Sex offenders are the latest political pariah, as witnessed in this past attorney general race. But Iowa officials warned Kansas lawmakers last week that piling restrictions on sex offenders can harm rather than help public safety. Some Kansas lawmakers have advocated prohibiting sex offenders from living within a certain distance — such as 1,000 feet or 1,500 feet — of schools and day care centers. But the Iowa officials said that similar restrictions in their state ended up forcing sex offenders into rural areas where it is difficult to keep track of them. Not coincidentally, the number of unaccounted-for sex offenders in Iowa has doubled since the law went into effect last year. The officials also argued that rules are misdirected, in that most sex crimes against children are committed by a relative or acquaintance, not by a stranger who snatches a child from a school playground. Kansas would be better off, the Iowa officials said, putting it efforts into treatment of sex offenders and educational programs for young children.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Late-night laughs
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Late-night laughs
- JimJohnson on Late-night laughs
- JimJohnson on Late-night laughs
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- thomaswitt on Let immigrants run
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- minutelady on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
29 Comments
“…most sex crimes against children are committed by a relative or acquaintance…”
I am sure this is true. Does anyone know of any recent data on this question?
I appreciate this thread. Sometimes the best public policy is not guided by the principle of “always impose the greatest penalty possible.”
Okay, mindless drones, I’ve given you the opportunity to accuse me of wanting to hug terrorists, pedophiles, and worst of all, trees.
I have no recent data, but of those I met while a jailor. The majority were related to the victim or a close friend. The reason maybe self apparent in that we warn our children to not trust strangers. We watch them closer around people we do not know.
You would think twice about leaving your six y.o. son alone with someone you did not know. But feel domfortable leaving the room when it is someone you have known for years.
all and all it is one of the saddest things about the subject.I personally like talking to kids, I get a kick out of the things they say. But darn not talk to any in general and try not to if a parent is not close.
I hate to tell our helpful grandstanders this, but many sex offenders have a device that allows them to travel 1500 feet in about 35 seconds or less.
It’s called an automobile.
I think it’s good that Iowa is showing that these hardline solutions aren’t really solutions at all. They’re bandaid fixes that make all the people FEEL better, but really aren’t doing anything.
As one who lives in a rural community, we have many towns surrounding us that have no schools, the cost of living is really cheap there, and that is where all the at higher risk kids live too.
Oh and there usually are no law enforcement in those communities either.
One big thing that would help is to NOT place people on the registry who do not belong there. An example was profiled on a local news story recently. A guy about 17 or so knocked up his underage girlfriend. He stood up with her and they are now married, raising their daughter. I will definitely say the guy was a dumb sh*t at the time and probably deserved a good swift kick. But, should he be foreven branded for it? A woman here posted about her son some time ago – a 16-year-old with a 13-year-old who had (a) lied about her age and (b) was on the pill. At the time I commented about my steel-toed boots but does the kid need anything alse?
A question to all the males here: can you honestly say that when you were 16 you weren’t trying to get into her pants?
“The officials also argued that rules are misdirected, in that most sex crimes against children are committed by a relative or acquaintance, not by a stranger …”
That is even more egregious as a relative is someone who should be trusted more than a stranger.
I don’t understand the morals or mental status of someone who thinks “sex crimes against children by a relative” is not on a par with a ’sex crime’ committed by a stranger.
As far as a teenagers having sex with each other and they being listed with other ’sex offenders,’ I agree that they should not be listed once the circumstances are known. It’s a grey area, but I believe that a Judge should make a decision to determine whether the ’sexual act’ was committed not as a crime, but as misguided or at least one that is not responsible but not criminal.
I do believe that a responsibility clause for sex among teenagers should be considered in a ’sexual predator’ statue. That way, some 17 years will know that his/her actions with a much younger child can be prosecuted as non-responsible behavior and will be dealt with accordingly. I’m unsure what the punishment would be, but definetely not listed as a ’sexual predator’ if mutual consent is implied in the contact.
“I don’t understand the morals or mental status of someone who thinks ’sex crimes against children by a relative’ is not on a par with a ’sex crime’ committed by a stranger.”
Boy, I sure did not read where anyone said that sex crimes committed by a relative was not a crime or serious. The point was that the state laws that bar convicted child offenders from living within so-far of a school was not a wise allocation of resources and made the problem worse by making it more difficult to monitor the sex offenders.
The related point was that vigorous prosecution and punishment was useful only up to a point, where it can reach a point of diminishing returns and even work against those who monitor criminals.
There are a lot more intra-familial sex offenders than the guys who get all the publicity — the serial child sex predators – Thank goodness. The former are usually very inadequate men, while the latter are the guys who will abduct children, rape them and then kill them to silence their victims.
When I get a chance, I will try to research and document my contentions here.
http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html
Myth:”Most sex offenders re-offend.”Fact:Re-conviction data suggest that this is not the case. Further, re-offense rates vary among different types of sex offenders and are related to specific characteristics of the offender and the offense.
Persons who commit sex offenses are not a homogeneous group, but instead fall into several different categories. As a result, research has identified significant differences in re-offense patterns from one category to another. Looking at re-conviction rates alone, one large-scale analysis (Hanson and Bussiere, 1998) reported the following differences
Excellent points Steven
If anyone has the time to view the link it is estimated that roughly 2.6 million sex offenses are committed [per year?]if we jailed all offenders that would double are current prison population. Do we have the will and resources to do this?
Oh well, I guess sexual abuse is just part of growing up in America. Kids just need to get used to it. No need to get the sick bastards off the street before they do it again, since they might not, right?
“No need to get the sick bastards off the street before they do it again, since they might not, right?”
Mr. outlander,
Are you against finding the most effective and cost-effective way to deal with offenders? Is it a conservative value to waste tax dollars to imprison people for the rest of their lives who don’t need that? I think one could make the argument that it is.
So far, at least, we live in a civil society where we don’t execute every shoplifter, nor do we cut off their hands.
This story illustrates how the knee-jerk “punish them to the fullest extent possible” can actually be counter-productive to the aims of law enforcement. I am sure nobody wants to see more child victims. We do have the ability to classify sex offenders and use our precious resources (meaning your tax money) in ways that are most effective. I don’t get how that is a bad idea; unless of course your goal is only ideological or political and really not interested in managing the problem.
To parody our friend, fleettwood:
neocon value = waste every tax dollar possible for ideological nonsense, but wrap the nonsense in the cloth of some noble cause…
The last time I checked most sex offenses did not carry life sentences or the death penalty. Such persons WILL be in our communities.
Mr. Outminder is attacking a straw man (again).
Steven: IMO, nothing is too bad for those who prey on children. Yes, I realize that we have logistical and funding problems in dealing with the issue.I don’t deny that I am emotional about this issue. I particularly get upset when I hear constant stories of abducted and slain children. It seems invariably that the perpetrators are previous sexual offenders. When will we wake up to the fact that some of these people cannot be rehabilitated and thus are a danger to our children? They should never see the light of freedom again.
It seems to me that we need to do a better job of differentiating among the different types of offenders. Those who are a danger – lock them up. Those like the dumb-sh*t I refer to – let them live their lives.
I think the Bush rule should apply to the next presidential election:To be the president you have to demonstrate you are smarter than BOTH your car and any pets you own!
As has already been set forth above, the following options need consideration:
1) differentiate among the various classifications of “sex offenders”;
2) for those who are and remain a constant threat, determine what the cost is to imprision them for life, and whether the public will foot that bill;
3) for those who fall within the class of “rehabilitation will work”, spend the money to rehabilitate; surely, this is a lesser sum than construction of prisons.
Release of convicted sex offenders into the community is currently the result in most cases, regardless of the category of the offense; the Iowa experience suggests that “moving them away” ends up with more, not fewer, problems with identification, tracking, etc.
Is there any evidence that treatment of sex offenders works? Or is this another way to pump dollars into treatment providers’ pockets?
Certainly, we should let judges have the discretion to require sex offender registration for some offenses; there is a difference between a 19 year old and his 15 year old girlfriend (still creepy, but not really a “sex offender” in the usual sense), and the offender with pre-pubescent victims. For the former, the usual criminal sanctions are probably enough; for the latter, I can think of very little that would be too much. I am very skeptical that “treatment” offers much hope.
GMC, as am I; it is my understanding that in the world of the “sex offender” as commonly thought of, e.g., the serial peodphile, treatment is indeed not a realistic option/bound to fail. However, I recall reading some things about “chemical castration” which seemed to me, at the time, to be hopeful. It may well be that these “treatments” are also doomed to failure; but I wouldn’t wish to rule them out without some investigation. Of course, GMC, I am old enough to recall the arguments over drug users, and the widely held opinion back in the 70s and 80s that they were incapable of improvement through “treatment”. I am well aware of the failures in that area, but also recall discussion of the Arizona program where treatment with first time offenders resulted in lower recividism rates, etc., realizing in a net savings to the State.
“…some of these people cannot be rehabilitated and thus are a danger to our children?”
Outlander,I agree and those people should be incarcerated, as they are in Kansas, until they can be determined to not be a danger to others. The special sex offender unit at Larned State Hospital (which is a part of the state dept of corrections) was to release one offender since the program’s inception under Carla Stovall. The said offender was to go to a Nursing Home – he was aged and deemed to not be a further danger to others — but, if I am recalling correctly, some concern held up his release. Frankly, I would not want him in same nursing home as my parents (should they ever have to be in one) — So I understand the NIMBY sentiments quite well.
Because of the real potential costs to innocent children, as well as potential political fallout, I am thinking that errors on the side of caution are going to happen with the management of sex offenders more often than the other type of error. I think we have the ability to manage our resources intelligently and still get the job of public safety done. Which is not to say that doing so is without risk. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending upon your perspective, risk is unavoidable when one lives life.
GMC70,
I think the effectiveness of treatment depends upon what you are talking about in regard to offenders. As I am sure you know, sex offenders are not a unitary group.
I used to keep up with this area more than I have in the last 15 years, but it used to be thought that in terms of intrafamilial sexual abuse, an offender who had adequate pre-morbid functioning, experienced stress, and acted out sexually with a child or stepchild in a non-aggressive manner had a chance for recovery via treatment. This type of offender is contrasted with those whose primary sexual interest is in underage people or the offender who is sexually intersted in anybody – especially those who are vulnerable, or rapists who are into power and control.
As much as I wish it weren’t true, my opinion is that good prognoses for the treatment of sex offenders does not extend to a very large percentage of cases. But I don’t consider myself an expert on this area, at all – this just my semi-informed opinion (semi-informed opinion, I should remind all, can be a dangerous thing).
GMC,I would also say that I don’t think there are a lot of treatment providers lining up to line their pockets working with this type of client. Working with this group of folks exposes providers to third party risks and the potential fallout from that. Not to mention this has to be a difficult group of folks to work with.
While we’re looking for hard evidence, I’d like a better look at recidivism rates among registered sex offenders. The presumption that public knowledge of their prior offenses will prevent them from reoffending is just that, a presumption. This little tidbit doesn’t sound too promising:
“Few studies addressing recidivism of registered sex offenders are available. The Iowa Department of Human Rights (Adkins, Huff, and Stageberg, 2000) compared groups of over 200 convicted sex offenders released from supervision before the registration requirement and immediately following the implementation of the requirement. Results show “mixed effects,” with registered sex offenders having only slightly lower rates of recidivism for sexual offenses (3.0% vs. 3.5%), but a 26 percent lower rate of recidivism for all offenses.”
http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v07n1/01/sexoffender.html
I don’t think anyone in here even knows what a sex offender is. I mean legally. I know I don’t.
Door King,In Kansas these definitions are provided by K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 22-4902 – definitions are in section (b)
http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatuteFile.do?number=/22-4902.html
This is a cut and paste from the statute:
(b) “Sex offender” includes any person who, after the effective date of this act, is convicted of any sexually violent crime set forth in subsection (c) or is adjudicated as a juvenile offender for an act which if committed by an adult would constitute the commission of a sexually violent crime set forth in subsection (c).
(c) “Sexually violent crime” means:
(1) Rape as defined in K.S.A. 21-3502 and amendments thereto;
(2) indecent liberties with a child as defined in K.S.A. 21-3503 and amendments thereto;
(3) aggravated indecent liberties with a child as defined in K.S.A. 21-3504 and amendments thereto;
(4) criminal sodomy as defined in subsection (a)(2) and (a)(3) of K.S.A. 21-3505 and amendments thereto;
(5) aggravated criminal sodomy as defined in K.S.A. 21-3506 and amendments thereto;
(6) indecent solicitation of a child as defined by K.S.A. 21-3510 and amendments thereto;
(7) aggravated indecent solicitation of a child as defined by K.S.A. 21-3511 and amendments thereto;
(8) sexual exploitation of a child as defined by K.S.A. 21-3516 and amendments thereto;
(9) sexual battery as defined by K.S.A. 21-3517 and amendments thereto;
(10) aggravated sexual battery as defined by K.S.A. 21-3518 and amendments thereto;
(11) aggravated incest as defined by K.S.A. 21-3603 and amendments thereto; or
(12) any conviction for an offense in effect at any time prior to the effective date of this act, that is comparable to a sexually violent crime as defined in subparagraphs (1) through (11), or any federal, military or other state conviction for an offense that under the laws of this state would be a sexually violent crime as defined in this section;
(13) an attempt, conspiracy or criminal solicitation, as defined in K.S.A. 21-3301, 21-3302 or 21-3303 and amendments thereto, of a sexually violent crime, as defined in this section; or
(14) any act which at the time of sentencing for the offense has been determined beyond a reasonable doubt to have been sexually motivated. As used in this subparagraph, “sexually motivated” means that one of the purposes for which the defendant committed the crime was for the purpose of the defendant’s sexual gratification.
See above link.
Sexual predators don’t do that well in therapy, there is no “cure” for someone who has that sort of personality disorder, the most one can hope for is that they can be controlled and supervised. I agree with Sam, lock them up. They get 3 hots and a cot and society doesn’t have to worry about them reoffending.
There was a time, not that long ago, when psychotherapy was the solution for all problems. That simply was not true.
Recently, I read where Sheldon Prescorn was bemonaing the fact that the same unrealistic expectations were being held for SSRIs and psychotropic meds of all sorts.
Having said the above, not all sex offenders have personality disorders. There exist a small percentage, I am thinking, who could benefit from treatment. Imprisonment may not be the most cost effective for those sex offenders who do have personality disorders. I really think that we can move past the lock them all up philosphy and still protect the public. I don’t expect this to happen in Wichita where the Sedgwick County jail will be added onto until it covers most of West Wichtita (which I don’t think will be much of a loss of real estate, either).
Uhm Mary, not picking on you but. . that wasn’t Sam.
“kansanman” is not Sam.