|
<br />
<br /> Methodology
<br />
<br />
<br /> 3-year followup period State statutes, and when they were statute the offender was imprisoned for
<br /> used they did not always conform to violating, or the statute the released
<br /> For analytic purposes, "3 years" was the study's definitions of them. In prisoner was charged with violating
<br /> defined as 1,096 days from the day of deciding which type of sex offender to when he was rearrested for a sex
<br /> release from prison. Any rearrest, classify the prisoner as, importance crime. The former was obtained from
<br /> reconviction, or re-imprisonment occur- was attached not to the label the law the prison records assembled for the
<br /> ring after 1,096 days from the 1994 gave to his conviction offense, but to study; the latter, from the assembled
<br /> release was not included. A conviction how well the law's definition of the arrest records.
<br /> after 1,096 days was not counted even offense fit the study's definition of the
<br /> if it resulted from an arrest within the type. None of the sex statutes was found to
<br /> period. apply to a victim of a specific age; for
<br /> Sex offenders compared to non-sex example, just to 12-year-olds. But
<br /> Separating sex offenders into four offenders some were found to apply just to
<br /> types children in a certain age range; for
<br /> In 1994, prisons in 15 States released example, under 12, or 13 to 15, or 16
<br /> The report gives statistics for four types 272,111 prisoners, representing to 17. While specific ages of children
<br /> of sex offenders. Separating sex offen- two-thirds of all prisoners released in could not be obtained from statutes,
<br /> ders into the four types was done using the United States that year. Among the the availability of information on age
<br /> information - in particular, the statute 272,111 were 262,420 released prison- ranges at least made it possible to
<br /> number for the imprisonment offense, ers whose imprisonment offense was obtain approximate ages. The rule that
<br /> the literal version of the statute, a not a sex offense. Non-sex offenders was adopted was to record the victim's
<br /> numeric FBI code (called the "NCIC" include inmates, both male and female, (or alleged victim's) age as the upper
<br /> code, short for "National Crime Infor- who were in prison for violent crimes limit of a statute's age range. To illus-
<br /> mation Center") indicating what the (such as murder or robbery), property trate, a statute might indicate that the
<br /> imprisonment offense was, and miscel- crimes (such as burglary or motor complainant/victim be "at least 13 but
<br /> laneous other information - available vehicle theft), drug crimes, and public less than 16 years of age." In that case,
<br /> in the prison records on the 9,691 men. order offenses. Like the 9,691 male the age of the child was recorded as
<br /> However, the prison records obtained sex offenders examined in this report, 15, since the statute indicated the
<br /> for the study did not always contain all all non-sex offenders were serving upper limit of the age range as any age
<br /> four pieces of information on the prison terms of one year or more in "less than 16." As another example, if a
<br /> imprisonment offense. Moreover, the State prison when they were released statute indicated the complainant/
<br /> available offense information was not in 1994. victim be "under 12 years of age," the
<br /> always detailed enough to reliably child's age was recorded as 11, as the
<br /> distinguish different types of sex At various places, this report compares phrasing of the age range did not
<br /> offenders. 9,691 released male sex offenders to include 12-year-olds, only those "under
<br /> 262,420 released non-sex offenders. 12." Because the victim (or alleged
<br /> The process of sorting sex offenders While labeled "non-sex offenders," the victim) was always assigned the age of
<br /> into different types involved first creat- 262,420 actually includes a small the oldest person in the age range, the
<br /> ing the study's definitions of the four number- 87- who are sex offenders. study made the victims (or alleged
<br /> types, and then determining which The 87 are all the female sex offenders victims) appear older than they actually
<br /> State statute numbers, which literal released from prisons in the 15 States were.
<br /> versions of those statutes, and which in 1994.
<br /> NCIC codes conformed to the defini- How missing data were handled in the
<br /> tions. Each inmate was next classified Ages of molested and allegedly report
<br /> into one of the types (or possibly into molested children
<br /> more than one type, since the four are In many instances, the data needed to
<br /> not mutually exclusive) depending on Information on the ages of molested calculate a statistic were not available
<br /> whether the imprisonment offense children was needed for two calcula- for all 9,691 released sex offenders.
<br /> information available on him fit the tions: 1) age of the child the released For example, the 9,691 were released
<br /> study's definition. sex offender was sent to prison for in 15 States, but data needed to deter-
<br /> molesting, and 2) age of the child alleg- mine the number reconvicted were only
<br /> An obstacle to classifying sex offenders edly molested by the released sex available for the 9,085 released in 14 of
<br /> into types was that the labels "rape," offender during the 3-year follow-up the 15. Of the 9,085, 2,180 (24%) were
<br /> "sexual assault," "child molestation," period. The most frequent source of reconvicted. When data were missing,
<br /> "statutory rape" were not widely used in both was a sex statute: either the sex the statistic was computed on those
<br /> Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 37
<br /> 5OA-89
<br />
|