>Users:   login   |  register       > email     > weather     > people    


Facts and Fiction about Sex Offenders
By Chris Dornin, Retired Statehouse reporter
Published: 05/22/2010

Truthpathcompass The political outlash against sex offenders is immense, irrational, and hard for legislators to reverse.
Sarah Agudo in the Northwestern University Law Review, 2008

Myth: Sex offenders are dirty old strangers who steal kids from playgrounds
An Ohio prison intake report on sex offenders imprisoned in 1992 revealed that 2.2 percent of child molesters were strangers to their victims, and 89 percent of perpetrators had never been convicted before.

In their 1993 textbook, The Juvenile Sex Offender, Howard Barbaree and colleagues estimated that teenagers perpetrated 20 percent of all rapes and half of all child molestations.

A 2006 report for the Ohio Sentencing Commission said 93 percent of molestation victims were well known to their perpetrators, over half the offenders victimized close relatives, and 93 percent of molesters had never been arrested for a previous sex crime.

A December 2009 study by David Finkelhor of UNH and colleagues for the US Justice Department analyzed national sex crime data from 2004. That year the estimated population of underage sex offenders was 89,000, and they had committed 35.8 percent of all sex crimes reported to police. One in eight juvenile sex offenders was under age 12. The study said that between 85 and 95 percent of young offenders would never face another sex charge.
Myth: Residency restrictions are harmless to sex offenders and protect kids
A 2005 survey of 135 Florida sex offenders by researchers Jill Levenson and Leo Cotter found that residency restrictions had forced 22 percent of this group to move out of homes they already owned. 25 percent were unable to return to their homes after release from prison. Respondents agreed in varying degrees with these statements about the impact of residency restrictions on their lives:
  • I cannot live with supportive family members. 30%
  • I find it difficult to find affordable housing. 57%
  • I have suffered financially. 48%
  • I have suffered emotionally. 60%
  • I have had to move out of an apartment that I rented. 28%

The Iowa County Attorneys Association issued a position paper in 2006 opposing a 2,000 foot residency restriction against sex offenders from places where kids congregate. Among many criticisms, the prosecutors said, “Law enforcement has observed that the residency restriction is causing offenders to become homeless, to change residences without notifying authorities of their new locations, to register false addresses or to simply disappear. If they do not register, law enforcement and the public do not know where they are living. The resulting damage to the reliability of the sex offender registry does not serve the interests of public safety.”

A 2007 report by the Minnesota Department of Corrections tracked 224 sex offenders released from prison between 1999 and 2002 who committed new sex crimes prior to 2006. The first contact between victim and offender never happened near a school, daycare center or other place where children congregate. The report concluded, “Not one of the 224 sex offenses would likely have been deterred by a residency restrictions law.” The study warned that these laws isolate offenders in rural areas with little social and treatment support, with poor transportation access and with few job opportunities. The resulting increase in homelessness makes them harder to track and supervise. “Rather than lowering sexual recidivism,” the report said, “housing restrictions may work against this goal by fostering conditions that exacerbate sex offenders’ reintegration into society.”

A position paper on the current website of the Iowa Association of Social Workers says that concentrations of Iowa sex offenders are living in motels, trailer parks, interstate highway rest stops, parking lots and tents. The site notes many other unintended consequences:
  • Families of offenders who attempt to remain together are effectively subjected to the same restrictions, meaning that they too are forced to move, and may have to leave jobs, de-link from community ties, and remove their children from schools and friends.
  • Physically or mentally impaired offenders who depend on family for regular support are prevented from living with those on whom they rely for help.
  • Threat of family disruption may leave victims of familial sexual abuse reluctant to report the abuse to authorities, thereby undermining the intention of the law.
  • Threat of being subjected to the residency restriction has led to a significant decrease in the number of offenders who, as part of the trial process, disclose their sexual offenses; consequently, fewer offenders are being held accountable for their actions.
  • Loss of residential stability, disconnection from family, and social isolation run contrary to the “best practice” approaches for treatment of sex offenders and thus put offenders at higher risk of re-offense.
  • No distinction is made between those offenders who pose a real risk to children and those who pose no known threat.

Myth: Treatment is a waste of money on sex offenders
The New Hampshire Prison sex offender treatment program compiled recidivism data in 1999 for a national survey by the Colorado Department of Corrections. Lance Messenger, the New Hampshire program director at the time, reported a 6.2% sex crime re-arrest rate after an average of 4.8 years on parole for 204 men who completed the Intensive Sex Offender Treatment Program. The recidivism rate was 12.4% for 435 sex offenders who received no treatment and had spent an average of 8.6 years in the community. Messenger is now in private practice and recently told this writer his report did not constitute a rigorous scientific study.

A study in 2000 by the Vermont Corrections Department tracked 190 sex offenders released a decade earlier. The arrest rate over 10 years for new sex offenses was 3.8 percent for people who had completed the sex offender treatment program. It was 22.4 percent for those who started the program, but dropped out or got kicked out. Those who never attended had a 27 percent recidivism rate.

A 2003 New Zealand study led by Ian Labie entitled, “Paedophile programmes work,” found that 175 offenders who completed treatment while on parole had an average sexual recidivism rate of 5 per cent over four years. Two control groups without treatment attained rates of 21 and 25 percent.

A Colorado recidivism study in 2003 led by Kerry Lowden tracked 3338 sex offenders released from prison between 1993 and 2002. After three years in the community, 5.3 percent had been arrested for a new sex crime. Each month an inmate took part in the intensive therapeutic community for sex offenders behind the walls reduced by 1 percent his risk of committing a later sex crime. The report said these treatment programs “profoundly improve public safety as measured by officially recorded recidivism.”

Vermont corrections personnel tracked 195 adult male sex offenders over a six-year period ending in 2006. Those who completed sex offender treatment had a sex-offense recidivism rate of 5.4 percent, compared with 30 percent for people who never took that treatment.

Lorraine R. Reitzel and Joyce L. Carbonell published a meta-analysis in 2006 of nine studies of recidivism among juvenile sex offenders with a combined sample of 2,986 kids. The sex crime recidivism rate was 12.5 percent for young offenders tracked for an average of 59 months. The rate was 7.37 percent for kids who had taken a sex offender treatment program and 18.9 percent for those who had not.

A 2009 report by Robin Goldman of the Minnesota Department of Corrections compared two samples of 1,020 sex offenders released between 1999 and 2003. One group had taken an intensive sex offender treatment program and the other had not. The treated group had a 27 percent lower sex crime recidivism rate. The report concluded, “These findings are consistent with the growing body of research supporting the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral treatment for sex offenders.”
Myth: Sex offenders have a 94 percent recidivism rate
Proponents of tough sanctions against sex offenders often cite a Canadian study published in 2004, “Lifetime Sex Offender Recidivism: A 25 year Follow-Up Study,” led by Canadian researcher Ron Langevin. The authors looked at 320 Canadian sex offenders referred to a single clinic for psychiatric evaluations between 1966 and 1974, when treatment programs for this group were uncommon. The report used an unusual definition of a recidivist as someone who had committed two or more sex crimes in their lifetime, even crimes they did before researchers began to follow them.

Langevin reported a 61.1 percent sex crime recidivism rate, including 51.1 percent for incest. The researchers also tabulated confessions the offenders made during counseling and new arrests that failed to bring convictions. Adding those presumed crimes to actual convictions increased the overall sexual recidivism rate to 88.3 percent, including 84.2 percent for incest. Measured this way, molesters of young children outside their own family had an even higher rate, 94.1 sex crime recidivism over 25 years. To this writer’s knowledge, that is the highest reported rate in any of the hundreds of existing recidivism studies. It underlies much of the widespread belief that all sex offenders are incurable and unrepentant.

Critics of Langevin claim his cohort was the worst of the worst offenders. Canadian researcher Karl Hanson has called it a nonrandom sample chosen for evaluations in connection with major prosecutions, civil commitment proceedings or insanity defense cases. This group also came under scrutiny in a different era when sex offender treatment programs were rare and experimental. The ensuing revolution in child protection and sex abuse prosecution over half a century has swollen American prison populations of sex offenders by fifty- and a hundred-fold. The group in prison now is arguably less prone to recidivism than members of the Langevin study.

Canadian researcher Cheryl Webster and colleagues have called the Langevin study so flawed it lacks any scientific integrity. In a rebuttal entitled “Results by Design: The Artefactual Construction of High Recidivism Rates for Sex Offenders,” Webster said more than half the individuals in the sample were already recidivists by Langevin’s definition at the time of their evaluations, thus ensuring at least a 50 percent recidivism rate. In the rest of the literature on criminology and in the popular press, recidivism generally means a new crime committed after release from prison.

Webster noted the Langevin sample was much larger at first. His team removed any people from the study whose criminal records had been lost or purged from the justice system after 15 years for lack of new crimes or charges. In effect, the scientists deleted most of the non-recidivists and thereby skewed the recidivism rate. In a reply to his critics, Langevin cautioned against making claims about all sex offenders based on this sample. He defended his definition of recidivism as one of many legitimate ways to measure it.

Those promoting tough sex offender laws rely as well on a 1997 study led by Robert Prentky. His group looked at 136 rapists and 115 child molesters released from the Bridgewater sex offender civil commitment center in Massachusetts between 1959 and 1986. The sexual recidivism rates based on new sexual charges were 32 percent for molesters and 25 percent for rapists. But the length of time the men were free in the community varied widely. If all had been at large the full 25 years covered in the study, the authors estimated the sexual recidivism rates would have been 52 percent for molesters and 39 percent for rapists.

This research dates from the same period as the Langevin findings and looked at a narrow sample of men already adjudicated to be an acute risk to reoffend. The average rapist had 2.5 sex crimes on his record before the crime that sent him to Bridgewater. The child molesters averaged 3.6 sex offenses prior to the crime that triggered civil commitment. Using Lengevin’s method, the recidivism rates for both groups would have been nearly 100 percent. The Prentky researchers concluded, “The obvious, marked heterogeneity of sexual offenders precludes automatic generalization of the rates reported here to other samples.”
Fact: Most types of sex offenders have low sex-crime recidivism
A report to the Ohio Sentencing Commission in 1989 said 8 percent of sex offenders were convicted of a new sex crime within a decade. The 10-year Ohio recidivism rate for incest was 7.4 percent.

A 1998 Canadian Government study by Karl Hanson and Monique Bussiere, entitled “Predicting Relapse: A meta-Analysis of Sexual Offender Recidivism Studies,” examined 61 research efforts between 1943 and 1995 with a combined sample of 28,972 sex offenders. The overall recidivism rate for new sex offenses was 13.4 percent during the average follow-up period of four to five years. Of the 9,603 child molesters in the combined cohort, the rate was 12.7 percent. Some of these studies dated back to the period when only stereotype serial sex offenders went to prison, thus weighting the results toward greater recidivism.

Roger Hood and three British colleagues followed 162 released sex offenders for four years and tracked 62 others for six years. Their report in 2002, entitled “Sex offenders emerging from long-term imprisonment; A Study of Their Long-term Reconviction Rates and of Parole Board Members' Judgements of Their Risk,” found 1.2 percent were re-imprisoned for a new sex crime after two years. The report concluded, “These facts need to be more widely recognized and disseminated if there is to be rational debate on this emotive subject.”

A 2000 Iowa Corrections study tracked 233 sex offenders released in 1995 and 1996 under a new sex offender registry law. That group had a 3 percent sex crime recidivism rate after 4.3 years in the community. A similar control group of 201 sex offenders released before the registry law took effect had a 3.5 percent sex recidivism rate in the same length of time. The group supervised under the registry had a somewhat lower average recidivism risk score to begin with, and it had a higher proportion of people on probation as opposed to parole. The difference in recidivism rates was statistically insignificant.

A U.S. Justice Department report in 2003 tracked 9,691 sex offenders released from prisons in New York, California, Ohio and 12 other large states in 1994. Their recidivism rate for new sex arrests and convictions after three years on parole was 5.3 percent. 7.3 percent of child molesters with two or more prior arrests for that crime were charged anew for molesting. That compares with a 2.4 percent sexual recidivism rate for child molesters with only one prior arrest for that crime.

Karl Hanson and Andrew Harris published a 2004 report on 4,724 sex offenders in 10 Canadian and American samples ranging from 191 to 1,138 subjects. The average follow-up period was seven years after release. The overall sexual recidivism rates were 14 percent after five years, 20 percent after 10 years and 24 percent after 15 years. Incest offenders had corresponding rates of 6, 9 and 13 percent. Recidivism was defined as a new sex crime arrest or a new conviction. Counting only new convictions, the recidivism rates were generally half as high.

Karl Hanson and Morton-Bourgon published a similar meta-analysis in 2005 of 73 recidivism studies with a combined cohort of 19,267 sex offenders. After an average of nearly six years in the community they had a new sex crimes recidivism rate of 14.3 percent.

A 2005 report by Robert Barnoski of the Washington State Institute for Public Policy tracked the five-year sexual recidivism rates for 8,359 sex offenders released from Washington prisons between 1986 and 1999. Here are the results by year of release, showing the rate decreased over time.



Year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992


5-Year Rate
6%
7.5%
7.5%
6%
7%
8%
6%


Year
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999


5-Year Rate
8%
6%
4.4%
3%
2%
3%
3.7%


A 2006 New York study analyzed the recidivism patterns for 19,827 sex offenders. The rate for new sex offenses after one year in the community was 2 percent. The cumulative rate increased to 3 percent after two years, 6 percent after five years, and 8 percent after 8 years.

A 2006 California study followed 93 adjudicated high-risk sexually violent predators released from civil commitment at the Atascadero State Hospital. Only 4.3 percent of these worst-of-the-worst offenders had committed new sex offenses after six years on the street.

A 2007 study by the Missouri Department of Corrections tracked 3,166 sex offenders released between 1990 and 2002. Twelve percent had been re-arrested for a new sex crime in those 12 years, and 10 percent had been reconvicted. The report also looked at sex offenders released in 2002. In the first three years on parole their sex crime recidivism rate was 3 percent. The report concluded, “Due to the dramatic decrease in sexual recidivism since the early 1990s, recent sexual re-offense rates have been very low, thus significantly limiting the extent to which sexual reoffending can be further reduced.”

An Alaska Judicial Council report in 2007 said 3 percent of sex offenders had committed a new sex crime in their first three years after release from prison.

A 2007 report by the Tennessee Department of Safety found that 4.7 percent of 504 sex offenders released from prison in 2001 were arrested for a new sex offense after three years. The sex crime recidivism rate was zero for offenders whose original crime was incest.

A 2007 Minnesota Department of Corrections study tracked 3,166 sex offenders released from Minnesota prisons between 1990 and 2002. After an average of 8.4 years in the community, 10 percent had been convicted of a new sex offense. Those released in the beginning of the study period were much more likely to reoffend within three years than those released later -- 17 percent in 1990 as opposed to 3 percent in 2002.

A 2007 report by Jared Bauer of the West Virginia Division of Corrections tracked 325 sex offenders for three years after release from prison in 2001, 2002 and 2003. The recidivism rate for any return to prison, not just for sex crimes, was 9.5 percent. Only six parolees returned for new sex related crimes, including three for failing to properly register as a sex offender. The sex crime recidivism rate was slightly less than 2 percent. Only 1 percent had an actual sex crime victim.

A 2008 report by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation tracked 4,280 sex offenders paroled in 2003. In the first year 2.43 percent had been arrested for new sex crimes. The cumulative totals were 3.27 percent at the end of the second year and 3.55 percent after three years.

A 2008 study by California's Sex Offender Management Board reported on 4,204 sex offenders released in 1997 and 1998. 3.38 percent were convicted of new sex offenses in the next decade.

Utah criminologist Larry Bench tracked 389 Utah sex offenders for up to 25 years after release. His 2008 report disclosed that 7.2 percent had been arrested for a new sex crime.

An Indiana Corrections report in the spring of 2009 found that sex offenders released in 2005 had compiled a 1.05 percent sex crime re-conviction rate in three years. The study said this rate was “extremely low” and showed “a great deal of promise.”

Stan Orchowsky and Janice Iwama authored a 2009 study for the U.S. Justice Research and Statistics Association which showed similar low sex crime re-arrest rates after three years for sex offenders released from prison in 2001. The rates by state were as follows: Alaska 3.4%, Arizona 2.3%, Delaware 3.8%, Illinois 2.4%, Iowa 3.9%, New Mexico 1.8%, South Carolina 4.0%, and Utah 9.0%. The comparison three-year national rate was 5.3 percent noted previously for inmates released in 1994.

Chris Dornin is a retired newspaper journalist and volunteer into NH Prison who watched the New Hampshire legislature enact its recent sex offender laws. He can be reached at 603-228-9610 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              603-228-9610      end_of_the_skype_highlighting or cldornin@aol.com .

Other articles by Dornin


Comments:

  1. W. on 06/22/2014:

    I am glad to know that accurate statistics are finally being published with regard to the recidivism rates for sexual offenders. I am also glad to see someone with the intellectual honesty to tell the true motive of the draconian sex offender laws that are sweeping the country in a seemingly ever-growing tide. However, I am pessimistic that the dissemination of this information will have any stemming effect on new and harsher sex offender legislation. Why do I say that? Because of an old and familiar human emotion: hatred. Sex offenders, especially those who rape in the true sense of the word and those who molest young children, specifically children under 12 or 13 years of age, are hated and never forgiven for their past. The prevailing sentiment is that no stigma is too crippling and that no law is too cumbersome or inhumane. Legislators and judges at all levels willingly turn a blind eye to the fact that these laws are every one unconstitutional. They ignore the unconstitutional nature of these laws because they know it would be political suicide to stand up and repeal the laws (state and federal) currently in place. Society tenaciously clings to the blanket of false security these feel-good laws provide. It's good that these statistics are being published, but like I said, it won't change a thing because there's just too much emotionalism involved.

  2. endlesslyhopeless on 03/09/2013:

    We are a society of people lied to, purposefully mislead, and manipulated via our emotions. We are consistently and purposefully lead to believe the dogma put forth by self-serving legislators and highly-biased victim advocacy groups. Like scared little children we believe all the terrifying stories intentionally told us relating to the ever-present, 21st century 'Boogey Man', i.e., the sex offender. We never question the veracity of those who claim this boogey man is everywhere and always waiting to exploit any opportunity to snatch away and/or defile our children. We believe he cannot control himself nor can he be controlled. We believe he is a forever threat. We are offered all the proof we need of the Boogey Man's existence, as well as his predatory nature, via sensationalize and intentionally misleading media coverage. Each and every high profile case is used to further frighten the already frightened children - children who only appear adults. Emotionally, most of society responds on a level comparable to that of a pre-schooler when the Boogey Man is thrust upon us. Each and every mention of the Boogey Man results in knee-jerk, emotional reactions. Our society vacillates from hysteria to near hysteria when it comes to issues related to our modern-day Boogey Man. We, or at least many, believe those who commit this class of crime do more harm to the victim than do murderers. Is that some distorted thinking or what? Yet, all one needs to do is begin to question those around them and it will not take long for a respondent to voice just such a belief. Crazy, huh? As is the case with actual children who have been needlessly terrified by an imaginary evil, all attempts to bring forth the truth and enlightenment are met with great resistance. Once a belief is formed and reinforced over and over again facts contrary to those believes are rendered irrelevant. Fear-based, emotional beliefs are the most difficult to overcome. Whenever people, especially those behaving as frightened children, those experiencing strong emotional reactions to a subject, particularly one felt so strongly as sexual threats, the ability to reason logically is all but lost. As a result, we turn to our protectors, for relief - just as children turning to their parents do when faced with fears they cannot control. The problem is our protectors are in the business of exploiting our fears. Our protectors further their careers by responding to perceived threats, often threats which are intentionally greatly distorted, with what is nothing more than 'feel good' legislation. They, our protectors, present themselves as champions intent upon addressing and resolving societal protection, but in reality this is not their primary motivation for any steps taken. Opportunities to earn favor with the children they entrusted to protect, i.e., professional attainment, maintenance, and advancement, is, in reality, what they seek most. Furthermore, it is easier to control a fearful group than one free of fear and allowed to think clearly. And because we, the children, are so very consumed by our fears, despite those fears being more imagined than real, we never seem to notice that the protections being offered are also a mechanism which unavoidably leads to the limiting the freedoms of all - not just those who we fear. Today our constitutional protections against expos facto legislation is under attack due to the retro-active nature of current sex offender registration laws. Those convicted of having committed past sex offenses can and are being forced to comply with laws restricting their freedoms enacted long after conviction - long after the date of the offense. This is being allowed because thus far the states and the federal government have been able to consistently offer successful argument these laws are not punitive in nature, but solely administrative. It matters not that there are often monetary costs often placed upon those required to register. It matters not that those who have committed no recent offense are now being restricted as to where they can live, work, or be seen. It matters not that those who have committed no other crimes are being required to submit to providing DNA samples (a force invasion of one's body by the government), providing authorities with detailed travel itineraries weeks before being able to exercise freedom of movement, notify authorities of all contact with any child, provide email addresses, submit to polygraph testing, or are subject to having their privacy invaded via random examination of computer usage and histories, etc. We allow our governments to disguise that which is clearly restrictive and punitive as merely being administrative actions taken for a false promise of protections which serve the greater good of society. What we are trading away for this illusion of protection are real protections against unwarranted governmental intrusions into our lives and our freedoms. All ready the roles of registered offenders have grown to include those who have been found guilty of other crimes. In many jurisdictions those who have committed other violent offenses, i.e., murder, various forms of assaults including domestic, and certain drug related offense are now required to register - even long after their convictions. They, too, are subject to many the same restriction as registered sex offenders. They, too, are being forced to accept post-conviction punishments or risk conviction and imprisonment for having failed to subjugate one's self to the will of a victimizing governmental entity . As the statutes relating to the misguided attempt to control and track sex offenders as evolved it has brought greater restrictions, it has expanded in scope (as to who is required to register), it has establish legal precedent which will inevitably be applied to many others, and it has not provided one iota of either deterrence or protection. It simply feels like something is being done. Yet, something is being done - all of our rights are being eroded. So very, very sad when children, grown or not, are being exploited and remain oblivious to the harm being done them. We send many sex offenders to prison for having violated the trust that is suppose to exist between those providing protection and those requiring requiring and deserving it. How much different are those who have violated, and continue to so, the trust of the masses from the betrayals of the typical sex offender? Our protectors betray us, yet we fail to acknowledge this betrayal. We accept the lies and half truths as factual - never questioning because we are trusting our protectors to protect us. This is not so very different from an offender who tell his victim what the offender believes will cause the victim to respond in a manner that continues to hide the truth, thus allowing the offender to continue satisfying and furthering selfish agendas at the expense of the integrity of the victim. This abuse by authority is unlikely to ever change. This erosion of individual rights and protections are far more likely to continue than be addressed and corrected. We, the victims, in this case, have no one to blame but ourselves. In most instances victims are not at fault. Herein lies the exception to the rule.

  3. neilbfisher on 12/22/2012:

    If I may add I think some of the very best sex laws would be to make the laws read up to life time or up to xxx amount of time this will allow for our court to decide the amount of time a person should recieve and there needs to be placed upon our laws a law allowing for a certificate of rehabilitation for thoes who deserve it, like thoes persons who completed their probation and took and completed a counciling and rehab program amd who are not termed predator and did not use force or violence and knew the victim very well and did not have any intercourse or oral copulation and are now much older and wiser this would be just to start and these laws regarding where a person can live are just plane bad laws and everyone is starting to see it and agrees that they need to pull thoes laws off the books. Neil B Fisher

  4. neilbfisher on 12/22/2012:

    Iam glad that there are sites that are talking about the truth regarding sex offenders, being I have spent about 5 years atempting to gather up all the true facts and now anyone who wants to learn all the true facts just has to go online and go to any search engine and type in sex offender true facts and read for yourselves that almost 98 percent of everything we all have been made to believe as the truth turns out to have been not the truth at all but propaganda,false information, folklore, lies and myths. Here is my point how can we expect to make proper laws an make good judgement on voting when all the facts that we thought was the truth is in fact just plain false information lies and myths. So anyone everyone get the word out that things just are not what have been made out to be things are not even near as bad as it has been made out to be. But please dont just take my word on it go to your search engines and type in "sex offenders truth and myths" and read and learn for yourselves, there are site after site that tell all the true facts then get out there and vote in some good and proper and just laws that are made using the truth not what has been made out as the truth but in fact are false lies and myths. Neil B Fisher

  5. Fred Davis on 07/16/2012:

    Symbols are powerful tools. Many worshiped the Nazi flag but hindsight made it look not so good today. Hypnosis is simply using trauma and fear to control. Most can be hypnotized easily because they are already programmed into belief systems that have been projected downward mainly by a "familiar" or "trusted" person. My ex girlfriend would cry to get sympathy when she did something behind my back and lied. If that did not work she would point her finger at me and say she was going to tell her friends or family how "mean" I was. Her friends viewed me as the "trouble maker" and her as "adorable" John Walsh also could "cry in public" or "act mean" while saying he was coming to get the "scoundrels." He is is one of the greatest hypnotists I have ever seen. I do not "resent" him because someone ruined him far before the media decided to "use" him to drive their Krell machine. (see Forbidden Planet) My girlfriend and John Walsh will dance politically and wiggle and the weak will "fall" in love with either one. I thought I could "save my girlfriend" from her lying and deceit by committing to her and loving her but I woke up. Certain phrases create symbols in the mind like a projection screen. Check out who were experts at mass hypnosis. Examine Blut and Boden or "blood and soil" and it explains how "damaging ideology" can be imprinted into the minds of whole groups by mere "phrases" using arbitrary word usage over a length of time. The Nazis would train horses through fear mongering also. They took a full bottle of vodka and hit the horse over the head and that would break the bottle as the trainer rode him. This scared the horse and trauma ensued for the horse because of the bump on the head. The vodka running down the face of the horse seemed like it was the blood of the horse as far as the animal was concerned. When a person is is born the first person to "imprint" him has great power. Degrading words create images in the mind of the "controlled". This is done by negative statements and then building good esteem through complements. If a kitten is born and a fox gets it first {imprinting) the scent of the fox that is about to eat him is viewed by the birthed kitten as the perfume of his own mother. The kitten sees the fox as his source of supply and nurturing. The government can never deliver on their promises simply because when one is programmed by a parent from the beginning to look to outcome based things that is called the "chasing the carrot" as a donkey or progressive will do. The vodka "seemed" like the blood of the horse to the horse. When people that are programmed to view phrases in a certain way those "images of a "dead child" with a "guy" hiding in the bushes comes to mind and the sex offender is viewed as a pedophile. The media had one man transfer his "bitterness" and unforgiveness down to the feeling public. He became in his mind's eye "The Super Hero" He is a very damaged man. "Man hating" and "bitter" Nancy Grace through the media hit the public in the head with the image of a "dead molested child" and John Walsh "cried with tears" on television and used the term "sex offender" and the public took the carrot. Now sex offender through what Blut and Boden called "the washing of the brain" has just used "trauma" to cause collateral damage. However most are waking up to the fact out of their hypnotic state and can see that John Walsh is actuallythe horses posterior and a hypocrite.

  6. Zoomie on 07/02/2012:

    Excellent summation of studies. I plan to hang onto a copy of this and talk to my state legislator, as my state's SOR law clearly states it was passed due to the "high" risk of recidivism amongst sex offenders. arunnergirl10 - "against the person's free will?" I'll admit here, I'm on the SOR. My crime? In late 2009, for several months while fighting what's popularly called "mid-life menopause" I frequented several prostitutes, ranging in age from 19 to 31, mostly in their 20s. A crime, yes, but only a misdemeanor punishable by a fine here. After several months, I quit doing it. Two months later I was arrested, I thought for solicitation misdemeanors. Imagine my surprise when I discovered it was for sexual assault of a minor, punishable by 20-life in prison! At my age (then 59), that was effectively a life sentence. No previous crimes beyond a couple speeding tickets, successful career, decorated veteran, two incredible daughters (one now with an MSW, the other a JD), a wife of 33 years...I cooperated with authorities who were after the pimps involved (who I knew nothing about until I was arrested), testified before a Federal Grand Jury, even wore a wire for them once. County DA eventually agreed to drop it to attempted sexual assault, 1-50 years. Probation department eval'd me, extensively, and concluded I was near zero risk to ever reoffend, recommended probation. I got 2-5 years in prison. I spent one year in, and I'm now on parole...and on the SOR for 25 years! Damage to my relationships with wife and daughters, loss of my job with little possibility of ever being hired anywhere ever again, over $12,000 in direct expenses, a year in prison, another 18 months on parole...Only reason I don't have to move is I've lived in my home for over 30 years, so I'm "grandfathered" in on the distance requirements from schools and daycares. FYI, the victim told me she was 19, but was really 15. She freely admitted so to the police, but it doesn't matter. In a "strict liability law" state, whether I knew her age or not is irrelevent. I committed the crime, albeit in total ignorance of the facts. I never denied it, I took responsibility, I did my time (still am, on parole). I'd like to just be left alone to finish my life in peace. I'm lucky enough to have sufficient savings I can actually retire now, at 60. But should I have to put up with all the SOR rules, and for 25 years? Note, just my posting this requires me to inform a county sheriff's deputy within 3 working days of my login to this site. And although on hold due to a Federal judge's decision that all the parts of the SOR law weren't constitutional, should that ever be reversed, in order to post messages like this I'll be required to allow installation of keystroke tracking software on my PC, to ensure I'm not using the 'Net to entice a child in any way (even though this was never a component of my crime). Still think ALL sex offenders are scum of the earth who are getting what they deserved? FYI, there are MANY people in my state's prison system for similar offenses. I even met one 22 year old, just back from Iraq with the National Guard last year, who went to a bar with friends. He met a girl drinking and dancing there. They talked, drank, danced, and end of the evening she came back to his trailer and had sex with him. Kissed him good-bye and went home in the morning. Next morning, police arrested him and he was (then) facing 20-life for sexual assault of a minor. Seems she was really only 15, with a phoney ID that fooled the bartender (the owner of the bar got a $250 fine for serving a minor, but someone who assumed someone drinking in a bar was 21...he's facing at least 20 years in prison). Seem fair to you? He'll also face a minimum of 25 years on the SOR, possibly lifetime registration. 54 - I like your ideas and may steal them, if you don't mind! Under your concept, I'd be on the SOR for a fairly short time (compared to 25 years on it), then only LE would know about me, which given one offense ever in 60 years of life, seems fair to me...

  7. 54 on 03/25/2012:

    The article is excellent but will those who make these ridiculous laws listen. Sex offenders should be required to have mandatory counselling before they get out of prision and if after 5 years of being out have not repeated another sex crime there name should be taken off the public registry and only the police should have their address. This is for first time offenders. After that they are on their own. They made the choice to be stupid , again.

  8. arunnergirl10 on 01/18/2012:

    Sex offenders don't deserve to be walking the streets among civilized people. They willingly gave that right up when they decided to use someone for sexual gratification against the person's free will. Sex Offenders deserve the punishments they get and everything that it entails.

  9. IamTreated on 07/10/2010:

    While I live in a country who does not make public the Sex Offender Registy, except to Law Enforcement, I wonder if as a society we do ourselves a disservice by not validating the impact Sex Offender Treatment makes. Of course, there also lies the issue of consistent effective treatment throughout our various countries. Basing success on a program simply because it calls itself treatment is a dangerous path. A simple 1 hour/week program is no comparison to a year of intense daily program in a correction setting. It seems if there is to be difference, we would divert funding from patch and go sex offender treatment and invest in in-custody treatment. Such programing reduces recidivism, therefore easing the burden placed on the justice system as well as reducing the number of future victims. Simply sending an offender to a violent prison environment transforms the offender into a different and more volatile person. A person who will be harder to treat upon release. Just as I believe other types of offenders deserve the option of offence related incarceration (drugs/alcohol/anger), I believe treating sex offenders would benefit society more than general incarceration. There are of course the non-repentant offenders who, in my opinion should remain in custody until they are evaluated and determined to be of little risk to society. The ultimate goal should be to protect society. Creating laws that make sense and aren't founded upon election feel good motives, is one way to begin to clearly address the ills of society.

  10. matthewhobbs on 05/26/2010:

    Thank you for this informative article. This is the type of article that we need to get out there to the legislators, and media. Thank you for an honest and fact based article. The myths,lies, and numerous laws imposed upon offenders is not in keeping with the constitution, and Human Rights. Thank you again.

  11. yellowroselady on 05/25/2010:

    Facts on Sex Offenders and Sexual Offenses 1. There are over 700,000 registered sex offenders in the United States 2. The offenses range from urinating in public, possession of child pornography, streaking, consensual sex in a teen dating relationship, confessed rape, allegations of attempted rape, allegations of child molestation by an angry ex-wife, incest, sexting, teens getting drunk at a house party and performing oral sex on someone under 18, endangering the life of a child and the list goes on. 3. All persons accused of a sex crime are "assumed guilty" until proven not guilty. Many, many people have pleaded guilty to something they ABSOLUTELY DID NOT DO because they have no money to retain an attorney. The public defenders are overloaded and the effort does not always live up to their oath. Imagine hearing "The maximum is 30 years but, with a plea agreement we could work out 36 or 48 months!" 4. Some sex offenders, not all, have been forced to admit to doing something that they didn't do as a condition of probation. 5. There are verifiable cases in which the person or family who brought the original charges later felt guilty or grossly responsible for ruining someone's life and attempted to correct the "story" with the authorities and it was viewed as inadmissible or a judge felt it should be re-tried and the offender didn’t have the funds to pursue with a private attorney. 6. Anyone convicted of a sex offense has to take and pass polygraph tests at specified intervals and incur the cost of approximately $100. They have to pay for urine tests and counseling. Some have to sign documents allowing the Parole Officers access to their bank checking and savings accounts, any 401K plan to which they contribute, copies of their telephone bill, cell phone bills, etc. They have to file a safety plan when traveling to another state and that state has to be notified and many times they don't like to have a registered SO in their area. 7. The family of a registered sex offender suffers the collateral damage of being forced to move after a neighbor takes it upon themselves to put a “SEX OFFENDER LIVES HERE” sign in the front yard, or a note on all the doors around the neighborhood, the children are tormented, the wife loses her job, houses and automobiles have been damaged and the damage continues each time the words REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER is splashed on the television screen or in newsprint. I will state again, there are over 700,000 registered sex offenders and 95% of these folks are "one-time" offenders who have not committed a "hands-on" offense and are NOT VOILENT. The recidivism rate for these individuals is 5% and that is the lowest of any crime. If they do re-offend it is usually for something other than a sex offense. The last two points are very critical to each voter/tax payer in our country. 8. Unfortunately, when a politician is trying to further his/her career they will pick a topic with a feel-good approach. I’ll promise to do this for the parents to make them think their kids are safe and they will send me to the legislature. We have been told two things that are absolutely alarming; a) legislators have told us they realize the laws have gone too far but, to stand up and say so would be political suicide...and (b) many of the folks who helped originate the Sex Offender Laws and Registry have said both in public and private....the system is broken and is not working as planned!" 9. Sex offenders have as many rights as the next person but, laws are being passed that are retroactive and therefore unconstitutional. If you use the analogy of someone being convicted of selling drugs and after paying their debt to society they get a letter that they can't go within 1,000 of a drug store or pharmacy warehouse, administer medicine to their children, etc because they were convicted of a drug crime 10 years ago and some legislator, via a knee-jerk reaction to a crime, proposed a new law. Lastly, please take a look at the cost to each state to comply with SORNA, which is Title 1 of the Adam Walsh Act. Ohio, Delaware and two tribal communities have complied. All the other states have determined it would be less expensive to lose the federal Byrne Fund money than try to conform to these requirements. Why continue to throw money at a failed program. Now an International Megan’s Law is being pushed by a group of legislators and the end result will not guarantee sex offenders are tracked internationally any more than a person on the “no fly list” who tried to set off a bomb in Times Square.

  12. shelomith_stow on 05/25/2010:

    Thank you for an extremely well written and informative article. I am convinced that remedy from the current sex offender situation in our country will come only through the pursuit in the court system of civil rights and Constitutional violations, and articles and information such as yours will pave the way by preparing the public with the truth and the facts.

  13. 4gotten on 05/24/2010:

    The hype surrounding sex offenders, especially when its young people having sex, is purely political. It's part of those get-tough-on crime policies that gets the constituency stirred up and gets votes. The damage being done when inappropriate labels and restrictions are placed on those who pose no threat to the little girl or boy next door is ignored. Many of our young men are serving time and wear the label and bear the stigma of 'sexual offender' because some young lady's parents couldn't believe that their teenage daughter had become sexually active and they pressed charges. Within the Florida prison system, those found guilty of such a sexual offense are even disallowed visitation from their own family members if those members are under age 18, regardless of being in direct conflict with the judge's sentencing order. How ridiculous! This article addresses and dispels common myths for those who are fearful about a sexual offender living in their community. John Q. Public needs to know there is a distinct difference between a sexual offender and a sexual predator. We need to stop lumping those that pose no risk with those who truly are dangerous. Instead of instilling fear in the hearts of citizens for selfish gain, our political pundits should be about reversing legislation that is becoming impossible to enforce and that is putting our communities at risk.

  14. DJChitown on 05/24/2010:

    There is a ton of excellent information in this article. As this article demonstrates we are wasting money on lengthy sentences, registries, and other legislative mandates as a result of the sex offender hysteria. Thank you for providing all of this and keep up the excellent work of educating without a bias.


Login to let us know what you think

User Name:   

Password:       


Forgot password?





correctsource logo




Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of The Corrections Connection User Agreement
The Corrections Connection ©. Copyright 1996 - 2014 © . All Rights Reserved | 15 Mill Wharf Plaza Scituate Mass. 02066 (617) 471 4445 Fax: (617) 608 9015