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.

Thoughts on Gary Gibson and Todd Nickerson

Who?

Recently, two men have come forward, publicly, and have admitted to having a sexual attraction to young children. Todd Nickerson was admittedly the first pedophile to come forward in such a way that I am aware of. His story was originally aired by Salon, though they have since taken it down. Gary Gibson is the second pedophile to come forward to my knowledge.

Both have come forward to say that they have a sexual attraction to children... and have never harmed a child. Yes, you read that right. They are non-offending pedophiles.

Revolting To Most

While both of these stories are almost certainly revolting to the average person, their stories, and our reactions to them, matter to the prevention of child sexual abuse. Some have dismissed the claims of both men when they say they have never acted on their sexual attraction by sexually abusing a child, and think there is a coverup. Some have accused both of possessing sexual abuse images, commonly referred to as "child pornography".

What most people fail to recognize is that only a third of sexual abusers are pedophilic, which means that the majority of people who sexually abuse children are not attracted to children. Further, when you look at the statistics on the issue (as I have done before), you realize that it is unlikely that the majority of Earth's pedophiles molest children.

Either of these facts may be difficult to accept, but accepting them is important to the prevention of child sexual abuse, because it means that people with a sexual attraction to children, even if they have interpersonal difficulties, depression, or other issues that arise from such an undesirable attraction, are capable of not acting on this attraction by abusing a child.

Preventing Abuse With Facts

I have said numerous times that facts must take priority if children are to be protected from child sexual abuse. That is absolutely true, but why is it true? It is true because there exist adults and children in this world who have been abused by people who, in other circumstances, could have gotten help with what was troubling them before those people were sexually abused.

It is true because there exist adults and children in this world who have been abused by people who could have been spotted by concerned citizens and spoken with before the abuse occurred. We cannot prevent abuse if we do not know who abuses children and why. That may be difficult knowledge to accept, but the sooner we accept it, the sooner children can be spared the pain of trusting someone who sexually assaults them.

My thoughts on Nickerson and Gibson are wholeheartedly in support of their message: Pedophiles are people, people who have usually not sexually abused a child, who deserve the same support as someone wrestling with any other issue under the sun.

While I do not have access to their thoughts to know if they speak the truth in saying they have never abused a child, that does not matter. What matters is that people who might be at-risk for sexually abusing a child - be that a pedophile who thinks they are a monster or anyone else - get help before a child is hurt, not after. Both men carry that message and aim to be an inspiration to other pedophiles so that they do not harm children. That, at least, needs applauding.

Primary Prevention in 2017

I do have some goals for 2017 in regards to primary prevention. This list has no bearing on any future projects, I mean, the whole tone of New Year's resolutions and the like.
I would like to break them down into several categories:

1. Educating The Public
2. Sex Offender Registration
3. Sex Offender Notifications
4. Sex Offender Residency Restrictions
5. Educating Families
6. Sexual Education
7. Miscellaneous Sex Offender Restrictions

These categories are distinct from the mission statement I have, as these are unique to 2017 and are based on what was accomplished last year. Each goal, in detail:

Educating The Public

The public has a right to know basic and counter-intuitive information about sex crimes. In 2017, it would be ideal if the average person knew what I would say are the top three facts about child sexual abuse: 95% of sex offenses are from first-time offenders (not sex offenders), 90% of abuse is perpetrated by those known and trusted by the victim, and child sexual abuse affects 1 in 6 boys and 1 in 4 girls by the time they turn 18. Will you help the facts about child sexual abuse be known in 2017?

Sex Offender Registration

Sex offender registration has become onerous in the political realm, as well as a financial burden. The trend in 2016 was that the registration requirements of sex offenders do not align with the biggest risks to the general public. Seeing more judicial wins in 2017 that strike down onerous requirements that distract from real public safety threats would be a plus.

Sex Offender Notifications

Sex offender notification has become, to some people (like the vigilante Donna Zink in Washington State, who refuses to read studies on the subject), a way of preventing sex crime. However, many studies and articles surfaced in 2016 (like this one and this one, and this Quartz article and this one for honorable mentions) showing that these notifications only do well under certain circumstances. Therefore, it would be helpful in 2017 if the notification requirements in some areas (similar to the judicial wins on registration) would be lessened.

Sex Offender Residency Restrictions

This is perhaps one of the biggest areas that needs addressing: States and cities that believe that by restricting where sex offenders can live, when they have been shown to have the opposite effect of increasing recidivism and homelessness. More judicial wins that strike down sex offender residency restrictions would be a fantastic win in 2017 (Michigan gets honorable mentions here for their recent supreme court win, which among other things, struck down residency requirements for some offenders).

Educating Families

Families knowing how to prevent child sexual abuse, before it happens, by knowing the warning behaviors in potential abusers is nothing but positive. The more families are aware in 2017 that a potential abuser can look very much like a great mentor for children, the better. Also, the more resources that are available to the general public, the better. I may or may not have something in the works in that regard, but of course, I cannot confirm or deny that as of yet.

Sexual Education

As with educating families, the more children and teens know the facts about sex and sexuality, the more prepared they will be to make informed decisions about sexual behavior. The more prepared they are, the more they will be able to ask for help if they need it. If more states pass legislation requiring sexual education (or sexual abuse education), primary prevention will be furthered in 2017.

Miscellaneous Sex Offender Restrictions

There are many sex offender restrictions that have no bearing on public safety, like social media use. Other restrictions have included registering any and all internet accounts, avoiding libraries (because the children), and avoiding the state fair (because sex offenders lurk in the shadows waiting to kidnap your children, apparently). Can it just be said that the more restrictions are based in factual information, like studies and such, the better? 

Let us all make 2017 a safe place for children, and do what we can to stop child sexual abuse... before it happens. Let us ring in the new year, remembering our most vulnerable people: Children.

Oh, and there are some hints in this post for something big that might be coming in 2017, in case you missed them. Enjoy the New Year, 2017.

Practicing Boundaries For The Holidays

The holiday season is a fantastic time to give gifts, relax, eat, and enjoy the companionship of your friends and family. For families with children, it can also be a time of preventing child sexual abuse- before it happens. Yes, you read that right.

The holidays are a time when families with children have relatives over, and what child has never heard something like, "Give uncle Bob a hug!" Or maybe, "Snuggle with grandma." Chances are, most children have been told, at one time or another, that it is appropriate to ignore how they are feeling and show affection or receive... even if they do not want to.

While showing or receiving unwanted affection may seem harmless, this can violate a child's right to their body, as well as interfere with their ability to create healthy boundaries for themselves. It can teach them the message that if an adult asks them to do something, they have to do it, even if they do not want to. It can lead a child to believing that they have to show or receive affection when asked, even if they are uncomfortable with doing so.

Why is this a bad thing? Because without these boundaries in place, a sexual abuser or potential abuser will not raise any flags by grooming the child, or by being sexual with the child. If the child cannot say no to minor things like a hug, tickle, or snuggle, they also cannot say no to major things like a pat on the chest, a grope on the buttocks, or being unclothed. A child who has healthy boundaries can more easily spot when someone is breaking those boundaries and tell a trusted adult.

So, stay safer this holiday season: If you are around children, and you want them to hug you, stop and ask first. Ask them, "Can I give you a hug, or would you rather I didn't?" Respect their response, and regardless of what they say, respond with, "I want you to be able to be honest with me. Thank you for telling me how you feel." There will be other times when they will want hugs, and they will value for life the boundary skills you are teaching them.

Russians Like Primary Prevention (And Donald Trump)

Yes, you read that correctly. For the past week and a half, I have gotten many pageviews from Russia, and they are Trump supporters. How would I know that? Well, I have evidence. Evidence number one:

Yes, the main language is "Secret.ɢoogle.com You are invited! Enter only with this ticket URL. Copy it. Vote for Trump!". No lie. Screenshot proves it. That is not all. How do I know they are Russian? Well... evidence number two:

Okay, granted: Not all of them are Russians. But a fair number are.

Is this conclusive proof that Russia messed with the election? I have no idea, and I rather doubt it. I would guess that a knowledgeable person could spoof country ISO codes, though I have no idea why the language would come up as a plug for Donald Trump. And frankly, I doubt the country data could have been faked. Why? Because it came from many Russian cities:

But it is certainly fascinating that a healthy percentage of pageviews in the last week and a half or so have been from Donald Trump supporters, mostly in Russia. Does this mean primary prevention is trending in Russia? Does this mean that Trump supporters actually care about primary prevention? Or is this just the retribution I get for calling Donald Trump out as a groper? You decide.

The United States Elected A Groper

Yesterday, we elected a president. We elected a president who has admitted to groping women and has been accused of groping women. We elected a president who has viciously attacked anyone he did not agree with, and will likely continue to do so. We elected a president whose values clearly have nothing to do with valuing other human beings as equals. We elected a bombastic man who has no business serving as a role model for this country. That is not to say the alternatives were the best, but certainly would be better for preventing sexual crimes than the man we chose. 

We elected a president who will hinder the prevention of child sexual abuse and sexual assault. That should sicken us.