Abstract
Purpose: Contrary to public opinion, empirical studies have consistently shown that persons convicted of a sexual offense (PCSO) are less likely to recidivate with a general offense. While researchers often point toward the surreptitiousness of sexual offending to explain low rates of recidivism, this paper tests a novel explanation: SOs recidivate at lower rates than persons convicted of a non-sexual offense (PCNSO) because they are more often revoked to prison before they are able to commit a new crime, perhaps owing to more restrictive post-release supervision guidelines.
Methods: Using a sample of 196,468 unique male releases, the difference in general and sexual recidivism between PCSO (n = 29,420) and PCNSO was assessed through survival analyses (Cox regression models).
Results: Results demonstrated that PCSO were significantly less likely to be reconvicted for a general crime, but more likely for a sex offense. They were also more likely to be reincarcerated due to a revocation without a new sentence. Accounting for revocations, the difference in reconviction risk lessens between the groups but does not disappear.
Conclusions: This analysis provides evidence that differences in community supervision are contributing to the difference in recidivism rates between PCSO and
PCNSO. Implications and future research are discussed.
Click here to download full pdf file
Click here to download full pdf file
This research’s findings may be true but I have a different theory. Those who were incarcerated are traumatized by the experience and terrified of being re-incarcerated. I still have PTSD issues with going to prison fifteen years after the event.
The article says sex offenses, but is not specific as to what is defined as a sex offense for their purposes. I’m sure if they followed 1000 serial rapists that results will be much different than if they used , say 1000 juveniles that were convicted of underage sexual activity.
A report can say whatever you want it to say for your goals. You just have to use information in a way that it supports your conclusion.
Seems to me the study proves that a vast majority of us should not have to register after 10 to 15 years of good behavior. Right there on a simple chart.
I’m sorry the study wasn’t available in 2019 when some of us were dumped into tier 3 after 28 years of good behavior! Good grief.
All of the comments here so far are well said and #tootrue.
“[PFR] recidivate at lower rates than persons convicted of a non-sexual offense (PCNSO) because they are more often revoked to prison before they are able to commit a new crime, perhaps owing to more restrictive post-release supervision guidelines.”
I would argue that this claim presumes that PFR are inclined to commit a new crime in the first place. I haven’t read the entire report at this point, and am curious if it shows anything to support this presumption. If not, I can only but comfortably assume that the intent of the paper was to support the registry and all associated with it, rather than present facts for the reader to draw their own conclusions.
The not-if-but-when crowd is perfectly okay with this and likely believe that is how the registry “works.” It’s a matter of faith (which I personally define as a near unshakable belief in something despite the absence of proof or presence of proof to the contrary) to them that PFR recidivism is a certainty despite the volumes of contrary research and near-absence of supporting evidence. Also noteworthy is the absence of anything beyond personal opinion to oppose the former and questionable, if any, support for the latter (i.e. Butner-Redux).
Changing the group-think of pro-registry advocates will be nearly impossible, as they are based on presumptions as opposed to facts. Individual minds within those advocates change, and fortunately for us, more frequently than they used to. Many politicians (judges included), for example, already know what a useless waste of money and effort the registry is, but publicly acknowledging it as such is political suicide at this point. It’ll probably be three or four generations before the most of voting public becomes anti-registry, as nearly everyone will either be on it or have a friend or family member who is. And they’ll also be scratching their heads wondering why someone began all this absurdity in the first place and let it get so out of hand.