|
News & Noteworthy © ---
Featured Report 11-21-06 |
|
Michigan: Misconceptions results in poor legislation!
|
|
11-21-2006 Michigan:
Target 8: The Sex Offender Registry |
."I haven't seen it stop a crime," said West Grand Neighborhood Organization Director and crime prevention organizer Nola Steketee. But, like a lot of people, she uses the Michigan Sex Offender Registry and likes it. "It's a great tool. I'm very glad that it's here."
According to a state audit last year, the Sex Offender Registry exists to help prevent convicted sex offenders from committing more sex crimes. The audit, however, didn't look at the question of whether or not it did. Target 8 Investigators could find no government study asking hard questions about the Michigan Registry. So Target 8 Investigators took a look at the basic numbers.
We looked at State Police crime statistics from 1999, the year before the Registry went online, and 2004, the most recent year for which numbers are available. We combined the stats for rape and other sex crimes, excluding prostitution. We found that there were 147 sex crimes per 100,000 Michigan residents in 1999, and a small increase in 2004, 157 per 100,000. That suggests the Registry has had little impact. [SNIP]
The Registry is based on the popular idea that most sex offenders will commit more sex crimes once they get out of prison. But Target 8 Investigators read study after study with contrary results. One study looked at 61 other research projects and found that the repeat rate for sex offenders is lower than that for other criminals in general. Some 13 percent committed another sex crime, compared to a repeat rate of 36 percent for all other crimes. If that's the case it may suggest why the crime rate at least appears unaffected by the introduction of sex offender registries.
It may be that most sex crimes are committed by people who have yet to be caught and so are not on any registry. We haven't yet found any research that directly addresses that question.
..more..
: by Henry Erb
|
.It still amazes me how many folks misconstrue or misunderstand facts about public sex offender registries. The attached "Target 8" article attempts to prove whether Michigan's registry has reduced overall sex crimes.
Since the numbers per 100,000 seemed high I double checked them. The Michigan State Police stats were actually higher: for 1999 149 -and- for 2004 158 per 100,000. However, they are not "sex crimes" but instead "reported offenses," the facts construed by the person reporting the offense to law enforcement. Prosecutors then decide if there are facts to support a crime and decide what charge is appropriate, if any. There is a host of reasons why many will never be prosecuted.
Misconception: Effectiveness of the public registry is determined by overall sex crimes (reported offenses here).
The article concludes, that based upon an increase in overall sex crimes in two specific years (1999 and 2004), that the public registry has had little impact. The reality is, if sex crimes go up (147 to 157) then the public registry has had no effect in reducing sex crimes. With sex crimes increasing it is more likely that, the public registry is not a deterrent to sex crimes. Critical to the analogy is, who is committing those crimes, and that was not explored in the article likely because Michigan stats only reports victim / offender relationships for rape and not sex offenses.
To prove that the public registry (and its related laws) had an effect on sex crimes, one would have to compare the recidivism rate of just those on the registry, in those two years. If their recidivism rate went down then the registry likely had a positive effect, and if their recidivism rate stayed the same or increased the registry likely had no effect on sex crimes. Overall sex crimes in Michigan, and overall sex crimes committed by Michigan registered offenders, are different issues.
Misconception: The registry exists to prevent registered offenders from committing more crimes. i.e. prevent recidivism.
This is a misnomer, a false belief, actually courts have held the purpose of public registries is to inform the public of where registered offenders live; a glorified phone book without phone numbers. How listing one's home address can be a deterrent to crime is beyond me. The reality is, recidivism was low BEFORE registries and CONINUES to be low today AFTER the advent of registries.
Persons who chose to commit crimes will do so in spite of registries. The very fact that the reporter found crime has gone up (1999 to 2004) is proof that registries are not a deterrent.
Past Recidivism (3-year average):
The news article cites a Department of Justice study published in 2003. That study followed 9,691 sex offenders released from prison in 1994 for three years and found, that -on average- 5.3% of the 9,691 were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3-years, and 3.5% of those were reconvicted of that charge. These are recidivism rates BEFORE public registries began.
Michigan Recidivism (11-year average):
The Michigan Parole Board annually publishes recidivism statistics for all crime types paroled. In an 11-year study (1990-2000), Michigan sex offenders have shown an average 2.65% recidivism rate, for the same crime type. This study shows BEFORE and AFTER the start of public registries. Further proof, that the Michigan registry has no effect on recidivism. See chart CLICK.
Little known facts about the 2003 Dep't of Justice study:
That study's 9,691 offenders represented two-thirds of all offenders released from prisons nationwide that year; 15 state prisons. Further, that study excluded none, as so many studies do, it is the best cross-sectional view of released sex offenders ever. Excepting Florida, California and Oregon all other states in the study provided sex offender therapy within their prisons; Michigan is one of those states.
Further, that study also found that non sex offenders released commit six-times the number of NEW sex crimes than did sex offenders released. See chart CLICK.
Therein is the problem which legislatures fail to address by any means but the theory of deterrence; increase the punishment for sex crimes. It never ceases to amaze me how legislators prefer to take the -vote getting- "get tough on crime" stance and ignore the "find the causes" issues that glare at them yearly. I guess those are not popular issues with voters.
The article comments: "It may be that most sex crimes are committed by people who have yet to be caught and so are not on any registry. We haven't yet found any research that directly addresses that question."
While it is true that one cannot do a study of, persons who have not yet committed a crime, one can do a study of persons who have previously committed crimes, and learn from that. This is one of those, not popular with voters issues that legislators ignore.
The above 2003 Dep't of Justice study looked at the "victim / offender" relationship aspect of sex crimes. Unfortunately it didn't have that information for the 9,691 released offenders, so in 1997 they looked at 73,116 incarcerated sex offenders nationwide who had one victim to see what their "victim / offender" relationships were. See chart CLICK.
Reviewing that chart shows that 96.3% of the sex crimes against persons under 18 were committed by someone known to the victim. Now, look closely at the offender types and notice that 46.5% are offenders within the immediate family. Those offenders, for the most part, will be returning to the family following incarceration.
So, when legislators tout they want to get tough on crime, and what they really do is, get tough on former offenders under the belief that they are the only ones who commit new sex crimes, who are legislators really getting tough on? The victims of the original crime! Legislators lack vision when they make decisions.
Remember the other fact, that non sex offender released from prison commit 6-times the number of NEW sex crimes than do sex offenders released. Those are potential sex offenders being released when they are released from prison. What are legislators doing about that, or are they even thinking about it?
Legislators need to stop falling over the same rock time and time again, get tough hasn't worked, and start moving to resolve the unpopular issues in order to reduce crimes overall.
In closing, has the presence of the registry raised awareness, OR, caused public hysteria and focused the public eye in the wrong direction, and misdirecting legislative eyes as to who is really causing the majority of NEW sex crimes?
|
|
|
