The Complexities of Sex Offender Recidivism
Derek “The Fallen One” Logue
February 1, 2008, Last Update: February 16, 2012

Introduction

One of the more commonly held sex offender myths is the belief that “sex offenders have a high recidivism rate.” In one
recent study, respondents estimated sex offense recidivism rates to be around 75%: "
Sex offenders in general were
seen by our sample as the criminals most likely to re-offend, even though in toto they have lower re-arrest rates for their
crime of choice than other types of offenders
” (Levenson, Branson, Fortney, and Baker 2007, p. 17). The myth has
reared its head in numerous places:

The risk or recidivism posed by sex offenders is ‘frightening and high’.” (Smith v. Doe, 538 US at 103)

Sex offenders pose an enormous challenge for policy makers: they evoke unparalleled fear among constituents… Sex
offenders have a high risk of re-offending
” (NCMEC 2007)

Not surprisingly, the media has played a media role in perpetuating the myth. A recent report found that all politicians
derive that at least some of sex offender information from the media; even those who claimed to read “official research
reports” read media reports of the research rather than the actual reports:

Although respondents suggested that they receive information about sex offending from several sources, all
acknowledge that, to some degree, they rely on government reports found in media accounts for their information about
the problem. Respondents also suggested that the constituents who pressure their representatives for action very likely
rely on the media for much of their information about sex offenders and offending. Directly or indirectly, the media play a
vital role in framing the legislative response to sex crimes
.” (Sample & Kadleck 2008).

In reality, sex offenders are among the least likely to commit their crimes or any crime in general. In order to understand
the task at hand, a study in recidivism is necessary. Once you research recidivism on your own, you will find the “simple”
question of recidivism is actually quite complex.

Recidivism Defined: More complex than you think

The simple definition of recidivism is the rate at which an offender will commit another crime. However, studies vary
greatly on what constitutes “recidivism.”
Harris and Hanson (2004), in a study of available recidivism studies, found a
variety of factors that greatly influence the final numbers of each study:

  1. How the word “recidivism” is defined; re-conviction rates, re-arrest rates, informal reports to child agencies, self-
    reporting, violations of conditional release, or simply being questioned by police. The broader the definition, the
    higher the number, obviously.
  2. Follow-up period: The longer the follow-up period, obviously the higher the number. However, the longer the
    individual remains offense free, the less likely the offender will be to re-offend
  3. Diversity among sex offenders: Certain classes of offenders have differing re-offense rates
  4. Determining the percentage of crimes that go unreported to the police. This is usually achieved by victimization
    surveys. One major problem, however, is the definition of “sexual assault.” The researchers noted the Besserer
    and Trainor (2000) study, noting the study used “a very broad definition of sexual assault,” including all unwanted
    forms of sexual touching and threats, and possibly “behaviors not conforming to the popular image of a sexual
    offense.” The researchers noted that 59% of the respondents of this study stated the reason they did not report
    was because they felt the “incident was not important enough” to report. “Consequently, readers may wonder
    what counts as a sexual assault.” (Harris & Hanson 2004, p. 1-2)

General and Specific Recidivism

One more factor must be addressed in reading a recidivism study: the type of recidivism studied. There are two types of
recidivism, general/ overall recidivism and specific recidivism.

  • “Specific” recidivism is the rate at which an offender commits the same type of offense. Obviously this means sex
    offenders committing sex crimes.
  • “General” (overall or baseline) recidivism is the rate an offender commits another crime of any kind (Logue 2007).
  • A sex offender who later commit’s a drug offense is a general recidivist but NOT a sex-specific  recidivist

Many studies,
including the landmark US Department of Justice (2003) recidivism study, studies both types of recidivism.
For all intensive purposes, specific recidivism is likely the type of statistic that comes to mind when we think of recidivism.
However, as can be expected, general recidivism will always be higher than specific recidivism.

Specialization

Simply put, specialization is another term for specific recidivism, the rate at which a certain type of offender will commit
the same type of crime. This is a mantra proponents of sex offender legislation love to quote and quote often: “Sex
offenders are X times more likely to re-offend sexually than non-sex offenders.” The US Dept. of Justice 3 year follow-up
(2003) notes 5.3% of sex offenders released in 1994 were arrested for a new sex offense in 3 years, while 1.3% of all
non-sex offenders were arrested for a sex crime. Thus, the magic number is four. There are two issues with this line of
logic.

First of all, specialization is no more common for sex offenders than any other type of offender; thieves are more likely to
steal, drug offenders are more likely to commit drug crimes, an so on. Furthermore, strong evidence suggests sex
offenders actually specialize at a lower rate than most other offenses. The Michigan Parole Board study (2000) shows
sex offenders committed sex crimes (2.46%) at a lower rate than forgers committing forgery (6.86%), Burglars
committing burglary (10.56%), robbers committing robbery (5.17%), Drug offenders committing drug crimes (6.42%),
and Larcenists committing larceny (12.65%).

Secondly, the statement takes places emphasis on sex offenders who commit sex crimes, while failing to address the
fact sex offenders commit only a small percentage of sex crimes that occur every year. Going by number of offenders
rather than percentages, The US Dept. of Justice (2003) study found that 517 sex offenders committed a new sex crime,
while 3,228 non-sex offenders committed sex crimes. That is roughly six times the number of sex offenders committing
sex crimes! Consider also the following statistic from the US Dept. of Justice (1997) study which found 86% (about 6 of
7) of inmates in prison on sex crimes were first time offenders; only 14% had previous sex crimes. Thus, this statement
convolutes the bigger picture.

The Recidivism Curve

“For all crimes (and almost all behaviours) the likelihood that the behaviour will reappear decreases the longer the
person has abstained from that behaviour. The recidivism rate within the first two years after release from prison is
much higher than the recidivism rate between years 10 and 12 after release from prison” (Harris & Hanson 2004, p. 4).
The Florida Department of Corrections (2003) presents a very good chart of recidivism trends; while the article refers to
general recidivism, the same concepts apply to specific recidivism as well:

“This chart shows that re-offense rates increase most quickly immediately after release and grow more slowly as the
follow-up period increases. For example, in the first six months after release the re-offense rate grows to 12.1%, but
between 36 and 48 months after release the rate grows only 4.9 points from 39.9% to 44.8%. The pattern of re-
imprisonment rates is somewhat different, with the largest growth (5.8 points) occurring between 12 and 18 months after
release. This difference reflects the length of time required for the recidivists to be arrested, convicted, sentenced, and
delivered to the Department.”

This trend strongly suggests the first few years after release are the most critical. Based on this fact, it would be difficult
to deny the importance of a successful reintegration program for sex offenders newly released from prison. The chart
also reveals a very important fact, namely, the longer the offender is out of prison, the less likely the offender will re-
offend. I call this the “FALL;” a number of inmates suffer the “free at long last” mentality after leaving prison, going back
to the same environment upon release, not having learned anything from prison. There will always be a small number of
individuals who do this; many more inmates truly learned their lesson. The recidivism curve merely shows that most who
are destined to fail will do so right out the gate; thus, it is important to support successful reintegration programs to lower
the likelihood of recidivism.

The Harris and Hanson 2004 study (p. 8, Table 2) found that the 5 year recidivism rate for offenders who have been out
of prison  five years was 7%; among offenders out 10 years, 5%; and among offenders out 15 years, 4%.

Sex Crimes among Sex Offender sub-groups

The Harris and Hanson study found recidivism differences between specific offense types, thus showing a need to divide
recidivism rates by offender type. In order from, least likely to re-offend to most likely to re-offend (in parentheses,
recidivism rates after 5 years, 10 years, and 15 years):

  • Extended Incest Child Molesters (6%, 9%, 13%)
  • “Girl Victim” Child Molesters (9%, 13%, 16%)
  • Rapists (14%, 21%, 24%)
  • “Boy Victim” Child Molesters (23%, 28%, 35%)

A Marshall and Barbaree (1990) study found an even greater discrepancy between those sex offenders with the lowest
recidivism rates (Incest offenders, 4%-10%) and those with the highest (Exhibitionists, 41%-71%).

Also worth noting, the Harris and Hanson study also found that one time offenders (10%, 15%, 19%) recidivated lower
than those who had two or more prior convictions (25%, 32%, 37%). In short, the need to break the general “sex
offender” group into a more specific offense category is seen as necessary.

Issues regarding Under-reporting Sex Crimes

The most popular trend to explain consistently low recidivism rates among sex offenders is trying to estimate the amount
of sex crimes that go unreported. Studies vary regarding the number of rimes that go unreported. As previously noted,
one study quoted in the Harris and Hanson study found that 59% of sex cases not reported to the police were not
reported because it wasn’t “important enough” to pursue,  which implies a rather flexible definition of what constitutes a
sex crime.

The US Department of Justice conducts the “National Crime Victimization Survey” (NCVS) bi-annually, which measures
various crime statistics, whether reported or not. The NCVS studies estimates of non-reporting and the reasons for non-
reporting. The 2003 NCVS found that 67.3% of rapes and attempted rapes (attempts included verbal threats of sexual
violence) and 53.2% of sexual assaults go unreported (Table 91). The NCVS found numerous reasons for lack of
reporting; the reasons are listed below:

  • Reported to another official- 7.1%                
  • Private/ Personal matter- 17.1%
  • Offender unsuccessful- 11.4%                
  • Not important enough- 3.7%
  • Not aware crime occurred until later- 4.9%        
  • No way to ID- 2.8%
  • Lack of proof- 10.6%                                
  • Police would not want to be bothered- 7.4%
  • Police inefficient, ineffective, biased- 3.7%        
  • Fear of reprisal- 11.2%
  • Too inconvenient, time consuming- 3.7%        
  • Other reasons- 18%

One major influence in the decision to report a crime is victim-offender relationship.  The 2005 NCVS Table 104
illustrates this major difference between non-reporting with a stranger offender and an offender known to him. Among
the top reasons for non-reporting when a stranger is involved: Reported to another official (49.6%), Police don’t want to
be bothered  (19.9%), Offender unsuccessful (12.7%), Fear of reprisal (11%), and Police inefficient, ineffective, or
biased (6.9%). Among the top reasons for non-reporting when a non-stranger is involved: Other Reasons (47%),
Private or personal matter (31.1%), Police don’t want to be bothered (10.8%), Report to another official (5.1%), Police
ineffective, inefficient, biased (2.8%), and Too incontinent, time consuming (2.4%).

The NCVS sex crimes definition:

  • Sexual assault: A wide range of victimizations, separate from rape or attempted rape. These crimes include
    attacks or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between victim and offender. Sexual
    assaults may or may not involve force and include such things as grabbing or fondling. Sexual assault also
    includes verbal threats.
  • Rape: Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual
    intercourse means vaginal, anal or oral penetration by the offender(s). This category also includes incidents
    where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a bottle. Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female
    victims and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.

The NCVS is very thorough, but there are a few problems. Firstly, it combines actual crimes with threats of crimes in
many places; Table 1 of the NCVS divides reported rapes (72,240) and attempted rape (44,650), but combines sexual
assault with attempt (81,950). Secondly, the reports are limited to crimes involving people age 12 and older, no children.
Thirdly, the phrase “verbal threats” is a rather vague term. Still, the NCVS is the most likely source for under-reporting
estimates. That being said, there are many reasons why certain crimes go unreported.

In an attempt to rectify certain issues with the NCVS, the DOJ conducted a study called “Sexual Assault of Young
Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics” (2000). Since the NCVS only
relates to victims 12+ years of age, the study relied on the FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS).
While there is no feasible way to survey children on unreported sex crimes, this study offers up another X factor to
further complicate the issue: the number of sexual assaults committed by juveniles who are likely not a registered sex
offender. The study found that juveniles made up 23.2% of total sex crimes against children: 40% of offenders of
children under age 6 and 39% of offenders against children ages 7-11 were juveniles; and the single age with the
greatest number of offenders is 14 (p. 8).

In short, it is rather difficult to sufficiently determine just how many factors impact the ability to estimate exactly how many
crimes go unreported. On one hand, there is a number of sex crimes going unreported. On the other hand, what are the
reasons for the under-reporting? Also, how do we even determine a base number to use to determine the total number
of actual sex crimes being committed by people old enough to be sex offender recidivists?  Do we count verbal threats
as bona fide sex crimes or not? In fairness, what about the number of false allegations? A number of recent
exonerations of convicted rapists as a result of DNA evidence immediately come to mind. And sadly, sex crimes are
typically he-said-she-said events. Even if we could somehow come up with a formula that accurately portrays the amount
of unreported crimes in general, how can we truly determine the number of registered sex offenders that have
committed these acts? In reality, this line of thinking merely serves to attempt to explain an undesired result, namely, sex
offenders have a lower recidivism rate than other offenders.

One final note: Patkin (2008) states that under-reporting for crime in general is under-reported; citing the 1999 NCVS,
Patkin notes 64% of overall crime goes unreported. Thus, the idea that sex crimes go reported at a higher rate than
other crimes is another myth.

Factors in Recidivism

Another concern is the factors which play a role in recidivism. There are two main factors: Static and Dynamic.

  • Static: Circumstances that do not change, such as age when sex offense was committed, problematic childhood,
    and current age.
  • Dynamic factors: Factors that can change, such as circumstances and attitudes. Dynamic factors can be stable
    (changing slowly over time) or acute (changing quickly, like being evicted, harassed, threatened or sexual
    arousal). Dynamic factors are more likely to affect recidivism (Patkin 2008).

Recidivism Studies

Various studies conducted  over the years have found a consistently low number of sex offenders who re-offend. In light
of the consistency of research, it would be hard-pressed to explain away why so many studies have come to the same
consistent conclusion.

[NOTE: Once Fallen has created a summary chart of dozens of American recidivism studies, many of which are listed
below. To access this chart, visit
Once Fallen's Recidivism Chart page].

US Department of Justice, “
Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released into the Community in 1994.”

  • Three-year follow-up period
  • 9,641 sex offenders released in 15 states
  • 262,420 non-sex offenders released in same 15 states in 1994
  • 517 sex offenders (5.3% of all sex offenders) were arrested for a sex crime within 3 years
  • 3,228 non-sex offenders (1.3% of all no-sex offenders) were arrested for a sex crime within the same three year
    period
  • 3.5% of sex offenders re-convicted

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, “Ten Year Recidivism Follow-up of 1989 Sex Offender Releases.”

  • 8% of sex offenders were recommitted in the 10-year period
  • 3% of sex offenders committed a sexually-related violation of probation/ parole
  • Half of recidivists re-offended within two years of release
  • 2/3 of recidivists re-offended within 3 years of release
  • Treatment found to reduce recidivism (16.7% w/o treatment, 7% w/ treatment)

Michigan DOC Parole Board Stats for parolees 1990-2000 (3 year follow-up)

  • 4762 SO paroled, 993 total failures, 702 technical violations, 291 returned to prison, 117 committed sex crimes
    (2.46%), 6.11% total recidivism (apparently based on return to prison)
  • Lowest total (general) recidivism: Homicide (6.03%), Sex Offenders (6.11%), Embezzlement (8.44%), Arson
    (8.64%), Motor Vehicle Offenses (10.75%)
  • Lowest same crime (specific) recidivism: Embezzlement (0.44%), Murder (0.99%), Arson (1.49%), Sex Offenses
    (2.46%), Assault (2.83%)

Sex Offender Sentencing In Washington State: Recidivism Rates (5 year + 1 year for adjudication, based on conviction
rates)

  • General SO Recidivism 13%; Sex Offense Recidivism 2.7%; among child victim offenders, 2.3%; among rapists,
    3.9%

Arizona Dept. of Corrections follow up of SO released from 1984-1998 (up to 12 year follow-up period)

  • 3,205 released SO; 25.2% general recidivism; 5.5% sex crime; Indecency SO recidivists, 9.3%; Rapists, 5.9%; sex
    abuse 5%; sex conduct with minor, 3.5%

Arizona Three year study (2009) AZ Criminal Justice Commission

  • Rearrest for a new sex crime within three years Of the 290 released sex offenders, 2.4% were rearrested for a
    new sex crime. By comparison, sex offenders were nearly six times more likely to be rearrested for a new sex
    crime than non-sex offenders. Among a sample of non-sex offenders, 0.4% (six out of 1,699) were rearrested for
    a new sex crime.

Utah Sentencing Commision/ Larry Bench study (2007) 25-year follow-up

  • Bench, also a University of Utah criminology professor, conducted what he calls one of the most comprehensive
    studies on convicted sex offenders. In the study of 389 Utah prison inmates tracked as far back as 25 years, he
    found 7.2 percent were convicted of new sex crimes.

Minnesota Recidivism study (2007) Minn. Dept. of Corrections

  • Sex Offense Recidivism
  • After three years, seven percent of the 3,166 offenders had been rearrested for a sex offense, six percent
    reconvicted, and three percent reincarcerated.
  • By the end of the follow-up period (an average of 8.4 years for all 3,166 offenders), 12 percent had been
    rearrested for a sex offense, 10 percent reconvicted, and seven percent reincarcerated.
  • Prior sex crimes, stranger victims, male child victims (i.e. male victims under the age of 13), failure in prison-
    based sex offender treatment, and a metro-area county of commitment each significantly increased the risk
    of timing to a sex reoffense.1
  • Intensive supervised release (ISR), supervised release, supervised release revocations, and successful
    participation/completion of sex offender treatment each significantly reduced the risk of timing to a sex
    reoffense.

Alaska three year recidivism study (2007) Alaska Judicial Council

  • 3% of the persons who were convicted of a Sexual offense in a 1999 case had at least one new Sexual conviction.
  • Sexual offenders were the group least likely to be convicted of the same type of offense that they were convicted
    of in the 1999 sample.
  • Driving offenders were eight times more likely to have a new Driving conviction than Sexual offenders were likely
    to have a new Sexual conviction.
  • SO specific recidivism rate, 3%; SO arrested for any crime (gen. recid.) 39%; All criminals general recidivism,
    60%. Factors correlated with higher recidivism: Youth, substance abuse, mental illness, poor

Harris and Hanson (2004) Summary of Canadian Recidivism studies (averaged percentages of recidivists after 5, 10,
and 15 years respectively)

  • All Sex offenders - 14%, 20%, 24%
  • Rapists- 14%, 21%, 24%
  • Incest Molesters - 6%, 9%, 13%
  • Girl Victim Molesters - 9%, 13%, 16%
  • Boy victim molesters - 23%, 28%, 35%
  • First time sex offenders - 10%, 15%, 19%
  • Repeat sex offenders - 25%, 32%, 37%

California study: Recidivism of Paroled Sex Offenders, 10 year study 1997 to 2007 (2008) California Sex Offender
Management Board

  • Recidivism after 1 year of release: 2.21%
  • Recidivism after 2 years of release: 2.94%
  • Recidivism after 5 years of release: 3.3%
  • Recidivism after 10 years of release: 3.38%
  • NOTEWORTHY FINDINGS: The total of sexual recidivists is lower than some might have believed. Most re-
    offenses and parole violations occur in the initial period of reentry after release. Sex offenders are more likely to
    commit some other type of offense than to commit a new sex offense.

Indiana Three Year Recidivism Rate 2005-2007 (2009) Indiana Department of Corrections

  • The percentage of identified sex offenders that return to incarceration within three years of their release, for a
    new identified sex offense, remains comparatively consistent over all three years. The graph below shows that
    slightly more than 5% of all identified sex offenders who return to the Indiana Department of Correction, do so for
    the conviction of a new sex offense.
  • 2005: 5.3%, 2006: 5.2%, 2007: 5.7%
  • A follow-up of Indiana sex offense re-conviction rates for sex offenders in 2009 was reported as 1.03%, the lowest
    in the USA.

New York recidivism study (2009) NY Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS)

  • Sex offence recidivism rate after 1 year: 2%; 2 years: 3%; 5 years: 6%; 8 years: 8%

Orchowski and Iwama study (2009) Justice Research and Statistics Association

  • Three year recidivism rates by state: Alaska 3.4%, Arizona 2.3%, Delaware 3.8%, Illinois 2.4%, Iowa 3.9%, New
    Mexico 1.8%, South Carolina 4.0%, and Utah 9.0%.

Maine 3 Year Recidivism Study (2010) USM Muskie School of Public Service

  • Sex crime rearrest rate of registrants within 3 years: 3.9% (22 registrants)
  • Arrests of non-registrants for sex crimes: 0.6% (66)

Connecticut 5 year Recidivism Study (2012)

  • In 2005, 746 offenders who had served a prison sentence for a least one sex-related offense were released or
    discharged from prison. Over the next five years:
  • 27 (3.6%) of these men were arrested and charged with a new sex crime.
  • 20 (2.7%) were convicted for new sex offense, and
  • 13 (1.7%) were returned to prison to serve a sentence for a new sex crime.

Conclusion

The simple question of recidivism has a rather complex answer. However, the general consensus is our worst fear,
namely the number of sex offenders committing new sex crimes, is much lower than believed. Still, the recidivism myth
runs deep and proponents of sex offender legislation have given many excuses regarding the consistently low numbers
of sex specific recidivism. Some claim sex offenders “learn not to get caught again” (Hopkins 2007), others look at the
concept of unreported crimes, misread and misinform the public on research findings (whether intentional or not), or
simply reject the findings altogether. Regardless of the criticism, the fact remains that sex offenders have a low
recidivism rate, are less likely to commit crimes than other offenders, vary greatly by offense type, are less likely to re-
offend the longer they are out of prison, and make up only a fraction of sex crime arrests. As long as the recidivism myth
remains, there is little hope for progress in addressing the root causes of criminal sexual behavior.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

  1. Alaska Judicial Council (2007). Criminal Recidivism in Alaska. http://www.ajc.state.ak.us/reports/1-
    07CriminalRecidivism.pdf
  2. Arizona Dept. of Corrections (2007) Sex Offender Recidivism. http://www.rsova.info/reports/az_sorecidivism1984-
    1998.pdf
  3. Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (2009). http://www.solresearch.org/~SOLR/cache/gov/US/st/AZ/exec/200902-
    CrimJust-SOrecid.pdf
  4. California Dept. of Corrections (2009) Recidivism of Paroled Sex Offenders- A 10 year study [Chart]. http:
  5. Florida Dept. of Corrections (July 2003) Data and Methods: Recidivism Rate Curves. www.dc.state.fl.
    us/pub/recidivism/2003/index.html
  6. Harris, A. J. R., Hanson, R. K. (2004) Sex Offender Recidivism: A Simple Question.
  7. Hopkins, K. (2007). “Sexual crime study shows repeats low.” Anchorage Daily News. www.adn.com.
  8. Indiana Dept. of Corrections (2009) Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year. Press
    release. http://defenseforsvp.com/Resources/State_gov/RecidivismReleaseIndiana.pdf
  9. Indiana Dept. of Corrections (2009) Recidivism rates compared 2005-2007. http://www.in.
    gov/idoc/files/05_07RecidivismRpt.pdf
  10. Levenson, J.S., Branon, Y. N., Fortney, T., and Baker, J. (2007). Public Perceptions About Sex Offenders and
    Community Protection Policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 7, No. 1., 1-25.
  11. Marshall, W.L. & Barbaree, H.E. (1990). Outcomes of comprehensive cognitive-behavioral treatment programs. In
    W.L. Marshall, D.R. Laws, and H.E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and treatment
    of the offender (pp. 363-385). New York: Plenum.
  12. Michigan Dept. of Corrections (2000). Recidivism Statistics: from Annually Published Michigan Dept. of
    Corrections, Statistical Reports (Parole Board) Cumulative Parole Board Statistics for Parolees 1990 through
    2000. http://sexoffender-reports.blogspot.com/2009/05/chart-michigan-recidivism-rates-all.html
  13. USM Muskie School of Public Service (2010). Sexual Assault Trends and Sex Offender Recidivism in Maine. http:
    //muskie.usm.maine.
    edu/justiceresearch/Publications/Adult/Sexual_Assault_Trends_and_Sex_Offender_Recidivism_in_Maine_2010.
    pdf
  14. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (2007). Sex Offenders: History. www.ncmec.org
  15. New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives (2009). Research Bulletin: Sex Offender
    Populations, Recidivism and Actuarial Assessment. http://theparson.net/so/NYsomgmtbulletinmay2007.pdf
  16. Orchowski, S. and Iwama, J. (2009)  Improving State Criminal History Records: Recidivism of Sex Offenders
    Released in 2001. http://www.jrsa.org/programs/sex-offender-final-report.pdf
  17. Patkin, D. (2008) Megan’s law and the misconception of sex offender recidivism. http://works.bepress.
    com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=debra_patkin
  18. Romboy, D. and Dillon, L. (Mar. 16, 2008) Rehabilitation, recidivism hot topics. Deseret News. http://www.
    deseretnews.com/article/695261976/Rehabilitation-recidivism-hot-topics.html
  19. Sample, L. and Kadleck, C. (March 2008). Sex Offender Laws: Legislators’ Accounts of the Need for Policy.
    Criminal Justice Policy Review.
  20. Smith v. Doe, 538 US at 103 (2002)
  21. US Dept. of Justice. Criminal Victimization In The United States, 2003 Statistical Tables.
  22. US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (2003). Recidivism of sex offenders released from prison in 1994.
  23. US Dept. of Justice (1997). Sex Inmates in Prison. Part of the US DoJ's 2003 Recidivism study
  24. US Dept. of Justice. (2000). Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident,
    and Offender Characteristics
  25. Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2005). Sex Offender Sentencing in Washington State: Recidivism
    Rates. www.wsipp.wa.gov
(c) 2007-2011 Derek  W. Logue. No part of this website may be used in any way without expressed written consent of the site owner.