10-30-15 National:
Maybe they don’t—a provocative new study says recidivism rates are drastically lower than we think.
One of the most frequently cited and dispiriting statistics about the American criminal justice system is that 68 percent of state prisoners end up back behind bars within three years of their release, and about 75 percent come back within five. These numbers come from a study conducted by the federal government’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, in which researchers tracked about 400,000 people from around the country who were released from state prisons in 2005. The strong implication of the findings is that people who are incarcerated are extremely likely to reoffend once they’re free and that most of them spend their lives in and out of correctional facilities.
But what if the BJS’s findings have been fundamentally misunderstood? That’s the provocative contention of a recent paper published in the journal Crime & Delinquency, the title of which is “Following Incarceration, Most Released Offenders Never Return to Prison.”
The paper, which was produced by researchers at the Cambridge, Massachusetts–based public policy firm Abt Associates and circulated online this week by criminal justice experts, argues that the conventional wisdom about recidivism in America is flatly wrong. In reality, the authors of the paper report, 2 out of 3 people who serve time in prison never come back, and only 11 percent come back multiple times.
The reason for the shocking discrepancy between these new findings and those of the BJS, according to Abt’s William Rhodes, is that the BJS used a sample population in which repeat offenders were vastly overrepresented.
I called Rhodes to ask him about why this happened and how he and his co-authors avoided the same problem in their analysis. His explanation for why the recidivism problem is not nearly as bad as many of us have believed is below; our conversation has been lightly edited and condensed.
Let’s start with the conventional wisdom on recidivism in the U.S. What is it, and where did it come from?
The conventional wisdom is that there’s a very high rate of recidivism, where recidivism is defined as being arrested for a new crime or having your community supervision status revoked for a technical violation.
I know the Bureau of Justice Statistics has collected statistics on recidivism at least twice, maybe three times, and what they do is start with a sample of offenders who are released from prison during a given year, then match those release records with criminal history records to determine who recidivates. Then they compute their statistics—the rate at which the released offenders are arrested for new crimes and the rate at which they’re readmitted to prison—by observing the individuals in their sample over a period of some years. They’re not controversial statistics. There’s no manipulation that goes on. It’s purely tabulation.
So the way it works is they choose a year and track a cohort of people in their sample and see who comes back? It seems pretty straightforward.
That’s exactly right.
So what’s wrong with their results?
It is difficult to explain to a nonstatistician. I try to use an analogy: Suppose that I were asked to describe a population of people who go to shopping malls. What I might do is go to the mall and perform an “intercept survey”—that is, I’d randomly select people who are entering the mall and ask them about themselves—record their age, sex, race, and frequency of visiting the mall. The problem is, I’d probably do that over a pretty short period of time, like a week.
So I’d get a lot of people who are frequent mall visitors and fewer people who aren’t. You know, if you go to a mall you’ll see an elderly population who go daily, to exercise by walking through the mall. You’ll also see a number of people who simply like malls, and maybe they go weekly. Or you’ll find, occasionally, people like me, who go about once a year when they need to buy a washing machine or something. If you did a simple tabulation of all the people you intercepted during a week you’d get a large proportion of frequent mall visitors. And they wouldn’t be representative of people who visit malls—they’d be representative of frequent mall visitors.
And the same thing is happening with the Bureau of Justice Statistics when they take a sample of people who have been released from prison during a given year.
Right. They’re not attempting to be misleading. What they’re reporting is true: If you take people who are released from prison during a given year, here’s the rate at which they’ll return. But it gets translated in people’s heads as, “Here’s what happens to offenders in general.”
In truth what you have is two groups of offenders: those who repeatedly do crimes and accumulate in prisons because they get recaptured, reconvicted, and resentenced; and those who are much lower risk, and most of them will go to prison once and not come back.
So the problem with taking a snapshot of a particular year, the way the BJS has done it, is you’re more likely to have people in your sample who come back a lot than you are to have people who don’t come back at all.
That’s exactly right, yeah.
What data is your study based on?
At Abt Associates we assemble data into something called the National Corrections Reporting Program. It records prison terms for offenders across almost all of the states. For a large number of states, that data goes back to 2000. So we can observe when somebody enters and when somebody exits prison, and that allows us to look at individual offenders and say, “Given that they’ve been incarcerated at least once, how frequently do they come back?” So you’re looking at a large number of offenders, over a nearly 15-year period, and what you find is that most of those offenders do not come back. They’re incarcerated, they serve their term, they don’t return.
So your data set contains information at the individual level? You know when a specific person went in and when he got out?
That’s correct. If you were in the dataset, we would track you. We probably wouldn’t have your name, but we’d have an identification code that the state would issue you as an inmate.
So what do you have to do to correct for the overrepresentation of repeat offenders in the dataset?
You weight them differently. It’s not arbitrary of course—the weighting is done so that you have an appropriate representation of all offenders rather than an overrepresentation of high-rate offenders. In order to get the right weights, you have to be able to observe a long period—the 15 years we look at.
So the reason you’re looking at the stretch of time, rather than just one year, is it gives you what you need to know in order to weight specific individuals the right amount.
That’s correct.
So looking at your findings and the findings that usually get reported, it’s almost like we have these two very different realities. We have one that says “most people come back” and we have one that says “most people don’t come back.” Given that, as you said, there’s nothing misleading about what the BJS was doing in their analysis, what is going on? And which one should we look at if what we’re interested in is knowing how likely it is that someone who has served time in an American prison will return?
What’s important is being clear about what question you’re trying to answer. If your question is, “Of all the people who go to prison, what’s the rate at which they come back?” then our calculations are better. But if you wanted to ask a question about a specific release cohort—about people who are released during a given year—and how frequently they come back, then the other methodology is the appropriate one. But they’re questions about two different populations of people. The first one is the population of offenders in general.
So what are the BJS numbers good for?
Well, there are reasons for using data like that. You might do it if you wanted to evaluate whether a program you introduced in prison reduced recidivism. So you’d want to look at a particular cohort that was released during a particular year and judge whether the treatment you introduced was effective or not.
But if you want to look at how offenders actually interact with the criminal justice system, then the methods we propose are more appropriate.
My understanding of the lives of people who go to prison was very much colored by the notion that they tend to be incarcerated over and over—that they come out of prison and they have a very small chance of staying free. What you’re saying is that’s only really true for a certain subset of the population of people who are incarcerated.
Yes, that’s correct. Most people really do not return to prison. They’re not caught in what we call the cycle of incarceration. They don’t churn, to use one of the popular words. But some do.
Are there policy implications from this that you’ve thought about?
Yeah, I think there are. It would take more careful study, but others have pointed out that there are very low-level offenders who manage to readjust, and you ought to focus the rehabilitation resources you have on those individuals who are high-risk offenders. They’re the ones who are going to benefit most from treatment—or, I should say, society’s going to benefit most from treating them. The problem, of course, is identifying them. That’s why criminologists have attempted to develop risk assessment tools, to identify the high-risk offenders and treat them, while almost letting the others recover by themselves. ..Source.. by Leon Neyfakh
Showing posts with label ( .News-Recidivism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ( .News-Recidivism. Show all posts
October 30, 2015
Why Do So Many Ex-Cons End Up Back in Prison?
June 13, 2014
Juvenile Recidivism Measurement Inconsistent Across States
When a young man convicted of an adult offense began to act out in the custody of the Oregon Youth Authority, he wasn’t sent to an adult facility, as was often done in the past. Instead, case managers looked at his history — a data-rich map of his background, behavior and contact with the juvenile justice system. His profile also included family information and personal behaviors with drugs and alcohol.
The agency decided that based on his individual record, he would have been best served staying within the juvenile justice system and, with his input, enrolled him in a vocational program.
“He turned into one our best young men,” said Amy Snyder, spokeswoman at the Oregon Youth Authority. “We wouldn’t have been able to give him the options — we used the data about him.”
Oregon has been seen as a leader among juvenile justice workers for collecting comprehensive data on recidivism and positive youth outcomes, and for using that data to shape policies. The information collected has been used to better understand a youth’s risk of reoffending and what type of treatment programs would work best for an individual, Snyder said.
But not all states are following suit in tracking such data. A quarter of state-level agencies across the country do not currently collect or report recidivism data, according to a recent survey conducted by the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators and the Council of State Governments.
The rate of recidivism is often used as a basic measure of success of a criminal or juvenile justice agency. ..Continued.. by Elly Yu
April 20, 2012
Who are the Victims: A National Perspective
UPDATE: Soon folks will be able to generate the chart below for their INDIVIDUAL state which can be used when talking to State Lawmakers on proposed laws. Hopefully, the numbers for your state support your position on the proposed law you are seeking to oppose. Thanks to a reader, he is working on that project. Much appreciated. eAdvocate4-20-2012 National:
In 2003 the U.S. Dep't of Justice published a study "Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994." NCJ198281 Most folks are aware of that study which showed 1) A low recidivism rate for 9,691 sex offenders released from prison, 2) Proof that non sex offenders released from prison commit 6 new sex offenses to every one by released sex offenders. (see HERE) But, neither of these are the focus here. Instead, folks may not be aware of a portion of that study which addressed "Victim / Offender Relationships" (page-36). Who are the offenders' victims? i.e., What relationship were they to each other, if at all? To find the answer the Dep't of Justice did this:
Survey of State inmates:
The 9,691 prisoners in this study were all men sentenced to prison for sex crimes. Characteristics of the victims of these sex crimes were largely unavailable for the study. For information on imprisoned sex offenders and their victims, data were drawn from a survey covering the approximately 73,000 male sex offenders in State prisons nationwide in 1997. (pg-36)
Notice the "Victim / Offender" relationship percentages, and whether the victim was, under 18, over 18, and their relationship to the offender, if any. Now, Lawmakers have never specifically focused law/s to affect "Victim / Offender" relationships, at least that I can remember. Lawmaker minds have been stuck on recidivism, tracking, banishing and further punishment under the guise of civil laws. Do you ever wonder why they ignore characteristics of crimes?
Characteristics of crimes are important to folks who profile offenders, and one would think they would also be highly important to Lawmakers who through law supposedly seek to prevent future crimes. There is more to the crime cycle than punishing offenders; past crime characteristics reveal core relationships which should be addressed for prevention of future crime. But it takes someone to look at the stats and thats where Lawmakers are failing to see the value of DOJ stats. Victim / Offender stats were generated in 1997 for reasons beyond idle curiosity.
It dawned on me that, what the 1997 Dep't of Justice study showed, is still valid today. And with over 73,000 cases reviewed, makes an excellent study and authority to cite. Other studies have also shown, that, over 90% of victims know the offender, because s/he is part of the victim's daily life. This has become an undisputed fact.
So I used the percentages found by the DOJ, and inserted them into the chart below (a chart just like theirs). THEN, instead of using the 73,116 number from the 1997 DOJ study, replaced it with the TOTAL number of registered sex offenders nationally recently reported by NCMEC (#1). It seemed logical that there was a correlation, for estimated figures, based on valid past research of the DOJ. And simply worked the percentages. The results follow:
| The Victim was the Offender's --- | All | Victim/s were over 18 | Victim/s were under 18 |
| Spouse | 1.1% (8,221) | 3.8% (11,555) | 0.0% |
| Ex-Spouse | 0.6% (4,484) | 2.0% (6,081) | 0.0% |
| Parent / Step Parent | 0.6% (4,484) | 0.4% (1,216) | 0.6% (2,259) |
| Own Child | 11.5% (85,951) | 1.4% (4,257) | 15.7%(66,199) |
| Step Child | 11.2% (83,709) | 0.4% (1,216) | 15.8% (66,620) |
| Sibling / Step Sibling | 1.3% (9,716) | 0.4% (1,216) | 1.7% (7,168) |
| Other Relative | 9.4% (70,256) | 2.1% (6,385) | 12.7% (53,549) |
| 35.7% (266,821) | 10.6% (31,926) | 46.5% (196,065) | |
| Boy / Girl Friend | 5.5% (41,109) | 8.2% (24,934) | 4.4% (18,552) |
| Ex-Boy / Girl Friend | 1.1% (8,221) | 2.0% (6,081) | 0.8% (3,373) |
| Friend / Ex-Friend | 22.7% (169,661) | 24.8% (75,412) | 22.0% (92,763) |
| Acquaintance | 19.4% (144,997) | 20.1% (61,120) | 19.6% (82,643) |
| 48.7% (363,986) | 55% (167,547) | 46.8% (197,331) | |
| **Stranger | 15.6% (116,601) | 34.4% (104,609) | 6.7% (28,255) |
| 15.6% (116,601) | 34.4% (104,609) | 6.7% (28,255) | |
| 100% (747,408) | 100% (304,082) | 100% (421,651) |
| Note: The exact relationships between chart elements, used by the DOJ, are maintained above. Also the DOJ indicated certain inconsistencies were caused by, missing ages and victim offender relationships, in the original data; we maintained those differences. **And rounding also caused some inconsistencies, when it did we increased the stranger group; it was never more than 5. |
Congress and State Legislatures are spending millions, if not billions by now, on TRACKING former offenders, on the erroneous premise that recidivism (one characteristic of past crimes) is the one that will stop future offenses. Victim / offender relationships, also characteristics of crimes, are more important because they reveal which specific relationships are more prone to criminal acts; Lawmakers ignore this.
Possibly because it would mean getting other professionals (Researchers and the Therapeutic Community) who understand these relationships and can unravel them through more evidence based research; all costly. So Lawmakers take the sounds-good path which has never proved to be effective at reducing future victims. Funding too has been misdirected under the premise that only tracking of former offenders will reduce future victims.
OK, enough of the pot shots, now we have new information, yes estimates because precision is simply not possible (Congress does not want precision [#2]), how else can this be helpful to Advocates?
How else can this be helpful:
First, I am not going to tell folks all the ways, I simply do not know them, there are greater minds out there who if they had this information can find other ways it can help. So, a few examples:
1) Last year Congress passed a law prohibiting CERTAIN sex offenders (those with crimes against minors) from getting a FHA loan. From this chart we NOW know, there are 393,396 registrants affected (summing Family & Friends totals). And, of them, 196,065 have families (most likely to purchase a home) who would be denied a FHA loan if they sought one. Going forward this still may be of help, time will tell.OK, I could go on and on, I still see other ways, but my point today, was to get this information out to other minds, who can find ways it can be useful. I do wish, if folks find useful ways, that they report back so I can update this post, for other folks.
2) Residency laws, usually are based on all RSOs in an area, but if based on just offenders with crimes against children, this could provide numbers to argue with. Yes it would be best if this chart were just for one state, that is coming. [#3] I'm sure there are other arguments which can be drawn from these stats related to residency laws.
3) Stranger Crimes Against Children: We NOW have a much better picture of the truth nationally (6.7%) and remember it is from a quais-DOJ source. This number can now be used against Congressional legislation being applies to all RSOs; factual evidence. Exactly how, well wait for such legislation and Advocates can be creative.
4) Crimes between siblings under 18 (.7% 7,168); Crimes between Boy/Girl Friends and Ex's under 18 (5.2% 21,925) boy/girl friends are more likely to be underage as well.; Here is a biggy, Crimes by "Friends & Acquaintances" w/victims under 18, 46.8% 197,331 (somewhere within that 197,331 are Romeo & Juliet crimes nationally; is it ONE or ALL?).
5) Sadly, 46.5% 196,065 cases w/minor victims, are Family related, and there is movement in a few states to separate the offender from his/her children effectively severing constitutionally protected family rights, and to do so, without any hearing (Oklahoma HB 3049), if the offender is not previously married to the child's parent; bill will affect other familiar relationships as well. see "Authorities Remove Child Sex Abuse Victim From Home Of Registered Offender."
As disturbing as some of the numbers are, it is proof that Lawmakers are failing miserably at reducing future victims, their focus is elsewhere, keeping them in office with sounds-good legislation which does little to nothing to provide REAL public safety. Over the years I've seen Lawmakers close their eyes to doing whats right, instead taking the path of providing the public with a false sense of security. And, to do whats right now, well, thats going to take a brave Politician, but will likely be political suicide.
So my conclusion here is, get the Research and the Therapeutic Community involved, maybe do more research, and redirect funding to focus more on Victim / Offender relationship stats, then watch these stats over time. We know what is being done today is not right, recidivism rates are steadily low, and to make things better there has to be change. I vote for the Victim / Offender stats path.
So there you have it, I'll be looking forward to hearing from folks on other ways this can be useful.
For now, have a great day & a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
Footnotes:
#1: The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) has a National map of sex offender by state: See HERE Current version 11-4-2011 which shows 747,408 registrants nationally; we are assuming this is correct even though it has been recently questioned.
#2: During the 2005-2006 Congressional sessions, held behind closed doors, which ultimately formed the Adam Walsh Act, the U.S. Senate had a provision in their version (S-1086), to require states to provide the public with ACCURATE numbers of registered sex offenders; that was removed from the final version of the Adam Walsh Act. see "Double/Triple/Quadruple Counting of the number Registered Sex Offenders," and "GHOSTS IN THE MACHINE," and "How many sex offenders really live among us? Adjusted counts and population rates in five U.S. states." Alissa R. Ackermana, Jill S. Levenson and Andrew J. Harris (Journal of Crime and Justice April 2012) and related article: "Sex-Offender Registries in Five States Inflate Counts by 43 Percent."
February 14, 2012
80 Percent Of State Inmates Released In 2005 Arrested Again By 2010
Ahhhhhhh, but not sex offenders! The refreshing truth is again exposed; not sex offenders. Further proof which refutes the hysterical claim of High Recidivism.2-14-2012 Connecticut:
UPDATE 2-15: Link to actual Sex Offender Recidivism report.
Of the 14,400 people released from Connecticut prisons in 2005, nearly 80 percent were rearrested by 2010, and just under half returned to prison with new sentences, according to a just-completed report that contains the most detailed data ever compiled on the state's recidivism rate.
The report, by Office of Policy and Management statistical guru Ivan Kuzyk, is scheduled to be released Wednesday. It also separately tracked sex offenders within the group and found that only a small number committed new sex crimes.
For example, of the 746 inmates who had served a prison term on a sex charge, 27, or 3.6 percent, were charged with a new sex crime; 20, or 2.7 percent, were convicted; and 13, or 1.7 percent, were returned to prison with a sentence for a new sex crime.
That suggests sex offenders respond well to supervision and treatment, and don't commit new sex crimes at the rate the public thinks they do, said Michael Lawlor, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's chief of criminal-justice policy.
But whether the findings change long-held perceptions about sex offenders in the community remains to be seen. The state's first secure treatment program for sex offenders — a 24-bed facility in Montville — opened three weeks ago, but not before opponents of the center filed a lawsuit to try to block it.
The overall rates in the report — 78.6 percent of the 14,400 rearrested; 49.8 percent returned to prison with new sentences — appear to jibe with national rates and are higher than those some states, but lower than others, said Kuzyk.
An often-cited study by the Department of Justice in 2002 found that 67 percent of prisoners it had tracked were rearrested, and 52 percent landed back in prison with a new sentence.
The Connecticut figures "while alarming, are about what you would expect,'' said Kuzyk, who worked with parole and probation officers, treatment counselors, and the state Department of Correction on the project. The team compiled an offense profile for each of the released inmates over the five years.
Lawlor said the report establishes benchmarks that will allow the state to track the progress of reform. He said it's possible to reduce recidivism rates by adjusting the way probation and parole officers supervise, and by improving the way the system assesses low-, moderate- and high-risk inmates before and during release.
Of the 14,398 inmates released in 2005, most were on some type of supervision — such as parole, probation, in a halfway house, or on work release.
The Courant reported on Sunday that since 1970, more than 15,000 ex-prisoners have skipped out on parole or walked away from halfway houses, and just shy of 1,100 are still missing. The median time on the lam was 70 days, and all of them had convinced the parole board at one time or another that they would abide by the conditions of their release.
Kuzyk said the research also showed that age and prior prison history had a lot to do with whether someone could make it on the outside. He said former inmates aged 18 to 24 generally returned to prison at twice the rate of those aged 40 to 46. But a 45-year-old career criminal was more likely to return to prison than a 24-year-old, first-time offender. ..Source.. by JOSH KOVNER
June 22, 2011
Startling new statistics on sex offender recidivism
Why is it that the Prison spokesperson does not know the statistics published by the prison system? Could it be because, higher recidivism rates would command a higher prison budget for next year?6-22-2011 New York:
From: "Sex Offenders - A Reality Based Discussion"
I just ran across an article in the Albany Times Union, "Did the government fail to protect victim from predator?" The article described the case of Keith Dare, who was recently convicted of a repeat sex offense. The article shared some statistics which which were related by Peter Cutler, a spokesman for the state prison system:
Cutler said statistics suggest Dare's case is an anomaly. Of the 663 inmates who were released in 2006 after serving prison time for sex offenses, only 49 -- or 7.3 percent -- returned to prison over the next three years, Cutler said. And of those 49, he said, only three returned for sexual offenses.I discovered that the Department of Corrections report on 2006 releases was available online.
Mr. Cutler's figures were a little off. The recidivism rate is actually lower.
A total of 990 sex offenders (not 663 as indicated by Mr. Cutler ) were released from state prisons in 2006. Mr. Cutler was correct in stating that 49 of these were returned to prison within 3 years for a new crime, making a recidivism rate for any new crime of 4.9% (not 7.3% as the article indicates).
The article was correct that only 3 of these were returned for new sex offenses. This indicates a recidivism rate of 0.3% for sex offenders released in 2006 in terms of committing new sex crimes.
You can check these figures for yourself by looking at the charts on pages 10, 45, & 46.
This is notable in that the NY legislature keeps passing new sex offender legislation which includes such language as "The rate of recidivism among sex offenders is very high."
P.S. If one includes those returned to prison for parole violations, the 3 year recidivism rate for sex offenders is 37.1%.
June 19, 2011
Sex Crime Rates: Perception Versus Reality
6-19-2011 California:
June 18, 2011 /24-7PressRelease/ -- Those convicted of sex-related offenses are subject to some of the toughest and most comprehensive penalties that the justice system has to offer. They regularly receive lengthy prison sentences, are often forced to register as sex offenders (making their name, address and employment information public record) and are stigmatized in other ways, all in the name of preventing the commission of future crimes.
Unfortunately, information recently provided by the California Coalition on Sexual Offending (CCSO) shows that the fear of recidivism is greatly exaggerated when compared with actual data collected by tracking convicted sex offenders. The difference between reality and perception is staggering: a 2004 law enforcement study revealed that approximately one-quarter of convicted offenders tracked re-offended, but the public assumes a recidivism rate of about 75 percent.
The huge gap between actual re-offense rates and misinformation reveals that the tens of millions of dollars the state of California spends annually to track convicted sex offenders via GPS and electronic monitoring could probably be better used elsewhere. The CCSO advocates a very different approach, one focusing not so much on containing or tracking offenders who have already "done their time," but instead focusing on educating the public. When there are programs in place to educate the public about the actual risks posed by convicted sex offenders and to rehabilitate the offenders themselves, the recidivism rate is much lower.
Even though the CCSO advocates a different approach to preventing sex offenders from committing future crimes, the laws on the books governing the punishment of sex offenders are very strict. If you or a loved one is facing sex crime charges, you need an experienced criminal defense attorney at your side as soon as possible to protect your rights and start mounting an aggressive defense on your behalf.
Many who believe themselves to be innocent decide to speak with police, Child Protective Services, or other investigators in the mistaken belief they can convince them of their innocence. This is generally a mistake, as the investigators have probably already concluded about their case, and are there only to gather evidence against them. Even denials of abuse can be used against you if there are slight differences in what you say and what other witnesses may have said. Trained investigators are very good at gathering evidence against even the innocent. Do not speak to them alone. Call a qualified criminal defense attorney before making any statements to anybody. ..Source.. by Jerrold M. Bodow, Attorney at Law, A.P.L.C.
February 24, 2011
Recidivism Rates: Factoid -v- Reality
2-23-2011 National:
What are "Factoid Recidivism Rates," well lets say that is a coined phrase to describe the number of times that speakers quote sex offender recidivism rates incorrectly, or numbers that plainly make no sense!
While it is true no one knows the exact recidivism rate for those who have previously committed a sex offense, but everyone knows it is LOW, and at very least, a 2003 Dep't of Justice study has proved that (See below).
So, lets settle for, its not high!
But, in the recent House hearing a certain person testified, and now I will quote from their submitted testimony, "sex offenders represent the highest risk of reoffense; and ..." and there is no authority for that comment.The following is quoted from that study:
Now lets see what the DOJ has to say "Within 3 years following their release, 5.3% of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime."
Rearrest for a new sex crime:Non sex offenders released also committed sex offenses within three years of release, but notice the study uses percentages rather then actual numbers. Why? Study the chart, my answer follows the chart:
Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime. Within the first 3 years following their release from prison in 1994, 5.3% (517 of the 9,691) of released sex offenders were rearrested for a sex crime. The rate for the 262,420 released non-sex offenders was lower, 1.3% (3,328 of 262,420). (page 7 of study)
Sex offenders compared to non-sex offenders Who will commit more new sex offenses within 3-years of being paroled, sex offenders -OR- non-sex offenders? Non sex offenders commit more new sex offenses when paroled! |
|
Using percentages (5.3% and 1.3%) certainly makes sex offenders look worse than non sex offenders, at least until you convert percentages into actual numbers: 517 -v- 3,328. Yes, those numbers represent new crimes and new victims, but which group is more of a danger to the community? Right, the non sex offenders released from prison.
Finally, think about this, there are no laws covering the non sex offenders released back into the community, and because of their new sex crimes, lawmakers try to put more and more controls on former sex offenders believing that will stop the new sex crimes by non sex offenders released.
Lawmakers refuse to do anything about this problem, and you'll notice that there was no mention of this problem in any hearing before Congress. Are those victims (3,328 in 1994) being sacrificed to perpetuate a political stance, year after year after year? Sixteen years worth of victims which must now number in the tens of thousands!
There was another study released which covered recidivism of all crimes of prisoners released in 1994. The study is "Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994" and the following chart appears in that study.
Look down the column colored green, new convictions following release, is there any way to conclude, other than factoid based, that "sex offenders represent the highest risk of reoffense" or are there other crime types with higher recidivism rates?I'll close with that comment.
Have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
February 4, 2011
ANNOUNCEMENT: Hearing on SORNA, Bills in Congress, -and- New Recidivism Tool/Study
This UPDATE replaces my earlier "Hearing" announcement.2-4-2011 Washington DC:
HEARING: It has been brought to our attention that the U.S. House Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will hold a hearing on SORNA Implementation on February 15, at 10AM. Although it has not yet been posted you can find more about it when they post it HERE, usually a few days before the hearing.
BILLS in CONGRESS AFFECTING SEX OFFENDERS: Thankfully, there are none as of this date (2-4-2011).
RECIDIVISM TOOL/STUDY: I am sure most everyone is aware of the Department of Justice recidivism study published in 2003: "Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994," November 2003, NCJ 198281. That study is going to be updated using prisoners released in 2005 and will be published in 2012 (Hopefully, please read on for explanation).
However, all is not as it seems, the DOJ has a "NEW DATA ANALYSIS TOOL ALLOWS USERS TO EXPLORE RECIDIVISM PATTERNS OF RELEASED PRISONERS." They claim the following:
WASHINGTON – Today [2-3-2011] the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics released the first in a series of data analysis tools that will enable the public to explore the recidivism patterns of persons involved with the criminal justice system. The new Prisoner Recidivism Analysis Tool allows users to conduct customized analyses of a large database describing the recidivism of prisoners released in 1994 and followed for a three-year period after release. In 2012, BJS plans to update the tool with new recidivism data on prisoners released in 2005.
We have tried to do what that implies, and found it cannot be done and come up with recidivism statistics EXACTLY as they reported in the cohort of folks released in 1994 study (published in 2003). The tool lacks several substantial and necessary abilities to arrive at worthwhile truthful recidivism statistics. A few problems follow:
Sex offense recidivism -as we know it- is the sum of the following types of crimes which they define on this page:
Forcible rape - The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Rapes by force and attempts or assaults to rape, regardless of the age of the victim, are included. Statutory offenses (no force used - victim under age of consent) are excluded.The first problem is, they exclude victims under the age of consent, which are needed to arrive at REAL recidivism numbers. The second problem is, and you would see this if you tried to generate some stats, the tool only has the option for "ALL Violent Crimes" and will not do just sex crimes. The third problem, which the 2003 study details, is, generating numbers for "Rearrest for a new sex crime, Rearrest for a sex crime against a child, Rearrest for any type of crime, Reconviction for a new sex crime, Reconviction for any type of crime, Returned to prison for any reason." None of these are possible.
Sex offenses (except forcible rape, )—Offenses against chastity, common decency, morals, and the like. Incest, indecent exposure, and statutory rape are included. Attempts are included.
Once we got this far, we realized the tool is useless to generate any statistics by specific crime type, much less just sex crimes. It appears they are directing the public to do things their way, and that does not arrive at truthful recidivism statistics by specific sex crimes which we would need.
Once the general public gets wind of this errrr "Tool" those who Advocate for sex offenders and offenses will have a whole new fight to dispel what this errr "Tool" spews out. Nothing like confusing the general public, which could be the opposition's focus. i.e., say it enough times by someone thought credible, and it must be so; you folks know, that myth.Hopefully, when they do begin using the 2005 cohort of released prisoners, they will also replicate the 2003 study EXACTLY, using the 2005 prisoners. But, only time will tell.
For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
PS: Should someone find a way, using this new tool, to replicate the 2003 numbers, please let me know. I will gladly eat my words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
