We now have added "Informational Posts" which are tidbits of information that may come in handy at some point.
Showing posts with label (. KEY-Studies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label (. KEY-Studies. Show all posts

The Wrongfully Convicted Sex Offender

Never have I found the topic "Wrongful Convictions" covered more completely than here. Worth every minute of your time to review.
9-2-2013 National:

(Editorial Note: In no way do I want to minimize the issue of violence against women or children. Rape is clearly a crime of violence, and must be dealt with appropriately. Pedophile predation is abhorrant, and must also be dealt with sternly and appropriately. But I think the issue has become – what actually is appropriate for dealing with the range of sex offenses, and in some cases, have we gone too far; and what does this mean for the wrongfully convicted? It begs the age old question – does the punishment fit the crime?)

Woe be to the wrongfully convicted sex offender, because you’re not just a wrongfully convicted ‘felon.’ You’re a wrongfully convicted ‘sex offender,’ and the state makes sure you get some extra special attention. Note that I’m careful to use the qualifier “wrongfully convicted” here, because in the case of sex offenders, when the justice system “gets it wrong,” the injustice gets amplified. I’m not saying we should let actually guilty sex offenders off the hook, but the punitive measures have become so severe, that when someone is wrongfully convicted of a sex offense, the consequences they are forced to endure magnify the injustice.

To understand why a wrongful conviction in a sex offender case is such a travesty, you need to know a little about the sex offender laws and the mandatory, so-called “rehabilitation” methods. (This will be a little bit lengthy.)

Over the last few decades, states have been steadily rewriting their sex offense laws to become more and more draconian. I judge that this has been caused by something akin the to wave of hysteria that swept the US in the 80′s over preschool child sex abuse. The primary driver for this was the McMartin preschool case in which accusations were made in 1983. All charges were dropped in 1990, after the lives of all defendants involved were completely ruined. Because sex crimes, particularly those involving children, scrape a particularly sensitive region in the human psyche, it makes a great issue for politicians to campaign on. My opinion is that much of today’s sex offender legislation has had little, if any, basis in research, and is an all-too-typical legislative knee jerk to high profile cases that have created something of a bully pulpit for affected victims and families. You can’t blame the victims and families. Your heart has to go out to the them.

They have suffered unspeakable tragedy. They want “justice,” but in the case of a wrongful conviction, that justice is visited upon the wrong person. Sadly, the legislative responses have proven to be the classically inefficient and expediency-driven political solutions that treat the symptom and not the disease. The key here is lack of research and the absence of statistically valid data. A classic example of this is “Megan’s Law,” which established the original sex offender registry. This law was enacted by the New Jersey General Assembly in 1994 in response to the rape and murder of seven year old Megan Kanka.

Since then, the law has been enacted in some form by every state, and has also resulted in a federal FBI sex offender registry. However, a 2008 federally funded study conducted in New Jersey, where Megan’s Law was first enacted, found that it failed to reduce sex crimes or repeat offenders. Read that story here. If you’re interested in plodding through a 50 state survey of sex offender legislation, you can read the one done by the National Institute of Corrections and the Washington College of Law here. ..continued.. by Wrongful Convictions blog

Crime, Shame and Reintegration

1988

Braithwaite, John (1988). Crime, Shame and Reintegration New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Abstract:
A theory suggests that the key to crime control is cultural commitments to reintegrative shaming of lawbreakers. Societies with low crime rates are those that shame potently and judiciously; individuals who resort to crime are those insulated from shame over their wrongdoing. However, shame can be applied injudiciously and counterproductively. Shaming is more likely to be reintegrative in communitarian societies, where it results in low crime rates. In contrast, shaming that stigmatizes makes criminal subcultures more attractive and is crime-producing. Research and policy implications of the theory are explored.

This is a book available from many used book sellers, such as ABE Books

Residential proximity to schools and daycare centers: Influence on sex offense recidivism

December 2008:

Residential proximity to schools and daycare centers: Influence on sex offense recidivism, An empirical analysis

Study Background and Purpose
Residential restrictions for sex offenders have become increasingly popular despite a lack of empirical data demonstrating that offenders’ proximity to schools or daycare centers contributes to recidivism. Using a matched sample of recidivists and non-recidivists from Florida (n = 330), we investigated whether sex offenders who lived closer to schools or daycare centers were more likely to reoffend sexually than those who lived farther away.


Methodology
Of the sex offenders listed on Florida’s sex offender registry in 2004, 165 were re-arrested for a new sex crime in 2004-2006. A group of 165 non-recidivists, matched to the recidivists on relevant risk factors (prior convictions, age, marital status, predator status), was also identified. The offenders’ addresses were mapped using GIS software, as were the locations of all schools and daycare centers. Mapping was conducted using individual property boundaries to the extent available. The offenders lived in counties throughout the state of Florida. For each offender the straight-line shortest distance to the nearest daycare center and school were determined. Buffers of 1,000 and 2,500 feet around each offender’s residence were also determined to count the number of daycare centers and schools within these buffers.

Results
No significant differences were found in the distances that recidivists and non-recidivists lived from schools and daycare centers. We compared the proportions of recidivists and nonrecidivists who lived within common buffer zones. Offenders who lived within 1,000, 1,500, or 2,500 feet of schools or daycare centers were no more likely to reoffend sexually than those who lived farther away. There was a virtually non-existent correlation between reoffending and proximity to schools (r = .004; p = .940) or daycares (r = - .043; p = .433). When the distances to schools and daycares were entered along with risk factors into a logistic regression model, neither proximity measure was a significant predictor of recidivism.


Conclusions
Proximity to schools and daycares, with other risk factors being comparable, explains virtually none of the variation in sexual recidivism. Sex offenders who lived within closer proximity to schools and daycare centers did not reoffend more frequently than those who lived farther away. These data do not justify the widespread enactment of residential restrictions for sexual offenders. The time that police and probation officers spend addressing housing issues is likely to divert law enforcement resources away from behaviors that truly threaten our communities in order to attend to a problem that simply does not exist. Residence restrictions greatly diminish housing options for sex offenders, resulting in increased homelessness, transience, and instability, undermining the very purpose of registries and exacerbating known risk factors for criminal recidivism. Residence restrictions decisions should be made on an individualized risk management basis and not legislated.

For the remainder of this paper: by Jill Levenson, Ph.D.*, -and- Paul Zandbergen, Ph.D., -and- Timothy Hart, Ph.D.

Levenson, J. S., & Zandbergen, P. & Hart, T (2009) An empirical analysis: Residential proximity to schools and daycare centers: Influence on sex offense recidivism..

eAdvocate note: Reviewing this study was interesting but there was one chart which caught my eye, it follows:

Collateral Damage: Family Members of Registered Sex Offenders

January 2009:

Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to better understand the impact of sex offender registration and notification laws on the family members of registered sex offenders (RSO). An online survey was utilized to collect data from 584 family members across the U.S. Employment problems experienced by the RSO, and subsequent financial hardships, emerged as the most pressing issue identified by family members. The likelihood of housing disruption was correlated with residential restriction laws; larger buffer distances led to increased frequencies of housing crisis. Family members living with an RSO were more likely to experience threats and harassment by neighbors. Children of RSOs reportedly experienced adverse consequences including stigmatization and differential treatment by teachers and classmates. More than half had experienced ridicule, teasing, depression, anxiety, fear, or anger. Unintended consequences can impact family members’ ability to support RSOs in their efforts to avoid recidivism and successfully reintegrate. Implications for criminal justice policy and practice are discussed. by Jill Levenson -and- Richard Tewksbury

Levenson, J. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2009). Collateral damage: Family members of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice.

Source: SO-News Group.


eAdvocate note: Reviewing this study was interesting but there were two chart which caught my eye, they follows:





Lifers on the Outside: Sex Offenders and Disintegrative Shaming

February 1, 2009:

Abstract:
This article examines the effects of labeling though informal and formal sanctions on sex offender reintegration, using qualitative analysis from a probability sample of 153 registered sex offenders in four counties in the Commonwealth of Virginia. It also provides an overview of sex offender legislation and literature. Results of the study indicate that the majority of respondents experienced negative treatment because of their status as a sex offender. Results also indicate that formal and informal sanctions are stifling opportunities for sex offenders to be fully reintegrated into society and that treatment programs are not as effective as they could be. Implications for sex offender policy and further research are discussed. by Monica L. P. Robbers, Marymount University, Arlington, Virginia, Monica.robbers@marymount.edu

Available from Sage Publications: by Monica L. P. Robbers PhD: Lifers on the Outside: Sex Offenders and Disintegrative Shaming . International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Vol. 53, No. 1, 5-28 (2009)


eAdvocate note: Reviewing this study was interesting but there was one chart which caught my eye, it follows: