Sex Offender Studies

Original ArticleAbstract: Sex offenders have become the targets of some of the most far-reaching and novel crime legislation in the U.S. Two key innovations in recent decades have been registration and notification laws which, respectively, requ...

Original Article11/10/2013 In a recent article posted here, the static-99 (an actuarial assessment instrument) developers are embracing retention and have posted a new report that sex offender risk plunges over time and the community. This is so...

Fragile Flower Original Article10/27/2013By Karen Franklin, Ph.D. Dan Montaldi's words were prophetic.Speaking to Salon magazine last year, the former director of Florida's civil commitment program for sex offenders called innovative rehabilita...

Original Article10/13/2013By Keith EdwardsAUGUSTA - Sex offenders are the only type of criminal with their own registry so the public can keep an eye on them, so they must be the most likely to commit more crimes, right?Wrong. Contrary to the se...

Original Article10/03/2013Risk assessment tools used to predict prisoner re-offending are no more accurate than tossing a coin when it comes to psychopaths, according to new research from Queen Mary University of London. The researchers say the ...

Original Article Remember, recidivism (in most studies) means the conviction for another crime, or technicality, not necessarily another sex crime. If they only considered new sex crimes, then the rates would be even lower. 09/21/2013 We read with... Original ArticleRemember, recidivism (in most studies) means the conviction for another crime, or technicality, not necessarily another sex crime. If they only considered new sex crimes, then the rates would be even lower.09/21/2013 We read with...

Original ArticleWith the rate that sex offender laws change, keep that in mind, since this study is from 2009.August 1, 2009By Brenda V. SmithAbstract:This publication is part of a larger scholarly project and one in a series that aims to create...

Original Article09/04/2013By Karen Franklin, Ph.D.Reported predictive validity higher in studies by an instrument's designers than by independent researchers The use of actuarial risk assessment instruments to predict violence is becoming more a...

This article argues that the new preventive law focus in sex offender laws is largely ineffective and too costly to personal liberty. The application of sex offender laws involving civil commitment, sex offender registration, and residency restrictions is often based on an individualized analysis of future dangerousness, i.e., the risk the defendant will sexually recidivate. In assessing future dangerousness, experts and courts place heavy emphasis on the use of actuarial tools, basically checklists that mental health experts use to derive statistical estimates of risk. This article provides substantiation that actuarial tools, while enjoying the imprimatur of science, suffer from significant empirical faults. Yet courts are largely abandoning their gatekeeping roles in accepting the experts' testimony using actuarial tool predictions of risk without critical review as required by the Daubert and Frye evidentiary standards. The paper theorizes that this is likely a pragmatic strategy considering the current political and public thirst for retribution against sexual predators. But, use of this empirically-challenged science exacerbates the practice of applying sex offender restrictions to inappropriately labeled individuals. Finally, this article takes advantage of the interdisciplinary trend of engaging social science with the law on expert evidence. More specifically, it offers an empirical assessment of future dangerousness opinions within the Daubert/Frye scientific evidence frameworks. The significance of the conclusion reached in this article is clear: if the law continues to rely upon suspect science that results in the wrong individuals being subject to liberty-infringing sex offender laws, then the drain on criminal justice resources will leave the truly dangerous offenders without sufficient supervision at the risk of public safety.

Original ArticleDoesn't surprise us one bit. It's not a "justice" system, it's an INjustice system!08/29/2013By Radley BalkoI've previously written about the cognitive bias problem in state crime labs. This is the bias that can creep into the wo...

At first glance these types of exclusionary zoning laws, known as "sex offender residency restrictions," seem like a good idea that should help keep kids safe. Why would anyone want to allow sex offenders to be anywhere near children? The problem is these laws may do more harm than good, if they work at all. In spite of good intentions, these laws have unintended consequences that can actually make it harder to track sex offenders.   These laws make it illegal for a sex offender to live within some set distance, usually 1,000 to 3,000 feet, of places where children tend to be. Think about drawing a circle that big around every school, park, day care center, playground, library, and public building. Those circles would probably cover most, if not all, of most cities and towns, and would leave very few places for sex offenders to live. The sex offenders we're talking about can no longer be kept locked up and the system has to let them out, and so they have to live somewhere. These sex offenders have two basic choices; follow the rules and live in the few places allowed, or break the rules by trying to keep their sex offender status secret.

Original ArticleDoesn't surprise us one bit! This is what happens when corruption and greed infest the "justice" system.08/29/2013By Paul Hamaker Daniel Murrie of the University of Virginia and Marcus Boccaccini at Sam Houston State University p...

Original ArticleBy Charles MontaldoStudies Find They May Not Increase Public Safety Laws requiring sex offenders to register with law enforcement and notifying the public of their location may make us feel safer, but two scientific studies of th...

Original ArticleI hope this includes adult prisons where this happens as well?08/15/2013By PATRICK YEAGLE Following a federal report showing high rates of sex abuse in Illinois' youth prisons, the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice is movin...

Original Article08/12/2013By Paul HammelLINCOLN - A newly released study (PDF) questions whether public safety has improved because of a four-year-old state law that requires all sex offenders to be listed on a public website. The law, known as ...

Original Article08/06/2013 A new University of New Hampshire study challenges the view that online predators are a distinctly dangerous variety of sex offender, requiring special programs to protect youth. The study from the UNH Crimes against C...

Original ArticleDiigo Post Excerpt: Mass incarceration of American youth is actually making the country's crime problem worse, according to a new study of Chicago youth incarceration. The study, conducted by Anna Aizer of Brown University and Jo...

Original Article07/18/2013By Karen Franklin, Ph.D.Other new research finds further flaws with actuarial methods in forensic practice At least three out of every four men being indefinitely detained as Sexually Violent Predators in Minnesota woul...

The technological phenomenon of "sexting" has seen such a dramatic increase in popularity that it is now defined in the Merriam Webster Dictionary: "the sending of sexually explicit messages or images by cell phone." Moreover, if you ask a high school student to describe sexting, you may be surprised to hear it is a social norm. In a 2009 survey conducted by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen & Unplanned Pregnancy, twenty percent of teens said they had sexted. That number has since increased to over twenty-five percent. What these students and many others do not know is that sexting could land them on a sex offender registry for life. As a result, their names and reputations could forever be ruined by the simple push of a computer key, or touch of an iPhone.

The mandatory registration of juvenile sex offenders incorrectly assumes that the same dynamics of adult sex offenders apply to juveniles. In doing so, this group of juveniles is labeled and placed in a category that will ultimately hinder their development, rather than contribute to their rehabilitation. Accordingly, this mandated registration will have a negative effect on these individuals along with society as a whole based upon how they are perceived by others in the community and their lack of ability to contribute to the greater good.