Monday, March 6, 2017

Is sexual abuse recidivism "frighteningly high"(80%) or just "significantly high" (27%)

NY Times  Last week at the Supreme Court, a lawyer made what seemed like an unremarkable point about registered sex offenders.

“This court has recognized that they have a high rate of recidivism and are very likely to do this again,” said the lawyer, Robert C. Montgomery, who was defending a North Carolina statute that bars sex offenders from using Facebook, Twitter and other social media services.

The Supreme Court has indeed said the risk that sex offenders will commit new crimes is “frightening and high.” That phrase, in a 2003 decision upholding Alaska’s sex offender registration law, has been exceptionally influential. It has appeared in more than 100 lower-court opinions, and it has helped justify laws that effectively banish registered sex offenders from many aspects of everyday life.

But there is vanishingly little evidence for the Supreme Court’s assertion that convicted sex offenders commit new offenses at very high rates. The story behind the notion, it turns out, starts with a throwaway line in a glossy magazine.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion in the 2003 case, Smith v. Doe, cited one of his own earlier opinions for support, and that opinion did include a startling statistic. “The rate of recidivism of untreated offenders has been estimated to be as high as 80 percent,” Justice Kennedy wrote in the earlier case, McKune v. Lile.

He cited what seemed to be a good source for the statistic: “A Practitioner’s Guide to Treating the Incarcerated Male Sex Offender,” published in 1988 by the Justice Department.

The guide, a compendium of papers from outside experts, is 231 pages long, and it contains lots of statistics on sex offender recidivism rates. Many of them were in the single digits, some a little higher. Only one source claimed an 80 percent rate, and the guide itself said that number might be exaggerated.

The source of the 80 percent figure was a 1986 article in Psychology Today, a magazine written for a general audience. The article was about a counseling program run by the authors, and they made a statement that could be good for business. “Most untreated sex offenders released from prison go on to commit more offenses — indeed, as many as 80 percent do,” the article said, without evidence or elaboration.

That’s it. The basis for much of American jurisprudence and legislation about sex offenders was rooted in an offhand and unsupported statement in a mass-market magazine, not a peer-reviewed journal.

“Unfortunately,” Melissa Hamilton wrote in a new article in The Boston College Law Review, “the Supreme Court’s scientifically dubious guidance on the actual risk of recidivism that sex offenders pose has been unquestionably repeated by almost all other lower courts that have upheld the public safety need for targeted sex offender restrictions.” [...]

There are many ways to calculate recidivism rates, and they vary depending on a host of distinctions. A 2014 Justice Department report found, for instance, that sex offenders generally have low overall recidivism rates for crimes. But they are more likely to commit additional sex offenses than other criminals.

In the three years after release from prison, 1.3 percent of people convicted of other kinds of crimes were arrested for sex offenses, compared to 5.3 percent of sex offenders. Those findings are broadly consistent with seven reports in various states, which found that people convicted of sex crimes committed new sex offenses at rates of 1.7 percent to 5.7 percent in time periods ranging from three to 10 years.

The Justice Department report said the risk of new sex offenses by convicted sex offenders rises over time, reaching 27 percent over 20 years.

That number is significant, but it is nothing like 80 percent. Perhaps it is sufficient to warrant harsh sex offender registry laws, but judges and lawmakers would have been better served by basing their judgments on the best available data. [...]

Judge Alice M. Batchelder, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, described “the significant doubt cast by recent empirical studies on the pronouncement in Smith that ‘the risk of recidivism posed by sex offenders is “frightening and high.’”

The appeals court struck down a particularly strict Michigan sex-offender law as a violation of the Constitution’s ex post facto clause, saying it retroactively imposed punishment on people who had committed offenses before the law was enacted. The state has asked the Supreme Court to consider the case, Does v. Snyder, No. 16-768. The first paragraph of its petition says that the risk of recidivism “remains ‘frightening and high.’”

The constitutional question in the case is interesting and substantial. And hearing the case would allow the court to consider more fully its casual assertion that sex offenders are especially dangerous.


  1. So this notion that has been accepted as dogma may be inaccurate?

  2. the issue is the degree of recidivism not its existence

  3. The degree is critical to the discussion.

    Murder, robbery, speeding and jaywalking all also have done degree of recidivism.

  4. as noted in the article there is a relatively high rate of recidivism - but it is not likely to be 80%
    It still is high enough to consider a pedophile as a rodef and to take protective measures against his interaction with children as well as to have a registry.
    In addition recidivism is a measure of being reconvicted not whether they are likely to abuse children if given the chance

  5. How high must recidivism be to consider a pedophile as a rodef?

  6. It is not recidivism per se it is the fact the urges to attack children usually don't diminish even with therapy

  7. What is the recidivism rate for murder, speeding, and jaywalking?
    (And then we'll introduce figures of group murder vs lone man murder; is, group / gang murders vs individual murders)

  8. And therefore even if someone was a pedophile 50 years ago, he would still be considered a rodef? According to a psychologist specializing in the field of child molestation that i spoke to, a child molester could definitly be helped with therapy. As with anything, there are no absolutes, but certainly in most instances could be helped.

  9. Did the the therapist say most?! Or he said some?

    Please ask your psychologist what proof is there that the person will not abuse after treatment. Would he have the "cured" pedophile babysit his kids?

    Even people who have been castrated - chemical or biologically have been known to continue abusing children.

    Yes there are cases where someone abused his daughter and forty years later started abusing the grandchildren

    In short if someone was abusing children - children would still need to be protected from him even 50 years later unless he was paralyzed

  10. Yoy cannot prove a negative. I cannot prove that you won't become an ax murderer. I can say that I am reasonably certain that you won't. but there is no way for me to prove that at some time in the future you won't. Also, at this point in time I wouldn't let you babysit my kids. With all due respect, I don't know you. For all I know there really is no Rabbi Eidenson. Before making fun of my crazy ideas, I am sure you know that there are predators that pretend to be kids, important people, etc on-line in order to prey on children. I do not know you personally, so I would have to do research into who you are, that you are not just some crazy before letting you near my kids. Obviously a known child molester would need a million times more scrutiny than anyone else, even if all the thereapists in the world said under oath that he was completely cured. all part of being a responible parent( in my opinion). This doesn't mean that he isn't "cured", just that I have to be convinced of it.

  11. but the din of rodef is justified by what a reasonable person would perceive as a threat.
    the halacha is even a sofek rodef can be treated as a rodef.

    That is enough justification in spite of being "cured"

  12. Wouldn't there be a difference what the abuse was? For example a rabbi is convicted of abuse for hugging a child in his class, wouldn't you say that would be different than say someone who rapes a 12 year old girl? These statistics just lump all sex offenders in one group, and I don't see anyone in this conversation differentiating between real offenses and others.


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.