Predicting Relapse: A meta-Analysis of Sexual Offender Recidivism Studies

Canada 1998:

Abstract
Evidence from 61 follow-up studies was examined to identify the factors most strongly related to recidivism among sexual offenders. On average, the sexual offense recidivism rate was low (13,4%; n=23,393). There were, however, subgroups of offenders who recidivated at high rates.

Sexual offense recidivism was best predicted by measures of sexual deviancy (e.g., deviant sexual preferences, prior sexual offenses) and, to a lesser extent, by general criminological factors (e.g., age, total prior offenses). Those offenders who failed to complete treatment were at higher risk for re-offending than those who completed treatment.

The predictors of nonsexual violent recidivism and general (any) recidivism were similar to those predictors found among nonsexual criminals (e.g., prior violent offenses, age, juvenile delinquency). Our results suggest that applied risk assessments of sexual offenders should consider separately the offender's risk for sexual and nonsexual recidivism. ..more.. by R. Karl Hanson and Monique T. Bussière, Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.

Vigilantism as community social control: Developing a quantitative criminological model

1998:

Abstract:
This paper presents the first systematic quantitative examination of participation in vigilante behavior. Data collected as part of a larger study of Jewish settler violence in the Israeli-controlled West Bank region are used to analyze the factors that lead members of a community to become involved in vigilante violence. Using logistic regression techniques it is found that settlers who fulfill requirements of the vigilante role and those located in outposts where the demand for vigilantes is greatest are most likely to be involved in vigilante activities. In conclusion, it is argued that these findings provide strong support for a criminological model of vigilante behavior that emphasizes the role of the vigilante as an agent of community social control.

Key words vigilantism - criminal social control - social control - logit regression - West Bank Jewish settlers ..more.. by David Weisburd, School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University, 07102 Newark, New Jersey

VIGILANTISM REVISITED: AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE LAW OF EXTRAJUDICIAL SELF-HELP OR WHY CAN’T DICK SHOOT HENRY FOR STEALING JANE’S TRUCK?

1998 National:

INTRODUCTION
In a small town in Texas, citizens band together to confront and harass drug dealers, ultimately driving the dealers from their neighborhood. The local police praise the community for organizing “a legalized vigilante movement.”1 In Oakland, California, housing complex residents use threats of civil law suits to prompt building owners to evict criminals. The residents’ leader describes the process as “cheap, safe and fast justice.”2 In Dallas, Texas, a group of mall security guards whip four youths with belts and canes after the youths admit to stealing from a mall store.3 A grand jury refuses to indict the guards for their actions.4 In each case, citizens chose to supplement established legal norms by administering their own brand of criminal justice. In each instance, many in the community applauded the “vigilante” action.

Then why would the legal system treat these situations so differently— praising the two former but bringing judicial process to bear in the latter? The mantra “violence is bad” is surely too simplistic; our criminal justice system regularly countenances the use of force to maintain and encourage legal compliance.5 Moreover, the law does not limit this express approval to governmental actors. Within strictly specified bounds, private citizens may use force to protect themselves, 6 their property,7 and others8 from unlawful intrusion. American society does not merely tolerate violent self-help, it promotes it as necessary and beneficial conduct.9

Why does vigilantism occur? Why does the law prohibit certain “vigilante” activities while allowing others? Does the current level of prohibition make sense? This essay utilizes a social wealth maximization model in an attempt to answer these questions and to rationalize the apparent disparity between vigilantism and legally justified selfhelp. Part I addresses the definition and historical roots of vigilantism, Part II develops a framework for analyzing extra-judicial selfhelp, and Part III applies this framework to the questions at hand. ..more.. by KELLY D. HINE

SEXUAL PREDATOR COMMITMENT LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES: 1998 UPDATE

Washington 1998:

Note: This is the best paper we have found that explains the process of civil commitment from prison (end of sentence) through to civil commitment facility:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Twelve states have statutes that authorize the confinement and treatment of highly
dangerous sex offenders following completion of their criminal sentence: Arizona,
California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin. These laws are commonly referred to as "sexual predator" laws. This report describes sexual predator laws and compares several of their key provisions.

As of the summer of 1998, more than 520 sexual predators have been committed in these 12 states.

Sexual predator laws conform in many aspects. Key similarities include the following:

· Commitment follows a criminal sentence.
· The laws target repeat sex offenders.
· Evidence regarding the individual’s likelihood of future violence is central to decisionmaking.

In comparing state statutes, some differences emerge:

· Most states require the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used in criminal proceedings as the burden of proof for commitment; others use the lower standard of "clear and convincing evidence."

· A few states specifically provide that juveniles are eligible for commitment, while others stipulate that petitions can only be filed on persons who are 18 years of age or older.

· California’s law calls for a time-limited confinement of two years, while the remaining eleven states authorize indeterminate periods of commitment.

The earliest statutes, in Washington and Kansas, were quite similar, although each law has been slightly modified since its passage. With the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1997 upholding the constitutionality of Kansas' law, the next wave of statutes is likely to show more individuality.

In 1998, legislative proposals for post-release confinement of sexual predators were introduced in at least 21 states.

For the remainder of this paper: by Roxanne Lieb -and- Scott Matson, Washington State Institute for Public Policy

---

The 1998 individual state commitment procedures and policies:

Arizona
California
Florida
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
New Jersey
North Dakota
South Carolina
Washington
Wisconsin

Sexually Violent Predators and Civil Commitment

February 1998:

A Study of the Characteristics and Recidivism of Sex Offenders Considered for Civil Commitment But for Whom Proceedings Were Declined

Executive Summary:
Washington State law provides for the civil commitment of extremely dangerous sex offenders. The Sexually Violent Predator statute (RCW 71.09.020) and the filing standards developed by the Washington State Association of Prosecuting Attorneys (WAPA) establish explicit requirements necessary to initiate civil commitment proceedings on an individual.

This study describes the 61 adult offenders who were referred for possible commitment as predators but for whom such petitions for civil commitment were not filed, during the first six years after the law's passage (July 1990 through June 1996). The decision not to file on these individuals occurred because the county prosecutor (or the attorney general) determined that one or more of the statutory requirements could not be proven. The subsequent criminal behavior of these 61 offenders was tracked in official records for the time period following their release from custody.

Key Findings
Recidivism. This study examined arrests and convictions following release from prison. A technique known as "survival analysis" was used to analyze these rates, controlling for the difference in lengths of follow-up, which varied from 5 to 70 months, with a mean of 46 months.

During this period, more than one-half of the group were rearrested. The highest percentage of offenders were rearrested for nonsexual crimes.

· 59 percent were arrested for one or more new offenses
· 28 percent were arrested for new sex offenses
· 15 percent were arrested for violent felony offenses
· 33 percent were arrested for nonviolent felony

For the remainder of this paper: by Donna Schram, Ph.D. and Cheryl Darling Milloy, Ph.D.

Predicting Relapse: A Meta-Analysis of Sexual Offender Recidivism Studies

1998:

Abstract:

Evidence from 61 follow-up studies was examined to identify the factors most strongly related to recidivism among sexual offenders. On average, the sexual offense recidivism rate was low (13,4%; n=23,393). There were, however, subgroups of offenders who recidivated at high rates. Sexual offense recidivism was best predicted by measures of sexual deviancy (e.g., deviant sexual preferences, prior sexual offenses) and, to a lesser extent, by general criminological factors (e.g., age, total prior offenses). Those offenders who failed to complete treatment were at higher risk for re-offending than those who completed treatment. The predictors of nonsexual violent recidivism and general (any) recidivism were similar to those predictors found among nonsexual criminals (e.g., prior violent offenses, age, juvenile delinquency). Our results suggest that applied risk assessments of sexual offenders should consider separately the offender's risk for sexual and nonsexual recidivism.

For the remainder of this paper: by R. Karl Hanson and Monique T. Bussière,
Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.

In: Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
edited by the American Psychological Association,
1998, Vol. 66, No. 2, pp 348-362

Arizona Recidivism

1998 (Fact Sheet):

FACT SHEET 98-06

SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM

During September 1998, the Research Unit of the Arizona Department of Corrections. (ADC) completed an analysis of sex offenders released from ADC custody over the ten-year period from July 1988 through June 1998. A released offender was included in the study if he or she was serving time for one or more sex offenses just prior to release from incarceration. Offenders were tracked only with reference to the first release from a given criminal sentence.

The record of each targeted sex offender was reviewed to determine if the offender returned to the custody of the Department by June 30, 1998, and if so, under what circumstances. Returns for technical violations were distinguished from returns with new felony convictions. In cases of new convictions, information was recorded concerning the nature of all new conviction offenses. Preliminary findings from the study are as follows:

2,444 sex offenders were released from ADC custody over the ten-year period. The average period of follow-up (to June 30, 1998) for all sex offenders was 54.5 months. Among the 2,444, 509 or 20.8 % returned at least once to the custody of the Department, including 346 or 14.2% with new felony convictions. While sex offenders returned to prison for a variety of new crimes, 78 or 3.2% returned for a new felony sex offense, and an additional 90 or 3.7% returned for a new violent felony offense.

Among the 2,444 released sex offenders, 1,087 (44.5%) were released to the supervision of ADC parole officers. Among this group, eight (8) or 0.7% were found to have committed a new sex offense during the period of parole supervision. Among the eight (8), one (1) or 0.1% returned to custody with a new sex offense conviction while still under supervision. The remaining seven (7) were returned to custody after termination of the period of supervision.

The most serious new sex offense committed by the 78 sex offense recidivists was:

Child molestation or sexual conduct with a minor 34(44%)
Rape or sexual assault 22(28%)
Sexual indecency (exposing) 14(18%)
Sexual abuse 8(10%)

Among the 78 sex offense recidivists, the timing of the commission of new sex offenses was as follows:

35 (45%) were committed within the first year after release;
19 (24%) were committed within the second year after release;
8 (10%) were committed within the third year after release;
3 (4%) were committed within the fourth year after release;
6 (8%) were committed within the fifth year after release;
4 (5%) were committed within the sixth year after release;
3 (4%) were committed within the seventh year after release.

The Department of Corrections is currently working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to determine if data can be accessed for the completion of the second phase of the research. Further study will be undertaken if data is available to ascertain if any of the offenders in the study have re-offended and have entered secure custody in other jurisdictions. It is anticipated that the report on the first phase of the research will be published before the end of the year. For further information, please contact the Department of Corrections.

For the remainder: by Arizona Dep't of Corrections