|
|
Featured Article: Updated 2-18-2005
|
Should "Recidivism Rates" be used as the basis for Illinois' Lifetime Parole Legislation?
|
|
2-16-2005 Illinois:
Parole for life urged in sex crimes |
.The state's most dangerous convicted sex offenders would be eligible for a lifetime of parole after they are released from prison under a measure Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan is asking Illinois lawmakers to pass this spring. Currently, most sex offenders spend two or three years on parole, regardless of how much threat they pose to their communities.
But under the proposal, an offender's parole supervision would be longer--possibly by decades--if his parole officers and other experts determined that he was likely to commit a new sex crime. In making the measure her top legislative priority, Madigan said she hopes to remedy the current problem of sex criminals going mostly unmonitored shortly after their prison terms are over.
"It's terrifying that, right now, we let these people go, and two or three years down the road they're on their own," Madigan said. "If they're going to be living in our communities, I want somebody watching over them. I don't want to worry that this person's going to move in next door to me or that kids can end up trick-or-treating at their house. Someone should watch over these individuals." ... ...
Yet people convicted of sex crimes are considered among the most likely to search out new victims. Experts believe statistics present an incomplete picture of how many convicted sex offenders commit new sex crimes because only a fraction of sexual assaults are reported by the victims. Still, one study placed the rate of repeat offense within 25 years of conviction at 52 percent for child molesters and 39 percent for rapists.
: by Christi Parsons
..more..
|
Our answer, YES! Recidivism rates should be used as the basis for new legislation! However, if "Yes" which recidivism rates, the ones suggested by this article (52%/39%), -OR-, what the State of Illinois reported to the Department of Justice, which reported in 2003 an average sex offender recidivism rate of 3.5% for -the same crime type- for 15 states?
On the Illinois State Police web site is this document "Sex Offender Registration in Illinois." In the Introduction Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan indicates, "The Department of Justice published a study in November 2003 entitled "Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994." This study tracked 9,691 male sex offenders from 15 states, including Illinois, for three years following their release from prison in 1994. The study reported that "compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were four times more likely to be re-arrested for a sex crime." Approximately 40 percent of the time, this occurs within the first year of release. This report serves as the basis for the examination of the sex offender registry in Illinois and for the formulation of strategies to improve registration within the state. ... ..."
Clearly, Illinois believes in the veracity of that Dep't of Justice report which reports sex offender recidivism rate of 3.5% as to another sex crime, and 5.3% as to other types of crime. Accordingly, why would those statistics not form the basis for the suggested legislation? I'll guess at, the numbers are not high enough to warrant such legislation?
The article mentions, "Still, one study placed the rate of repeat offense within 25 years of conviction at 52 percent for child molesters and 39 percent for rapists,..." although the actual title is not mentioned, it is, "Recidivism Rates Among Child Molesters and Rapists: A Methodological Analysis," Robert Prentky, Austin Lee, Raymond Knight and David Cerce (1997), published in Law and Human Behavior, 1997 December 21(6):635-659; a very controversial study. It is available for purchase from SpringerLink, copyrights prevent direct links.
A few of the reasons for controversy are: As with any study a study-group of offenders is needed, here they were chosen from already civilly committed offenders (Massachusetts' Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons (MTC) in Bridgewater, Mass.), each reportedly having approximately 2.5 - 3.6 prior sex crimes (pg 638). The study-group WAS NOT a cross section of all kinds of offenders!
The study is touted as being a 25-year study, one would think that meant the offenders were followed for 25 years, not so! What 25-years means is: ".... We used a data set on 265 rapists and child molesters who were discharged over a 25-year period. (pg 637) (1959 through 1985 pg 639) That means the offenders were released at differing points within the 25-year time span, each was in society (or at-risk to reoffend) a different length of time.
In fairness, the study goes on: "... The length of the at-risk period was sufficient to analyze the effect of follow-up duration on recidivism rates and to compare the rates of reoffense over time for the two subgroups of offenders." (pg 637) However, we don't know the exact at-risk period chosen. It is well known that offenders' toughest time is the first year in the community, 40% of failures occur during year-one (DoJ Stats above). However, each year thereafter, and into old age, the offenders' risk to reoffend goes down. (Hanson 2001) This at-risk analysis method fails to factor-in "offender's-age/disability" as to likelihood of reoffense. A healthy 35-year old and a 90-year old confined to bed, each being in society for the same period of time, would factor equal.
The target-group was divided into rapists and child molesters based upon the age of the victim (pg 638), rather than, adult molesters and child molesters. In other parts of the study the "rapists" were compared to other studies which determined "rapist" based upon the actual acts, prejudicing many in this group and misleading any reader.
"Although the study period was fixed at 25-years, the actual exposure time varied considerably among the subjects depending on their discharge date." (pg 640) To compensate for this the researchers used the "Survival Analysis" method of calculation.
While it is true that method would tend to even things out, the study initially excluded a cross-section of all offenders, who are generally found in society, including, only those who were proven to be prior recidivists. This weighting strongly suggests that the study should never be used out of proper context, such as the basis for "Lifetime Parole" for all sex offenders.
Should anyone use this study out of context, then they have IGNORED the researchers' CLOSING WARNINGS (verbatim):
"We would like to conclude with two important caveats. The obvious, marked heterogencity of sexual offenders precludes automatic generalization of the rates [recidivism] reported here to other samples. ..." (pg 656) "The second caveat is that these findings should not be construed as evidence of the inefficacy of treatment. Although all of the men in our follow-up study were discharged from a prison treatment facility, the treatment services were not provided uniformly or systematically and did-not conform to a state-of-the-art model." (pg 657)
In closing, why was this study even mentioned as support for this legislative proposal? There must be another agenda which I am not aware of.
eAdvocate (Copyright 2005 - All Rights Reserved)
 e Ponders?
Since this study did use folks being released from the Massachusetts Civil Commitment program, then it may be used to support Illinois legislation pertaining to persons being released from their civil commitment program, but they are not parolees.
I wonder if this legislation is being proposed because someone feels not enough sex offenders being released from prison are being civilly committed? It could be, that this -intervention legislation-, will violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws, since it would extend a offender's sentence previously rendered by the courts. Is it also a Bill of Attainder, since it would affect only sex offenders?
|
|
| |
|
2-15-2005 Illinois:
When letter of law doesn't measure up |
.At the six-corner intersection of hysteria, ignorance and bureaucratic rigidity, we find the sorry figure of Alan Meister of Oak Park. Three weeks ago, Meister, 29, was at a repair shop having his car alarm serviced when Cook County sheriff's deputies showed up, handcuffed him and took him to jail. Why? Because county officials determined that the property line at the house where Meister lives with his wife, their three small children and his parents is 460 feet from the property line of a Berwyn day-care center. This matters because a 1998 law demands that child-sex offenders live at least 500 feet from schools or day-care centers, and Meister is a registered child-sex offender.
His crime? When he was 18, he began dating a 13-year-old girl and had sex with her. Even though no force was involved, their respective ages alone made his offense a Class 2 felony. He was arrested shortly after his 19th birthday, pleaded guilty and accepted a sentence of 30 months' probation. Fast forward to today. Meister, who posted bail and faces his next court date Friday, is now married and the father of three children, ages 6, 4 and 1. Though he has had no similar run-ins with the law since his teen years, the label sex offender and ex-felon has hung heavy on his neck, he said, costing him numerous job opportunities and blocking him from getting a license to be a locksmith, his area of expertise, from the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (which would not comment).
Resultant financial strains forced the family to move in with Meister's parents. The home is so close to the imaginary line that measurements taken by Oak Park officials said it was outside the 500-foot zone. But close doesn't count in these modern-day witch hunts. And neither does common sense or scientific research. Nothing in Meister's past suggests that he ever posed a threat to the preschool clients of the day-care center more than 150 yards from his front door. ...
Meanwhile, knee-jerk legislation now making its way through the vaporous halls of the General Assembly would prevent more than one registered sex offender from living at the same address and effectively kill successful halfway-house treatment programs. Maybe our lawmakers can explain to Meister's kids the good reasons why their dad can't coach T-ball or get a good job, why he might have to go to prison and why the family's going to have to move from Grandma and Grandpa's to, well, they don't have any idea where. I can't think of one.
: by Eric Zorn
..more..
e Ponders?
The measurements were taken by Oak Park officials (Outside 500 foot), yet when the same measurement is taken by the "County Officials" (inside 500 foot), need more be said? When a law is such that it cannot be interpreted by reasonable men, and doesn't provide the person it operates against due process, then it is unconstitutional. Here we have public officials in disagreement.
We also do not know if the day care is new, or just opened, that could make a difference. No law can expect that a person is expected to move at the whim of any other person who decides to open a business. These are issues faced by the Illinois offenders who have no representation to raise these issues. Of course, following a system of measurement comes whether this man poses any risk to the day care?
One final Rant, Illinois is a state that has civil commitment and uses risk assessment tools to determine whether or not to commit someone based upon their risk to society. These tools could be used with respect to residency issues, but wait, that would mean the state would have to prove there is a risk within the circle around that day care. Did anyone notice that, he could walk within that circle (including drop off his children at the day care) and not be any risk to the day care?
Does anyone smell an -unequal treatment- under the spirit of illinois' laws, as to only sex offenders? Where is the ACLU on this issue, and why are they not involved?
|
|
2-14-2005 Illinois:
Man charged on sex- offender registration |
.A River Forest man was arrested by Cook County Sheriff's Police this month for violating the state's sex offender registration law. Registered sex offenders in Illinois are prohibited from living within 500 feet of schools, parks and day care facilities. Edgar Price, 32, of 1539 Franklin Ave., Unit 4, River Forest, was arrested Jan. 27 for allegedly living within 500 feet of Kiddy Kare Academy, at 7730 W. North Ave., an Elmwood Park child-care facility.
River Forest Police Chief Nicholas Weiss disputes the claim. Weiss said Monday members of his department are aware of Price and have measured from his front door to the entrance of the day-care facility. Weiss said he believes Price was living within his rights.
Price was arrested as part of "Operation Hide and Seek," launched by the Cook County Sheriff's Office, as a way to monitor sex offenders. More than 30 convicted sex offenders were charged for allegedly living within illegal proximity of suburban schools, parks and day-care facilities. During the two-week sweep officers from the Sheriff's Police Sex Offender Unit made residential checks at the homes of convicted sex offenders throughout Cook County.
Penny Mateck, a spokeswoman for the Cook County Sheriff's Office, said officers measured the distance between Price's home and Kiddy Kare Academy and found it to be a distance of 310 feet. Mateck acknowledged there is a grandfather clause in the law that exempts registered sex offenders who owned their home before the law took effect. She said she doesn't know if Price would fall under that exemption. Price was previously convicted of indecent solicitation of a 15-year-old victim and sentenced to 24 months probation, according to Mateck.
: by HOLLY M. ANDERSON
..more..
|
2-10-2005 Illinois:
Sex offender registry doesn't measure risk |
.I think our society would like to stone sexual predators to death. ... But we are a nation of laws, and we reject mob violence. So we deal with these criminals in another way. We place them on a registry for sex offenders. If they move into a new neighborhood, everyone can find out who they are and what they did (not really, but more on that later). ...
For people listed as sexual predators, the sex registry is a life sentence. I checked out the people listed as sexual predators in my community on the state's Web site and immediately found one who caught my attention. The biographical information provided said the man is currently 21. But it did not tell me how old the man was when he committed his crime — aggravated criminal sexual abuse of someone younger than 16. ...
But to judge the risk this man poses to the community, I feel a need to know more information. Was this his first offense or his fourth? Was he on a date with a teenager when the crime occurred, or did he abuse his 13-year-old next door neighbor? ....
Cara Smith, policy director for Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, tells me that only 3 percent to 4 percent of the 18,000 sexual offenders listed on the state's registry fall into the "Romeo and Juliet category." In addition, she assured me that most prosecutors are reluctant to press charges in such cases. Still, that means about 500 people listed on the sex offender registry fall into that Romeo and Juliet category. ...
A person is designated a sexual predator and given a life sentence on the registry if he has been convicted of juvenile prostitution; juvenile pimping; exploitation of a child; child pornography; criminal sexual assault, if the victim is a person under 12 years of age; aggravated criminal sexual assault; predatory criminal sexual assault of a child; aggravated criminal sexual abuse; or ritualized abuse of a child.
Is it fair for sex offenders to be hounded from city to city, state to state? Courts have ruled that this is not cruel and unusual punishment or double jeopardy (punishing a criminal twice for the same act). Sexual offenders tend to repeat their crimes, even after treatment. That is one of the reasons often given to justify public registries.
Do registries deter crime? "I haven't seen any studies about that," Smith said.
: by Phil Kadner
..more..
e Ponders?
About Hounding of registered sex offenders. The US Supreme court did not say "Hounding is not unconstitutional," what the court said in 2003 was, "states could make public a list of formerly convicted sex offenders and their addresses, and that these persons were not considered dangerous because no risk assessment had been done. Further, the list was not unconstitutional." Beyond the list the court did not rule! Hounding like harassment is against the law, as is all forms of vigilantism.
The Illinois' registry contains this PUBLIC WARNING prohibiting such conduct, "ISP makes no representation as to any offender's likelihood of re-offending. Information compiled on this Registry may not be used to harass or threaten sex offenders or their families. Harassment, stalking or threats may violate Illinois criminal law."
FACT:.Of the 9,691 sex offenders released from prison in 15 states, OVERALL 3.5% (339 in these 15 states) were re-convicted of another sex offense within 3-years of release. The 9,691 offenders represented two-thirds of all sex offenders released nationwide that year. Source: US Dep't of Justice, "Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994." Pub: 11/2003. Illinois was one of the 15 states reporting, yet we have seen that Illinois reports a far higher recidivism rate to its' public than it reported to the Dep't of Justice. Why?
The Iowa Sex Offender Registry and Recidivism: This research had two specific goals: 1) To enhance understanding of the State's Sex Offender Registry through collection and analysis of data on sex offenders before and after the Registry's implementation; 2) To develope and validate a unique Iowa Sex Offender Risk Assessment tool to asist in identifying those offenders who constitute the highest risk to re-offend. Few studies have addressed the impact of sex offender registries on recidivism rates or other variables. It was the purpose of this first study to examine and compare two groups of individuals to determine what effect, IF ANY, the requirement to register as a sex offender had on recidivism rates over a 3-4 year period. There was NO EFFECT on Recidivism!
|
|
2-10-2005 Illinois:
Limit concentrations of paroled sex offenders |
.It doesn't take a criminologist or behavioral psychologist to recognize it's a bad idea to concentrate a lot of convicted sex offenders in one area. And it didn't take Gov. Rod Blagojevich long to order changes in Department of Corrections practices after it was reported that more than 10 percent of the sex offenders on parole in Illinois were living in one Chicago ZIP code.
A day after the story in the Chicago Tribune, Blagojevich directed the DOC to develop standards for transitional homes that house paroled sex offenders under contract with the state. In addition to limiting the number of parolees in one area, the standards also will limit the number of sex offenders who can live in the same transitional home, mandate constant supervision and require notification of local police departments about sex offender transitional homes in their jurisdictions. These are common-sense guidelines that should have been in place long ago.
: by Pantagraph Editorial
..more..
e Ponders?
Has someone forgotten that all sex offenders, even parolees, are registered with the local police! How many times must they be told? The police can read, and must see the same address many times. Maybe a better idea would be, return them to the county they came from (to get therapy), or would that also cause an unacceptable concentration?
"Increase the likelihood of recidivism? Maybe someone should consider the effects of registration as to recidivism. It is a well known characteristic of humans, they treat others as they are treated, generally speaking. Oppression is not a good teacher.
|
Featured Issue: Posted 2-25-05 3:00 AM Updated 12:00 PM
|
What the Illinois legislator and the article fails to inform the public of, is that the "Sanra" bill affects only those on parole, probation, or supervised release!
|
|
2-25-2005 Illinois:
Lawmaker wants to ban sex offenders from wearing Santa, Easter Bunny suits |
.An Illinois legislator is once again trying to prevent sex offenders from donning Santa suits or Easter Bunny outfits around children during the holidays, or handing out candy at Halloween. "I'd hate to see sex offenders use a holiday . . . for their own evil purposes," said state Rep. Bill Mitchell, R-Forsyth. A child has "a level of trust in a (Santa or Easter Bunny) costume."
The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois does not have an official position on Mitchell's proposal, but is concerned about some sex offender restrictions, said spokesman Ed Yohnka. "We're concerned about the overly broad nature of who ends up on sex offender lists," he said. "The list was first started for hard core offenders . . . but has expanded to a whole host of people."
Mitchell, who represents the Decatur area, said after Halloween 2003, some Decatur parents discovered their children went trick-or-treating at a sex offender's home. Mitchell's proposal, if approved, would ban sex offenders from turning on their porch lights when children are trick-or-treating. He said no children were harmed during the Decatur incident. Mitchell proposed a similar measure last year, but the bill never was called for a vote.
If his measure is successful this year, Mitchell said, local police would check on sex offenders on Halloween and make sure their lights are off. He also said employers would be responsible for making sure anyone dressing up as a holiday character is not on the sex offender registry.
In December, a 73-year-old man in North Carolina playing Santa Claus was charged after inappropriately touching an 11-year-old girl who portrayed Santa's elf.
: by Kate Thayer, Post-Dispatch Springfield Bureau
..more..
|
What is so amazing is, this bill affects ONLY those on parole, probation or supervised release. Why enact a law when the departments that supervise these folks can simply issue a rule?
Proposed House Bill 121:
"Amends the Unified Code of Corrections. Provides that as a condition of probation, conditional discharge, parole, or mandatory supervised release, a sex offender may not participate in a holiday event involving children under 18 years of age, such as distributing candy or other items to children on Halloween, wearing a Santa Claus costume on or preceding Christmas, being employed as a department store Santa Claus, or wearing an Easter Bunny costume on or preceding Easter.
Amends the Sex Offender and Child Murderer Community Notification Law. Provides that a law enforcement agency having jurisdiction may provide to the public a special alert list warning parents to be aware that sex offenders may attempt to contact children during holidays involving children, such as Halloween, Christmas, and Easter and to inform parents that information containing the names and addresses of registered sex offenders are accessible on the Internet by means of a hyperlink labeled "Sex Offender Information" on the Department of State Police's World Wide Web home page and are available for public inspection at the agency's headquarters. Effective immediately."
Just this week in North Dakota, their legislature refused to pass a law which would restrict where sex offenders, on parole or probation, could live.
Their reasoning was wonderful: "All in all, we thought that these separate contingencies would be better resolved by a judge." Senators defeated the bill, 35-10.
They recognized that, while a residency law may be appropriate for one offender, it may not be for another offender. Further that, these folks are under state jurisdiction anyway and controlled by a court order, the court being in a better position to determine what is appropriate in each case. Why have judges if not for reasons such as this?
Why is it that Illinois needs this bill? Are there other reasons this legislator keeps pushing this bill?
eAdvocate
e Ponders?
Let the truth be told. Cited as support for the bill is an occurrence in North Carolina (link to article above), where a registered sex offender (who WAS NOT on parole, probation or supervised release) touched a 11-year old girl inappropriately while traveling in his car.
Yes, both of them would be working in a mall the next day, playing Santa and his Elf, but preventing that fellow (if there had been a law) from wearing a Santa suit would not have prevented that crime.
Further, this bill would seriously affect sex offenders, who are parents of children -and there are many-, from allowing their children to participate in traditional holiday decorating and festivities in their own home! How sick is that...
|
|
| |
Commentary:
Illinois Crime is Down! This is not consistant with reports from Illinois Attorney General's Office
One must wonder whether many Illinois jurisdictions are, or have been, misreporting crime statistics causing the claims of high crime.
"'We want to make sure the sex offenders, when they are back in our communities, are receiving treatment to reduce their rate of recidivism, which is currently approximately 50 percent. With treatment, we know we can dramatically decrease that rate of recidivism,' said Madigan." KHQA 9-9-2003
The Department of Justice reports a sex offender recidivism rate of 3.5% as to a new sex offense, which completely disagrees with the 50% reported in Illinois. Recidivism of sex offenders released in 1994. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (November 2003).
Is a problem with the way Illinois reports sex offenses causing recidivism rates to be abnormally high?
It appears that, nationwide, there is the "politically correct recidivism rate," then there is the "reality recidivism rate," which seems to get hidden from the public eye. see "Fear, as a tactic," Keeps Former Sex Offenders and Their Families, as Political Detainees under Megans' Laws
Editorial
|
|
|
7-18-2004 Illinois
Freeport crime rate subsides in 2003, as does the rest of Illinois
FREEPORT -- Statistics show a significant drop in the crime rate for 2003 in Freeport and Illinois, compared to the previous year. Officials point to a variety of causes for the declining crime rate, including tougher enforcement measures, increased collaboration among law enforcement agencies, technological advances, stricter monitoring of criminals once they're released from jail, and, for the Freeport Police Department at least, a more accurate means of reporting crime statistics to the state.
"Beginning with last year, we implemented a new internal policy, whereby we more accurately report our statistics," said Freeport Deputy Police Chief Robert Smith. "Whereas before we relied on whatever the officer put down on the police report as to how the crime would be reported, we've implemented an administrative layer to make sure that it's correctly reported. Because our contention all along has been that our crime stats were distorted by that process."
The Illinois State Police records show the state crime rate was down 4.2 percent in 2003, compared to 2002. Police in the state reported a total of 497,693 crimes in 2003, significantly less than the 518,379 reported the year before. This is the ninth consecutive year the state has seen an overall decrease in crime, according to a state police news release.
The release states that the number of violent crimes in Illinois decreased 7.7 percent in 2003, with murders decreasing by 6.8 percent and aggravated assault and battery decreasing the most at 9 percent. Other crimes such as criminal sexual assault, property crimes and thefts also declined, the release states.
Freeport police officials say the city's crime statistics for 2003 are consistent with the decreases reported statewide for that year. However, some of the city's statistics are lower in 2003 by a larger amount because of the recent change in reporting techniques for crime statistics, officials say. "We are reporting crimes that occur within our jurisdiction in a (more) accurate way," Smith said. "So there is some effect reflected in these statistics from the manner that we are reporting these crimes."
In the past, statistics may have been inflated because crimes were counted that turned out later not to be what they were initially reported as. This may be because police discovered the alleged victim was lying or that the crime did not meet the criteria for how the offense was originally categorized. Under the new reporting system, such crimes would not be factored into the annual statistics, thus making the yearly figures more accurate, Smith said.
For example, if someone reported to police that he or she was the victim of a sexual assault and that later turned out to be false, that initial report of the crime may have been reflected in the annual crime statistics before this recent change. Now, resources have been directed toward eliminating that problem, officials say.
..more.. Travis Morse | The Journal-Standard
Legal Issues & Court Cases Affectine Sex Offenders ©
News & Noteworthy: Articles Concerning Sex offender Issues ©
Beyond the Abuse: A Personal Recovery Program ©
Copyright ©2003-2005 L. Arthur M.Parrish. All rights reserved.Privacy policy
|
|
