The Failure of Sex Offender Policy

6-4-15 National:

The public expects and deserves evidence-based practices when it comes to public safety. This is true for any aspect of public policy but perhaps none so much as sex offender policy. With sex offenders, there is a sense of moral outrage at the depravity of their crimes, and rightly so. Virtually any sex crime makes the news headlines because the public has a very high interest in this crime. Too often politicians not only capitalize on the fear that is caused by sex offenders, but they inadvertently create more of it.

The manner in which this happens can be seen in sex offender registries and residence restrictions. Using the law to require that someone has to register to be on a registery, politicians are effectively saying that the person who previously offended is someone you need to be afraid of for future re-offending, even though the research says the likelihood is the lowest of the crime categories. Or by requiring through law that sex offenders cannot live in certain places, politicians are saying that if the converse were true, children would not be safe, even though place of residence has virtually nothing to do with who will be victimized.

Why Do Politicians Use Fear?

Sometimes they may do it on purpose to boost their popularity in being proactive on important issues. But I think the main reason is that politicians are regular people who got elected but who are not experts in this field and they just don't know what they don't know. Crime policy and the science of correcting criminal behavior is very complicated. We tend to think that what would deter us (the non-criminal population) from committing a crime is the same thing that would deter them (the criminal population) from committing a crime. This is incorrect thinking.

Massachusetts Recidivism Study: A Closer Look at Releases and Returns to Prison

This study does not distinguish between recidivism of the same crime -vs- recidivism of different crimes. In other words, with respect to sex offenders, if they returned to prison, did they return to prison for another sex crime -OR- did they return to prison for a different crime? A vey important distinction overlooked.

April 2008

Abstract:
The Massachusetts Recidivism Study is a collaborative effort between the Urban Institute's Justice Policy Center and the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC) that aims to better understand the experiences of recidivists and how their previous incarceration and time in the community relate to their returns to prison. The study consists of three interrelated components: an analysis of DOC administrative data, interviews with recidivists as they return to prison, and parole officer focus groups. This report provides findings from the analysis of administrative data on the 2002 release cohort comparing recidivists with nonrecidivists. The report compares the two groups across demographics, criminal history, offense type, time served, release type, and in-prison reentry preparation.


Introduction
In Massachusetts state prisons, recidivism statistics show a slight reduction in rates over the past few years.1 At the same time, though, admissions, custody levels, and overcrowding rates are on the rise. From 2004 to 2007, the criminally sentenced custody population at the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC) increased 10 percent, by 897 inmates. Along with the increase in the custody population, the number of criminally2 sentenced admissions increased by 10 percent during the same time frame. The number of parole violators has also increased and represents approximately 10 percent of admissions among all criminally sentenced inmates over the past four years, second only to new court commitments.

This study was originally based on prison reentry and research staff asking the question, “What happens to inmates when they get out of prison that impacts their ability to stay out of prison?” Furthermore, “How can we improve positive behavior and increase the chances of successful reentry into the community by considering inmates’ previous incarceration experiences?” In our partnership with the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center, we looked more closely at recidivism in three ways: interviewing recidivists as they were returned to prison, conducting focus groups with parole officers, and conducting statistical analyses of administrative data comparing recidivists versus nonrecidivists. The companion report, “Reincarcerated: The Experiences of Men Returning to Massachusetts Prisons,” covers the first two points; this report examines the third.

The overall study was designed to improve our understanding of how the experiences of incarceration, transition to community, and living in the community influence recidivism. This report focuses on findings from analysis of the 2002 male release data. Traditionally, the DOC produces annual recidivism reports.3 This report expands on those annual recidivism reports by including additional administrative data in relation to an inmate’s risk to recidivate, including race, Hispanic ethnicity, age, offense type, type of release from prison, type of return to prison, security level of releasing institution, time served, criminal history, and participation in a DOC transition workshop. This report also looks closely at recidivism data in relation to parole, while the companion report explores the process of parole revocations by parole officers. By comparing recidivists with nonrecidivists, we gain a better understanding of the known static variables. This component of the larger study was also intended to provide a conceptual framework to our findings in the survey of recidivists provided in the companion report. The analysis of administrative data provides a basis of comparison for the sample of recidivists interviewed for the study. ..The Full Study.. by Rhiana Kohl, Hollie Matthews Hoover, Susan M. McDonald, Amy L. Solomon

Reincarcerated: The Experiences of Men Returning to Massachusetts Prisons

April 2008

INTRODUCTION.

RECIDIVISM IN MASSACHUSETTS

The rising incarceration rate in America over the past quarter century has resulted in more prisoners being admitted to and released from prison each year. In 2005 alone, more than 698,000 state and federal prisoners returned to communities across the country, a four-fold increase over the past two decades.1 Incarceration and release trends in Massachusetts generally mirror this growth.2 Between 1980 and 2006, the Massachusetts state adult prison population increased more than threefold—from 2,754 to 9,405 individuals.3 The number of people being released from Massachusetts’ prisons has also increased substantially. In 1980, 1,015 individuals were released from the state’s prisons. Over the past two-and-a-half decades, this number more than doubled to 2,337 individuals.4

The phenomenon of prisoner reentry has been increasingly recognized as an important public safety issue not only because of the increasing volume of releases from prison, but particularly because of persistently high recidivism rates. Nationally, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that over two-thirds of released prisoners are rearrested for a new offense within three years of their release, and over half are back in prison serving time for a new offense or a technical violation of their parole.5

Recent Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC) figures6 show that three-year recidivism rates among Massachusetts prisoners, as measured by a return to prison, were lower than the national average, though still substantial.7 Thirty-nine percent of DOC prisoners released in 1999 were returned to a state, county, or federal facility within three years of release.8 The majority of those who recidivated in Massachusetts were reincarcerated for conviction of a new crime, but more than a third were returned for technical violations of parole.9

Research on recidivism has generally focused on static predictors of recidivism and the characteristics of career criminals. It is now widely known, for instance, that a young age at the time of first offense and a higher number of previous arrests are among the strongest predictors of recidivism, and that a small fraction of offenders are responsible for the majority of crime.10 Research also shows that persistent career offenders are more likely to be drug users.11 In addition to substance abuse, the emerging prisoner reentry literature documents the enormous challenges of housing, employment, and health among this population.12

What is missing from recidivism research is an understanding of the processes that lead a released prisoner to reoffend—in other words, why he or she commits a new crime. The postrelease circumstances and experiences of released prisoners as well as their previous incarceration experiences are critical to understanding the recidivism process. Because this information is best gathered through personal interviews, here we present findings from field research with recently reincarcerated prisoners as well as parole officers. This report attempts to deepen our understanding of recidivism in Massachusetts and factors that contribute to returning to prison.

..For the Rest of the Paper.. by Lisa E. Brooks, Amy L. Solomon, Rhiana Kohl, Jenny W. L. Osborne, Jay Reid, Susan M. McDonald, Hollie Matthews Hoover

Risky Policies: How Effective Are Restrictions on Sex Offenders in Reducing Reoffending?

10-13-2014 Massachusetts, National:

Sex offenders are one of the most reviled groups of felons. In the past few decades, there has been a dramatic increase in laws and regulations governing virtually every facet of their lives. The policy decisions about how to deal with sex offenders flow largely in one direction: restrict them as much as possible. This one-sided approach has created a complex web of restrictions that ultimately causes more harm than good.

Differentiating sex offenses from other types of offenses is perfectly rational. Further, government should try to address those harms by creating policies that will reduce offenses. In light of what we know today about sex offenses and sex offenders, it is possible to reduce the rate of recidivism, but the policies currently in place are not the answer. They are reactive, based often on outdated misconceptions, and far too broad.

Evidence-based practices have become common in almost all areas of public policy, because it is now well established that conventional wisdom is often inaccurate. But though there is an abundance of empirical data about sex offenders and reoffending, our policies are created without reference to the data. Rather, our policies are based on anecdotal information and inaccurate beliefs about sex offenders and reoffending. As a result, current policies do not address the problems they are seeking to correct. In most instances, the policies are ineffective; in many instances, they also create conditions that may increase the risk of reoffense.