Kare 11's Botched Investigation Into Sex Offenders

To anyone living in Minnesota, Kare 11 is a household name in news. They are largely a reputable company with many investigations and news articles under their belt. However, a recent investigation into sex offenders, and the follow-up to that investigation, should appall you. Why? Because their investigation not only was extremely incomplete, but touts a single example as the legal norm in Minnesota for sex offenders, and argues that all sex offenders are dangerous. In fact, their opening headline for the primary investigation reads:

KARE 11 Investigates: Minnesota's Secret Sex Offenders

A LITTLE-KNOWN LEGAL LOOPHOLE IS ALLOWING HUNDREDS OF CHILD SEXUAL PREDATORS IN MINNESOTA TO SLIDE UNDER THE RADAR, LEAVING PARENTS IN THE DARK ABOUT THE DANGER THEY MAY POSE.

Hundreds Of Predators?

If you read very far into their report, however, you see that "hundreds of child sexual predators" includes a fair amount of juveniles who received a stay of adjudication and 210 other adults 22 years old and older. A stay of adjudication means that an offender must complete a series of requirements, and their crime is not available in public databases unless they do not complete the requirements.

Some of the requirements, for example, are to complete a lengthy probation sentence and complete sex offender treatment (treatment which usually requires at least two years to complete). Standard probation requirements for sex offenders typically involves no contact with anyone under 18 years old, and no pornography. 

What their investigation completely ignores is that Minnesota is home to 17,654 registered sex offenders as of December 6th, 2016. The ability to find out just how many of those 17,654 offenders are considered "high-risk" by the state is challenging at best. To the best of my recall, the amount of level 3 sex offenders in the state does not exceed 2,000 people. 210 people, compared with these numbers, is miniscule. The worst thing about risk level in Minnesota is that it is not determined by an actual risk-assessment administered by a trained psychologist: It is determined based entirely on Minnesota's own criteria, which was developed by studying sex offenders released from prison.

To the average person, that may sound like a good thing... until you realize that many low-level sex offenders, including those convicted of child sexual abuse and sexual abuse material crimes, are frequently given probation if they are a first-time offender. The screening tool that Minnesota uses to determine the risk level of its sex offenders does not have as much reliability as other screening tools, like the Static-99R. More work is needed.

What About Recidivism And Megan's Law?

To make these matters worse, Minnesota's Department of Corrections has done two "recent" studies on sex offenders that would matter to the average person: The 2007 report on recidivism, and the report on Megan's Law in 2008. Both of these reports are as flawed as the system they use to assign risk level: The 2007 report on recidivism looks at 3,166 sex offenders released from a correctional facility (read: prison) between 1990 and 2002, which means their report does not look at the vast majority of sex offenders, only those released from prison. 

The report discussing Megan's Law is also extremely narrow in its scope, and contains methodological errors that would shame any statistician: They conclude, based on their study of recidivism rates of 155 level three offenders subject to notification and 125 who were not, that notification has a strong deterrent effect and reduces recidivism. They essentially claim that correlation proves causation, with no control methods used to distinguish  between the results of these groups. 

Overall Sex Offender Statistics

The statistics discussed in the aforementioned reports are shockingly incomplete, and give the public just enough data to shut up. However, a plethora of other studies have also been done on sex offenders. You have heard me mention them here numerous times: A study done in New York on 21 years of arrest data found that 95% of new sexual crimes were committed not by registered sex offenders, but first-time offenders new to the criminal justice system. Other studies have yielded similar results, usually finding that at least 90% of sex crimes are committed by first-time offenders. This means that the numerous processes we have to address sex offenders attempts to answer approximately 5-10% of new sex crime. 

That study, combined with the numerous meta-analyses done on sex offender recidivism, point to the idea that sex offenders are not nearly as dangerous as people believe: Around 12% of sex offenders will re-offend with a sexual crime, and around 30-40% will reoffend with any crime. That contrasts to the national average for criminal recidivism being around 60-75%. It has been said in media articles on the subject that the only crime with a lower recidivism rate is murder. 

Cost

I know from previous experience with the Minnesota legislature that Minnesota spends a few hundred thousand on preventing sexual assault, and I learned recently that we spend $93 million on managing and tracking sexual offenders. I believe this is very imbalanced, and makes it clear that our focus is not on preventing sexual crimes, but on reacting where they do occur.

The Take-Away

Kare 11 focuses on a miniscule fraction of 5% of new sex criminals in the making. Already, some of Minnesota's legislators, including Gov. Mark Dayton and Rep. Tony Cornish are promising to fix how stays of adjudication are used. But nothing is being promised to address and prevent 95% of new sex crime, which is not committed by sex offenders, but by those new to the criminal justice system. Minnesota, like so many other states, is focusing its efforts on endlessly punishing those who pose the smallest amount of risk in terms of future sex crimes, and focusing next to nothing on preventing sexual crimes before they can happen. Indeed, Minnesota spends $93 million a year on SORN policies, and only $300,000 on sexual assault prevention. Our priorities are not on keeping the public safe.

As an advocate pushing the end of child sexual abuse before it can happen, I am outraged that not only Minnesota's leaders, but also its major media outlets, are doing nothing about the majority of sexual crimes in Minnesota. We are weak: The only statement worth supporting in Kare 11's investigation is that Minnesota has created an atmosphere of legal tolerance of sexual violence. While that statement was intended to address how sex offenders are treated in the legal system, I think that statement is used far too narrowly. 

I am ashamed to call myself a Minnesotan.

Alternative Solutions

There are several solutions that many of my readers may already be familiar with, like knowing the facts and the warning behaviors in potential abusers, and many of my other suggestions center around reforming sexual offender laws to be more effective at protecting the public. Some of them concern educating families, and educating children.

Sex offender registration needs reform, primarily because it lumps low-risk and no-risk offenders in with high-risk and recidivist sex offenders, which means law enforcement has a harder job investigating sex crimes. Instead, it would be best to use the money currently allocated to the sex offender registry in each state to perform psychological risk assessments on each offender. These risk assessments would divide only into low and high risk. These assessments would be done by an independent board of expert psychologists in each state, and only those who score as high-risk will be registered with law enforcement. The specific statute being charged and convicted should have no bearing on risk level, and the circumstances of the offense and risk assessments should be used as the determining factor for risk. As risk level and offender registration are not punitive measures, they could only be used as a factor when determining a criminal sentence. 

The trend in research identifies several issues with publicly identifying sex offenders in the community, commonly known as sex offender notifications. Many of these issues can be solved by only notifying the community in certain special circumstances: Multiple sex crimes, a high-risk score on risk assessment, release from prison, and two or more psychological disorders could be some of the criteria. The compliance patrols that are currently aimed at low-risk and no-risk offenders could instead be aimed at those who meet enough criteria to warrant public notification. Not all high-risk offenders would warrant public notification, only those who meet enough criteria would qualify. Anyone subject to sex offender notifications would be incarcerated for life if they commit another offense of any kind.

The research surrounding residency restrictions is nearly unanimous in saying that they do not keep the public safer, and in some cases, can lead to increased homelessness. This increased homelessness has been shown to increase risk factors for further offending, as well as making it more difficult for offenders to reestablish themselves as productive members of society. Therefore, residency restrictions should be completely abolished except for those warranting community notification, as covered in the heading "sex offender notifications". As such, any such offender committing another offense of any kind would be subject to a life sentence.

In many states, sex offenders are restricted from random things that do not have any effect on public safety. For example, sex offenders in some states cannot use the internet, or cannot use certain aspects of the internet, such as for gaming, social media, or even commenting on the news. In other places, sex offenders cannot participate in Halloween or attend the state fair. As 95% of new sex crime is perpetrated by those without criminal convictions, these restrictions do nothing to keep the public safer and put onerous enforcement requirements on supervising corrections officers and law enforcement that could be better spent detecting new sex crimes or educating the community regarding safety and prevention. 

Some funding originally directed at sex offender registration in the past must be directed to educating families about appropriate safety plans, facts around child sexual abuse and sexual assault, warning behaviors in potential abusers, resources for individualized help on a variety of topics, and normative vs. atypical sexual behavior in children and teenagers. This education plan would be created using accurate terminology, research-based factoids, and produced by experts in these areas. 

In line with the aforementioned education of families, schools and families should have access to age-appropriate sexual education covering a wide variety of topics to prepare each child for life in the adult world. Such education should be covered both at school and at home, and the standards for this education should be a principled skeleton of topics. It would then be decided on the local level how to cover each principle, so that each community has a say in practicing this education. These principles should include:

• Legal and ethical specifics on the subject of consent
• Anatomical health practices including STD's, safe sex, and physical boundaries
• How to form and keep social and emotional boundaries
• Resources that a child can use for a variety of situations including but not limited to, sexual abuse, mental health disorders, physical health concerns, and relationship health.

Thoughts on Residency Restrictions

I would like to present, for your amusement, Fox News:

This came up in my Google news feed. Maybe I am just a contrary jerk, but I chose not to play the video. I guessed at what they might say. Given their full report, it appears I guessed wrong. I did, however, recall another article I read out of Milwaukee several months ago:

It seems to me that our communities are much safer when sex offenders have homes that law enforcement can check in on, rather than being... somewhere not with a home, wandering the streets, doing whatever it is homeless sex offenders do. Look for jobs? Wallow in misery? I am not entirely sure, but 200 homeless sex offenders being the result of a single ordinance restricting where they can live does not increase my confidence that Milwaukee knew what it was doing by enacting such a restriction.

That, combined with the facts about residency restrictions, tells me that residency restrictions do more harm to our communities than good.

ADDENDUM:
Fox News has now released their full report, for which the aforementioned video was just an advertisement. I am happy to report that their full report did a fantastic job of investigating the facts on the issue, and reporting them accordingly. The rest of this post has been updated to reflect this new information.

The Annual Halloween Sex Offender Witch Hunt

It is that time of year again! The time of year when media outlets across the United States (and beyond) publish lists and maps of where sex offenders are in your community, ostensibly to keep children safe from sex offenders. The part they conveniently leave out is that Halloween puts children at a much higher risk of being injured or killed in traffic than they are for being kidnapped or molested by a registered sex offender.

Take a look at four facts and the studies they come from:

A study looking at 67,307 sexual offenses committed against 67,045 victims and found no significance between Halloween and the rest of the year in regards to sexual offenses.

One meta-analysis looking at 45,398 offenders across 16 countries found that the average sexual offender repeats their sexual crimes at a rate around 11.5%  45,398 offenders across 16 countries. A similar meta-analysis found a lower sexual recidivism rate for child molesters (12.7%) compared to rapists (18.9%), as well as lower nonsexual violent recidivism (9.9% for child molesters and 22.1% for rapists) and lower general recidivism (36.9% among child molesters, and 46.2% for rapists).

A New York study done in 2008 found that over 95% of sexual offense arrests were of first-time offenders with no criminal history on no registry. Studies done in other states have found a similar 95-99% rate of the same.

A study looking at crimes against juveniles found that 90% of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by those known to the victim, not strangers.

In light of these four facts, there is no evidence to support the idea that sexual crimes against children are a higher or lower risk around Halloween compared to any other time of the year. In fact, these facts indicate that the biggest risk to children does not come from sex offenders, but from those trusted in the community with no criminal record. That holds true on any day of the year. That begs the question: What can you look for? Behavioral signs are the best bet.

Because of these facts, I believe it is time to stop using "sex offender" so commonly and openly, and use the more accurate "sexual abuser" instead, or some other term that does not imply that the majority of those who commit sexual crimes are registered sex offenders. That implication is a myth that flies in the face of the above facts, and puts communities in more danger by focusing their attention on a population that commits less than 5% of sexual crimes against children, and indeed, sexual crimes in general.

In short, because of the facts about sex offenders, child sexual abuse, and the rates of crime around Halloween, it is time for our fear over sex offenders nabbing children off the street to end. Strangers present minimal danger in terms of sexual crimes, and Halloween is a time for some to celebrate all that is spooky and scary... but sex offenders are not the scary part of sex crimes. The scary part is how we focus on the people who are not threats at the cost of detecting those who do present risks.

The Politics Of Prevention

Prevention… Political?

Yes, the area of prevention is very political. Unfortunately, preventing child sexual abuse is not nearly as straightforward as researching the facts surrounding the issue, forming policies to address the facts, and getting those policies put in place. There are interest groups, such as the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA), the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), Rape Abuse Incest National Network (RAINN), Darkness to Light (D2L), Stop It Now, Abuse Stoppers, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), Parents For Megan’s Law (PFML), and a number of other state-specific prevention organizations or abuse survivor networks. The problem? None of these organizations is united in the things that can help stop sexual abuse.

For example, the NCMEC this year pushed heavily for the passing of the Adam Walsh Renewal of 2016, a number of laws related to the sex offender registry. As I have stated many times, the facts do not support a sex offender registry being the most effective method of protecting children, given that most who are caught and sentenced do not repeat their crimes. PFML obviously pushes for Megan’s Law to be broader and works with the state of New York to monitor registered sex offenders. Yet none of these approaches is based in fact, and that should be disturbing to many people. Yet, it is not.

The One With The Most Resources Wins

A basic fact of any legislative battle over anything these days is that the party with the most resources to throw at an initiative is going to win. What this means is that, regardless of the efficacy of the initiative, if it has enough backing by enough money and people, that initiative takes the cake. That is why the Adam Walsh Renewal Act of 2016 passed this year. That is why International Megan’s Law was passed this year, even though it has zero basis in fact: People believe what politicians, media outlets, and interest groups tell them, even if what they are being told has no basis in fact.

Two Parties And A Lot Of Stupidity

I suppose that stupidity is a rather strong word that is best left out of academic circles, but the basic fact of the matter is that Republican candidates consistently vote down initiatives to provide comprehensive sexual education to children and that Democrats generally support these initiatives. Republicans often vote up measures to be “tougher on crime”, and Democrats generally vote up measures that provide “restorative justice”.

This is stupid. Why is this stupid? Because politicians are not experts in these fields. Psychologists, criminologists, researchers… all of the people dealing with the facts of these issues do not side with a particular political party. They side with what is effective, but that is not what gets popularity, votes, or public approval. One might ask what the point of having experts is if no one is willing to listen to them and do what they suggest.

The Rub

The political nature of these things amounts to a huge rub in the face of humanity. That rub is that putting in place systems and policies that are ineffective at rectifying the very problem they seek to correct means that, no matter what the issue is, the problem is not addressed in the most effective method possible. When that issue is child sexual abuse, that rub is not just a rub. It is pathetic and appalling, and should have every single person up in arms protesting the policies that do not do nearly enough to stop children from being sexually abused.

I wish I could say something light-hearted, like, “If the American public was aware of half of the facts around child sexual abuse, they would demand abolishing sex offender registries for all but the most heinous of recidivists.” The problem with that… is that most Americans do not even read up on the issue of child sexual abuse. No one cares enough, or they are uncomfortable discussing it, reading about it, and learning about it. Say what you will about effective marketing, but my blog only has a total of 6,300 page views to date. Yet I think most people would agree that the best method for solving a problem is to prevent it from becoming a problem in the first place. But when it comes to child sexual abuse, one must know why that is more effective before they can support primary prevention.

My Wish

My hope is that America, and indeed the rest of the world, wakes up to the reality that child sexual abuse is a large issue that affects a significant portion of the population, and that is just the statistics we know about. Sexual abuse and sexual assault are very underreported crimes. So my wish is that we stop bickering over what the solution is, listen to the experts that deal with this issue every day, and put systems in place that are based not in a political agenda, but on facts and research. I suppose that holds true for any issue, but child sexual abuse is too big an issue to get wrong. What will your contribution be?

Why Sexual Education Is Necessary To Primary Prevention

Sexual Education Should Be Mandatory

Sexual education of children is essential to the prevention of sexual abuse, before it can happen. This also applies to sexual assault. I believe that sexual education should be required of all children in every country in an age-appropriate format. But I am sure that saying that much may have shocked you, and you may wonder what the reasons I have are.

Say What?

Let us begin with defining what sexual education means. Sexual education is the educating of children about the topics and mechanics involved in sex and sexuality, but that is not all that it is. Sexual education means teaching children about safe sex practices, about consent, and about sexual boundaries. It also means teaching children that if they are having an issue of a sexual nature, they can get help for it.

Let me expand what I mean by that. If a child has been the victim of sexual abuse or assault, it means that the child hears they can get help and they can tell someone. They may not even realize that what was done to them was abusive. If a child has sexual thoughts towards someone else that they would like to act out, but have no idea how to go about that, they might seek help if they know they can. Some have no idea that is even an option.

It also means that if someone is wrestling with pedophilia, or a sexual attraction to children, they hear the message that there is help and they do not have to face it alone. You see, sexual education does not just mean teaching children about sex. Facing reality, they will find out about sex eventually. As rational human beings, we would prefer that they do not find out by watching pornography and getting an unrealistic idea of what sex is. Right?

Guidance Versus No Guidance

So… what happens when a child starts having sexual feelings, but they have no guidance for them? We know that there is age-appropriate and age-inappropriate sexual behavior, and we know that it is possible for children to sexually abuse other children. In the absence of knowing what to do with sexual feelings, or unwanted sexual advances, or sexual issues and struggles, they will do what children often do: Experiment. Sometimes, that experimentation is expected and does not harm other children. But sometimes, the other child is traumatized by such experimentation.

It is obviously beneficial for children to have guidance so that they learn what is and is not socially acceptable, and so that they can avoid harming someone else. Sexual education is essential to preventing child sexual abuse for that reason.

Everyone Makes It Political

Sexual education is a political topic for many, because there are differing approaches to sexual education. Some want abstinence education, or trying to teach children that they should abstain from sex before marriage. Some want comprehensive sexual education, or teaching children everything from the mechanics, boundaries, and expectations around sex to the physical health aspects of the risk of STD’s, AIDS/HIV, and safe sex. Others want to teach children about LGBTQ issues, so that children who have attractions to their same sex have resources to utilize, support groups to go to, or someplace to go to know they are not alone.

Let me cut through the political messes on this issue and ask you a simple question… If sexual education is not taught in school, and you are a parent, are you willing to honestly answer every question your child has about sex? Are you capable of having that conversation in a professional, calm atmosphere, without freaking out because it is your child asking the questions? Do you have what it takes to ensure that your child does not walk away with the message that sex is inherently wrong or evil?

I ask that because many parents struggle with how to have those conversations, because of how emotionally involved they are and because they may not know what to say or how to teach their children what they need to know about sex. They may have no idea what their child even needs to know about sex, or why they need to know it. Sexual education should not be a political issue. Part of being human for the vast majority of humanity is having sexual feelings, just as the vast majority of humanity needs a job, shelter, food, clothing, etc. We teach children about these things, but we sometimes expect them to just figure the sex aspect out on their own.

That is a dangerous expectation for reasons I have already outlined. It is also possible for children to commit crimes because they do not know that what they did is a crime. Sexual education can teach children not only the parts about sex that make us squirm, it can teach them ethics of how to behave so that they do not harm others, or themselves, through sexual behavior.

Putting Facts First

Rather than making the issue political, we should go where the facts go. Are there studies that look at which kinds of sexual education are more effective at teaching body safety? Are there studies that look at the sexual behaviors of children with differing kinds of sexual education? Are the results of some forms of education more advantageous compared to others? These are the kinds of questions we should be asking, for the sake of our children. I am not going to propose studies or link you to any. Go Google it. Go find out the information. Explore the topic.

I have no idea what political background you, dear reader, may be coming from. But let me explain mine: My father is a republican, and my mother does not care about politics. We never discussed politics much in our house. I formed my own ideas. I am neither a democrat or a republican. There are issues that I find to be important, and I vote on those issues and choose the candidate I prefer based on that. I do not believe it is rational or sane to stick to a particular political platform. I suppose it is possible I just insulted someone, but my point is that sticking to a particular ideology is fallacious because it can all too easily lead us to conclusions that are not based on facts.

On issues involving crime, when we form ideas based solely on ideology and not on the facts of varying approaches, we can enable more crime to happen through negligence. That is not in anyone’s best interests, particularly where children are concerned. Child sexual abuse is an epidemic that demands that the facts be placed above ideology, religion, political party platform, or opinions. We cannot prevent child sexual abuse before it happens by only doing what we think is best. We must consult facts, studies, and experts on the subjects involved so that the best course of action to protect children is taken.

Conclusion

I hope you can see better my perspective, and the perspective of primary prevention, on why sexual education is necessary. I hope you have the time to research what works and what does not work, and I hope that children are important enough to you that you are willing to put aside your own ideas and look at the facts. Sexual abuse and sexual assault cannot be adequately prevented if the facts do not matter.