Why Minnesota's New Sex Offender Sentencing Bills, HF 1572/SF 1895, Will Endanger Minnesota's Children

Sex Offender Facts

Before I begin, I would like to start with a brief review of three facts about sex offenders that the average person does not know:

1. Most sex crimes are committed by people new to the criminal justice system
1. 95% of new sex crimes are committed by first-time offenders, or those new to the criminal justice system. This comes from studying 21 years of arrest data in New York. The authors stated that an attempt to replicate the study would be extremely useful, but to my knowledge there has not been such an attempt, though the Minnesota Chapter of The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers and the Center for Sex Offender Management cite the same statistic. If you know of a similar study, use the contact gadget on the right, and be sure to cite the study.
2. This premise is supported by the low rates of recidivism among sex offenders (see following point): If convicted sex offenders do not typically commit sex crimes, then either A: Other offenders with different convictions or B: Those new to the criminal justice system (first-time offenders). The above study establishes that it is the second group, first-time offenders.
2. Sex offender recidivism is low (really low)
1. A wide variety of recidivism studies are available on the subject (for starters, see here: 45,398 offenders in 16 countries, 11.5%; here (MN: 7%), and here). 
2. Studying recidivism is compounded by two major factors: Recidivism typically looks at those released from prison, not those on supervision (probation), and underreporting can skew findings in recidivism studies with no way to control for the different findings.
3. A wider review of the literature shows that general recidivism (a sex offender that reoffends with any crime) is higher at around 30-40%, and sexual recidivism (a sex offender that reoffends with a sex crime) is lower at around 12%. In other words, when a sex offender reoffends, it is not usually with a sexual crime.
3. Sex offender treatment works well
1. For a very broad overview of the topic, see here or here. For a study aimed more at recidivism, see here. 
2. Sex offender treatment is not geared to a one-size-fits-all approach, but is tailored to a specific offender's needs. Generally, juveniles and first-time offenders respond better to treatment than other offenders. 

For a more comprehensive look at the facts about sex offenders, see here (PDF from Center for Sex Offender Management, and Office of Justice Program of the United States Department of Justice). For a look at Minnesota ATSA's discussion on sex offender residency restrictions, which includes an overview of facts, see here.

With that having been said, let me introduce the new sentencing bills (here and here) and what its aims are.

The Bills: An Overview

For those of you who are unfamiliar with these topics, what they are essentially proposing can be summed up in three points:

1. Eliminating the stays of adjudication (wipe criminal record pending successful completion of probation, record is invisible to public) and stays of imposition (felony drops to a misdemeanor upon successful completion of probation, record is visible the entire time but drops in severity).
2. Establishing a mandatory minimum sentence for "child pornography" (child sexual abuse material) offenders: 6 months for first-time offender, 12 for someone with a prior same offense.
3. Establishing lifetime supervision, either in the form of conditional release or probation.

The supposed goal of the bills is to improve public safety. I say supposed, because I believe these bills will do nothing of the sort and may in fact increase recidivism and ignore the bulk of the problem: First-time offenders. If the goal is public safety, the bill's contents should be policies that are effective, not policies that pander to public opinion.

Who Is Opposing These Bills?

I have confirmation that the Minnesota Chapter of The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (MN-ATSA) is fighting certain provisions of this bill, the Minnesota County Attorneys Association, as well as the Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault. By contrast, three sexual abuse survivors and the Minnesota Sheriff's Association has voiced their support. Frankly, I trust the aforementioned groups because they actually see the results of sex crimes on both sides of the coin: Victims and sex offenders. The facts are with those opposing these bills.

Why Oppose Them: The State of Minnesota's Own Statutes

In case you are unaware, last year, the State of Minnesota passed a statute regarding the policy it has towards criminals. That statute reads:

"The legislature declares that it is the policy of the state of Minnesota to encourage and contribute to the rehabilitation of criminal offenders and to assist them in the resumption of the responsibilities of citizenship. The opportunity to secure employment or to pursue, practice, or engage in a meaningful and profitable trade, occupation, vocation, profession or business is essential to the rehabilitation and the resumption of the responsibilities of citizenship."

If the Public Safety Committee sees its current omnibus bill, HF 896, passed, they will add that, "The opportunity to secure housing is also essential to rehabilitation and the resumption of the responsibilities of citizenship."

If that is Minnesota's policy towards criminals, then one must ask the question: How does establishing the lifetime supervision of a certain kind of criminal encourage them to resume the responsibilities of their citizenship? Likewise, how does removing the incentive of stays of adjudication and imposition make it easier for sexual offenders to reintegrate into society? The bills that are currently under consideration are a violation of Minnesota's own policy towards criminals.

Why Oppose Them: The Problem With Focusing On Sex Offenders

In case you missed my critique of Kare 11's investigations that started this bill, I argued that the bill targets a group of people responsible for the fewest number of sex crimes: Sex offenders. I overviewed some of the numbers specific to Minnesota and the reports that the Minnesota Department of Corrections has issued concerning sex offenders, and some of the problems with their reports. In short, focusing on reacting to sex crimes, which is what this bill does, is only ever going to affect about 10% of the problem or less. 

Why Oppose Them: The Problem With Taking Away An Offender's Incentive To Remain Law-Abiding

What if you made a mistake so bad, you knew it would haunt you for the rest of your life? What if you were not familiar with the laws about your mistake, the facts, or an ability to get mental health help? For a sex offender, that is not a hypothetical question: That is reality. Now, what if, having made that mistake and been caught, you are told that if you mind your P's and Q's and do not make another mistake, that mistake will only haunt a limited part of your life?

Exactly. You will jump at it, right? "I learned my lesson, I will do whatever it takes to get that chance the judge is giving me!" is roughly going to be what most offenders react with. There will always be a small percentage that try to manipulate the system and commit other crimes, just as there will always be a small percentage of "career criminals" for whom a sex offense is just another felony under their belt. But the reality is, most sex offenders are not in either of those groups.

Politicians in the state of Minnesota want to take away that hope for sex offenders in the hopes that it will deter sex crimes. Victims want stricter sentencing because they believe the same. What both parties are unaware of are the facts around this issue, and it is the facts, not an emotional testimony, that will protect Minnesota's children. They want to look tough on crime, but what they are really doing is making it harder for a sex offender to move on once they have committed their crime. That puts them more at risk for mental health issues, as well as further crimes. It does not lead to a safer community.

Why Oppose Them: The Problem With Lifelong Supervision

The main problem with lifelong supervision is that for most sex offenders, it is completely unnecessary: It would be a waste of taxpayer money. Read, if you will, the statement of an expert that has not only treated victims of sex crimes and sex offenders, but has extensively researched sex offender typology:

1. Recidivism rates are not uniform across all sex offenders. Risk of re-offending varies based on well-known factors and can be reliably predicted by widely used risk assessment tools such as the Static-99 and Static-99R, which are used to classify offenders into various risk levels.
2. Once convicted, most sexual offenders are never re-convicted of another sexual offence.
3. First-time sexual offenders are significantly less likely to sexually re-offend than are those with previous sexual convictions.
4. Contrary to the popular notion that sexual offenders remain at risk of re-offending through their lifespan, the longer offenders remain offence-free in the community, the less likely they are to re-offend sexually. Eventually, they are less likely to re-offend than a non-sexual offender is to commit an “out of the blue” sexual offence.
1. Offenders who are classified as low-risk by the Static-99R pose no more risk of recidivism than do [whiteout] individuals who have never been arrested for a sex-related offense but have been arrested for some other crime.
2. After 10-14 years in the community without committing a sex offense, medium-risk offenders pose no more risk of recidivism than individuals who have never been arrested for a sex-related offense but have been arrested for some other crime.
3. After 17 years without a new arrest for a sex-related offense, high risk offenders pose no more risk of committing a new sex offense than do individuals who have never been arrested for a sex-related offense but have been arrested for some other crime.
5. Based on my research, my colleagues and I recommend that 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 are 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.

It may be slightly difficult to understand the last paragraph, but they recommend that instead of viewing all sex offenders as lifelong risks to public safety (as HF 1572/SF 1895 does), it is better to look at the point at which the costs outweigh the benefits of supervising and tracking sex offenders, and to focus efforts on high-risk offenders, prevention, and services to victims. 

Why Oppose Them: Mandatory Minimum Sentences

They call it child pornography. I call it sex abuse material, because that is what it is. Those that are charged with sex abuse material crimes are typically low-risk sex offenders, who would do well on probation with a stay of imposition. Probation would require them to complete sex offender treatment as well as refraining from consuming any kind of sexual imagery or pornography. In larger counties, compliance is monitored by a computer program. They would also need to refrain from contact with children. Mandatory minimum sentences would again hinder these offenders' abilities to re-enter the community, and leave a larger gap between the time they are arrested and sentenced, and the time they are able to get sex offender treatment. That serves no real public safety purpose, it serves to vindictively punish people for committing a certain crime. As the bills are aimed to improve public safety, that must be their focus.

Sex Crime Is Not Simple

The unfortunate truth is that sex crime is vastly complex, and a wide variety of research has been conducted in each complex area within sexual crime. While the public may understand the issue simply as, "If someone poses a risk to the public they should be locked up!" the reality is not nearly that simple. Most sex offenders do not present enough of a risk to public safety, and many other types of offenders (property crime, financial crime, theft, etc.) have a much higher risk to public safety than sex offenders present. Attempting to take a one-size-fits-all approach to this issue will compound these complex issues, not solve them.

A Criminal Issue Or A Mental Health Issue?

Recently, there has been much talk in the academic field of child sexual abuse prevention about treating sex abuse as a public health issue. This idea is new to the public and to policy makers, but not new to researchers. The Center for Sex Offender Management has stated much the same thing, and last year, Elizabeth Letourneau gave a speech at TEDMED indicating that sexual abuse is a preventable public health issue. 

While victimizing people sexually is absolutely abhorrent and a criminal act, the issues that lead someone to commit that act are largely mental health issues with a wide variety of motivations and contributing factors. Those motivations and factors are just as complex as the realities of sex crime, if not more so: The same thing that motivates incest in one person does not motivate a juvenile to sexually abuse a younger child. Even the same kind of offense is motivated differently.

If we paid attention to the realities of sex crimes, who perpetrates them, and focused on preventing sex crime, a larger dent would be made in keeping the public safe than current methods of reacting to sex offenders will do. That is why I have formed some solutions, based on my nerd-like knowledge of this subject.

Alternative Solutions

I have already taken the liberty of contacting many state politicians about this same issue. The recommendations I made for them are, instead of passing HF 1572:

1. Use stays of imposition and probation on adults that score as low-risk on Minnesota’s risk assessment criteria, and stays of adjudication on juvenile offenders. Incentivize sex offenders to remain law-abiding. Do not eliminate these stays.
2. Assign risk level based on risk assessment, not on which statute was violated. If possible, use both the MN-SOST-3.1 and the Static-99R. While the MN-SOST-3.1 is reliable, more research has been done proving the reliability of the Static-99R. www.static99.org has more information including research. 
3. Remove the requirement to register for low-risk offenders, and reserve that for moderate and high-risk offenders. If any low-risk offender commits a second sex crime, they must register, and if any moderate to high risk offender commits a second sex crime, they receive an automatic prison sentence appropriate to the circumstances, after which their name would be made public (notification). The money saved from taking this approach should be spent on prevention and education.
4. Should any offender with at least two sexual crimes on their record reoffend again regardless of the offense type, it is an automatic life sentence in prison. Three strikes and they are done. That alone should serve to both control recidivism, and deter recidivists.
5. More is needed in the way of educating children and communities about sexual issues and where they can go to get help. I believe Erin’s Law is just one step: We cannot stop with passing just Erin’s Law. These recommendations is covered in depth here.

I have made other recommendations before on this blog, and indeed in the critique of Kare 11's investigation. These recommendations are specific to Minnesota, while many of the recommendations in my critique are generalized to the rest of the United States. I believe that sex crimes can be stopped before they happen. Do you believe these are preventable crimes? If so, let your legislators know. If not, then study up on this subject. The articles and studies link on the right is a great place to start.

It is for the children, after all.

Update:

Victory

The Senate Public Safety Committee, and the conference committee, has chosen to delete HF 1572 from the Public Safety Omnibus Bill. For now, I am considering this a victory.

37 "Scarey" Repeat Sex Offenders Statistics, Debunked And Fact-Checked

Um, Say What?

So, I was looking for a replication of a study I constantly cite (again, to no avail), and came across this article. Now granted, it is two years old, but I figured that it could use a little bit of updating, and since I know a lot about this topic and I have not written anything for a month... One of the biggest criticisms I have for this article is that it cites no sources for its numerous "facts" so there is no way to identify which come from studies unless you are familiar with the research. Since I am familiar with some of the research, I will take a stab at this.

Introduction

In their one-paragraph introduction, they give wrong information. Current laws do not, in fact, make it impossible for sex offenders to live or work near places where children congregate and the laws that do have been shown to be ineffective. They also state that a sex offender can easily become a repeat offender, despite citing no evidence to that effect (the average recidivism rate for sex offenders committing new sexual crimes is around 12%, which means that 88% of sex offenders never commit another sex crime). But then, the post was written by someone at "Health Research Funding", so it must be right, you might think. Well, their introduction paragraph has two wrong facts right off the bat.

Health Research Funding's List Of Alternative Facts

So, to their list. It would be tedious to give each statistic a heading, so I will have their alternative facts in the far-left numbers that progress, and the reaction to that fact in the little "1" under their "facts".

1. The total number of registered sex offenders that are currently in the United States: 747,000.
1. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children puts this number at 859,500 as of December 6, 2016.
2. 33% of the registered sex offenders that are in the US right now are under the supervision of a corrections agency.
1. Since they cite no source for this, there is no way to verify this statistic, nor is there any way to determine if the supervision they mention is probation or parole.
3. The average age of a rapist is 31-years-old and 52.2% of them are white males.
1. As a small percentage of sex offenders (less than 30%, since 66% of sex offenders are those with offenses against children) are rapists, this fact is misleading. 
4. An estimated 24% of those serving time for rape and 19% of those serving time for sexual assault had been on probation or parole at the time of their repeat offense.
1. See previous answer: They are talking about a minute fraction of sex offenders, certainly not the majority. Since there is no way to verify this list, 
5. Only 2% of the Catholic clergy sexual abusers were ever jailed, despite over 10,000 victims and an estimated 4,300 total abusers.
1. There is no way to verify if this is true, but given the coverups and overall statistics about underreporting, it would not surprise me if this were accurate.
6. An adolescent sex offender who does not receive treatment will commit an estimated 380 sex crimes over their lifetime.
1. This is hogwash that is based on a hogwash study that was debunked some time ago. Here, you can see a therapist address this. 
7. 1 out of every 2 child molestations that occurs are perpetrated by an adolescent male.
1. A study in the Juvenile Justice Bulletin done in 2009 puts this figure at 35.6%, not half. 
8. Offenders with a previous sex offense conviction have a 37% re-offense rate.
1. Overall sex offender recidivism for general crimes is 30-40%, while sexual recidivism is around 12%. 
9. Rapists repeat their offenses at rates up to 35%.
1. See above. Also, this study found that rapists repeat sexual crimes at a rate of 18.9%, not 35%, and rapists repeat general crimes at a rate around 46.2%. 
10. Sex offenders who are attracted to boys are the most likely to re-offend in some sex crime which may include rape, molestation, or a violent act.
1. Sex offenders who are attracted to children in general works out to be .05764% of the entire US population (compared to .262% of the population that are sex offenders, and .17292% of the population are sex offenders with an offense against a child). 17% of girls are abused, and 7% of boys are abused sexually, so the percentage 
11. The percentage of second sex offenses that occur while the offender is living in a supervised community: 60%.
1. Again, there is no source for this, and given that most sex offenders do not reoffend sexually (most being, on average, 88%, see number 8), this would be talking about 7.2% of sex offenders if true.
12. It costs $22,000 per year in order to incarcerate a sex offender.
1. According to this source, it costs on average, $31,307 to incarcerate an inmate, and according to The New York Times, that same figure is $31,286. Suffice it to say that this figure seems low, and without a study or jurisdiction, I call hogwash.
13. For children between the ages of 12-15, about one third of all the sex offenses that occur are from a male perpetrator who is of the same age.
1. At what point to we call this a sex offense? Is it the child or children who has a problem with this same-age sexual behavior, or the parents and the police? In some states, any sexual activity between two children of the same age is illegal no matter what.
14. 43% of the sexual assaults that occur happen within a 6 hour window that begins at 6pm and ends at midnight.
1. No source, and I am unfamiliar with statistics about sexual assault.
15. The percentage of sex crimes that occur to children under the age of 6 by an adolescent under the age of 18: 40%.
1. According to this study, page 7, 57.1% of such crimes are perpetrated by offenders 12 years old or younger, and 21% of such crimes are perpetrated by offenders 12-18 years old.
16. The average amount of jail time that a sex offender will serve out of their average 8 year prison sentence: 3.5 years.
1. In other words, it takes the justice system an average of 3.5 years from the time they are first arrested and go to jail, to convict a sex offender and send them to prison? This is either poorly worded or wrong. If true, it would mean that most justice systems are violating sex offenders' right to a speedy trial, and I doubt that kind of constitutional violation is occurring on such a wide scale.
17. 30% of the children who are abused sexually will become sex offenders later on in their adult life.
1. See next fact, and answer this: If a third of victims actually go on to abuse, why are only one-third of sexual abusers found to have been abused? Those numbers do not add up.
18. Although two thirds of sex offenders during an interview state that they were abused as children, only 29% of them are found to be telling the truth during a lie detector test.
1. This has been shown by research to be correct, only the number is 50% and drops to 30-40% depending on which study you consult. Relying on one study for a statistic like this is deceptive at best.
19. 80% of the girls who are sexually molested had a perpetrator that was someone which they new.
1. First, please learn how to spell, folks. New is not knew. Second, 90% of child sexual abuse victims know their abuser, not 80%. 
20. The percentage of boys who knew the perpetrator that molested them: 93%.
1. See above response.
21. Approximately 47% of people are victimized by their family or their extended family.
1. The last I looked at this figure, it was 30%, not 47%. 
22. Repeat sex offenders in one study used romantic relationships with women to gain access to the women’s children.
1. One study does not make the norm, and given that most new sex offenses are not committed by registered sex offenders but by those new to the criminal justice system, this is questionable. 
23. Only 2.7% of the total number of sex offenders are estimated to commit another sex crime after being released from jail.
1. If only 2.7% of sex offenders reoffend after being released from jail, then they contradicted their own fact- number 8, which claims that sex offenders have a 37% recidivism rate.
24. The percentage of sex offenders that will commit another crime, non-sexual in nature, after being released from jail: 70%.
1. Most studies on recidivism show that a sex offender will usually recidivate with a non-sexual crime, so this is likely true. I do not see how it is a scary repeat sex offender statistic, however.
25. The state of Delaware has the highest rate of sex offenders, with a rate of 517 per 100,000 in general population.
1. The state of Delaware has 507 per 100,000 people, and the highest rate is actually found at 718 in Oregon. 
26. It isn’t just men who are sex offenders. 2% of the sex offender registry in New York State are women.
1. Women have always accounted for a small percentage of sexual crimes. What is not here is that they typically receive more lenient sentences also.
27. Pennsylvania has the lowest rate of sexual offenders: 94 per 100,000.
1. 157 per 100,000 people, and the lowest rate within the 50 states is actually 113, and that is in Maryland.
28. Studies have found that contemporary cognitive-behavioral treatment does help to reduce rates of sexual re-offending by as much as 40%.
1. This means that sex offender treatment is effective at reducing recidivism. How is that scary, I wonder? I have seen studies that claim much the same, so this is actually a fact.
29. Over a 5 year period, recidivism rates can be as low as 14% in some jurisdictions.
1. Which jurisdictions? Cite your source, and frankly, given the numbers I have seen in individual jurisdictions (for example, Wisconsin is 6% after 15 years and 1.5% after 3, and Minnesota is 7% after 8 years)
30. First-time offenders are less likely to create a repeat sexual offense than those who have already committed a second or third repeat sexual offense.
1. Again, I fail to see how this is a scary repeat sex offender statistic. However, this is true and verified by the statement of R. Karl Hanson.
31. Only 10% of all sex crimes actually result in a criminal conviction.
1. Sex crimes are well-known for having low conviction rates because of the myth that victims are lying, and the fact that victim testimony is usually the only evidence available. 
32. The cost savings per year to place a sex offender into a comprehensive treatment program instead of jail: $15,000 per offender.
1. Without a source, I cannot verify this. But given that their earlier fact 28 shows a significant drop in recidivism with treatment, and low recidivism overall, this is a good thing: Treatment, as they just showed, is better than incarceration. 
33. The average number of victims for a pedophile who prefers boys over girls: over 100.
1. See fact number 6, and this source. This is wrong.
34. It is not unusual for a sex offender to spend years developing a trustworthy reputation so that they can be near children and commit an offense that many just cannot believe.
1. Around 66% of sex offenders, as discussed in fact number 3, have offenses against children. Also, most sex offenses are committed by first-time offenders. So this "fact" is not only not true for all sex offenders, this is not true for most child sexual abuse cases, because sex offenders are not responsible. It is true that sexual abusers (not sex offenders) spend anywhere from weeks to years grooming their victim, and the signs of grooming are a reliable indicator, but looking only at sex offenders is a mistake.
35. Only 33% of the sex offenses that occur to children between the ages of 12-19 are ever reported. This is half of the amount of sex offenses that are reported when the victim is between the ages of 35-49.
1. Most studies put the reporting rate for child sexual abuse at 38-50%, not 33%.
36. Although 50 percent of violent crime victims over the age of 12 contact police, only 36 percent of sexual assault victims over the age of 12 report the crime to authorities.
1. So what? This is not scary, what is scary is that, according to their own statistics, child sexual abuse is not reported more than it is reported, which means that the bigger risk comes from people who have never been caught.
37. Only about 30% of rapes are ever reported to police. Research indicates that sex offenses are one of the most underreported crimes that happen.
1. According to RAINN, this is true. It is also true that of the 310/1000 victims of rape, only 6 will result in an incarcerated rapist, and only 7 will result in a felony conviction.

The Rest Of Their Information

The rest of their information is shady. They state that no one is safe from being targeted by a sex offender (as if sex offenders are the biggest threat, when they are not), and discuss what qualifies as a sex crime and the effects victimization can have (very, very briefly). They state that "virtually every pedophile will become a child molester" (which, as I have discussed before, is a myth that does not stand up to looking at the facts and statistics available on the matter: At worst, only 3-5.2% of pedophiles do molest children, and adjusting for underreporting, at least 74.4% of pedophiles do not molest children).

They discuss underreporting as the most significant issue to sex crimes (while it is a big deal, the bigger deal is that we spend a hugely disproportionate amount of our efforts on a population that does not commit sex crimes: Sex offenders). They discuss being vigilant, and note "listen for your kids in your backyard" and "don't let them wander off in a store all alone" when 80% of child sexual abuse happens in the residence (page 3) of the victim or perpetrator, not outside or in a store. So their idea of vigilance, and the bulk of their facts, do not stand up to reality.

I conclude that whoever wrote the article had no idea what they were talking about, and while they seemed to be well-intentioned, spreading myths about sex crimes is a surefire way to enable them to happen. When we listen for our children in the backyard rather than focusing on the warning behaviors in potential abusers, we fool ourselves into thinking everything is okay. Facts protect children. Myths do not.

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.