solve this problem doing so in the way Kharn or Paul Mc suggest. I offer you one of hundreds of studies that support legislation reform and some of Ms. Folster’s assertions. — “The absence of meaningful and effective treatment during confinement, combined with inhumane conditions upon release, make it far less likely that this cohort of individuals will ever become productive members of society. Only through therapeutic jurisprudence, a focus on rehabilitation, and a dedication to authentically treating individuals who have committed sexual offenses with humanity, will it be possible to reduce recidivism and foster successful community reintegration.”
Citation; Cucolo, Heather and Perlin, Michael L., Preventing Sex-Offender Recidivism Through Therapeutic Jurisprudence Approaches and Specialized Community Integration (2012). NYLS Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07/2012 #2. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2116424
Hey Anne,
“Here’s the bottom line – we are never going to solve this problem doing so in the way Kharn or Paul Mc suggest.” – I don’t believe anywhere in my post did I offer any sort of suggestion to solve this alleged problem.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Paul MC, You are both naive and ignorant of the law. You prove you have no legal experience or knowledge at all.
Number 1) Tell me how the prosecutor can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when the ONLY “evidence” he has is the victims word, which is hearsay.
Number 2) See number 1
Number 3) He was barely 18, he had NEVER been in trouble with the law for anything. He was scared and naive enough to believe his attorney was acting in his best interest. We had NO MONEY to pursue any other avenue.
Number 4)”Children are most often sexually abused by someone they know and trust. Approximately three quarters of reported cases of child sexual abuse are committed by family members or other individuals who are considered part of the victim’s “circle of trust.”
Number 5)Yes, many are sexual in nature, but you avoid the fact that there are also false accusations and people who are wrongly convicted. This is proven by the fact that more than 200 men that have been exhonerated of sex crimes by the Innocence Project over the last few years and that is only the tip of the iceberg.
Number 6)Those who are considered at moderate to high risk to re-offend ARE NOT allowed to return home as long as there are minor children in the home.
Hey Lila,
First, it is nice of you to resort to personal insults in a discussion. Second, I would be willing to make a wager that my legal training, education, and experience far exceeds yours. As for me being naive and ignorant of the law, please, show me one time where I misquoted or stated any inaccuracy in regards to the law.
Now, on to your points:
1) Many trials are handled with only hearsay evidence; it is, in fact, quite common. In fact, it is far more uncommon to have the “smoking gun” at a trial. Think of a simple assault case. Most of these are he said / he said situations; yet, there are still convictions.
2) See my #1.
3) He accepted the deal. He had a choice to accept or not accept. Now, I would guess that the prosecutor would have been able to convict on the charge and he was facing some serious jail time, so he seemed to have gotten himself a good deal. However, if he wasn’t happy with the plea (to which, in most circumstances, he must admit in open court what he did), there are post conviction motions he can file, especially if he considers he had ineffective assistance of counsel.
4) Your response to 4 does not address my statement in the least. I asked for a cite regarding your statement that a very high percentage of those on the registry have never touched a child. You provided no cite, in fact, the answer you gave has to do with children being victims of those in their circle of trust. So again, a cite to support your original assertion that a very high percentage on this list never touched a child.
5) Well, I didn’t avoid this, it just wasn’t the topic. The topic was the number of crimes that can get someone on this list, and how you stated a number were non-sexual. I replied that yes, some were non-sexual, but most are sexual in nature. Now, to move on to your new topic; of course there are false accusations and wrongful convictions. However, there is roughly 750,000 registered offenders on the lists, and thus far, only 200 confirmed wrongful convictions (there may be more confirmed, I am going by your number of 200 via the Innocence Project). It seems based on those numbers, the criminal justice system does a very good job. As for your assertion that is only the tip of the iceberg, I doubt that is a verified stat, simply your biased opinion.
6) Of course they don’t put those that are a moderate risk or higher with the kids, however, with the current recidivism rates, I don’t think they should allow any near children until they are of virtually no risk. It is, afterall, some forms are considered by many to be a disease without a cure.
Anyways…
BTW, #6 makes no sense at all as 80% of child molestations take place in the home and are perpetrated by family or friends of the family which proves without a doubt that NO ONE has any idea who is actually at risk to harm a child.
Hey Lila,
“BTW, #6 makes no sense at all as 80% of child molestations take place in the home and are perpetrated by family or friends of the family which proves without a doubt that NO ONE has any idea who is actually at risk to harm a child.” – It makes no sense to want to remove child molesters and sex offenders from the homes where vulnerable children are? If someone has a history of predatory behavior, especially towards children, it doesn’t make sense to keep them away from the children?
Interesting…
“Hey Lila,
“BTW, #6 makes no sense at all as 80% of child molestations take place in the home and are perpetrated by family or friends of the family which proves without a doubt that NO ONE has any idea who is actually at risk to harm a child.” – It makes no sense to want to remove child molesters and sex offenders from the homes where vulnerable children are? If someone has a history of predatory behavior, especially towards children, it doesn’t make sense to keep them away from the children?
Interesting…”
wow! Did you ever take that one TOTALLY out of context. For someone who has the intellectual background you lay claim to, your reading comprehension really failed you there. What I stated very plainly was that 80% of child molestations take place in the home, by family and friends, NOT speaking about people with any kind of a history at all. I was NOT talking about a registered offender who has been returned to the home, I was talking about people who molest children WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN REPORTED BEFORE. You know like Grandpa, or Uncle George or maybe even an older sibling? DO YOU GET THE GIST OF IT NOW?
Hey Lila,
As for #6, perhaps you need to learn to stay on topic. Originally, #6 was this:
“The fact that a person has been allowed to return home and raise their children, in itself should tell you that these families should be allowed to live a normal life, but none of them are.” – No, that doesn’t tell me that at all. It tells me a predator has much easier access to a victim.”
We then continues to discuss this, when you stated, “Number 6)Those who are considered at moderate to high risk to re-offend ARE NOT allowed to return home as long as there are minor children in the home.”
I responded with, “6) Of course they don’t put those that are a moderate risk or higher with the kids, however, with the current recidivism rates, I don’t think they should allow any near children until they are of virtually no risk. It is, afterall, some forms are considered by many to be a disease without a cure.”
Now, lets look at these for a second. Do you see a theme? I do.
Now, on to your next statement, “BTW, #6 makes no sense at all as 80% of child molestations take place in the home and are perpetrated by family or friends of the family which proves without a doubt that NO ONE has any idea who is actually at risk to harm a child.”
Now, logically following the conversation, your post should have something to do with registered sex offenders being re-integrated into the home with children.
As the subject matter was consistently dealing with sex offenders being re-integrated into homes, why would you now change the subject? You are now claiming your last post dealt with those that had not been reported, as opposed to the entire point of #6, which was dealing with re-integrating of sex offenders…
And you blame my reading comprehension when you fail to stay on topic.
As for the new subject matter of your post…
It wasn’t what I was discussing in the first place so I don’t really have anything to say about it at this time.
Also, I have noticed you failed to reposnd to the requests I made for you to cite your claims…
Anyways…
Hey Paul…
You have no concept of what is going on. You only see the problem as staying on topic and who is on what side. I don’t have a “side”. I want to see the problem resolved to the point that children are kept as safe as feasibly possible and the justice system actually works like a justice system, which at this point it doesn’t.
As you so aptly point out so frequently…
anyways…(what mature adult, especially with a “legal background” actually talks like that. A bit of Compulsive/obsessive disorder there maybe?)
Hey Lila,
“You have no concept of what is going on.” – So, because I disagree with you, I have no idea what is going on. Have you ever thought it was you who was blinded by bias and are the one that really has concept of what is going on? You are, after all, the one that has family ties with this.
“You only see the problem as staying on topic and who is on what side.” – Well, in print form, as opposed to a conversation, the response is typically slow and limited. As such, it is best to stay on topic, or, in the very least, designate a new top, as opposed to changing the topic while cliaming to be on the previous topic. As for sides, everyone is on a side in this, and all issues.
“I don’t have a “side”.” – Of course you don’t.
“I want to see the problem resolved to the point that children are kept as safe as feasibly possible and the justice system actually works like a justice system, which at this point it doesn’t.” – I disagree. It does work as a justice system. It simply does not work as the justice system you desire.
“As you so aptly point out so frequently…” – Yes, I do say it all the time.
“anyways…(what mature adult, especially with a “legal background”” – Why do you keep questioning my background? Oh, and I noticed how you haven’t replied with your background nor education in the legal field.
“actually talks like that.” – You haven’t been around lawyers too ofton, have you?
“A bit of Compulsive/obsessive disorder there maybe?)” – Absolutely, most everyone I know is a bit obsessive/compulsive. It tends to help in the profession.
Anyways…
Hey Paul…
I just love how you whine about your background being questioned when every point you make seems to infer that you know better than I do what my educational and legal background is as well as what my motives and opinions are.
Anyways…you don’t, so get over yourself.
BTW, I think it is pretty ironic that you consider “anyways” a word when it is simply a colloquial corruption of anyway and more often than not is used in an uneducated street smart scenario, not by educated professionals.
Hey Lila,
Changing the subject to me talking about your background does not address any of the points. Speaking of which, what is your background in the legal field?
Anyways is a word, a non-standard form of anyway. This is an internet forum, I have no need to use proper grammar nor the standard form of any word. In fact, i didn’t realize the word police would be here to give me a citation for using a non-standard form.
I love how you resort to correcting me as opposed to staying on topic.
ANYWAYS…
na·ive/n???v/
Adjective:
(of a person or action) Showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment: “the rather naive young man had been totally misled”.
(of a person) Natural and unaffected; innocent: “Andy had a sweet, naive look when he smiled”.
ig·no·rance/?ign?r?ns/
Noun:
Lack of knowledge or information: “he acted in ignorance of basic procedures”.
Sorry, neither of the above were a personal insult, simply an observation of the opinions you posted. I highly doubt you have delved into the law to the degree that I have, but then you don’t know me personally any more than I do you, so that is pretty much a moot point.
I know how the law is supposed work and how it actually does. It is NOT a package tied up in a pretty bow, as much as we all wish it was. I have spoken with law enforcement officers, lawyers and judges who are more than willing to admit that sex offense laws leave a lot to be desired when it comes to upholding a credible form of justice. If the laws were effective we wouldn’t have children and teens in jail or prison and dangerous predators roaming the streets freely. The system at best is broken and needs a major overhaul. Many current studies prove this, and that there are ways to correct the laws in a way that would create a safer world for everyone, if only the lawmakers would listen to the experts.
Hey Lila,
Actually, I do consider it an insult. Perhaps you are used to people calling you ignorant and naive, and therefore you do not find it to be an insult; I, however, do find it to be rather insulting. Especially, as you do not know anything about my background nor my education.
As far as my legal background, I have worked in the legal field for a number of years and I have over 7 years of education in legal studies, jurisprudence, and law. What is your legal background, speaking with legal professionals and internet chat rooms? Is it your profession? Your accredited education?
Now, on to the substance of your post.
“I know how the law is supposed work and how it actually does. It is NOT a package tied up in a pretty bow, as much as we all wish it was.” – there are faults with the legal system, yes, though, the majority of the time, it works as it is intended to do.
“I have spoken with law enforcement officers, lawyers and judges who are more than willing to admit that sex offense laws leave a lot to be desired when it comes to upholding a credible form of justice.” – I am sure there are those out there that support your cause, and I am equally as sure there are those in the legal profession that find your viewpoint to be abhorrent.
“If the laws were effective we wouldn’t have children and teens in jail or prison and dangerous predators roaming the streets freely.” – You seem to desire an effectiveness rate of 100%. The laws are effective as they are, however, there is always room for improvement. Also, a law can be effective and can allow for a teen in prison. Teens break laws. Teens should be punished if they break laws. As for the predators, yes, there are some on the street that need to be off the street and the legal system will work to get them off the street.
“The system at best is broken” – At best? No, the system is not broken. You may not like the system, based on your family situation, but that does not mean it is broken. Are there parts that need tweaked, of course, but what do you propose, throw it all out and start all over? That is not a great way of handling this.
“and needs a major overhaul.” – Or some tweaks.
“Many current studies prove this, and that there are ways to correct the laws in a way that would create a safer world for everyone, if only the lawmakers would listen to the experts.” – I would guess that for every so called expert you have, the other side has just as many. So, maybe they legislators are listening to the experts, just not the ones you believe in. Now, if the legislators are listening to the experts, do you agree with them? Or, will you never agree even though they have experts because it doesn’t matter what the experts say, it only matter what the experts that agree with you say.
Anyways…
There are those who are determined to believe that the public registry does not harm children. I suppose that belief is necessary to supporting it, but you are only deluding yourself.
“If it saves one child….” Even though we cannot know if “it” has, that statement is responsible for the abuse and even death of many children.
There is no actual evidence that the registry has saved even one child; however, we do know that many, many thousands have had their lives made a living hell because of it. These are the children of those on the registry, some of whom committed violent crimes, but many, even most, who did not. All on the registry, with their families, are subject to the whims of local and state restrictions including, but by no means limited to, severe restrictions on where they may live; denial of access to libraries, parks and beaches with their children; and restrictions barring the registered parent from often even being within a 1000 feet of the school his child attends. Very recently a woman took the picture of a registrant that she printed from the Internet to the school where the registrant’s five-year-old son was a kindergarten student; she showed it around, warning children about this man. His little boy stood and cried. The registry doesn’t differentiate. It doesn’t make it clear to people who threaten, harass, and do physical violence to registrants, their property, and their families whether daddy raped someone or whether he had sex with mommy before they were married when she was a year too young or whether he looked at an illegal image on a computer or whether he was innocent and falsely accused. And, sadly, most don’t really care. The perception is that everyone on the registry has committed a serious crime and that most if not all offended against children. And if they have children of their own who are harmed, as so many have been and so many more will be, it is just collateral damage because the registry might—MIGHT—save one child.
“If it saves one child….” Children themselves are registrants on sex offender registries. Nine years old is apparently the youngest at which children have been put on the registry (Delaware; Michigan). (1) Several states, including but not limited to Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Kansas, Ohio, Michigan, and Texas, register children as sexual criminals at ages ten and eleven. By the time twelve is reached, it isn’t even a rarity. And the fifteen year old who is the child victim for having consensual sex with an eighteen year old partner becomes a predator and registered sex offender when his or her partner is fourteen. In Wisconsin last year a district attorney did everything he could, and bragged about it, to have a six year old prosecuted and targeted for sex offender registration for “playing doctor.”(2) Three year olds caught looking at and touching each other in a daycare bathroom were reported and investigated for “sexual fondling.”(3) Some of these children, after several years of being on the registry and treated as monsters, have committed suicide. The registry didn’t save any of these children; it destroyed them.
(The site will not allow the links to the references, but any search engine can locate them.)
“If it saves one child….” Children do need saving. According to the Justice Dept. and the CMEC, many thousands are sexually abused and molested every year. We pour everything into the registry, millions of dollars and uncountable hours. State after state has voiced complaints about the cost of keeping up with the ever-increasing expenses and strain on limited manpower hours to satisfy the requirements of the registry. The federal government, knowing this, has offered huge financial incentives to states to bring them into federal registry compliance. However, this is futile; the registry is not the answer. Children aren’t sexually abused and molested by nameless, faceless people on the registry. They are abused and molested by their family members and acquaintances, by those they know and trust and love, by those they see and interact with on a daily basis, often by those they live with. By the most conservative estimates, this is true for 94 out of every 100 children who are molested. The latest figures from the Justice Department’s Bureau of Juvenile Justice show these startling facts: for sexual crime against a child six or under, 58.7% is committed by family members, 39.7% by family acquaintances, and 1.8% by strangers; the registered sex offenders who are in that stranger pool are so few that it is virtually incalculable. As the age of the child increases, the figures alter, but only a little. The risk to children ages 12-17 is 94.3% from family and acquaintances, 5.7% from strangers, and, again, the percentage of registered offenders in the stranger pool is minuscule. Keeping the focus on those on the registry keeps us from dealing with these facts. It keeps us looking in another direction, and it leaves us nothing in the way of resources with which to deal with it.
“If it saves one child,” isn’t good enough. Thousands, hundreds of thousands, need saving. When and how and with what will we save them?
Even though harm, both physical and emotional, to the children and other family members is real and far from infrequent, it would be rare to find an actual news item about something like this. Registrants and their family members are terrified of ‘making waves’ or drawing attention to themselves, especially if the registrant is on parole or probation. In many places the police are supportive of the vigilantes rather than the registrant, and anyone who does not believe this is naive beyond belief. It would take a rare and brave journalist to write a story without proof that the incident was the direct result of vigilante or hate action against someone due to the public registry.
A better source of the truth will be found in scholarly and scientific studies and reports. The following is from “Collateral Damage:
Family Members of Registered Sex Offenders,” a study done at Lynn University by Dr. J. Levenson and associates.
Table 5: Psychosocial Consequences to Children of RSOs
harassment by others 47%
ridicule by others 59%
teasing by others 52%
physical fighting instigated by others 22%
feeling left out with other children 65%
depression 77%
anxiety 73%
fear 63%
suicidal tendencies 13%
anger 80%
Apparently the sexual predator advocates are calling in friends from all over the internet…
You beg for statistics and proof, when you get it you twist it or try to sidetrack it by making accusations, obviously you can’t handle the truth. This is why so many children continue to suffer, when there are proven ways to stop the cycle and the solutions continue to be ignored.
Anyone can pick any name to post on here, for all we know, you’re Shelly, Anne and Lila. I’m asking for articles from public news media, is it that you can’t find any sources? I bet the local news would be all over a child molestor’s mother being run off the road by a vigilante.
Ah, Kharn, you are one clever boy; you have managed to make me deviate from my almost-hard-and-fast rule not to engage with those who do not value the scientific method or research based evidence. Since you put more faith in a newspaper article or Internet media posting than you do in independent, university, and government research studies and statistics, then I have a challenge for you. Can you cite an example from an article or even give some statistics that show the sex offender registry has either prevented a new offense or reduced the overall rate of sex crimes?
The registry has done its job if it saves one person from being assaulted, regardless of the cost to offenders.
None of the commentary by the astroturfers with their “many studies” reference anything from Maryland. This article was was about Maryland and Harford County’s handling of SOR. I doubt that any of these out of town commenters bombing this artcle have even set foot in Maryland let alone viewed any evidence of their psychoic claims in Maryland.
Go back home. You don’t know what you are talking about.
So JJ let me understand this correctly. In you opinion the state of Maryland is unlike other state and the Federal studies and all the other state studies simply don’t apply? I just want to make sure I understand that from you inplications.
I’m saying mind your own business. The people of Maryland are not the people of Texas, Michigan or SC. If they are concerned about it, let them speak, not a bunch of carpetbagger-ish astroturfers.
JJ, you are a total tool……………
Ahh, such wit from oily slime. Shelly, Lila, Lori, and Anne are just shills for the anti-SOR gang. Yet for being part of such an orgaized effort they provide little to no facts but a professor at some fifth rate college in Florida that is even pulled completely out of context.
Anybody can state the “many studies” on either side but not produce a piece of verifiable evidence or data. Facts can and must be verified otherwise they are just opinions. And if we have to listen to opinions, we don’t need to import minority special interests.
Hi JJ (and Kharn). I’m from Maryland, and I do know what I’m talking about. I also use my real name. I’ve been working with sexual offense laws and former offenders in this state for a couple of years now. I do not have a law degree, but work with lawyers and lawmakers to try to craft laws that are based on solid evidence instead of hearsay, tried methods instead of kneejerk reactions. Shelly Stow quoted an excellent study, above. It is a NATIONAL one and applies just as much to Maryland as any other state.
Harm to innocent children? Absolutely. In fact, I know a very astute and gutsy young lady (16) who is a victim, who has testified against these laws in our state capital. Her not-much-older brother with aspbergers is the offender. The court gave him a very light sentence, based on the situation, and she long since forgave him, but of course he’s on the registry anyway. So, a couple months ago some teachers at the girl’s high school started posting “warning” posters around the school with her brother’s picture. The girl begged them to take them down – it was devastating and caused no end of harm to HER – it ended with her on her knees in front of a vice principal, sobbing. His response? “Well, he IS on the registry, right?”
How was this VICTIM being protected by the registry, here?
Hey BJones,
“I do not have a law degree, but work with lawyers and lawmakers to try to craft laws that are based on solid evidence instead of hearsay, tried methods instead of kneejerk reactions.” – Which part of the hearsay rule are you interested in changing? Basically, what do you want to be needed to prosecute someone that is accused of sexually abusing a child? Do you want there to be a witness? I doubt many offenders will provide this.
As for the example you cited: As the brother had Aspbergers, he lacks proper social skills. Also, as he has already committed an act, and as it is possibly a disease without a cure, isn’t it a good thing to warn the other children to avoid the brother?
Now, suppose the school didn’t warn the other kids and the brother came in and molested another child, what do you do then?
Anyways, have a nice day.
If I may, I believe you are misinterpreting BJones’ reference to hearsay. You ask, “Which part of the hearsay rule are you interested in changing?” The only rule governing hearsay evidence is that it is inadmissible in court. I think you are confusing hearsay, which is not allowed, with testimony from the victim without any corroborating evidence, which is allowed, although seldom in conjunction with any charge other than one of a sexual nature.
I rather imagine that when BJones spoke of laws based on evidence rather than hearsay, he or she was speaking of the need to have laws that are proven to help solve a specific problem rather than laws based on popular misconceptions and what ‘everybody’ says or thinks. For example, many jurisdictions have residency restrictions for registrants in place, yet every study done on this subject shows that they have no effect on public safety and can actually have unintended negative consequences which decreases rather than increases safety. Some jurisdictions are choosing not to implement these restrictions, or even remove the ones they have, based on the research. And yes, Kharn or JJ or Paul, or whoever you are, I can produce all the evidence you want for that, and by the way, I am still waiting for that article or statistic showing that the registry has prevented a new sex offense or reduced the rate of sex crime. I’d think the local news–and national also–would be all over any research that showed that.
Hey Shelly,
“If I may, I believe you are misinterpreting BJones’ reference to hearsay.” – I may be, yes. Sometimes in print, is is challenging to determine specifically what a person is trying to convey.
“You ask, “Which part of the hearsay rule are you interested in changing?” The only rule governing hearsay evidence is that it is inadmissible in court.” – That isn’t true. The federal rules, as well as each state, offers exceptions to the hearsay rule. Fed Rules of Evidence 803 and 804 offer the exceptions to the hearsay rule.
“I think you are confusing hearsay, which is not allowed,” – Hearsay is allowed if it is one of the numerous exceptions. I may have misinterpreted the statement that BJones posed.
“with testimony from the victim without any corroborating evidence, which is allowed, although seldom in conjunction with any charge other than one of a sexual nature.” – Victim testimony is used all the time without corroborating evidence; most frequently in assault cases. Unfortunately, however, in sexual assault crimes, unlike other crimes, there isn’t always any other evidence available. It is not like an offender will be on camera doing these things or in front of other witnesses. In most other crimes there can be other evidence to support a charge, such as the item stolen for theft charges, damaged property, etc. With these sexual type crimes, what other evidence is generally available?
“I rather imagine that when BJones spoke of laws based on evidence rather than hearsay,” – Hearsay is evidence.
“he or she was speaking of the need to have laws that are proven to help solve a specific problem rather than laws based on popular misconceptions and what ‘everybody’ says or thinks.” – Well, in the case of the sexual crimes, as there is no other evidence generally available, don’t the laws fit the problem?
“For example, many jurisdictions have residency restrictions for registrants in place, yet every study done on this subject shows that they have no effect on public safety and can actually have unintended negative consequences which decreases rather than increases safety.” – So, since you say every study done shows that, if I can find ONE study that contradicts your statement, will you and your friends leave and never come back?
“Some jurisdictions are choosing not to implement these restrictions, or even remove the ones they have, based on the research.” – And some have kept the these restrictions.
“And yes, Kharn or JJ or Paul, or whoever you are,” – I am Paul, I don’t know who JJ or Kharn are.
“I can produce all the evidence you want for that,” – Really, all the evidence?
“and by the way, I am still waiting for that article or statistic showing that the registry has prevented a new sex offense or reduced the rate of sex crime.” – Prescott and Rockoff’s (2008) findings imply that the average registration/notification law produces a statistically significant 10 percent reduction in sex offense rates. They go on to say, in their study, ‘In addition, we find that the creation of a community notification law (regardless of the number of registered offenders) is associated with a reduction in the overall frequency of sex offenses.’
“I’d think the local news–and national also–would be all over any research that showed that.” – I found it easily enough.
Anyways, have a nice day.
The registry isn’t to protect the original victim or to shame the offender, it is to warn the public at large about offenders in their communities. Autistic persons have problems comprehending and following societal norms, so believing an autistic offender is rehabilitated would be a dangerous assumption.
Paul, thank you for pointing me to a study I was not familiar with. You seem to have left out a few key points, though, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you were not trying to deliberately mislead but rather just did not read thoroughly. This is from the study:
Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?
J.J. Prescott
University of Michigan Law School
Jonah E. Rockoff
Columbia Business School – Finance and Economics; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
February 2011
Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 54, No. 1, February 2011
Columbia Business School Research Paper
Abstract:
Sex offenders have become the targets of some of the most far-reaching and novel crime legislation in the U.S. Two key innovations in recent decades have been registration and notification laws which, respectively, require that convicted sex offenders provide valid contact information to law enforcement authorities, and that information about sex offenders be made public. Using the evolution of state law during the 1990s and 2000s, we study how registration and notification affect the frequency of reported sex offenses and the incidence of such offenses across victims. We find evidence that registration reduces the frequency of sex offenses by providing law enforcement with information on local sex offenders. As we predict using a simple model of criminal behavior, THIS DECREASE IN CRIME is concentrated among “local” victims (e.g., FRIENDS, ACQUAINTANCES, NEIGHBORS) with NO EVIDENCE OF LESS CRIME occurring against STRANGERS. We also find evidence that NOTIFICATION HAS REDUCED CRIME, but NOT, as legislators anticipated, by disrupting the criminal conduct of CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS. Our results instead suggest that notification deters NONREGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS, and MAY, in fact, INCREASE recidivism among registered offenders by reducing the relative attractiveness of a crime-free life. This finding is CONSISTENT with work by criminologists showing that NOTIFICATION IMPOSES SOCIAL and FINANCIAL COSTS on registered sex offenders, perhaps OFFSETTING the relative benefits of forgoing criminal activity. We regard this latter finding as important, given that the purpose of notification is to reduce recidivism.
I have put in caps the significant omissions from your summary of the report. Unless the registered offenders that you feel the ordinary citizen needs to be protected against are friends, acquaintances, or neighbors rather than strangers, I see no safety value here. Almost all sexual crime against children is committed by ‘friends, acquaintances, or neighbors’–and of course family, and they are seldom on the registry.
I believe the rest speaks for itself.
No more bickering or sarcasm, please; we both want the same thing, safety for communities and children. We just disagree about the value of the present system, and it is certainly your right to believe as you wish.
I hope you have a nice day.
Hey Shelly,
“You seem to have left out a few key points,” – No, I left nothing out. I stated specifically what I wanted to state. I provided two lines of information, nothing more. I did not provide a summary.
“I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you were not trying to deliberately mislead but rather just did not read thoroughly.” – The article says what it says.
I was actually citing the 2008 article of the same title, not the 2011 article.
Now, as to what you posted. Originally, you asked for “that article or statistic showing that the registry has prevented a new sex offense or reduced the rate of sex crime.” The article I cited does indeed show that. You did not ask for an article that focuses on non-local victims. Nor, did you ask for an article that states the crime reduced was via the way the legislatures anticipated it would be. The article shows that it reduces the rate of sex crime, which was your criteria. Nor did you ask for an article that shows the above as well as showing there were no burdens on those on the list.
You simply asked for an article that shows the reduced rate of sex crimes; which is what I cited. Had you wanted more specifics, you should have requested them. I may have spent more than a few seconds doing a Google search to locate the results. You shouldn’t ask for something, then when you get it, complain that it isn’t what you wanted because it doesn’t meet the requirements that you never specified. For example, if I ask for a dog, I shouldn’t get mad when I get a little brown pug that barks all the time and is afraid of people when I wanted a black and white German Shepard that rarely barks and is to be used for personal protection. Getting the pug would be my fault, not the person that gave me the pug.
“I have put in caps the significant omissions from your summary of the report. Unless the registered offenders that you feel the ordinary citizen needs to be protected against are friends, acquaintances, or neighbors rather than strangers, I see no safety value here. Almost all sexual crime against children is committed by ‘friends, acquaintances, or neighbors’–and of course family, and they are seldom on the registry.” – Lets look at this a bit more. If there is no registry, a sex offender can move in next door or down the block from me without me knowing who they are. Over the years, they become friends (as I don’t know they are a sex offender). Now, they move from the category of stranger to that of neighbor, acquaintance or friend, and next thing you know…
“I believe the rest speaks for itself.” – Yes, it does.
“No more bickering or sarcasm, please; we both want the same thing, safety for communities and children.” – In my opinion, I don’t believe we actually do want the same thing. I may be wrong, but you seem to advocate for some of the registered sex offenders. (I apologize if this is inaccurate). Yes, we both want the safety for the community and children, but you seem to want more for some of the sex offenders.
“We just disagree about the value of the present system, and it is certainly your right to believe as you wish.” – Yes, we do disagree.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Yes, you are correct; I do want more. I want safety and stable lives for all children, including the children whose parents are on the registry and are trying their best to make amends for what they did and keep their families together. I want a system with laws that target harmful acts rather than an entire category of offenses as varied in seriousness as being falsely accused, childish curiosity, teenage consensual sex, stupid, one-time incidents, child molestation, and rape. I want a re-entry system for all who have broken the law, including the sexual offense laws, that allows a second chance to those who want it and are willing to prove they deserve it. And I want all of this within the context of laws and strategies that are scientifically supported as being the most effective at providing safety for all citizens and enhancement of the quality of life for all, and the registry fails in every one of these areas.
And in my heart of hearts, what I want most is for the sexual abuse of children to stop, and the public registry with its focus on those on it not only fails here, it keeps it from happening. As long as the focus remains where it is, we will never address in any significant way the actual cause of almost all child sexual molestation.
I wish you a good day, sir, and a good life, and blessings to you and yours.
Dr David Kenneth Cochrane Registered Sex Offender Six Counts of rape including minors, three counts of indecent assault all involving patients dating back to the early millennium. Psychiatrist 6 months in Jail, 2 years probation, including 6 month license suspension. Canada North Bay Ontario and now re-employed for the regional health centre.