Group items tagged

PDF: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/084747p1.pdf This case returns to us after the Supreme Court's review in Reynolds v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 975 (2012). Remand requires that we reach the merits of Reynolds's claim that the regulatory rule upon which his indictment was based was promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). This claim gives rise to three questions: (1) What is the appropriate standard of review of an agency's assertion of good cause in waiving the APA's notice and comment requirements? (2) Did the Attorney General have good cause to waive these requirements in promulgating a rule governing the retroactivity of the Sex Offender and Registration Notification Act's ("SORNA") registration requirements? (3) If the Attorney General lacked good cause to waive the requirements, was Reynolds prejudiced by the failure to comply with the APA's notice and comment requirements? The courts of appeals are divided on each of these questions. On the first question, the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits have determined that the arbitrary and capricious standard is the appropriate standard for reviewing the Attorney General's actions, the Fourth and Sixth Circuits have not stated a standard but appear to use de novo review, and the Ninth Circuit has explicitly avoided the question. On the second question, the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits have held that the Attorney General had good cause to waive notice and comment, while the Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits have held that he did not. On the final question, the Fifth Circuit has held that the Attorney General's lack of good cause does not prejudice defendants, while the Sixth Circuit has held that it is prejudicial. We conclude that we need not decide the appropriate standard of review today because the Attorney General's assertion of good cause cannot withstand review even under the most deferential standard available. We also conclude that the At

New data driven system called for in new report According to a report released last week (PDF) by the U.S. Department of Justice, the federal tier-based sex offender registration and management system pu...

As reported in this official press release (PDF), this morning "the United States Sentencing Commission submitted to Congress its comprehensive report examining federal sentencing policy in child pornography cases." He...

This e-supplement is a companion to our report titled, Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act: Jurisdictions Face Challenges to Implementing the Act, and Stakeholders Report Positive and Negative Effects (GAO-13-211). The purpose of this e-supplement is to provide information from GAO's Web-based survey of state sex offender registration and notification offices about their efforts to implement the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), challenges associated with doing so, and perspectives on the effects of the law in their jurisdictions. Full Report: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652032.pdf

During the summer of 2006, the Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives (DPCA) conducted a survey of County Probation Departments to assess sex offender management practices. Among the resulting recommendations was that DPCA draft and disseminate a series of research bulletins on issues related to sex offender management so that probation officers in the field would have the latest information.

To law enforcement and the public, sexual assaults, and especially the sexual assaults of young children, are a major social concern. Caretakers worry about such attacks when their children are out of sight. Law enforcement, child protective services, and legislatures work to reduce the incidence of these crimes. However, while a few highly publicized incidents are engraved in the public's consciousness, there is little empirically-based information on these crimes. Until recently, law enforcement and policymakers had few hard facts on which to base their response to these crimes, their victims, and their offenders.

In 1994, prisons in 15 States released 9,691 male sex offenders. The 9,691 men are two-thirds of all the male sex offenders released from State prisons in the United States in 1994. This report summarizes findings from a survey that tracked the 9,691 for 3 full years after their release. The report documents their "recidivism," as measured by rates of rearrest, reconviction, and reimprisonment during the 3-year followup period. This report gives recidivism rates for the 9,691 combined total. It also separates the 9,691 into four overlapping categories and gives recidivism rates for each category: - 3,115 released rapists - 6,576 released sexual assaulters - 4,295 released child molesters - 443 released statutory rapists. The 9,691 sex offenders were released from State prisons in these 15 States: Arizona, Maryland, North Carolina, California, Michigan, Ohio, Delaware, Minnesota, Oregon, Florida, New Jersey, Texas, Illinois, New York, and Virginia.

Original ArticleYet another report showing that ex-sex offenders have a low re-offense rate when considering additional sex crimes.06/11/2013By Lauren Daley The Juvenile Court Judges' Commission released the first comprehensive study (PDF) of yo...

Original ArticleView the PDF documentKelly Richards ISSN 1836-2206 Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, September 2011Abstract: Sexual offending against children is a highly emotive issue. It is nonetheless important that public policy...

In response to widespread public concern about the release of sex offenders from prison, the Federal Government and all 50 States and the District of Columbia have passed laws collectively referred to as "community notification statutes" that authorize or require communities where such offenders will live to be notified of their arrival. The common goal of these statutes is to prevent sexual victimization by notifying potential victims that a convicted sex offender lives nearby.

Citizens across California have become increasingly concerned about sex offenders returning to their neighborhoods. They want greater assurances that these offenders will not place their children or themselves in jeopardy of victimization. As a result, laws have recently been passed that increase incarceration and community supervision periods, place restrictions on where sex offenders can reside, and prohibit them from being in specific locations.

The purpose of the present study was to test models of combining static and dynamic risk measures that might predict sexual recidivism among adult male sex offenders better than any one type of measure alone. Study participants were 759 adult male sex offenders under correctional supervision in Vermont who were enrolled in community sex offender treatment between 2001 and 2007. These offenders were assessed once using static measures (Static-99R, Static-2002R and VASOR) based on participants' history at the date of placement in the community. A 22-item dynamic risk measure (SOTNPS) was used multiple times to assess participants, shortly after their entry into community treatment and approximately every six months thereafter. Analyses of SOTNPS scores resulted in the development of a new 16-item dynamic risk measure, the Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS).

This study examined the recidivism rates of female sexual offenders. A meta-analysis of 10 studies (2,490 offenders; average follow-up 6.5 years) showed that female sexual offenders have extremely low rates of sexual recidivism (less than 3%). The recidivism rates for violent (including sexual) offences and for any type of crime were predictably higher than the recidivism rates for sexual offences but still lower than the recidivism rates of male sexual offenders. These findings indicate the need for distinct policies and procedures for assessing and managing the risk of male and female sexual offenders. Risk assessment tools developed specifically for male sexual offenders would be expected to substantially overestimate the recidivism risk of female sexual offenders.

In the early 1990s, the Minnesota legislature enacted the predatory offender registration (POR) law, which requires offenders who meet the statutory criteria to register their residences, places of employment, schools, and any vehicles owned or operated by registrants with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Since its creation nearly 20 years ago, the law has been amended several times to broaden its scope and increase the penalties for registration noncompliance. These changes to the POR law have led to a greater number of sex offenders convicted for failure to register (FTR), which has in turn resulted in more offenders coming to prison for FTR offenses. In fact, FTR is now the most common reincarceration offense for sex offenders released from prison.

The National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) was initiated in 1995 to support state activities for the establishment of records systems and the collection and use of criminal history and related records. Since 1995, all states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories have received more than $530 million under the program, which is administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The goal of the NCHIP program is to "improve safety and security by enhancing the quality, completeness, and accessibility of criminal history record information and by insuring the nationwide implementation of criminal justice and noncriminal justice background check systems." In order to accomplish this goal, the program provides financial and technical assistance to the states to improve their criminal records systems and other related systems to support background checks.

In April 2007, the Minnesota Department of Corrections1 (DOC) published results of a study on 3,166 sex offenders who were released from the state's correctional facilities between 1990 and 2003. Recidivism measures included new arrests, new convictions, and incarceration for new offenses that occurred in Minnesota. This report draws upon the data collected by the DOC, but focuses solely on the sexual recidivism rates2 of the 970 adult sex offenders who were placed under Hennepin County's supervision when released from prison between 1990 and 2003. It is important to bear in mind that during the study's lengthy follow-up period significant changes occurred in how the criminal justice system manages sex offenders. Beginning in the late 1980's, public outcry resulting from high profile sex crimes prompted the enactment of stricter laws and tighter supervision guidelines. For example, risk levels (Level 3, 2, or 1) were not assigned to sex offenders until 1997.

The following figures on a ten-year California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) follow-up study of the recidivism of 3,577 individuals convicted of a sex offense who were released from CDCR prisons in 1997 and followed until the end of 2007