We now have added "Informational Posts" which are tidbits of information that may come in handy at some point.

Federal Justice Statistics, 2011–12

January 22, 2015 NCJ 248493:

Describes the annual activity, workloads, and outcomes associated with the federal criminal justice system from arrest to imprisonment, using data from the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA), Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC), and Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).

Tables and text describe arrests and investigations by law enforcement agency and growth rates by type of offense and federal judicial district. This report examines trends in drug arrests by the DEA. It also provides the number of offenders returning to federal prison within 3 years of release and includes the most recently available data on sentences imposed and their lengths by type of offense. ..Source.. by Mark Motivans, Ph.D.

Courts are reconsidering residency restrictions for sex offenders

July 2015:

In 2006, California voters passed "Jessica's Law," a ballot initiative that prohibited registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. In 2011, crime analyst Julie Wartell of the San Diego County District Attorney's Office analyzed how much housing was left for those offenders. Consulting land-use files, she concluded that just 0.7 percent of multifamily parcels in the county were compliant.

That analysis came as part of a trial court’s hearing in In re Taylor, a habeas corpus case brought by four San Diego County parolees. All four planned to live with family or friends after leaving prison, but they couldn’t because the homes were not compliant with Jessica’s Law. Instead, they ended up living in the alley behind the parole office, in the bed of the (seasonally dry) San Diego River, in vehicles or in noncompliant homes. When plaintiff William Taylor ended up hospitalized, he was rearrested for failing to register the hospital’s address with police.

That’s part of why the California Supreme Court struck down the blanket application of Jessica’s Law in March’s In re Taylor (PDF). The justices noted that parole officers may impose residency restrictions on a case-by-case basis. But they unanimously agreed that universal application of the law violates offenders’ constitutional rights—and doesn’t keep children safe.

The law “has hampered efforts to monitor, supervise and rehabilitate such parolees in the interests of public safety, and as such, bears no rational relationship to advancing the state’s legitimate goal of protecting children from sexual predators,” now-retired Justice Marvin Baxter wrote.

Does a watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New York State's sex offender registration and notification law.


Despite the fact that the federal and many state governments have enacted registration and community notification laws as a means to better protect communities from sexual offending, limited empirical research has been conducted to examine the impact of such legislation on public safety.

Therefore, utilizing time-series analyses, this study examined differences in sexual offense arrest rates before and after the enactment of New York State's Sex Offender Registration Act.

Results provide no support for the effectiveness of registration and community notification laws in reducing sexual offending by: (a) rapists, (b) child molesters, (c) sexual recidivists, or (d) first-time sex offenders.

Analyses also showed that over 95% of all sexual offense arrests were committed by first-time sex offenders, casting doubt on the ability of laws that target repeat offenders to meaningfully reduce sexual offending. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved) Paper available from APA PsycNET Direct: by Sandler, Jeffrey C.; Freeman, Naomi J.; Socia, Kelly M.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Vol 14(4), Nov 2008, 284-302.

Report to the Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission: Sex Offenders

January 2006:

The effective containment of sex offenders has been an ongoing concern for policymakers. In summer 2005, the Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission created a Penalty Review Subcommittee to examine the current statutes in Ohio and to determine if there was a need for recommendations to improve Ohio’s management of sex offenders.

The purpose of this report is to provide information on sex offenders in Ohio’s prisons and discuss what works in effectively managing this population, including SORN legislation. Research in Ohio and nationally has found there are effective ways to manage sex offender populations.

Assessing sex offenders when they enter the prison system, developing effective treatment programs while they are in prison and closely supervising offenders when they are released to the community can assist in containing sex offender behavior. The following summarizes the highlights of the report: ..Source.. by Moore, Karhlton F. (2006) Report to the Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission: Sex Offenders.

Table from paper
Pettway 2001 is a fabulous resource

The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction collected data on 437 male offenders admitted to the Sex Offender Risk Reduction Center (SORRC) for the first five months of 1999. (Pettway, 2001) The data were then used to provide a profile of the offenders in the system at that time.

Notice: 85% of those arrested for a sex crime,
in Ohio during the first 5 months of 1999,
had no prior sex crime history


November 2003:

Research Summary:
Current legislation mandating DNA collection, civil commitment, registration, and community notification of sex offenders is predicated on the assumption that sex offenders are simply more dangerous than other types of offenders in that they inevitably re-offend.

Moreover, many states are moving to expand sex offender legislation to include non-sexual offenders on the assumption that some offense types, such as burglary and robbery, serve as “gateway” offenses to sex crimes.

The purpose of this research is to highlight two of the common perceptions underlying sex offender laws, and the extension thereof, and examine them in light of current empirical evidence.

We employ analysis of variance techniques on Illinois arrest data from 1990 to 1997 to examine the degree to which sex offenders have higher proportions of repeat offending than other criminal categories and if some offense types serve as “gateway” or predicate offenses to sex crimes.

Policy Implications:
Our results suggest that the extension of sex offender laws to non-sexual offenders will likely have little effect on sexual victimization rates. More importantly, our results illustrate that policies can be founded on misconceptions, and these misconceptions not only have financial consequences, but also can affect the likelihood that the policies enacted will achieve their goals.

If nothing else, this research suggests that policy makers need to become better informed on the issues they subject to far-reaching and costly legislation. ..Source.. by LISA L. SAMPLE and TIMOTHY M. BRAY

Who commits more sex offenses in the community,
Sex Offenders -or- Non Sex offender?

Unfortunately we do not have specific figures, the study only mentions percentages, but there is another way to show -using charts from the study- that Non Sex Offenders commit more sex offenses than do sex offenders, even when sex offenders recidivate. We are going to compare the following two charts:

Fig-2 above is rearrested for the same offense, and, Fig-3 below shows rearrested for a sex offense. Now in Fig-3 it looks like sex offenders are worse than any of the others, but, the reality is, they ARE NOT!

Remember, Fig below is rearrested for sex offenses ONLY. While it is hard to see exact percentages look only at the 5-year column. To see how many non sex offenders were rearrested for sex offenses you need to SUM the 5-year columns of all crime types except sex offenders, approximately I get 14 (.9 + 2.4 + 1.9 + 2.3 + 2.1 + .9 + 1.0 + 1.0 + 1.5 = 14). Logically this shows non sex offenders are far more dangerous -in the community- than are sex offenders.. (14-v-6)

See also: HERE and Full Paper