50A - ORDINANCE - SEX OFFENDERS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

cases in which the data were available, According to arrest records, 5.3% of sentence they were serving when but treated both in the tables and in the the 9,691 (517 out of 9,691) released released in 1994. text as though it were based on the sex offenders were rearrested for total population. For example, "24%" is another sex crime. For the two reasons Because of these anomalies, the 129 the statistic that appears in all tables described immediately above, 5.3% were excluded from the calculation of and text that give the percent recon- was probably an undercount of how "percent reconvicted for a sex crime." victed; and since 24% of 9,691 is many were rearrested for a sex crime. 2,326, the text says that "2,326 of the How much of an undercount could not Counting rules 9,691 were reconvicted," despite the be firmly determined from the data fact that the "24%" was actually ob- assembled for the study. However, a In this report, rearrest was measured tained by dividing 2,180 by 9,085. The conservative measure of the size of the by counting the number of different text could have been written to say undercount was obtained from the persons who were rearrested at least "2,180 of the 9,085 were reconvicted," data. The study database included 121 once. A released prisoner who was but that wasn't done because introduc- rearrested sex offenders whose arrest rearrested several times or had multi- ing a new denominator (9,085) into the record did not indicate they were ple rearrest charges filed against him text would have created confusion for rearrested for a sex crime (the rearrest was counted as only one rearrested the reader. was either for a non-sex crime or for an person. The same counting rule unknown type of crime) but whose applied to reconviction and the other Missing data on out-of-State rearrests court record did indicate they were recidivism measures. charged with a sex crime. When the Because of missing information, the study calculated the percentage If a released prisoner was rearrested study was unable to determine how rearrested for a sex crime, the 121 several times, his earliest rearrest was many inmates released from New York were not included among the 517 with used to calculate his time-to-rearrest. prisons were rearrested outside of New a rearrest for a sex crime. Had the 121 The same counting rule applied to York. The study was able to document been included in the calculation of the reconviction and recidivism defined as how many prisoners released in the rearrest rate, the total number a new prison sentence. other 14 States were rearrested rearrested for a sex crime would have outside the State that released them. been 638 rather than 517, and the If a released prisoner had both in-State Because of incomplete New York data, percentage rearrested for a sex crime and out-of-State rearrests, he was the report's recidivism rates are would have been 6.6% rather than counted as having an out-of-State somewhat deflated. 5.3%. This suggests an undercount of rearrest regardless of whether the about 1 percentage point. out-of-State rearrest was his earliest Missing data on rearrest for a sex rearrest. The same rule applied in crime Texas prisoners classified as "other cases where the released prisoner had type of release" both felony and misdemeanor According to arrest records compiled in rearrests, or both sex crime and the study, 4,163 of the 9,691 released Texas released 692 male sex offend- non-sex crime rearrests. The person sex offenders were rearrested for a ers in 1994, of which 129 were classi- was counted as having a felony new crime of some kind. It was not fied as release category -17", defined rearrest or a sex crime rearrest regard- always possible to determine from as "other type of release." Numerous less of temporal sequence. these records whether the new crime data quality checks were run on the was a sex crime. For 202 rearrested 129 and the 64 of them who were The aim of these rules was to count prisoners, the arrest record did not rearrested. The rearrest rate for the people, not events. The only tables in identify the type of crime. For the rest 129 was about average for Texas the report that do not follow the rule are the record did identify the type but the releases. But numerous anomalies tables 41 and 42. offense label was not always specific were found for the 64 who were enough to distinguish sex crimes from rearrested: First release other crimes. For example, if the label 1. The rearrest offense for the 64 was said "contributing to the delinquency of always missing from their arrest record All 15 States had first releases, but a minor," "indeceny," "morals offense," 2. The date of rearrest for the 64 was they could not be identified in 1 State "family offense," or "child abuse," the always the same as their release date (Ohio). They could be identified in offense was coded as a non-sex crime 3. Virtually all 64 were reconvicted for a Michigan, but Michigan data on even though, in some unknown sex crime sentence length did not fit the study's number of cases, it was actually a sex 4. The sentence length imposed for definition. Since sentence length was crime. their new sex crime was identical to the critical to several statistics calculated 38 Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 5OA-87