The term “Sex Offender” is used on this page, as it is the commonplace term in the literature. It is no way is meant to insinuate that those under the “Sex Offender” label are all the same or are seen as an currently being an offender.
Relationships and Recidivism
Why are relationships important to SO recidivism
Sex Offender’s and Intimate Relationships
Why do Sex Offenders have trouble in Intimate Relationships
Attachment Issues:
Relationships with their Mothers
Relationships with their Fathers
Childhood Abuse
Loss of Caregiver
Low Self-Esteem
What Can Be Done to Work on Relationship Issues?
- Relationship issues and intimacy deficits in sex offenders are important treatment targets and are related to recidivism rates (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998).
- Measures of intimacy deficits have were found to predict recidivism with emotional identification with children being the number one predictor and conflict with intimate partners being the number two predictor (Hanson and Bussiere, 1998).
- Sex offenders with stable residency and committed intimate partners were less likely to be arrested while on probation (Meloy, 2005).
- Sex offenders who have never married present an increased risk for recidivism (Hanson &Bussiere, 1998)
- The improvement in the quality of the marital relationship between offender and their wives increases the chances for a successful probation and reduces the likelihood of offender recidivism (Carlson & Cervera, 1991).
Why are relationships important to SO recidivism
- Social support
- Healthy sexual outlet
- Chaperone
- Relationships particularly for males decrease negative health behaviors, decrease depression, decrease likeliness of death.
Sex Offender’s and Intimate Relationships
- Hanson (1997) reported that male sex offenders have little empathy for women.
- Seidman, Marshall, Hudson, and Robertson (1994) found that sex offenders reported little satisfaction from their relationships.
- Frisbie (1969) stated sex offenders have “grave difficulties in establishing meaningful relationships with adult females.”
- Bumby & Hansen (1997) found that hands on offenders with children and rapists report greater overall intimacy deficits than nonsexually offending inmates, rapists reporting the highest deficits. Fear of intimacy was found to be a salient characteristic of the hands on offender. Hands on offenders and rapists reported more overall loneliness and emotional loneliness.
- Hanson and Bussiere (1998), in their meta-analysis of sexual offending recidivism, found that rates are high in those men who have never learned to have intimate relationships with age appropriate women.
- Sex offenders face more challenging impediments to successful reintegration.
- Research suggests that families with a link to a known sex offender are likely to experience negative repercussions (Comartin, Kernsmith, and Miles 2010; Farkas and Miller 2007; Levenson and Tewksbury 2009.
- As we can see there are many factors that can impact the sex offender’s reintegration to society and their family. Successful reunification with the family can reduce recidivism in all offender types.
Why do Sex Offenders have trouble in Intimate Relationships
Attachment Issues:
- (McCormack, Hudson, & Ward, 2002) found that over 75% of their sample of sex offenders had insecure attachment styles as adults.
- Marshall (1993) posited that insecure attachment and other adverse family environments may influence the child’s later relational abilities.
- Insecure attachment can lead to a chronic state of emotional loneliness. This loneliness could lead an individual to either avoid relationships or seek shallow ones (Marshall, 1993)
- This insecure attachment can lead to a person being incapable of intimacy. Insecurely attached individuals do not grow up with less need for love and intimacy they simply do not have the capacity to meet those needs and fear rejection if they do seek attachment with others. The desire to meet these needs tends to self-stimulation which helps avoid rejection but does not meet the need for intimacy and love. Sex offenders tend to hold the misperception that sex will satisfy these needs (Marshall, 1993).
Relationships with their Mothers
- The sex offenders relationship with their mother tends to be characterized as dependent rather than reciprocal (Tingle, 1986).
- Blaske et al. (1989) compared adolescents who committed a sexual offence with other nondelinquent adolescents and found lower rates of positive mother-son communication in the sex-offender group.
- With respect to differences across sexual offender types, rapists were found to have significantly more arguments with their mothers than Hands on offenders (Tingle et. al., 1986).
- Sexual offenders identify less with their mothers than do members of other offender groups (Levant & Bass, 1991).
Relationships with their Fathers
- Of those sexual offenders who reported a father present during their childhood, the relationship between the father and the individual concerned was typically described as more problematic and negative than that between mother and son (Lisak & Roth, 1990).
- Specifically, a large percentage of sexual offenders (57%) described their fathers as cold, distant, hostile, and aggressive, with fewer (18%) crediting their fathers with positive qualities such as warmth (Lisak, 1994).
- Moreover, sexual offenders appear to identify less with their fathers than do other offender groups (McCormack, Hudson, & Ward, 2002).
- In turn, rapists‘ relationships with their fathers have been reported to be more distant than Hands on offenders (Tingle et al., 1986).
- A negative view of the relationship between rapists and their fathers was associated with a need for power and control, as well as with anger and hostility toward women (Hazelwood & Warren, 1989; Lisak & Roth, 1990).
Childhood Abuse
- Trepper and Barrett (1986) found in their research that a majority of incest families exhibited a moderate to extreme level of emotional closeness. They noted that 72% of the families studied were moderately fused. Almost one-half of the offenders in there study indication a marital relationship in which extreme emotional separateness was the norm.
- Physical abuse has been linked to offense behaviors but is not specific to sexual offenses (Ryan & Lane, 1991).
- Estimates of the prevalence of sexual abuse in sexual offenders range from 9% to 47% (Fagan & Wexler, 1988).
- Milner and Robertson (1990) noted that family sexual abuse is more common in the family backgrounds of sexual offenders than other types of offenders. Most researchers agree that sexual abuse is more than twice as likely to be present in a sexual offender as in a nonsexual offender.
- Becerra et al. (2013) found that sex offenders who were abused as children were more likely to be introverted in relationships in adulthood.
Loss of Caregiver
- In a study by Ryan and Lane (1991), over half of their juvenile sexual offenders were found to have experienced some form of parental loss through death, divorce, or separation.
- Sexual offenders may be less likely than nonsexual offenders to have an intact family of origin, and this fact may be partly responsible for their subsequent interpersonal problems.
- However, the research on this issue is rather inconsistent.
- There is some confusion over whether rapists or Hands on offenders are more likely to have parents with an intact marriage (Seghorn, Prentky, & Boucher, 1987; Tingle et al., 1986).
- The available data suggests that the parents of rapists are less likely to be legally married in the initial instance than those of Hands on offenders (Saunders, Awad, & White, 1986).
Low Self-Esteem
- Shine (2008) found that Hands on offenders tend to have lower self-esteem than rapists.
- Marshall (2008) found that Hands on offenders had deficits in empathy and self-esteem that impacted their ability to be intimate with a partner.
- Sexual Behaviors
- Wanklyn et al. (2012) found that juvenile and adult sex offenders find it difficult to be in intimate relationships due to their precocious and addictive sexual behaviors.
- Marshall (2006) found in his sample of sex offenders, 35% had sexual addictions or preoccupation with sex.
- Preoccupation with sex or sexual addictions make it difficult for offenders to maintain relationships. These behaviors usually lead to infidelity or over use of masturbation in relationships.
What Can Be Done to Work on Relationship Issues?
- Sex offenders approaching release from incarceration described personal acceptance, employment opportunities, and housing options as positive experiences they anticipated. Inmates also anticipated negative events from their families including relationships characterized by rejection and doubt.
- Studies aimed at understanding relationships between sex offenders and their partners and their ability or inability to develop intimate relationships could be helpful in the development of new treatment modalities
- The following variables: Relationship commitment, evaluation of the partner, self-disclosure, trust, expression of affection, sexual satisfaction, giving and receiving of support, empathy, conflict resolution, autonomy, and sensitivity to rejection all emerged as significant aspects of sexual offenders’ perceptions of their intimate relationships (Ward, McCormack, and Hudson, 1997).
- Ensuring that proper relationship skill awareness, enhancing, and development is a core part of the curriculum and focus of treatment.
- Clinician using only the linear victim-perpetrator models might miss important factors for a complete understanding of the individual’s family or relationship processes involved. Leaving unaddressed the interpersonal and intrapersonal aspects of family systems can undermine the success of cognitive behavioral treatment used alone (Trepper and Barrett, 1986).
- Increasing personal value/ self-esteem/ confidence. *Following the old adage if your not happy with yourself you cannot be happy with another.
- Female Sex Offenders who have experienced abuse and IPV, need to identify and alter their distorted thoughts and beliefs regarding acceptance and love.
- A child sexual abuse victimization history may cause cognitive distortions about children and sexuality for sex offenders (Elliott & Ashfield, 2011).
- Preventative: Offering greater support to victims of child sexual abuse
The Effects of Therapy on Incarcerated Sexual Offenders
- Of six studies that showed a positive treatment effect, four incorporated a cognitive-behavioral approach. Non- prison-based sex offender treatment programs were deemed to be effective in curtailing future criminal activity. Prison-based treatment programs were judged to be promising, but the evidence is not strong enough to support a conclusion that such programs are effective. Too few studies focused on particular types of sex offenders to permit any type of conclusions about the effectiveness of programs for different sex offender typologies (Polizzi, MacKenzie, & Hickman, 1999)
- Participating in treatment significantly reduced the hazard ratio for re-arrest in a three year period by 27% for sexual recidivism, 18% for violent recidivism, and 12% for general recidivism. These findings are consistent with the growing body of research supporting the effectiveness of cognitive–behavioral treatment for sex offenders (Duwe & Goldman, 2009)
- The Irish Prison Service Sexual Offender Intervention Program, is a manualized 10-month Cognitive Behavior Therapy [CBT] program involving three 2-hour group sessions per week, which are facilitated by a team of clinical psychologists and probation officers. Compared with the untreated control group, program participants showed statistically significant improvement on some but not all self-report measures of cognitive distortions, victim empathy, interpersonal adjustment, self-regulation, and relapse prevention. It also indicates that crime detection, conviction, and imprisonment coupled with personal motivation to change do not lead to altered functioning in the absence of assistance from an intervention program. For men to change, they required the additional assistance provided by the intervention program (O'Reilly, Carr, Murphy, & Cotter, 2012).
Sex Offenders Re-Entering Society
- The overwhelming theme in the responses of offenders was that they had little understanding or knowledge about such restrictions. The large majority of offenders reported knowing of only two conditions: registration and being on a conditional release status. All offenders knew that they would have to be listed on the state’s sex offender registry, although their collective knowledge about what registration entails and the length of registration showed a great deal of confusion and uncertainty. In addition, almost no sex offenders were aware of the state’s residence restriction law prohibiting their residing within 1,000 feet of child congregation locations. And, for the few who did know that there was “some kind” of restrictions on where they could live, none accurately reported knowing the specifics of the law. The sex offenders interviewed for this project often believed they could return to the community with little trouble. They thought that with the sup- port and assistance of family and friends, they could secure steady employment and eventually return to a “normal life.” Key to their hopes was having community members, both those they already knew and those they did not, see them for the people they believed themselves to be, instead of seeing them only as the label that they carried. However, the positive expectations that were held by these offenders need to be tempered with their less positive, and negative, expectations for what awaits them upon release. The major concerns they had about their reentry centered on finding stable housing and employment, maintaining and establishing social relationships, living with or overcoming the sex offender label, combating the assumption that they are dangerous to others, and being vulnerable to attacks. Two practical issues that stand out as especially significant in the expectations of soon-to-be-released sex offenders are obtaining safe, affordable, and legally permissible housing and securing viable employment. The issue of housing was generally seen as a more formidable obstacle. The common placement for released (nonsex) offenders with family members is not possible, due to either where family members live (in a legally restricted location close to a child congregation location) or the household having children residing therein. Halfway houses, a common housing placement for released offenders, were also perceived to be inaccessible. Some interviewees reported having contacted numerous halfway houses around the state, but were turned away. Most of the interviewees reported that they had lost at least one friend since their offenses came to public light. As a result of experiencing such losses, many of the offenders reported being leery about whether previous friendships would remain intact and reported being concerned about if and how they would be able to make new friends upon release. Although it is recognized that many types of offenders may experience such losses and stresses, for sex offenders, who are among society’s most vilified in our current political climate. The most persistently reported negative expectation for returning to the com- munity for sex offenders was the fact that they will have to contend with living with a very public, very negative label. Sex offenders recognize that their labeled status could limit both their social and practical life opportunities. As a part of the strong labeling that sex offenders perceive being applied to them was the perception of society that as a sex offender, they are highly dangerous. The label of “sex offender” was experienced as a declaration by society that the individual is to be feared. The danger that the individual is perceived to pose was especially focused on being a danger to children. Reoffending seems to be assumed. Despite acknowledging the possibility of life being difficult once they are released, those we spoke with were remarkably optimistic about their futures. These offenders have a strong desire to unobtrusively reenter the community, to return to life as they knew it prior to incarceration, and to avoid negative consequences of being labeled. Specific aspects of life for which this sample of sex offenders held positive expectations included their reunification with family, friends, and securing employment. Although they also anticipated some negative experiences, they held out hope that others would be able to see past their label and judge and react to them as the person they know themselves to be—something different than the stereotype(s) accompanying their label as a “registered sex offender.” (Tewksbury & Copes, 2012)
- Sex offender recidivism is associated with poor planning. Release planning was associated with actual re-entry experiences in the six months following release from prison. Social support was the major factor in positive re-entry experiences. Employment planning was associated with actual employment experiences upon release (Willis & Johnston, 2012).
Recommended Readings
There are several good books to read about sex offender laws as well as the lives of registered persons. The following books are known and recommended. All can be ordered on the Amazon website.
There are several good books to read about sex offender laws as well as the lives of registered persons. The following books are known and recommended. All can be ordered on the Amazon website.
- Sex Offender Laws: Failed Policies, New Directions – Richard G. Wright
- We’re All in this Together – Frank Udall Lindsay
- Sex Panic and the Punitive State – Roger Lancaster
- Lost Memory of Skin – Russell Banks
- Treating Adolescent Sex Offenders – Charlene Steen
- Unprecedented, How Sex Offender Laws are Impacting Our Nation – J.B. Haralson and J.R. Cordeiro
- Sex Registration Guidebook – Victor VeVea and J. Anthony Bryan
- PUNISHING THE POOR: THE NEOLIBERAL GOVERNMENT OF SOCIAL INSECURITY, by Loic Wacquant, Duke U. Press. – Chapter 7 is titled “Moralism and Punitive Panopticism: Hunting Down Sex Offenders.”
- A Parallel Universe: Two tales of public folly and personal devastation – Alex Landon and Elaine Halleck
- Consensual Consequences: A True Story of Life with a “Registered Sex Offender” – Lynn Gilmore
- Knowledge as Power: Criminal Registration and Community Notification Laws in America – Wayne Logan
Support Groups
For FamiliesJoin dailystrength.org: This website provides free online support groups for various populations in need. They have a specific support groups for families of sex offenders, whether or not you are still with him. There are also other support groups available that may apply to what you are going through.
Join Yahoo Group “Offender Solutions”: “S.O.S. (Sex Offender Solutions) is a fellowship of individuals from every walk of life that are dedicated to the recovery of S*x Offenders, the reunification of their families, and the restoration of their Civil Rights.”
Join Citizens for Second Chance: This group is a Michigan based support group for families of individuals convicted of -or- charged with a sex offense. You do not have to be a resident of Michigan to find support within this group. Their website offers both support and information on laws related to registration.
Join Womenagainstregistry.org (W.A.R.): “Women Against Registry brings much needed attention to national and state registries which are destroying American families and depriving them of the liberties and equal protection guaranteed to each and every American citizen. Women Against Registry gives a voice to the hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children who are being wrongly and unfairly punished because we have a family member who has been convicted of a sexual offense.” Members of W.A.R. find support in women in similar situations as well as advocacy opportunities.
Join The Offenders Wife: This mission of this website is to support and empower women who find themselves labeled and stigmatized by their association to the sex offender registry through a partner. This may be a resource of support for women who find themselves stigmatized even if they are no longer in a romantic relationship with the offender.
Join USA FAIR: USA FAIR (Families Advocating an Intelligent Registry) is a not-for-profit corporation dedicated to educating the public on issues related to the sex offender registry. This may be a resource for those who wish to become actively involved in sex offender advocacy.
Visit griefspeaks.com: This website provides lists of resources and national support groups for people that have experienced any form of grief in their life. You may find information here that speaks to that which you are struggling with the most.
Call 2-1-1: 211 is the national abbreviated dialing code for free access to health and human services information and referral. You can call this number to find counseling services in your area.
Visit childcareresource.org: This website provides national resources for child care related needs and national support organizations.
GeneralVisit SOSEN.org: “The mission of SOSEN (Sex Offender Support and Education Network) is to educate the public, the media, law-enforcement, and legislators regarding the facts, based on current research, of sexual abuse. We are striving to incorporate fact-based solutions thus helping to change the laws that affect former offenders, their loved ones, victims and the communities where they live. We seek to also provide support for victims, former offenders and their families.” This site may be helpful for those in need of resources, advocacy opportunities, and personal support.
Visit reformsexoffenderlaws.org: RSOL envisions effective, fact-based sexual offense laws and policies which promote public safety, safeguard civil liberties, honor human dignity, and offer holistic prevention, healing, and restoration. This website offers updates on RSO legislation as well as advocacy opportunities. It also list advocacy contacts by state.
Join Illinois Voices for Reform: This group is a Illinois based advocacy group for sex offenders and families of sex offenders. You do not have to be a resident of Illinois to find opportunities within this group. Their website offers information on advocacy efforts on laws related to registration.
For FamiliesJoin dailystrength.org: This website provides free online support groups for various populations in need. They have a specific support groups for families of sex offenders, whether or not you are still with him. There are also other support groups available that may apply to what you are going through.
Join Yahoo Group “Offender Solutions”: “S.O.S. (Sex Offender Solutions) is a fellowship of individuals from every walk of life that are dedicated to the recovery of S*x Offenders, the reunification of their families, and the restoration of their Civil Rights.”
Join Citizens for Second Chance: This group is a Michigan based support group for families of individuals convicted of -or- charged with a sex offense. You do not have to be a resident of Michigan to find support within this group. Their website offers both support and information on laws related to registration.
Join Womenagainstregistry.org (W.A.R.): “Women Against Registry brings much needed attention to national and state registries which are destroying American families and depriving them of the liberties and equal protection guaranteed to each and every American citizen. Women Against Registry gives a voice to the hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children who are being wrongly and unfairly punished because we have a family member who has been convicted of a sexual offense.” Members of W.A.R. find support in women in similar situations as well as advocacy opportunities.
Join The Offenders Wife: This mission of this website is to support and empower women who find themselves labeled and stigmatized by their association to the sex offender registry through a partner. This may be a resource of support for women who find themselves stigmatized even if they are no longer in a romantic relationship with the offender.
Join USA FAIR: USA FAIR (Families Advocating an Intelligent Registry) is a not-for-profit corporation dedicated to educating the public on issues related to the sex offender registry. This may be a resource for those who wish to become actively involved in sex offender advocacy.
Visit griefspeaks.com: This website provides lists of resources and national support groups for people that have experienced any form of grief in their life. You may find information here that speaks to that which you are struggling with the most.
Call 2-1-1: 211 is the national abbreviated dialing code for free access to health and human services information and referral. You can call this number to find counseling services in your area.
Visit childcareresource.org: This website provides national resources for child care related needs and national support organizations.
GeneralVisit SOSEN.org: “The mission of SOSEN (Sex Offender Support and Education Network) is to educate the public, the media, law-enforcement, and legislators regarding the facts, based on current research, of sexual abuse. We are striving to incorporate fact-based solutions thus helping to change the laws that affect former offenders, their loved ones, victims and the communities where they live. We seek to also provide support for victims, former offenders and their families.” This site may be helpful for those in need of resources, advocacy opportunities, and personal support.
Visit reformsexoffenderlaws.org: RSOL envisions effective, fact-based sexual offense laws and policies which promote public safety, safeguard civil liberties, honor human dignity, and offer holistic prevention, healing, and restoration. This website offers updates on RSO legislation as well as advocacy opportunities. It also list advocacy contacts by state.
Join Illinois Voices for Reform: This group is a Illinois based advocacy group for sex offenders and families of sex offenders. You do not have to be a resident of Illinois to find opportunities within this group. Their website offers information on advocacy efforts on laws related to registration.
The Registry
- The California registry for “sex offenders” began in 1947 as a private tool for law enforcement only. The information on the registry became available to the public in July 2005 due to a law passed in the State of California.
- The California registry for “sex offenders” will end when a different law is passed in the State of California. Such a law could create a tiered registry, such as those found in 46 of the nation’s 50 states that would allow most registrants to leave after a period of years after their conviction. For example, registrants with low level offenses could leave the registry after 10 years and others with a mid-level offense could leave the registry after 20 years.
- A majority of the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 2003, in the case Smith v. Doe, that the requirement to register is not a penalty, but an administrative requirement. This ruling was important because it means that Megan’s Law, which was passed in 1996, can be applied to those who committed offenses prior to 1996. A minority of the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that registration is a penalty and therefore should not be applied to those who committed offenses prior to 1996 because such application is “ex post facto” and in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
- Very few 290 Registrants in California are relieved from the requirement to register. Most of those who are relieved from this requirement have committed a misdemeanor. Even then, they are first required to observe a waiting period of 7-10 years, to have their case dismissed and then obtain a Certificate of Rehabilitation.You may be be able to terminate 290 registration if you either (1) obtain a Governor’s pardon or (2) obtain a Certificate of Rehabilitation . No California Governor has ever pardoned a “registered sex offender.” Very few people are eligible to apply for a Certificate of Rehabilitation and judges do not always grant certificates to those who are eligible.
Certificate of Rehabilitation
- A California Certificate of Rehabilitation is a court finding that a person has been rehabilitated following a criminal conviction. It can also end sex offender registration requirements in some cases. In order to end 290 Registration individuals who have committed a misdemeanor sex offense and have had their case dismissed (PC 1203.4) are eligible to apply for a Certificate of Rehabilitation after a waiting period of 7-10 years (PC 4852.03 ). Judges make the decision regarding whether a Certificate of Rehabilitation will be granted and it is a discretionary act. If a judge grants a certificate, your requirement to register based on a qualifying offense will end ( PC 290.5). If a judge does not grant a certificate, your requirement to register will continue.Persons with convictions for certain offenses (subdivision (c) of Section 286, Section 288, subdivision (c) of Section 288a, Section 288.5, or subdivision (j) of Section 289) are not eligible to apply for a Certificate of Rehabilitation (PC 4852.01) . It is important to note that certain felony convictions may be reduced to a misdemeanor (PC 17(b)) if the sentence did not include a term in State Prison (wobbler).If you think you might qualify for relief with the procedures outlined above you should consult with an attorney. Many lawyers offer a complimentary evaluation of your case. Public Defender Offices also offer assistance in this area (i.e. Orange County, LA County)
10 Myths about Sex Offenders- from the National RSOL Website
Recidivism is defined as repeat criminal behavior among offenders. Of all crimes, sex offenders are widely believed to have the highest level of recidivism. However, treatment professionals and criminologists have known for some time that once sex offenders are caught, only a small minority of them will commit another sex crime. Although some pedophiles, before they are caught, have many victims, most have a single victim in or about their own families. We all hope for the day when we can see fewer sex offenses and particularly fewer juvenile victims of such crimes. But so long as what we think we know about these types of crimes is based on myths and fear rather than facts, that day will never come. There are several myths that are widely believed that need to be debunked. In recent years social scientists and criminologists have combed through an immense accumulation of data from hundreds of studies which have tracked tens of thousands of individual sex offenders for long periods of time, some even for decades. By 1994, 670 studies of sex offenders had been done, and by the end of 2005 well over 700. Many of these studies have been systematized through a methodology called meta-analysis. The resulting data reveal that many common myths about sex offenders are simply false. We outline here some of them.
MYTH #1: “SEX OFFENDERS WILL ALWAYS KEEP OFFENDING.”
Recently the Bureau of Justice Statistics published a study which tracked 9,700 sex offenders for three years, 2001-2004. Their findings concluded:
MYTH #2: “TREATMENT DOESN’T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.”
The public has been told for years that treatment doesn’t work, that “for sex offenders nothing works,” but here too a myriad of major studies indicates otherwise:
MYTH #3: “THE GREATEST THREAT TO OUR CHILDREN COMES FROM STRANGERS.”
MYTH #4: “BANNING SEX OFFENDERS FROM PLACES WHERE CHILDREN CONGREGATE WILL SIGNIFICANTLY PROTECT OUR CHILDREN.”
To claim school yards, daycare centers, and other places where children congregate need legislation or Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) geo-fences to keep sex offenders away may sound sensible, but, again, the facts do not fit the reality.
The fact is that most sex offenses take place in or near one’s home and that only 7% involve strangers. Furthermore, only a tiny percentage of sex offenders have any history of kidnapping or molesting children unknown to them.
Perhaps among the safest places for children to be are those where they are together in numbers. School personnel are paying more attention than ever before, and older kids are keeping more of a watchful eye. People –even kids– look out for each other in public places.
Finally, making it difficult for sex offenders to find places to reside means that they will have a much harder time re-integrating themselves into society, which is what most of them want to do.
MYTH #5: “TOUGHER LEGISLATION IS THE ONLY SOLUTION.”
In the U.S., our judges are learned and principled and render few decisions without due diligence. Very stiff punishments for child murderers are certainly called for, but punishment is just only when it is proportioned to the severity of the crime. Such judgments should remain in the courts, subject to very specific deliberations; they should not be rendered in the legislatures, where careful deliberation is impossible.
If legislation is based on the false premise that recidivism is inevitable rather than rare, and if it blurs the line between sex offense and murder, then it will result in laws that promote public shaming and permanent exclusion. These laws presume and promote lifelong guilt, ruling out all hope of change. Thus they not only clearly violate the Constitution, but they actually encourage more of the very crimes we are trying to reduce.
If we truly want fewer victims, we should adopt a more holistic approach to reintegrating sex offenders back into society. The focus should shift from more and harsher punishment to the funding of good treatment programs. Although such a shift may have little current appeal among the public today, treatment is the only sure way that we will see fewer victims of these types of crime.
Given all the degrees that sexual offenses can take, one type of sentence does not fit all. What do you do with a 17-year-old who had sex with a 15-year-old? What do you do if he was 19? What if it was consensual? Does he get registered for a lifetime as a sex offender? What about an 8-year-old who plays doctor? What if he’s 14? The fact is that nowadays even juvenile sex offenders are being branded for life.
MYTH #6: “THE ONLY WAY TO DEAL WITH THEM IS PUT THEM BEHIND BARS.”
Today, with two and a quarter million inmates, our country has more people in jails and prisons than it does in all our colleges and universities combined. When three-quarters of all offenders are going back to prison, just funding more prison cells isn’t the answer.
If our goal were to mass produce criminals, we couldn’t be doing a better job. Without treatment programs, our prisons have become huge breweries, woefully turning out more of the same product, each generation more hardened and more dangerous than the last. If ever we’re to make our societies more just and our communities more secure, our goal must be to make some serious changes and not just keep doing more of the same.
If we got more serious about funding preventative programs, then our courts could establish good treatment programs that would start from the first day of a criminal’s first conviction. The result would be many fewer victims of all sorts of crimes, including sexual abuse of children.
Presently there is little or no rehabilitation taking place in our prisons; there is just more and more fruitless incarceration. We need to wake up about what we are brewing and start legislating intelligently so that offenders can really get rehabilitated and contribute constructively to society.
MYTH #7: “MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES ARE EFFECTIVE AND WILL HELP PROTECT SOCIETY.”
Although the public may believe that extremely stiff, mandatory minimum sentences and lock’em up strategies send a message that deters crime, history tells another story. Criminologists point out that such laws, even when publicized, are not all that effective. Often, in the heat of actual violence, perpetrators do not even think about consequences. At such moments of blinding rage and confusion, there are generally few thoughts of penalties or sentences, severe or otherwise. Conversely, we do know that extremely harsh mandatory sentences have prompted some of the very types of crime they are intended to stem. When a perpetrator is aware of particularly dire consequences if he’s caught, that fear can lead him to cause even greater harm for the victim. A person facing a stiff sentence like a mandatory 25 years to life, or even a death sentence, may decide his chances are better if he eliminates the victim and any possible witness. What might have been a lesser crime then often gets even worse. It may seem a paradox, but the stiffer the consequences, the more Jessicas, Megans and Polly Klaases will likely be the result. It is understandable that with such terrible murders come calls for tougher punishments. However, the problem with legislation launched in anger is that it invariably ends up punishing not only those who deserve punishment but also those who do not.
MYTH #8: “SEX OFFENDER REGISTRIES ARE NECESSARY TO PROTECT SOCIETY.”
Posting names, addresses and photographs on a sex offender registry is not only a risk to those on the list, but it can also lead to unintended, inappropriate, and destructive consequences for the whole community. Registries tend to treat all sex offenders the same way, without reference to the severity of their offenses, their responsiveness to treatment, or current assessment of the risk they pose. It is seen by some as an opportunity to harass the offenders and even worse. While it is certainly in order to professionally monitor and discipline sex offenders for various prudent periods, we must also try to be fair about how offenders are handled. Permanently branding them on registries or making targets of them with conspicuous tracking devices will only aggravate the problems, not solve them. Unfortunately, when a partially informed public is allowed and encouraged to become watchdogs, sex offenders face greater risk of confrontations by the public, due mainly to anger and hostility. Some people even feel that they have a warrant to harass offenders and make life miserable for them. Since the start of community notification, there has been a growing number of serious beatings, not only of sex offenders but sometimes of their family members or people with whom they live. Some confrontations have led to tragedies. Two sex offenders were murdered in Maine. In this case, the victims were no longer likely threats; one was simply a young man who at 17 had a 15-year-old girlfriend. Had their names, addresses, and photographs not been on the state’s registry, had the two been simply monitored by probation and treatment professionals, they would not have been spotlighted by some zealot who apparently thought he was doing the work of God.
A little wall sign at one of NCIA’s clinics gets a lot of applause from those in treatment:
“permanent brandings may be all right for cattle,
but they shouldn’t be for people.”
If we want to be humane, that sign is correct. If we want former offenders to regain their health and not be always on the run, we should not set them up to be stalked. Vengeful prescriptions that call only for more and more punishment will not produce a cure. Since so few of the once-caught remain a threat, there are smarter approaches than alarming communities with registries and turning all levels of former offenders over to the general public for surveillance.
MYTH #9: “TRACKING DEVICES ARE A PRACTICAL AND JUST MEANS FOR KEEPING SEX OFFENDERS UNDER SURVEILLANCE.”
If we want fewer victims of sexual offenses, the primary goal should be to reintegrate former offenders peacefully back into society as law-abiding citizens. This cannot be done if we keep them in fear and on the run. Tracking devices that have to be worn conspicuously only make targets of the people we are trying to reintegrate into society. When offenders are made to wear GPS bracelets, with one worn on the ankle and another on the wrist, they are big, bulky, and hard to keep hidden. For anyone who has to wear them, they are a scarlet letter, a crippling stigma of shame.
If we want to keep sex-offenders on track, turning them into prey on registries or spotlighting them with bulky tracking bracelets on both arm and leg is not the answer. Making a dart board of any human being is clearly more an act of revenge than an aid in stemming crime. The vigilante mentality is still strong in many places: one man on a sex offender registry found the severed head of his pet dog on the front porch of his house. Sadly, the new legislation being created is aimed more at increasing punishment and appeasing the public than it is at actually making our communities safer. When the public is as misinformed and angry as they are, it is a perilous mistake to give them the addresses and photographs of all sex offenders, particularly without the background of their crimes or updated individual assessments of risk. The monitoring of sex offenders will always be better handled by knowledgeable treatment professionals carefully coordinating their efforts with police and parole officers than by the varied mercies of an angry, upset, and partially informed populace. If GPS devices need to be used, there now exist cell phones with GPS chips, which not only give the person’s precise location but allow immediate voice contact with the person. Unless we want to go back two centuries to the ghoulish practices of Salem, we should not get caught up in the intoxication of revenge that only fuels harassment and witch-hunts.
MYTH #10: “THE EXPERTS SAY THAT STRONG, REPRESSIVE MEASURES ARE NECESSARY TO KEEP SEX OFFENDERS FROM RE-OFFENDING.”
Below are some revealing quotes from various experts and authors who have studied sex offender legislation and treatment.
I defy anyone to try and convince me, scientifically or logically, that those requirements have any affect at all. It makes great sense politically, but has no affect whatsoever on public safety.
Recidivism is defined as repeat criminal behavior among offenders. Of all crimes, sex offenders are widely believed to have the highest level of recidivism. However, treatment professionals and criminologists have known for some time that once sex offenders are caught, only a small minority of them will commit another sex crime. Although some pedophiles, before they are caught, have many victims, most have a single victim in or about their own families. We all hope for the day when we can see fewer sex offenses and particularly fewer juvenile victims of such crimes. But so long as what we think we know about these types of crimes is based on myths and fear rather than facts, that day will never come. There are several myths that are widely believed that need to be debunked. In recent years social scientists and criminologists have combed through an immense accumulation of data from hundreds of studies which have tracked tens of thousands of individual sex offenders for long periods of time, some even for decades. By 1994, 670 studies of sex offenders had been done, and by the end of 2005 well over 700. Many of these studies have been systematized through a methodology called meta-analysis. The resulting data reveal that many common myths about sex offenders are simply false. We outline here some of them.
MYTH #1: “SEX OFFENDERS WILL ALWAYS KEEP OFFENDING.”
Recently the Bureau of Justice Statistics published a study which tracked 9,700 sex offenders for three years, 2001-2004. Their findings concluded:
- Only 5.3% of these people imprisoned for sex crimes were re-arrested for a subsequent sex offense.
- Where a child was involved, the re-arrest rate dropped to 3.3%.
- Between two adults, the sexual re-offense rate was 2.2%.
- The recidivism rate for once-caught pedophiles was 12.7%.
- The overall once caught recidivism rate (includes adult victims) was 13.7%.
MYTH #2: “TREATMENT DOESN’T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.”
The public has been told for years that treatment doesn’t work, that “for sex offenders nothing works,” but here too a myriad of major studies indicates otherwise:
- The Campbell Collaboration analysis of 22,000 individuals found that treatment reduced recidivism by 37%.
- Canada’s Karl Hanson’s 2000 analysis found a reduction of 41%.
- Oshkosh Correctional’s meta-analysis from 79 separate studies of over 11,000 sex offenders found that people who participated in treatment programs had a 59% re-arrest reduction.
- According to Alexander’s 1998 study, “Men arrested for having sex with children are usually overcome with shame and remorse and they want to stop. Since 1943 those who were treated in jails, hospitals and outpatient clinics found their way back to prison at a rate that was approximately one-third of those who had no treatment.”
- By 2005, most all preventative programs showed that re-arrest rates were being reduced by greater than half. With some of the latest deep aversion and victim empathy regimens, reductions were reported as high as 91%.
- There is now a credible concurrence that “treatment works” and that new programs are becoming increasingly more successful.
MYTH #3: “THE GREATEST THREAT TO OUR CHILDREN COMES FROM STRANGERS.”
- According to the most recent major study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2004), where 9,700 sex offenders were tracked, only 7% of such crimes against children were perpetrated by strangers.
- The majority (93%) of molestations of children are not committed by strangers but by people who are known and trusted within or about the family.
- Throughout the last decade, other arrest studies have found similar results. Most sex offenses are committed by a family member or guardian/family member (often some parental substitute).
- It may be a trusted uncle, father, stepfather, mother, family friend, teacher, coach, or priest; but in almost all cases, the culprit is not a stranger.
MYTH #4: “BANNING SEX OFFENDERS FROM PLACES WHERE CHILDREN CONGREGATE WILL SIGNIFICANTLY PROTECT OUR CHILDREN.”
To claim school yards, daycare centers, and other places where children congregate need legislation or Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) geo-fences to keep sex offenders away may sound sensible, but, again, the facts do not fit the reality.
The fact is that most sex offenses take place in or near one’s home and that only 7% involve strangers. Furthermore, only a tiny percentage of sex offenders have any history of kidnapping or molesting children unknown to them.
Perhaps among the safest places for children to be are those where they are together in numbers. School personnel are paying more attention than ever before, and older kids are keeping more of a watchful eye. People –even kids– look out for each other in public places.
Finally, making it difficult for sex offenders to find places to reside means that they will have a much harder time re-integrating themselves into society, which is what most of them want to do.
MYTH #5: “TOUGHER LEGISLATION IS THE ONLY SOLUTION.”
In the U.S., our judges are learned and principled and render few decisions without due diligence. Very stiff punishments for child murderers are certainly called for, but punishment is just only when it is proportioned to the severity of the crime. Such judgments should remain in the courts, subject to very specific deliberations; they should not be rendered in the legislatures, where careful deliberation is impossible.
If legislation is based on the false premise that recidivism is inevitable rather than rare, and if it blurs the line between sex offense and murder, then it will result in laws that promote public shaming and permanent exclusion. These laws presume and promote lifelong guilt, ruling out all hope of change. Thus they not only clearly violate the Constitution, but they actually encourage more of the very crimes we are trying to reduce.
If we truly want fewer victims, we should adopt a more holistic approach to reintegrating sex offenders back into society. The focus should shift from more and harsher punishment to the funding of good treatment programs. Although such a shift may have little current appeal among the public today, treatment is the only sure way that we will see fewer victims of these types of crime.
Given all the degrees that sexual offenses can take, one type of sentence does not fit all. What do you do with a 17-year-old who had sex with a 15-year-old? What do you do if he was 19? What if it was consensual? Does he get registered for a lifetime as a sex offender? What about an 8-year-old who plays doctor? What if he’s 14? The fact is that nowadays even juvenile sex offenders are being branded for life.
MYTH #6: “THE ONLY WAY TO DEAL WITH THEM IS PUT THEM BEHIND BARS.”
Today, with two and a quarter million inmates, our country has more people in jails and prisons than it does in all our colleges and universities combined. When three-quarters of all offenders are going back to prison, just funding more prison cells isn’t the answer.
If our goal were to mass produce criminals, we couldn’t be doing a better job. Without treatment programs, our prisons have become huge breweries, woefully turning out more of the same product, each generation more hardened and more dangerous than the last. If ever we’re to make our societies more just and our communities more secure, our goal must be to make some serious changes and not just keep doing more of the same.
If we got more serious about funding preventative programs, then our courts could establish good treatment programs that would start from the first day of a criminal’s first conviction. The result would be many fewer victims of all sorts of crimes, including sexual abuse of children.
Presently there is little or no rehabilitation taking place in our prisons; there is just more and more fruitless incarceration. We need to wake up about what we are brewing and start legislating intelligently so that offenders can really get rehabilitated and contribute constructively to society.
MYTH #7: “MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES ARE EFFECTIVE AND WILL HELP PROTECT SOCIETY.”
Although the public may believe that extremely stiff, mandatory minimum sentences and lock’em up strategies send a message that deters crime, history tells another story. Criminologists point out that such laws, even when publicized, are not all that effective. Often, in the heat of actual violence, perpetrators do not even think about consequences. At such moments of blinding rage and confusion, there are generally few thoughts of penalties or sentences, severe or otherwise. Conversely, we do know that extremely harsh mandatory sentences have prompted some of the very types of crime they are intended to stem. When a perpetrator is aware of particularly dire consequences if he’s caught, that fear can lead him to cause even greater harm for the victim. A person facing a stiff sentence like a mandatory 25 years to life, or even a death sentence, may decide his chances are better if he eliminates the victim and any possible witness. What might have been a lesser crime then often gets even worse. It may seem a paradox, but the stiffer the consequences, the more Jessicas, Megans and Polly Klaases will likely be the result. It is understandable that with such terrible murders come calls for tougher punishments. However, the problem with legislation launched in anger is that it invariably ends up punishing not only those who deserve punishment but also those who do not.
MYTH #8: “SEX OFFENDER REGISTRIES ARE NECESSARY TO PROTECT SOCIETY.”
Posting names, addresses and photographs on a sex offender registry is not only a risk to those on the list, but it can also lead to unintended, inappropriate, and destructive consequences for the whole community. Registries tend to treat all sex offenders the same way, without reference to the severity of their offenses, their responsiveness to treatment, or current assessment of the risk they pose. It is seen by some as an opportunity to harass the offenders and even worse. While it is certainly in order to professionally monitor and discipline sex offenders for various prudent periods, we must also try to be fair about how offenders are handled. Permanently branding them on registries or making targets of them with conspicuous tracking devices will only aggravate the problems, not solve them. Unfortunately, when a partially informed public is allowed and encouraged to become watchdogs, sex offenders face greater risk of confrontations by the public, due mainly to anger and hostility. Some people even feel that they have a warrant to harass offenders and make life miserable for them. Since the start of community notification, there has been a growing number of serious beatings, not only of sex offenders but sometimes of their family members or people with whom they live. Some confrontations have led to tragedies. Two sex offenders were murdered in Maine. In this case, the victims were no longer likely threats; one was simply a young man who at 17 had a 15-year-old girlfriend. Had their names, addresses, and photographs not been on the state’s registry, had the two been simply monitored by probation and treatment professionals, they would not have been spotlighted by some zealot who apparently thought he was doing the work of God.
A little wall sign at one of NCIA’s clinics gets a lot of applause from those in treatment:
“permanent brandings may be all right for cattle,
but they shouldn’t be for people.”
If we want to be humane, that sign is correct. If we want former offenders to regain their health and not be always on the run, we should not set them up to be stalked. Vengeful prescriptions that call only for more and more punishment will not produce a cure. Since so few of the once-caught remain a threat, there are smarter approaches than alarming communities with registries and turning all levels of former offenders over to the general public for surveillance.
MYTH #9: “TRACKING DEVICES ARE A PRACTICAL AND JUST MEANS FOR KEEPING SEX OFFENDERS UNDER SURVEILLANCE.”
If we want fewer victims of sexual offenses, the primary goal should be to reintegrate former offenders peacefully back into society as law-abiding citizens. This cannot be done if we keep them in fear and on the run. Tracking devices that have to be worn conspicuously only make targets of the people we are trying to reintegrate into society. When offenders are made to wear GPS bracelets, with one worn on the ankle and another on the wrist, they are big, bulky, and hard to keep hidden. For anyone who has to wear them, they are a scarlet letter, a crippling stigma of shame.
If we want to keep sex-offenders on track, turning them into prey on registries or spotlighting them with bulky tracking bracelets on both arm and leg is not the answer. Making a dart board of any human being is clearly more an act of revenge than an aid in stemming crime. The vigilante mentality is still strong in many places: one man on a sex offender registry found the severed head of his pet dog on the front porch of his house. Sadly, the new legislation being created is aimed more at increasing punishment and appeasing the public than it is at actually making our communities safer. When the public is as misinformed and angry as they are, it is a perilous mistake to give them the addresses and photographs of all sex offenders, particularly without the background of their crimes or updated individual assessments of risk. The monitoring of sex offenders will always be better handled by knowledgeable treatment professionals carefully coordinating their efforts with police and parole officers than by the varied mercies of an angry, upset, and partially informed populace. If GPS devices need to be used, there now exist cell phones with GPS chips, which not only give the person’s precise location but allow immediate voice contact with the person. Unless we want to go back two centuries to the ghoulish practices of Salem, we should not get caught up in the intoxication of revenge that only fuels harassment and witch-hunts.
MYTH #10: “THE EXPERTS SAY THAT STRONG, REPRESSIVE MEASURES ARE NECESSARY TO KEEP SEX OFFENDERS FROM RE-OFFENDING.”
Below are some revealing quotes from various experts and authors who have studied sex offender legislation and treatment.
- Tom Masters, Program Director, Correctional Treatment Services at Oregon State Hospital:
Unfortunately a lot of crime legislation is a function of politics and does not lead to rehabilitation or community safety. - Margaret Love, former Justice Department Pardon Attorney, writes:
Mean spirited vengeful legislation is only an incitement to vigilante injustice masquerading as a responsible public safety measure. - In the June, 2006, issue of National Wildlife, Richard Law summarizes some studies on how we in America have become so overcome by fear. Here are some excerpts:
Fear is felt nearly intensely in suburban Overland Park, Kansas, as it is in urban Philadelphia. One suburban father told me, “I want to know where my kid is 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I want to know where that kid is. Which hours. Which square foot. Which telephone number.
As a parent, I have felt that fear but consider the facts: - The number of abductions by strangers has been falling for years.
- Most abductors are family members.
- U.S. children are safer now than they have been since 1975. According to the 2005 Duke University Child Well Being Index, violent victimization of children has dropped by more than 38 percent.
- A 1991 study found that in 1990, the radius within which children were allowed to roam on their own from home had shrunk to a ninth of what it had been in 1970.
- What has increased is round-the-clock news coverage of a few tragedies, conditioning families to live in fear.
- In her book, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex (University of Minnesota Press, 2002), author Judith Levine wrote:
All this rational talk may mean nothing to a parent. Out of 45 million, only nine children are raped and murdered: slim odds, sure, but if it happens to your baby, who cares about the statistics? Still, most parents manage to put irrational fears in perspective. Why, in spite of all information to the contrary, do Americans insist on believing that pedophiles are a major peril to their children?
What do people fear so formidably? Our culture fears the pedophile, say some social critics, not because he is a deviant, but because he is ordinary. And I don’t mean because he is the ice-cream man or Father Patrick. No, we fear him because he is us. - In his study The Culture of Child Molesting, the literary critic James Kincaid traced this terror back to the middle of the nineteenth century. Then, he said, Anglo-American culture conjured childhood innocence, defining it as a desire-less subjectivity, at the same time as it constructed a new ideal of the sexually desirable object. The two had identical attributes –softness, cuteness, docility, passivity– and this simultaneous cultural invention has presented us with a wicked psychosocial problem ever since. We relish our erotic attraction to children, says Kincaid (witness the child beauty pageants in which Jon Benet Ramsey was entered). But we also find that attraction abhorrent (witness the public shock and disgust at Jon Bonet’s “sexualization” in those pageants). So we project that eroticized desire outward, creating a monster to hate, hunt down and punish.
- In the June 2, 2006, San Francisco Chronicle Mark Martin, Peter Firmrite, and Greg Lucas wrote an article that made the following points:
- Residency prohibitions on sex offenders have become increasingly popular across the country, despite any statistical evidence that they limit assaults on children. At least 18 states have some restrictions on where parolees live.
- Niki Delson, a licensed clinical social worker who has worked for 30 years with sex offenders and their victims and who is chairwoman of the California Coalition on Sexual Offending, says, “Where someone lives has no relation to the commission of a crime.” She calls residency requirements “a smoke screen that does little to help children.”
- A review of residence restrictions Levenson published noted that both Minnesota and Colorado prison officials studied patterns of sex offenders on parole and found no correlation between new offenses the parolees committed and where they lived. Neither state adopted residency requirements.
- Corwin Ritchie, Executive Director at the Iowa County Attorney’s Association, stated:
I defy anyone to try and convince me, scientifically or logically, that those requirements have any affect at all. It makes great sense politically, but has no affect whatsoever on public safety.
- James Poniewozik, staff writer for Time Magazine, wrote on October 16, 2006:
Strangers make up 7% of child molesters; the vast majority are family members. But you wouldn’t know it from watching TV. When stranger predators are everywhere on TV, it suggests that they are everywhere in the real world: in your school yard, roaming your street, and –especially– climbing the DSL line into your kids’ bedrooms like an ivied trellis. - Robert Freeman-Longo, former director of the Safer Society, stated:
You ban somebody from the community, he has no friends, he feels bad about himself, and you reinforce the very problems that contribute to sex abuse behavior in the first place. You make him a worse sex offender.