Canadian Justice System

dignin

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

I guess i should have clarified. I dont think that someone who just shows his willy in the park should be locked up forever with someone who violently rapes someone with a broom handle. But i think the likelihood of reoffending for some is very high, yet our justice system is scared to use the dangerous offender tag. Why is that?

The dangerous offender tag is essentially a death sentence. I think it should be used in only the most extreme cases, which seems to be the case now.

I agree that our system isn't perfect, but I prefer rehabilitation to punishment. Mandatory minimums are draconian and a Harper pushed agenda that have no base in science and fact. They make us feel better and safer but are shown to not be good for society as a whole. To house all these perps in jail would cost money, money that could be used in programs for me and you. Money that could be used to rehabilitate them. It just makes economical sense.

I'm not naive, I know some people just cant be fixed. But it is proven that most can, given the right help.

You may be interested in this, I found it very eye opening.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/522/tarred-and-feathered?act=2#play

Hugh Freaking Dillon

dignin said:

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

I guess i should have clarified. I dont think that someone who just shows his willy in the park should be locked up forever with someone who violently rapes someone with a broom handle. But i think the likelihood of reoffending for some is very high, yet our justice system is scared to use the dangerous offender tag. Why is that?

The dangerous offender tag is essentially a death sentence. I think it should be used in only the most extreme cases, which seems to be the case now.

I agree that our system isn't perfect, but I prefer rehabilitation to punishment. Mandatory minimums are draconian and a Harper pushed agenda that have no base in science and fact. They make us feel better and safer but are shown to not be good for society as a whole. To house all these perps in jail would cost money, money that could be used in programs for me and you. Money that could be used to rehabilitate them. It just makes economical sense.

I'm not naive, I know some people just cant be fixed. But it is proven that most can, given the right help.

You may be interested in this, I found it very eye opening.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/522/tarred-and-feathered?act=2#play

Why is the DO tag a death sentence?

If you have seen any of the other threads, I am always arguing for the side of rehabilitation as well. But I was honestly under the impression that violent sex offenders (especially pedophiles) are less likely to be rehabilitated than any other criminal. Not sure where I got that from (maybe watching too much SVU-who knows). I shall read up on it sir. Thanks for the link.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

I have always thought that rehabilitating a pedophile is like trying to rehabilitate a homo or hetero sexual. that is their sexual orientation, or at least a psychological disorder/disease. they are just wired differently. But, hey, I've been wrong many times before.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

dignin said:

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

I guess i should have clarified. I dont think that someone who just shows his willy in the park should be locked up forever with someone who violently rapes someone with a broom handle. But i think the likelihood of reoffending for some is very high, yet our justice system is scared to use the dangerous offender tag. Why is that?

The dangerous offender tag is essentially a death sentence. I think it should be used in only the most extreme cases, which seems to be the case now.

I agree that our system isn't perfect, but I prefer rehabilitation to punishment. Mandatory minimums are draconian and a Harper pushed agenda that have no base in science and fact. They make us feel better and safer but are shown to not be good for society as a whole. To house all these perps in jail would cost money, money that could be used in programs for me and you. Money that could be used to rehabilitate them. It just makes economical sense.

I'm not naive, I know some people just cant be fixed. But it is proven that most can, given the right help.

You may be interested in this, I found it very eye opening.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/522/tarred-and-feathered?act=2#play

There are definitely shortcomings with regards to the rehabilitative efforts in our prisons. But while we can say this, we can also say that there are some who will never be rehabilitated regardless of the quality of programming we might ever be able to offer them.

As it stands right now... The reconviction rate for all the releases in the first year was 44%.
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rcvd-fdffndr/index-eng.aspx

I looked through various sources, but found it hard to find a document that listed recidivism rates by criminal nature. Assuming the rates stay somewhat consistent between criminal activities, with burglars and car thieves, the reconviction rate is nothing we should be too concerned about and one could even argue that we have been successful changing these types of behaviours; however, when we 'roll the dice' with sexual offenders and release them into the public in the hopes that they assume a 'normal' life... and they don't... the consequences are profound- we can always replace a car. It's a lot harder to repair the damages a child suffers as a result of a rape.

Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce (1997) found that over a 25-year period, child molesters had higher rates of reoffense than rapists. In this study, recidivism was operationalized as a failure rate and calculated as the proportion of individuals who were rearrested using survival analysis (which takes into account the amount of time each offender has been at risk in the community). Results show that over longer periods of time, child molesters have a higher failure rate—thus, a higher rate of rearrest—than rapists (52 percent versus 39 percent over 25 years).
http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html

Labelling someone as a dangerous offender is in the interest of public safety. I'm sorry, but if a pedophile rapist moves into my neighbourhood and has, statistically speaking, a 50% chance of reoffending... then I want to know about this.

dignin

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

I have always thought that rehabilitating a pedophile is like trying to rehabilitate a homo or hetero sexual. that is their sexual orientation, or at least a psychological disorder/disease. they are just wired differently. But, hey, I've been wrong many times before.

You may be right, the subject is so taboo that there really hasn't been very much research done on paedophilia. They may always have a sexual preference for children but with the right help they could control their urge to act on that preference and never offend.

I do have sympathy for them. (the ones who don't act on there urges) It would be a shitty way to live.

dignin

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

dignin said:

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

I guess i should have clarified. I dont think that someone who just shows his willy in the park should be locked up forever with someone who violently rapes someone with a broom handle. But i think the likelihood of reoffending for some is very high, yet our justice system is scared to use the dangerous offender tag. Why is that?

The dangerous offender tag is essentially a death sentence. I think it should be used in only the most extreme cases, which seems to be the case now.

I agree that our system isn't perfect, but I prefer rehabilitation to punishment. Mandatory minimums are draconian and a Harper pushed agenda that have no base in science and fact. They make us feel better and safer but are shown to not be good for society as a whole. To house all these perps in jail would cost money, money that could be used in programs for me and you. Money that could be used to rehabilitate them. It just makes economical sense.

I'm not naive, I know some people just cant be fixed. But it is proven that most can, given the right help.

You may be interested in this, I found it very eye opening.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/522/tarred-and-feathered?act=2#play

There are definitely shortcomings with regards to the rehabilitative efforts in our prisons. But while we can say this, we can also say that there are some who will never be rehabilitated regardless of the quality of programming we might ever be able to offer them.

As it stands right now... The reconviction rate for all the releases in the first year was 44%.
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rcvd-fdffndr/index-eng.aspx

I looked through various sources, but found it hard to find a document that listed recidivism rates by criminal nature. Assuming the rates stay somewhat consistent between criminal activities, with burglars and car thieves, the reconviction rate is nothing we should be too concerned about and one could even argue that we have been successful changing these types of behaviours; however, when we 'roll the dice' with sexual offenders and release them into the public in the hopes that they assume a 'normal' life... and they don't... the consequences are profound- we can always replace a car. It's a lot harder to repair the damages a child suffers as a result of a rape.

Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce (1997) found that over a 25-year period, child molesters had higher rates of reoffense than rapists. In this study, recidivism was operationalized as a failure rate and calculated as the proportion of individuals who were rearrested using survival analysis (which takes into account the amount of time each offender has been at risk in the community). Results show that over longer periods of time, child molesters have a higher failure rate—thus, a higher rate of rearrest—than rapists (52 percent versus 39 percent over 25 years).
http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html

Labelling someone as a dangerous offender is in the interest of public safety. I'm sorry, but if a pedophile rapist moves into my neighbourhood and has, statistically speaking, a 50% chance of reoffending... then I want to know about this.

Edit: sorry I see you did post some of that article. I didn't catch that.

Discussion
Most sexual offenders do not re-offend sexually over time. This may be the most important finding of this study as this finding is contrary to some strongly held beliefs. After 15 years, 73% of sexual offenders had not been charged with, or convicted of, another sexual offence. The sample was sufficiently large that very strong contradictory evidence is necessary to substantially change these recidivism estimates. Other studies have found similar results. Hanson and Bussière's (1998) quantitative review of recidivism studies found an average recidivism rate of 13.4% after a follow-up period of 4-5 years (n = 23,393). In a recent U.S. study of 9,691 sex offenders, the sexual recidivism rate was only 5.3% after three years (Langan, Schmitt, & Durose, 2003).

Not all sexual offenders, however, were equally likely to reoffend. By using simple, easily observed characteristics, it was possible to differentiate between offenders whose five year recidivism rate was 5%, from those whose recidivism rate was 25%. The factors associated with increased risk were the following: a) male victims, b) prior sexual offences, and c) young age.

Although the number of recidivists increases with extended follow-up, the rate of offending decreases the longer offenders have been offence-free. The five year recidivism rate for new releases of 14% decreased to 4% for individuals who have been offence-free for 15 years. The observed rates underestimate the actual rates because not all sexual offences are detected; nevertheless, the current findings contrast with the popular notion that all sexual offender remain at risk throughout their lifespan.

The observed recidivism rates in the current study are slightly lower than the lifetime sexual recidivism rates estimated by Doren (1998) - 52% for child molesters and 39% for rapists. Doren's estimates were largely based on long-term follow-up of highly selected samples (Hanson et al., 1995; Prentky, et al., 1997); in contrast, the current study used larger and more diverse samples, including many low risk offenders serving community sentences. Doren's (1998) estimates were also based on charges, whereas most of the recidivism data in the current study was based on convictions.

Another difference is that Doren (1998) attempted to generate life-time estimates whereas our estimates extend only to 15 years. We were unable to locate any study that followed a large sample of sexual offenders until they were dead. Very long-term studies are difficult because records go missing, particularly for individuals who have had no recent involvement with the law (Hanson & Nicholaichuk, 2000). Nevertheless, the decreasing rate of offending with age suggests that the rates observed after 15 to 20 years are likely to approximate the rates that would be observed if offenders were followed for the rest of their lives.

When people ask questions about sexual offender recidivism rates, there often is an inherent assumption that the answer is a fixed, knowable rate that will not change. This supposition is unlikely to be true. The rate of sexual re-offence is quite likely to change over time due to social factors and the effectiveness of strategies for managing this population. Most of the offenders in the current study did not receive effective treatment, whereas treatment is currently provided to almost all of the high risk sexual offenders in Canada. Research has found that contemporary cognitive-behavioural treatment is associated with reductions in sexual recidivism rates from 17% to 10% after approximately 5 years of follow-up (Hanson et al., 2002). Furthermore, increased public awareness and concern should reduce the opportunities for sexual offenders to locate potential victims.

dignin

and also this


Policy implications
Although no finding is ever definitive, the basic findings of the current study are sufficiently reliable to have implications for criminal justice policy. Given that the level of sexual recidivism is lower than commonly believed, discussions of the risk posed by sexual offenders should clearly differentiate between the high public concern about these offences and the relatively low probability of sexual re-offence.

The variation in recidivism rates suggests that not all sex offenders should be treated the same. Within the correctional literature it is well known that the most effective use of correctional resources targets truly high-risk offenders and applies lower levels of resources to lower risk offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). The greater the assessed risk, the higher the levels of intervention and supervision; the lower the assessed risk, the lower the levels of intervention and supervision. Research has even suggested that offenders may actually be made worse by the imposition of higher levels of treatment and supervision than is warranted given their risk level (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). Consequently, blanket policies that treat all sexual offenders as "high risk" waste resources by over-supervising lower risk offenders and risk diverting resources from the truly high-risk offenders who could benefit from increased supervision and human service.

Although the broad risk markers in the current study are useful for estimating recidivism risk, it is possible to improve predictive accuracy by combining such factors into structured risk scales (e.g., Hanson, 1997). The evidence supporting the validity of these risk scales is now sufficient that they should be routinely included in applied risk assessments with sexual offenders (Barbaree, Seto, Langton, Peacock, 2001; Sjöstedt, & Långström, 2001; and reviews by Doren, 2002; Hanson, Morton & Harris, 2003).

Rather than considering all sexual offenders as continuous, lifelong threats, society will be better served when legislation and policies consider the cost/benefit break point after which resources spent tracking and supervising low-risk sexual offenders are better re-directed toward the management of high-risk sexual offenders, crime prevention, and victim services.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

dignin said:

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

I have always thought that rehabilitating a pedophile is like trying to rehabilitate a homo or hetero sexual. that is their sexual orientation, or at least a psychological disorder/disease. they are just wired differently. But, hey, I've been wrong many times before.

You may be right, the subject is so taboo that there really hasn't been very much research done on paedophilia. They may always have a sexual preference for children but with the right help they could control their urge to act on that preference and never offend.

I do have sympathy for them. (the ones who don't act on there urges) It would be a shitty way to live.

it is a very unpopular and fear-inducing sentiment to express, but so do I. I cannot imagine living with urges like that and not being able to control them or make them go away. I'd probably off myself.

dignin

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

dignin said:

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

I have always thought that rehabilitating a pedophile is like trying to rehabilitate a homo or hetero sexual. that is their sexual orientation, or at least a psychological disorder/disease. they are just wired differently. But, hey, I've been wrong many times before.

You may be right, the subject is so taboo that there really hasn't been very much research done on paedophilia. They may always have a sexual preference for children but with the right help they could control their urge to act on that preference and never offend.

I do have sympathy for them. (the ones who don't act on there urges) It would be a shitty way to live.

it is a very unpopular and fear-inducing sentiment to express, but so do I. I cannot imagine living with urges like that and not being able to control them or make them go away. I'd probably off myself.

That makes two of us.

jeffbr

Sorry, I've got nothing but disgust and loathing for child molesters and high-risk offenders. I get that recidivism rates are variable depending on the risk category of the offender. It isn't surprising that in the study cited above they found that by increasing the sample to include more low-risk offenders they found recidivism rates were lower than previous studies. Big deal. Any other result would have been suspect. Low-risk offenders aren't really peoples' big concern. It is the high-risk offenders who scare people, and rightly so. Those are the people that will likely not be rehabilitated, and are a coin toss away from reoffending. Those are the people that should be locked up for good. Those are the people that neighbors should know about through public awareness. If any sort of high-risk offender ends up in my neighborhood everyone will know. Flyers will be hung, posts will be made, and hopefully the offender will decide that my neighborhood isn't the place for him. I won't leave the safety of my kids or neighbors to the toss of a coin and we should hold judges and parole boards accountable when they allow these monsters back into the general population to reoffend.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

dignin said:

and also this


Policy implications
Although no finding is ever definitive, the basic findings of the current study are sufficiently reliable to have implications for criminal justice policy. Given that the level of sexual recidivism is lower than commonly believed, discussions of the risk posed by sexual offenders should clearly differentiate between the high public concern about these offences and the relatively low probability of sexual re-offence.

The variation in recidivism rates suggests that not all sex offenders should be treated the same. Within the correctional literature it is well known that the most effective use of correctional resources targets truly high-risk offenders and applies lower levels of resources to lower risk offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). The greater the assessed risk, the higher the levels of intervention and supervision; the lower the assessed risk, the lower the levels of intervention and supervision. Research has even suggested that offenders may actually be made worse by the imposition of higher levels of treatment and supervision than is warranted given their risk level (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). Consequently, blanket policies that treat all sexual offenders as "high risk" waste resources by over-supervising lower risk offenders and risk diverting resources from the truly high-risk offenders who could benefit from increased supervision and human service.

Although the broad risk markers in the current study are useful for estimating recidivism risk, it is possible to improve predictive accuracy by combining such factors into structured risk scales (e.g., Hanson, 1997). The evidence supporting the validity of these risk scales is now sufficient that they should be routinely included in applied risk assessments with sexual offenders (Barbaree, Seto, Langton, Peacock, 2001; Sjöstedt, & Långström, 2001; and reviews by Doren, 2002; Hanson, Morton & Harris, 2003).

Rather than considering all sexual offenders as continuous, lifelong threats, society will be better served when legislation and policies consider the cost/benefit break point after which resources spent tracking and supervising low-risk sexual offenders are better re-directed toward the management of high-risk sexual offenders, crime prevention, and victim services.

I have a few issues with your offerings:

1. Consider this bit, Given that the level of sexual recidivism is lower than commonly believed, discussions of the risk posed by sexual offenders should clearly differentiate between the high public concern about these offences and the relatively low probability of sexual re-offence.


... and this bit, Most sexual offenders do not re-offend sexually over time. This may be the most important finding of this study as this finding is contrary to some strongly held beliefs. After 15 years, 73% of sexual offenders had not been charged with, or convicted of, another sexual offence.

Even if these findings are more accurate than other findings which suggest a higher reoffending rate... there seems to be a suggestion here that people overreact to the release of sexual offenders given their 'low' reoffending rate of 27%.

2. The variation in recidivism rates suggests that not all sex offenders should be treated the same. Within the correctional literature it is well known that the most effective use of correctional resources targets truly high-risk offenders and applies lower levels of resources to lower risk offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 2003).

This sounds pretty good in theory, however such a practice relies on human judgement. With no truly distinct language and vague parameters to define high risk and low risk offenders, we introduce the human error variable. This forum is littered with pieces bereft of unsound professional opinion that, ultimately, has resulted in unspeakable harm to innocent people.
The only thing that is 'certain' when dealing with pedophile rapists is that they are pedophile rapists. We can deliberate who is a lower risk offender and higher risk offender based on how they respond to fallible rehabilitation efforts or taking into account their personal history (among other defining components), but we can never be sure.

So I am clear as to your position... in your opinion, what level of risk of recidivism should we assume as we place our efforts towards rehabilitation and reintegration? What reoffending rate is acceptable when placing children at risk? Is the 27% your contribution boasts sufficient to abate our fears and allow room for pedophiles to have another chance at normalcy?

dignin

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

dignin said:

and also this


Policy implications
Although no finding is ever definitive, the basic findings of the current study are sufficiently reliable to have implications for criminal justice policy. Given that the level of sexual recidivism is lower than commonly believed, discussions of the risk posed by sexual offenders should clearly differentiate between the high public concern about these offences and the relatively low probability of sexual re-offence.

The variation in recidivism rates suggests that not all sex offenders should be treated the same. Within the correctional literature it is well known that the most effective use of correctional resources targets truly high-risk offenders and applies lower levels of resources to lower risk offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). The greater the assessed risk, the higher the levels of intervention and supervision; the lower the assessed risk, the lower the levels of intervention and supervision. Research has even suggested that offenders may actually be made worse by the imposition of higher levels of treatment and supervision than is warranted given their risk level (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). Consequently, blanket policies that treat all sexual offenders as "high risk" waste resources by over-supervising lower risk offenders and risk diverting resources from the truly high-risk offenders who could benefit from increased supervision and human service.

Although the broad risk markers in the current study are useful for estimating recidivism risk, it is possible to improve predictive accuracy by combining such factors into structured risk scales (e.g., Hanson, 1997). The evidence supporting the validity of these risk scales is now sufficient that they should be routinely included in applied risk assessments with sexual offenders (Barbaree, Seto, Langton, Peacock, 2001; Sjöstedt, & Långström, 2001; and reviews by Doren, 2002; Hanson, Morton & Harris, 2003).

Rather than considering all sexual offenders as continuous, lifelong threats, society will be better served when legislation and policies consider the cost/benefit break point after which resources spent tracking and supervising low-risk sexual offenders are better re-directed toward the management of high-risk sexual offenders, crime prevention, and victim services.

So I am clear as to your position... in your opinion, what level of risk of recidivism should we assume as we place our efforts towards rehabilitation and reintegration? What reoffending rate is acceptable when placing children at risk? Is the 27% your contribution boasts sufficient to abate our fears and allow room for pedophiles to have another chance at normalcy?

There is no good answer to any of the questions you pose. I don't have the answers. I can only pass on the facts I have and come up to my own conclusions. I can't come up with a specific percentage that would make me happy. But I do believe people can change.

In my opinion we cant lock these people away forever. We can't afford it. We are cutting programs left and right to build more prisons to house these offenders when it is shown that most don't reoffend and most can be rehabilitated.

And just so I am clear, I have no problem with warnings going out to the public when these offenders are released. People should know who and where these people are. The more info everyone has the better.

dignin

I should also clarify that if a panel of experts does come to the conclusion that a violent sexual offender is very likely to re-offend upon release I agree with all of you that they should not be let out. They shouldn't be out until that panel of experts thinks they are safe to reintegrate into society.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

but you can't do that without that dangerous offender designation. that's the only thing lawfully keeping people in prison who have served their entire sentence already.

dignin

I have no problem with the dangerous offender designation. The dangerous offender designation is rarely used and as a last resort. I think it should remain that way. The police release the name of said offenders and keep track of them after their release and that seems to work. I haven't heard many cases of these guys getting caught committing these same acts again, but I could be wrong. A quick google search didn't come up with much. Maybe someone else here has more info.

fife

dignin said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

dignin said:

and also this


Policy implications
Although no finding is ever definitive, the basic findings of the current study are sufficiently reliable to have implications for criminal justice policy. Given that the level of sexual recidivism is lower than commonly believed, discussions of the risk posed by sexual offenders should clearly differentiate between the high public concern about these offences and the relatively low probability of sexual re-offence.

The variation in recidivism rates suggests that not all sex offenders should be treated the same. Within the correctional literature it is well known that the most effective use of correctional resources targets truly high-risk offenders and applies lower levels of resources to lower risk offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). The greater the assessed risk, the higher the levels of intervention and supervision; the lower the assessed risk, the lower the levels of intervention and supervision. Research has even suggested that offenders may actually be made worse by the imposition of higher levels of treatment and supervision than is warranted given their risk level (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). Consequently, blanket policies that treat all sexual offenders as "high risk" waste resources by over-supervising lower risk offenders and risk diverting resources from the truly high-risk offenders who could benefit from increased supervision and human service.

Although the broad risk markers in the current study are useful for estimating recidivism risk, it is possible to improve predictive accuracy by combining such factors into structured risk scales (e.g., Hanson, 1997). The evidence supporting the validity of these risk scales is now sufficient that they should be routinely included in applied risk assessments with sexual offenders (Barbaree, Seto, Langton, Peacock, 2001; Sjöstedt, & Långström, 2001; and reviews by Doren, 2002; Hanson, Morton & Harris, 2003).

Rather than considering all sexual offenders as continuous, lifelong threats, society will be better served when legislation and policies consider the cost/benefit break point after which resources spent tracking and supervising low-risk sexual offenders are better re-directed toward the management of high-risk sexual offenders, crime prevention, and victim services.

So I am clear as to your position... in your opinion, what level of risk of recidivism should we assume as we place our efforts towards rehabilitation and reintegration? What reoffending rate is acceptable when placing children at risk? Is the 27% your contribution boasts sufficient to abate our fears and allow room for pedophiles to have another chance at normalcy?

There is no good answer to any of the questions you pose. I don't have the answers. I can only pass on the facts I have and come up to my own conclusions. I can't come up with a specific percentage that would make me happy. But I do believe people can change.

In my opinion we cant lock these people away forever. We can't afford it. We are cutting programs left and right to build more prisons to house these offenders when it is shown that most don't reoffend and most can be rehabilitated.

And just so I am clear, I have no problem with warnings going out to the public when these offenders are released. People should know who and where these people are. The more info everyone has the better.

that last 2 lines concerns me. should we not be worried about people attacking these former prisoners? I once had a client that was listed as a sexual offender but was later found out that it was not him after he was released. if we listed that to the public it might harm my former client.

dignin

fife said:

dignin said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

dignin said:

and also this


Policy implications
Although no finding is ever definitive, the basic findings of the current study are sufficiently reliable to have implications for criminal justice policy. Given that the level of sexual recidivism is lower than commonly believed, discussions of the risk posed by sexual offenders should clearly differentiate between the high public concern about these offences and the relatively low probability of sexual re-offence.

The variation in recidivism rates suggests that not all sex offenders should be treated the same. Within the correctional literature it is well known that the most effective use of correctional resources targets truly high-risk offenders and applies lower levels of resources to lower risk offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). The greater the assessed risk, the higher the levels of intervention and supervision; the lower the assessed risk, the lower the levels of intervention and supervision. Research has even suggested that offenders may actually be made worse by the imposition of higher levels of treatment and supervision than is warranted given their risk level (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). Consequently, blanket policies that treat all sexual offenders as "high risk" waste resources by over-supervising lower risk offenders and risk diverting resources from the truly high-risk offenders who could benefit from increased supervision and human service.

Although the broad risk markers in the current study are useful for estimating recidivism risk, it is possible to improve predictive accuracy by combining such factors into structured risk scales (e.g., Hanson, 1997). The evidence supporting the validity of these risk scales is now sufficient that they should be routinely included in applied risk assessments with sexual offenders (Barbaree, Seto, Langton, Peacock, 2001; Sjöstedt, & Långström, 2001; and reviews by Doren, 2002; Hanson, Morton & Harris, 2003).

Rather than considering all sexual offenders as continuous, lifelong threats, society will be better served when legislation and policies consider the cost/benefit break point after which resources spent tracking and supervising low-risk sexual offenders are better re-directed toward the management of high-risk sexual offenders, crime prevention, and victim services.

So I am clear as to your position... in your opinion, what level of risk of recidivism should we assume as we place our efforts towards rehabilitation and reintegration? What reoffending rate is acceptable when placing children at risk? Is the 27% your contribution boasts sufficient to abate our fears and allow room for pedophiles to have another chance at normalcy?

There is no good answer to any of the questions you pose. I don't have the answers. I can only pass on the facts I have and come up to my own conclusions. I can't come up with a specific percentage that would make me happy. But I do believe people can change.

In my opinion we cant lock these people away forever. We can't afford it. We are cutting programs left and right to build more prisons to house these offenders when it is shown that most don't reoffend and most can be rehabilitated.

And just so I am clear, I have no problem with warnings going out to the public when these offenders are released. People should know who and where these people are. The more info everyone has the better.

that last 2 lines concerns me. should we not be worried about people attacking these former prisoners? I once had a client that was listed as a sexual offender but was later found out that it was not him after he was released. if we listed that to the public it might harm my former client.

I get the impression that they only release their names and what area they are living in when they are deemed to be a high risk to re-offend? Again I have not heard of many cases of these offenders being the victims of violence after they are released but maybe you can find some examples.

I'm trying to look at this as what is good for society as a whole. His safety vs. the publics safety. What is the right balance?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

fife said:

dignin said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

dignin said:

and also this


Policy implications
Although no finding is ever definitive, the basic findings of the current study are sufficiently reliable to have implications for criminal justice policy. Given that the level of sexual recidivism is lower than commonly believed, discussions of the risk posed by sexual offenders should clearly differentiate between the high public concern about these offences and the relatively low probability of sexual re-offence.

The variation in recidivism rates suggests that not all sex offenders should be treated the same. Within the correctional literature it is well known that the most effective use of correctional resources targets truly high-risk offenders and applies lower levels of resources to lower risk offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). The greater the assessed risk, the higher the levels of intervention and supervision; the lower the assessed risk, the lower the levels of intervention and supervision. Research has even suggested that offenders may actually be made worse by the imposition of higher levels of treatment and supervision than is warranted given their risk level (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). Consequently, blanket policies that treat all sexual offenders as "high risk" waste resources by over-supervising lower risk offenders and risk diverting resources from the truly high-risk offenders who could benefit from increased supervision and human service.

Although the broad risk markers in the current study are useful for estimating recidivism risk, it is possible to improve predictive accuracy by combining such factors into structured risk scales (e.g., Hanson, 1997). The evidence supporting the validity of these risk scales is now sufficient that they should be routinely included in applied risk assessments with sexual offenders (Barbaree, Seto, Langton, Peacock, 2001; Sjöstedt, & Långström, 2001; and reviews by Doren, 2002; Hanson, Morton & Harris, 2003).

Rather than considering all sexual offenders as continuous, lifelong threats, society will be better served when legislation and policies consider the cost/benefit break point after which resources spent tracking and supervising low-risk sexual offenders are better re-directed toward the management of high-risk sexual offenders, crime prevention, and victim services.

So I am clear as to your position... in your opinion, what level of risk of recidivism should we assume as we place our efforts towards rehabilitation and reintegration? What reoffending rate is acceptable when placing children at risk? Is the 27% your contribution boasts sufficient to abate our fears and allow room for pedophiles to have another chance at normalcy?

There is no good answer to any of the questions you pose. I don't have the answers. I can only pass on the facts I have and come up to my own conclusions. I can't come up with a specific percentage that would make me happy. But I do believe people can change.

In my opinion we cant lock these people away forever. We can't afford it. We are cutting programs left and right to build more prisons to house these offenders when it is shown that most don't reoffend and most can be rehabilitated.

And just so I am clear, I have no problem with warnings going out to the public when these offenders are released. People should know who and where these people are. The more info everyone has the better.

that last 2 lines concerns me. should we not be worried about people attacking these former prisoners? I once had a client that was listed as a sexual offender but was later found out that it was not him after he was released. if we listed that to the public it might harm my former client.

In late May, 2011, my community heard some great news that we were going to receive a Grade A loser that our weak judicial system was releasing. Authorities assured us there would be some really good monitoring so, pshew, we were very relieved. Oh yeah, he wasn't supposed to have knives, ropes and duct tape as part of his conditional release too.

http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/20110516/KAMLOOPS0101/110519837/-1/KAMLOOPS/notorious-sex-offender-living-in-valleyview

Of course, in November, 2011, my community heard some disturbing news that the aforementioned loser had abducted a woman from her boutique and did what he does best.

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/repeat-sex-offender-charged-in-kamloops-abduction-1.731264

In hindsight... given our judicial system couldn't protect us... it might have been a good thing if someone had attacked him. The woman in the second story didn't have to go through that. That scumbag reoffended within a half a year. He'll get another chance too. Let's hope his next victim is nobody you know- it's always easier advocating for scumbags when you're not truly affected.

Canadian justice system is a joke. No debate.

even flow - question mark

..............IS A JOKE!

Hugh Freaking Dillon

no one is advocating for certain individuals. we're advocating the administration of justice in a fair manner for all. again, you claim vigilantiism to be a viable solution. good lord.