Recidivism Of Sex Offenders Essay Research Paper

Recidivism Of Sex Offenders Essay, Research Paper

Sex offenders have been a serious problem for our legal system at all levels, not to mention those

who have been their victims. There are 43,000 inmates in prison for sexual offenses while each

year in this country over 510,000 children are sexually assaulted(Oakes 99). The latter statistic, in

its context, does not convey the severity of the situation. Each year 510,000 children have their

childhood’s destroyed, possibly on more than one occasion, and are faced with dealing with the

assault for the rest of their lives. Sadly, many of those assaults are perpetrated by people who

have already been through the correctional system only to victimize again. Sex offenders, as a

class of criminals, are nine times more likely to repeat their crimes(Oakes 99). This presents a

problem for the public, as potential victims, and the legal system which is entrusted by the public

for protection. It would be irresponsible for the legal system to ignore the criminal class of sex

offenders, for they are subject to a recurring physiological urge that requires the use of effective

restraints that would curb the habitual repetition of episodes producing the harmful consequences

to the public(Schopf 95). In light of this realization, steps beyond treatment have been taken to

reduce the recidivism rate of sex offenders. Notification laws, special supervising techniques by

parole officers, and both surgical and chemical castration are techniques used in various forms in

this country and abroad with success. However, notification laws and both forms of castrations

have not come about without criticism on constitutional grounds. Any criticism should take into

account the extraordinary recidivism rates found only in the criminal class of the sex offender.

A study found in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence by Michael C. Seto and Howard E.

Barbaree looked at 224 sex offenders. Of those men, 33 committed a new offense of some kind

for a general recidivism rate of 14.7 percent. Even more interesting was the study did not support

the idea that good treatment behavior, as in positive or appropriate behavior in group sessions,

good homework assignments, and positive ratings of motivation, could be associated with a less

of a chance for recidivism. They gave two possible reasons for this finding. Sex offenders, by the

very nature of their criminal behavior, are masters of manipulation and exploitation. These

individuals can exhibit behavior that contributes to favorable assessments. The second possible

reason is these skills are learned, or enhanced, in the treatment setting. Data from a program

evaluation by Quinsey et al in 1998 is consistent with this interpretation. They hypothesized that

it was due to exposure to sexually deviant material or by learning about others’ modi operandi.

A more recent study, published in the same journal, by Looman et al in 2000 suggests the

opposite. Of the released sex offenders they studied they found a 23.6 percent recidivism rate for

those treated while a 51.7 percent rate for the untreated group. They also conducted an analysis

separately on the outcome for men who had previous sexual convictions. Those with no previous

sexual offense convictions had a 20.9 percent recidivism rate of the treated men compared to 42.9

percent of the untreated men. Of the men with previous sexual offenses, 26.1 percent of the

treated group sexually reoffended compared to 73.1 percent of the untreated men. According to

this study, treatment is invaluable in minimizing the recidivism of sex offenders with previous

offenses. With such conflicting reports on the effectiveness of treatment it is easy to see why our

legal system has taken other steps to keep sex offenders from continually victimizing.

Registration of sex offenders began in 1994 with the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against

Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act. It encouraged states, by threatening to

hold back ten percent of their crime-fighting funding, to establish systems where anyone who

commits a sexual or kidnapping offense against a child is required to register his or her address

with the state apon release. The original version gave law enforcement agencies the choice when

to release an offender’s information if they thought it necessary for the public’s protection.

Unfortunately, some law enforcement agencies did not do so(Oakes 99).

On July 29, 1994, the ineffectiveness of the current notification law became painfully

apparent. Megan Kanka, unbeknownst to her or her family, lived across the street from three

convicted sex offenders. On that day Jesse Timmendequas, a twice-convicted sex offender, lured

Megan into his house by promising to show her a new puppy. He then raped and murdered her.

Other than the three men, no one in the residential neighborhood of Trenton, New Jersey was

aware of their criminal backgrounds(Oakes 99). Timmendequas had been released despite his and

his therapist’s doubts that he could adjust to life outside of prison. On top of this, he had been

granted early release for “good time”, even though failed to participate regularly in prescribed

therapy. “Had I known that there were three pedophiles living across the street from my home, I

never would have allowed Megan to walk out of the door of my house alone. I guarantee she

would be alive today,” stated Maureen Kanka(Martin 96).

In response to this preventable atrocity New Jersey enacted Megan’s Law. On May 17,

1996 President Clinton, on recommendation from The Department of Justice, amended the 1994

Wetterling Act with Megan’s Law requiring agencies to release information in all cases necessary

to protect the public and allowing any registry information to be disclosed for any purpose

permitted under state law. Today, all 50 states require convicted sex offenders register with

states agencies of law enforcement. As of February 1998, there were nearly 240,000 offenders

registered in the United States(Oakes 99).

Even still, not all registry information is disseminated to the public. Some states

numerically rank offenders using tier levels according to factors used to determine the offender’s

risk of re-offense. The higher the tier classification, the more information about the offender is

released to the public. Classification is done by either prosecutors, boards, or clinics. Every

offender is at least assigned to the low risk Tier 1, where only the law enforcement agency is

notified. A Tier 2 ranking, considered moderate risk, requires that notification be made to

agencies, schools, and community organizations. A Tier 3 ranking is considered high risk and

community notification is required. In addition, some states require that the sex offender be given

notice to the classification. This allows for a review process if the offender wants to challenge the

classification(Oakes 99). Such a system is likely an effort to head off constitutional challenges, of

which there have been many.

Sex offenders have raised challenges to notification laws based on the Bill of Attainder,

Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Double Jeopardy, Due Process, Equal Protection, and Ex Post

Facto Clauses in the United States Constitution. In the Michigan case, Doe v. Kelley ‘97, the

court held that because notification does not constitute a punitive purpose, the Bill of Attainder

Clause was not violated. A New Jersey court, in Paul v. Verniero ‘97, held that notification does

not constitute punishment and does not violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. In

1997, the Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto Clause arguments were defeated in Kansas v.

Hendricks when the court held that notification did not amount to a second trial. In Femedeer v.

Haun ‘99, the Utah court set up a two step analysis that an offender must meet before

demonstrating a violation of the Due Process Clause. The first step is to determine if the state

interfered with a liberty interest. If an interest exists, then it must be determined if the procedures

for the deprived interest are constitutionally sufficient. Several federal courts have found these

challenges fail(Oakes 99).