Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout50A - ORDINANCE - SEX OFFENDERS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: MAY 21, 2012 TITLE: APPROVED 0 As Recommended ORDINANCE AMENDING SANTA ANA 0 As Amended MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE O Ordinance on 2" Reading D Ordinance on 2"d Reading XII, PERTAINING TO PROXIMITY O Implementing Resolution RESTRICTIONS FOR REGISTERED SEX 0 Set Public Hearing For OFFENDERS TO CHILDREN'S FACILITIES CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 10, Article XII, of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, pertaining to the proximity restrictions of registered sex offenders to children's facilities. DISCUSSION In May 2006, the City of Santa Ana was one of the first California agencies to adopt a registered sex offender proximity ordinance. (Ordinance No. NS-2712). The ordinance prohibits registered sex offenders from being on or within three-hundred (300) feet of designated children's facilities for the purpose of loitering, loitering for the purpose of observing children, or from returning to the location after being told to leave. Under the City's current ordinance, "sex offender" is defined as a person required to register with a governmental entity as a sex offender when the underlying offense was a crime involving a child. "Child or children" means any person under the age of eighteen (18) years. "Children's facilities" include public and private schools for minors, commercial day care centers, city parks, the Discovery Science Center, the Bowers Kidseum, the McFadden Learning Center, and the Newhope Branch library. NEW DEVELOPMENTS On April 5, 201 1 , the Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance prohibiting all registered sex offenders from entering into or upon Orange County parks and related recreational areas without written permission from the Orange County Sheriff. The county ordinance applies to all persons required to register pursuant to Penal Code section 290, et seq., and is not limited to those sex offenders whose underlying crime involved a child or children. Following the adoption of the county ordinance, Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas sent letters to cities within Orange County, recommending that they adopt an ordinance similar to the county ordinance. (See attached letters to the City of Lake Forest, dated November 15, 201 1 , and to the City of Santa Ana, dated May 14, 2012.) District Attorney 5OA-1 Chapter 10, Article XII of the Santa Ana Municipal Code May 21 , 2012 Page 2 Rackauckas has also met with Chief of Police Paul Walters and Mayor Pro Tern Alvarez to provide additional information regarding the county ordinance and other cities' recent adoptions of similar sex offender proximity ordinances, as well as information regarding sex crimes occurring against children within Orange County. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REVIEW On April 24th, 2012, the Santa Ana Public Safety Committee considered whether the City of Santa Ana's sex offender ordinance should be revised, as recommended by District Attorney Rackauckas. After discussion by Committee members and staff, which included a reference to a recent sexual offense committed against a minor that occurred in the City of Tustin's library (see attached District Attorney Press Release, posted March 13, 2012), a motion was made and unanimously passed to recommend the City Council consider adopting a revised ordinance that contains provisions similar to the county ordinance. The Committee also recommended that KidWorks, the Orange County Children's Therapeutic Arts Center, and the Main Library be included in the list of children's facilities. The revised ordinance recommended by the Public Safety Committee would redefine "sex offender" to include all persons who are required to register when the underlying offense involved a child or children, including but not limited to child pornography, or any person required to register pursuant to Penal Code sections 290, et seq., similar to the county ordinance. In addition, the revised ordinance would (1) retain the current three-hundred (300) foot proximity prohibition for the specific intent of observing children or if the offender returns after being told to leave, (2) delete the loitering alone language, (3) add the county's presence prohibition inside the designated children's facilities, and (4) add penalties and severability clauses. Lastly, as was also recommended by the Public Safety Committee, the revised ordinance adds KidWorks, the Orange County Therapeutic Arts Center, and the Main Library to the list of children's facilities. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. Paul Walters Chief of Police Police Department Attachments: 1. Orange County District Attorney's Letters to the Cities of Lake Forest and Santa Ana 2. Orange County District Attorney's Press Release, dated March 3, 2012 5OA-2 TONY RACKAUCKAS l ORANGE COUNTY E31STRIC`I" A`T'TORNEY ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 401 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST • SANTA ANA, CA 92701 (714) 834-3636 November 15, 2011 Mayor Peter Herzog City of Lake Forest 25550 Commercentre Drive Suite 100 Lake Forest, CA 92630 Re: Orange County Sex Offender Ordinance Dear Mayor Herzog: Thank you for taking a large step toward increasing public safety by considering enacting an ordinance in your city to prohibit registered sex offenders from entering parks where ,hildren regularly gather- I understand that at the urging of Councilman Scott Voights, the Council has voted to agendize this issue at a later date to discuss this very important topic to protect children in Lake Forest. As I wrote to you previously, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a County ordinance on April 5, 2011, to create child safety zones to protect children from sexual predators in parks, playgrounds and beaches. Many other cities have either enacted or in the process of enacting their own ordinance to protect children from sexual predators. Yesterday, Hugo Godinez was convicted in a court trial for violating the Orange County Codified Child Safety Zone Ordinance 3-18-1. He is required to required to register as a sex offender for life because he was convicted of misdemeanor sexual battery on June 23, 2010- On Aug. 16, 2010, and May 2, 201 1, Godinez signed two Department of Justice forms acknowledging he understood the terms and conditions of his registration. On the same date, Godinez met with a deputy probation officer to discuss Ordinance 3-18-1 pertaining to restricting registered sex offenders' access to locations where children regularly gather such as Orange County parks. The defendant signed a copy of the Ordinance. On May 5, 2011, at around 10:53 a.m., Hugo Godinez entered Mile Square Regional Park in the City of Fountain Valley. This park is known to be a gathering place for families on holidays. The 20-acre park includes two lakes, three 18- hole golf courses, archery range, baseball and softball fields, and picnic shelters. There is 55 acre recreation center with tennis courts, basketball courts, racquetball courts, a gymnasium, the Kingston Boys & Girls Club, and a community center. On this particular date, there were many people, including children, celebrating Cinco de Mayo. The defendant did not leave the park until 2 p.m. There were VeriTracks Global Positioning Satellite System prints out showing the defendant's movements. He later admitted to an Orange County Sheriff's Deputy on the Sex Offender Notification and registration (SONAR) detail that he went to Mile Square regional Park and stayed at the Park for several hours while knowing he was not supposed to be there and knowing it was wrong. He will be sentenced on November 17, 2011. 5OA-3 In August 2011, Richard Ernest Hibbard, 72, transient, became the first defendant to be convicted under the County Child Safety Zone Ordinance. Hibbard is a registered sex offender stemming from a misdemeanor child annoyance conviction from Los Angeles. Since then, in 1998, 2002, 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011, he was convicted of numerous felonies and misdemeanors for failing to register as a sex offender. On July 21 , 201 1, at about S p.m., deputies- from the Orange County Sheriff's Department (OCSD) responded to Dana Point Harbor. A citizen approached OCSD deputies and asked them to keep an eye on the defendant because he was "belligerent around the kids," using profane language and talking loudly. There were at least 10 children in the immediate vicinity where Hibbard had been standing on the dock sidewalk. On Aug. 10, 2011, he pleaded guilty to being in violation of Ordinance 3-18-3 (prohibited offender entering a county park) and was sentenced to 31 days in jail. In October 2011, the City of Westminster became the first Orange County city to convict a sex offender for violating the Child Safety Zone Ordinance. Steve James Dietrich is a registered sex offender stemming from convictions for rape by force and oral copulation with a minor under 14 years of age by force or fear. On July 16, 2011, and Aug. 6, 201 1, Dietrich was cited by the same police officer for entering a park where children regularly gather. He was convicted on October 17, 2011. Dietrich was sentenced to probation and 60 days in jail. There are several cities undertaking this issue and considering enacting an ordinance modeled after that of the County. Others are considering "residence restriction" types of ordinances or "loitering" types of statutes. Some cities are considering limiting the ban to those who have prior convictions with child victims. Although a ban against those individuals with convictions against child victims would be a good start. I would appreciate it if you would consider some of the points contained in this letter. You may find that we considered many of the same issues you are tackling and may come to similar conclusions. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS You may have heard that the Eldorado District Attorney released a disturbing videotape of child predators Philip and Nancy Garrido. The married couple was sentenced in April 2011 to 431 years and 36 years to life in prison, respectively, for abducting former-Orange County resident, 11-year-old Jaycee Lee Dugard, from a school bus stop and sexually assaulting her for 20 years. In one of the video clips, Phillip Garrido is singing in a park while directing his wife Nancy Garrido how to shoot the video. He asks her, "Got me good?" "I can see you really good," she answers- She then films a little girl on playground equipment behind him, the child's legs splayed. There are also other children playing on swings and on the playground. The Garridos are sexual predators, watching and filming children in parks. You can view the chilling video on the Internet at http://documents.latimes.com/garrido-duclard-evidence/. In July of this year, a 33-year-old man was arrested after putting his hand down the pants of a 6- year-old girl and touching her vagina while at a movie night at the Grand Park in Aliso Viejo. She was standing just 10 feet from her father. This case is pending. In April of this year, a Lake Forest woman called the police when she saw a registered sex offender/child pornographer with a video camera near her children while they were playing at a park. The Orange County Sheriff's Department (OCSD) deputies who responded told her that the man could not be arrested because he was not on probation or parole, and there is no such law in the City of Lake Forest. 5OA-4 NARROWING THE BAN TO SIMPLY PROHIBIT "LOITERING" Limiting the ban to prohibit sex offenders from "loitering" in parks would not be effective. State law already prohibits sex offenders from loitering "about any school or public place at or near which children attend or normally congregate . . (Penal Code § 653b.) This would presumably apply to parks. Penal Code 653b, however, is not effective because it requires the sex offender to remain at the location or re-enter the location after being asked to leave. So long as the sex offender has not been asked to leave, he is not in violation of Penal Code 653b. In addition, it is difficult to prove loitering in a trial. "Loitering" means "to delay, to linger, or to idle about a school or public place without lawful business for being present." (Penal Code § 653b, subd. (d).) It would be difficult to prove a sex offender was "loitering" in a park when that person was simply sitting on a park bench or on the grass or strolling through the park. Even videotaping or photographing may not be considered "loitering," as those are common activities of lawful citizens. Yet, these are some of the very activities the proposed Ordinance seeks to preclude with respect to sex offenders. Their presence in parks allows them to identify, observe, and possibly interact with potential victims whom they seek to groom and eventually exploit. Finally, any loitering prohibition may be preempted by Penal Code 653b. (See O'Connell v. City of Stockton (2007) 41 Cal.41h 1069, 1067 [a local ordinance may be preempted where it enters an area expressly or impliedly fully occupied by state law].) For these reasons, limiting the ban to "loitering" in parks would not provide an effective tool to protect children from sex offenders' activities in parks. GENESIS AND PROCESS IN DEVELOPING THE COUNTY SEX OFFENDER ORDINANCE In 2010, registered sex offender Eric Hinnenkamp lived 155 feet from a Fullerton park where children regularly gather. He was a Los Angeles County parolee who was released from prison to an apartment in Huntington Beach. Hinnenkamp inherited a house from his parents in Fullerton and was intending to live at the residence. According to Megan's Law website, his prior convictions included felony lewd conduct on child victims, indecent exposure, and restrained sexual battery. Understandably, local citizens became alarmed and asked law enforcement for a solution. The Orange County District Attorney (OCDA) began researching legal solutions and coming up with practical applications in response. Meanwhile, the OCDA also monitored the development of Chelsea's Law in the State legislature. The result was the development and enactment of the County Child Safety Ordinance, which closed a loophole in the existing law. RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS V_ CHILD SAEFTY ZONES The OCDA initially considered enacting both sex offender restrictions, which generally fall into two categories: (1) Residency restrictions; and (2) Child safety zones. Residency restrictions restrict an offender from residing within a specified distance of certain locations. Stich as schools and parks. Child safety zones restrict offenders' movement within and/or arouno areas where children congregate, such as schools, parks, libraries, etc. Residency Restrictions The available research found by the OCDA suggests that residency restrictions have little impact on sex offender recidivism and may even compromise public safety. Generally, researchers have been unable to correlate any meaningful relationship between residential proximity to schools, parks, etc. and sexual recidivism. Research indicates that residency restrictions diminish housing options in urban areas, which forces offenders to move to more rural locations. This limits offenders' access to social services and community resources that help prevent recidivism by transitioning into the community- Residency restrictions also 5OA-5 decrease employment opportunities for offenders and increase their transience and homelessness. These unintended consequences reduce the number of offenders accurately tracked by local law enforcement agencies. The research findings were anecdotally supported by conversations with local and State law enforcement officials. For more detailed discussions of this topic, please see the articles and the sources cited in the quarterly bulletin Geography and Public Safety, Vol. 2, Issue 1, May 2009, and listed at: httr.)://www.oip.usdc)i.qov/nii/maps/qps-builetin-v2il-IDd f. Residency restrictions also face constitutional challenges relating to the right to privacy, the right to intrastate travel, substantive due process and other rights. The outcome of such challenges is uncertain in California. In In re E.J. (2010) 47 CalAth 1258, the California Supreme Court suggested a residency restriction must be narrowly tailored to further the government interest of protecting children from sex offenders. The Court remanded the petitioners' constitutional claims to the trial court for evidentiary hearings concerning, among other things, the supply of available housing for each sex offender in their respective community. If a residency restriction makes a substantial portion of a community off-limits to sex offenders, it may be difficult to sustain its constitutionality. Meanwhile, the OCDA was waiting for the enactment of Chelsea's Law, which contained the language of the County Ordinance. Chelsea's Law - Amended The language in the drafted sex offender ordinance is adapted from proposed language in Chelsea's Law and from Penal Code 626.81, which prohibits sex registrants from entering school grounds without written permission. Until recently, Chelsea's Law (AB 1844) would have added as Penal Code 647.9 much of the language set forth in the County Ordinance. On July 15, 2010, Chelsea's Law was amended to delete the originally proposed language as Penal Code 647.9. The bill was signed into Law on Sept. 8, 2010. Instead, the bill added section 3053.8 to the Penal Code. That section precludes Penal Code 290 registrants from entering parks where children gather without express permission, but only applies the restriction to parolees who served prison time for certain sexual offenses in which one or more of the victims was under 14 years of age. Thus, the "park restriction" in Chelsea's Law does not apply to sex registrants who have been discharged from parole. Some of these sex registrants are subject to lifetime parole and some are be subject to parole for 20 years, depending upon the particular crime committed. LEGAL ISSUES EXPLORED: Child Safety Zones - Constitutionality A court will examine each law to determine whether it is narrowly tailored to the government interest. Child safety zone laws appear easier to defend than residency restrictions. Safety zone laws are more narrowly tailored to furthering the interest of protecting children by keeping sex offenders away from areas in which children congregate. The more broadly a restriction sweeps, the more likely a court will find it is not narrowly tailored. The more tailored a law appears to protect children from sex offenders, while still permitting legitimate activities by the sex offenders, the more likely it will survive a constitutional challenge. 5OA-6 There are two types of constitutional challenges: (1 ) a facial challenge, which considers only the text of the law and seeks to void the law as a whole, and (2) an as-applied challenge, which considers the law's application to a particular challenger's facts. (Tobe v. City of Sar,te Ana (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1069, 1084.) To defeat the entire law in a facial challenge, the challenger must show it "inevitably pose[s] a present total and fatal conflict with applicable constitutional prohibitions." (Ibid.) For example, a particular offender may argue a law aimed at all sex offenders - as opposed to a law tailored to sex offenders whose victims were children - is not narrowly tailored. It seems unlikely, however, that a court would find the law totally conflicts with constitutional principles, since many of the registered sex offenders committed crimes against children. Furthermore, many offenders have both adult and child victims (e.g. Rodney Alcala as further explained later) while others commit crimes which may lead to future victims (e.g. indecent exposure defendants commit offenses in public places with children). Thus, the law would not be constitutionally overbroad when applied to those offenders. A particular offender could bring an as-applied constitutional challenge. Such a challenge considers whether the law is being applied in a constitutionally impermissible manner. (Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, supra, 9 Cal-4th 1069, 1084.) The court evaluates the propriety of the application on a case-by-case basis to determine whether to relieve the defendant of the sanction. (Ibid.) This could preclude application of the relevant law to a particular sex offender, but would not render the law constitutionally infirm as to others. Retroactivity In general, application of a law is retroactive only if it attaches new legal consequences to, or increases a party's liability for, an event, transaction, or conduct that was completed before the law's effective date. (In re E.J., supra, 47 Cal.4th 1258, 1273.) Therefore, the critical question for determining retroactivity usually is whether the last act or event necessary to trigger application of the statute occurred before or after the statute's effective date. (Ibid.) In In re E.J., supra, 47 Cal.4th 1258, the court indicated it may be impermissible to apply the 2,000-foot residency restriction to a sex offender who acquired housing before the law's effective date. (Id. at pp. 1275-1276.) The offender would not have had notice of the restriction before the conduct to which the law speaks occurred. (Id. at p. 1276, citing Doe v. Schwarzenegger (E.D. Cal. 2007) 476 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1179, fn. 1 (residency restriction could not be applied retroactively to persons paroled and released from prison prior to the law's effective date) For our purposes, the last act necessary to trigger application Of child safety zone laws would seem to be the offender's unlawful entry and/or loitering upon property within a protected zone. Thus, application to all offenders would not seern to be impermissibly retroactive. Ex Post Facto An impermissible ex post facto law is one which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime after its commission. (In re E.J., supra, 47 Cal.4th 1258, 1279.) Because the child safety zone laws would not be applied retroactively, they would not raise ex post facto issues. (/n re E.J, supra, 47 Cal.4th 1258, 1279-1280 [ex post facto only applies to laws applied retroactively]-) 50A-7 Will enactment of such an ordinance create a cause of action if a registered sex offender does harm a child at a park where there is such an ordinance? Government Code section 845 - Failure to provide any or adequate police protection; Responding to alarm states as follow: Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service. A police department shall not fail to respond to a request for service via a burglar alarm system or an alarm company referral service solely on the basis that a permit from the city has not been obtained. PRACTICAL ISSUE CONSIDERED What resources will the enactment of this ordinance take away from police? The OCDA believes the enactment of this ordinance will cause a minimal shift in resources. A typical scenario would be a parent calling the police when they see a person acting suspiciously in a park around children. This law is an additional tool for law enforcement to contact and arrest registered sex offenders in parks where children regularly gather. Since the passage of the County Ordinance, the OCSD had 10 requests by eight sex offenders. One waiver has been granted. ORANGE COUNTY ORDINANCE Sec. 3-18-1. - Purpose and intent. It is the purpose and intent of this article to protect children from registered sex offenders by restricting sex offenders' access to locations where children regularly gather. It is intended to reduce the risk of harm to children by impacting the ability of sex offenders to be in contact with children. It is further the intent of this article to provide additional restrictions beyond those provided for in state law by restricting sex offenders from certain limited locations, and by allowing for criminal penalties for violations of this article. It is not the intent of this article to allow conduct otherwise prohibited by state law, or to contradict state law. Orange County Parks are recognized by the County of Orange Board of Supervisors as locations where children regularly gather. (Ord. No. 11 -0 12, § 1, 4-5-11) Sec_ 3-18-3. - Prohibitions. Any person required to register pursuant to California Penal Code sections 290, et seq. who enters into or upon any Orange County Park where children regularly gather without written permission from the Orange County Sheriff or Sheriff's designee is guilty of a misdemeanor. Each entry into any such area, regardless of the time period between entries, shall constitute a separate offense under this article. (Ord. No. 11-012, § 1. 4-5-11 ) Sec. 3-18-4. - Penalties for violation. Punishment for a violation of this article shall be as follows: 5OA-8 (1) Upon a first conviction, by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than six (6) months, or by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00), or by both imprisonment and a fine. (2) Upon a second conviction, by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not less than ten (10) days and not more than six (6) months, or by both imprisonment and a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00). Upon a second conviction, however, the person shall not be released on probation, parole, or any other basis until he or she. has served not less than ten (10) days. (3) Upon a third or subsequent conviction, by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not less than ninety (90) days and not more than six (6) months, or by both imprisonment and a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00). Upon a third or subsequent conviction, however, the person shall not be released on probation, parole, or any other basis until he or she has served not less than ninety (90) days. (Ord. No. 11-012, § 1, 4-5-11) Definitions There are two main terms to define: 1) park; and 2) the administrative official from whom written permission must be obtained. Some local jurisdictions may choose to leave the term as drafted without further definition. Relevant State law provisions do not define the term "park." (Penal Code § 3003.5 [precludes sex registrants from residing within 2000 feet of a "park where children regularly gather"]; Chelsea's Law (Penal Code § 647.9) [would preclude certain parolees from entering "any park where children regularly gather'].) Some local jurisdictions may want to further define the term. Some cities have local ordinances defining the term "park." For example, Grover Beach defines a "park" as "any city, county, school district, state or federal public park or playground where children are likely to be." Santa Clarita states a "'[p]ark' shall include any areas owned, leased controlled, maintained, or managed by a public entity which are open to the public where children regularly gather and which provide recreational, cultural, and/or community service activities including, but not limited to, playgrounds, playfields, athletic courts, trails, paseos, and open space." Huntington Beach states a "'[p]ark' includes every park, recreation center, lake, pond or other body of water, riding and hiking trail, parking lot and every other recreation facility owned, managed and/or controlled by the City and under jurisdiction of the Director." Each local jurisdiction should decide whether it wishes to further define the term "park" depending upon its particular circumstances. Orange County chose to define the area as places where "children regularly gather" and specifically named certain places. Similarly, each local jurisdiction should consider the appropriate entity from where permission must be obtained before a sex registrant can enter a park. The appropriate person may vary depending upon how the local jurisdiction is organized. In Orange County, the Beard of Supervisors believed that the Orange County Sheriff, who has investigative and authority and patrol responsibility in the defined areas, would be in the best position to give exemptions. The court may imply knowledge (scienter) element to the crime. A court would require evidence showing the defendant knew or reasonably should have known the "park" was a place where children regularly gather. 5OA-9 Some cities are contemplating whether to limit the ban to sex offenders who have been convicted of a crime against a child under the age of 18. LIMITING THE BAN TO REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS "WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME AGAINST A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF 18" While drafting the County Ordinance, Supervisor Shawn Nelson and Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas actively contemplated whether to exclude a certain class of offender in the proposed sex-offender statute. Of concern were those who, while a teenager, were convicted of engaging in consensual sex with a younger teenager and now must register as a sex offender for life, although he has subsequently grown up with no further violations. Since then, others have voiced their concern of former "fraternity boys" who they believe now have the requirement to register as sex offenders after being arrested for urinating in public. There seem to be many myths as to the persons who are required to register as sex offenders. PENAL CODE SECTION 290 (c) states: The following persons shall be required to register: Any person who, since July 1, 1944, has been or is hereafter convicted in any court in this state or in any federal or military court of a violation of Section 187 (murder) committed in the perpetration, or an attempt to perpetrate, rape or any act punishable under Section 286 (sodomy), 288 (lewd acts upon a child), 288a (oral copulation of a minor), or 289 (forcible sexual penetration), Section 207 (forcible kidnapping) or 209 (forcible kidnapping for ransom) committed with intent to violate Section 261(rape), 286 (sodomy), 288 (lewd acts upon a child), 288a (oral copulations of a minor), or 289 (forcible sexual penetration), Section 220 (forcible and or in concert or assault with intent to commit rape, sodomy, oral copulation, lewd acts upon a child or penetration, Section 243.4 (sexual battery), paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 261 (rape of a mentally incapacitated victim, forcible rape, rape of a victim who in unable to resist due to intoxication, rape of an unconscious victim and rape using threat to retaliate, paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 262 spousal rape) involving the use of force or violence for which the person is sentenced to the state prison, Section 264.1 (forcible rape, spousal rape, sexual penetration acting on concert of another), 266 (enticing a minor into prostitution or procurement of sex with another man by fraud), or 266c (sexual intercourse or penetration, oral copulation or sodomy using fraud or force), subdivision (b) of Section 266h (pimping a minor for prostitution), subdivision (b) of Section 266i (pandering a minor for prostitution), Section 266j (making available or transporting a minor for lewd acts), 267 (taking a minor from parents or guardian for prostitution), 269 (aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 where the perpetrator is more than 7 years older involving forcible rape, oral copulation, sexual penetration or sodomy), 285 (incest), 286 (sodomy), 288 (lewd acts upon a child), 288a (oral copulation of a minor), 288.3 (contacting of a minor to commit forcible kidnapping or kidnapping for ransom, rape, child endangerment, sodomy, lewd acts upon a child, oral copulation of a minor, forcible sexual penetration, possession of child pornography, 288.4, contact with a minor with sexual intent), 288.5 (continuous sexual abuse of a child), 288.7 (sexual intercourse, sodomy, penetration of a child under the age of 10), 289 (forcible sexual penetration), or 311.1 (distributing child pornography), subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section 311.2 (production of child pornography), Section 311.3 (developing or exchanging child pornography), 311.4 (employing minor to assist in distribution of child pornography), 311.10 (advertising or distributing child pornography), 311.11 (possession of child pornography), or 647.6 (child annoyance) former Section 647a, subdivision (c) of Section 653f (solicitation of forcible and or acting in concert, rape, sodomy, oral copulation, lewd acts upon a child, and sexual penetration, subdivision 1 or 2 of Section 314, indecent exposure, any offense involving lewd or lascivious conduct under Section 272, 5OA-10 contributing to a delinquency of a minor, or any felony violation of Section 288.2, sending harmful material to a minor with sexual intent; any statutory predecessor that includes all elements of one of the above-mentioned offenses; or any person who since that date has been or is hereafter convicted of the attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the above- mentioned offense. As to the issues of statutory rape cases, Penal Code 261.5, 290 and 290.006, do not require registration for the offense. Penal Code 261.5 prohibits sexual intercourse with persons under 18 years old. (Penal Code § 261.5(a).) In general, the penalties for violating the statute vary depending upon whether there is an age difference of more than two years, more than three years, or whether the perpetrator is over age 21 and the victim is under age 16_ (Penal Code § 261-5.) None of the offenses carries mandatory registration- Penal Code 290.006 gives the court discretion to impose registration in any offense whore the person committed the offense as a result of "sexual compulsion or for purposes of sexual gratification." This statute provides a good mechanism to distinguish between young offenders who may be sexual predators and/or dangerous and young offenders who fall into the facts as described above. The offenders described above are not likely to be required to register. On the other hand, some individuals who violate Penal Code 261.5 - even at a young age - were identified and found to be sexual predators and/or dangerous by the court. If those are the facts, then it would not be wise to exclude all registrants who violate Penal Code 261.5 from the proposed park-restriction law. Another statute pertaining to unlawful sex with minors is Penal Code section 288. Among other things, that section punishes those who sexually molest a child under 14, or molest a child who is 14 or 15 years old where the perpetrator is more than 10 years older than the child. (Penal Code §288(c)(1).) Individuals who violate Penal Code 288 are required to register under Penal Code section 290 should not be excluded from the proposed park-restriction statute. Obviously, there is no requirement for registration for urinating in public, usually municipal code violations. The OCDA consulted its prosecutors in the Sexual Assault Unit, including the supervisor of the Unit, Assistant District Attorney Rosanne Froeberg. They all strenuously advised against narrowing the application of the ordinance stating that law enforcement cannot classify 290 registrants based upon the particular type of sex offense they commit and predict the type of future sex offense based upon past sex offenses. Just because a 290 registrant's prior sex offense did not involve a child does not mean his future offenses will not involve children. SEX OFFENDERS VIOLATE AGAINST BOTH ADULTS AND CHILDREN A case in point is one of Orange County's most notorious and dangerous serial killers, Rodney Alcala. Alcala's first known victim was an adult female. He sexually assaulted her in an alley while he was serving in the U.S. Army. His future victims included both children and adults. In 1968, he violently kidnapped and brutally sexually assaulted an B-year-old girl he had never met. In 1971 and 1977, he brutally sexually assaulted and murdered two women in New York, both 23 years old. After returning to California, he raped, sodomized and murdered 18-year-old Jill Barcomb by smashing her face with a rock and strangling her in November 1977. In December 1977, Alcala raped, sodomized and murdered 27-year-old Georgia Wixted by beating her face with a claw hammer and strangling her. In June 1979, Alcala raped and murdered 33- 5OA-11 year-old Charlotte Lamb by beating her and strangling her with shoe laces. In June 1979, Alcala raped and murdered Jill Parenteau by strangling her with a cord. On June 20, 1979, Alcala kidnapped 12-year-old Robin Samsoe from Huntington Beach, murdered her, and dumped her body in the San Gabriel Mountains. Although her body was badly decomposed, her remains showed that Alcala had knocked out her front teeth. Her earring was later found in his sick victim "souvenir" trove in his locker. He was sentenced to the death penalty in Orange County for the California murders in 2010. New York charged Alcala with the two murders in January 2011, and he is awaiting trial. Alcala not only had both adult and child victims, he moved back and forth between the victims' age groups. PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS WHO USE THEIR CHILDREN TO GAIN ACCESS TO VICTIMS Some people argue that some sex offenders are parents and grandparents with children who want to go to parks, thus they should have access to parks. Most sex offenders also happen to be parents and/or grandparents. In many instances, they use their children to gain access to other children to molest. George England was convicted for using his adopted 7-year-old daughter to molest three girls ages nine to 10. England drilled a hole in the wall from his bedroom into the bathroom in order to watch them and take nude photos of the young girls as they bathed, whom he repeatedly molested. Although Jackie Zudis (she has agreed to be named publicly) was sexually assaulted by England for more than a decade in some of the most egregious ways including being made to have sex with the defendant's dog, she most regrets being the instrument to the other girls' sexual assault by England. A grandfather named Octavio Cortez was convicted for molesting three girls ages four to seven, including putting his hands down one of the Jane Doe's pants and touching her vagina while she was playing with "Barbies" with the defendant's granddaughter. Patricia Anne Serrano, 43, Fountain Valley is awaiting trial on charges she molested and engaged in substantial sexual contact with her twelve-year-old son's friend. INDECENT EXPOSURE Some defendants are required to register because they are convicted of indecent exposure. Our Court of Appeal, 41h District, recently upheld the sex offender registration requirement for indecent exposure in People v. Donald Honan (2010) 186 Cal. App. 4th 175. The Court held that a person who exposes his private parts with the intent "to direct public attention to his genitals" is necessarily engaged in a purposeful and aggressive sexual display designed to provoke others. Although violators of this section are misdemeanants, their conduct is one that should be prohibited from parks. In many cases, these registrants engage in 314 (indecent exposure) in view of children in parks and park restrooms where children regularly gather. In other cases, many defendants who have Penal Code 314 (indecent exposure) convictions are also child molesters. It makes little sense not to include this class of registrants when deciding who to ban from parks in creating safety zones. CHILD PORNOGRAPHY Another class of registrants who would not be included in the limited version of the ordinE nce is those who must register after a conviction for possessing child pornography. Shockingly, a lot of the child pornography being circulated today depicts very young children, sometimes even babies, engaged in various sex acts with inanimate and live objects, sometimes with other 5OA-12 children and adult subjects. Some child pornography includes depictions of forcible encounters. Although child pornography shows the result of a violation of children, it would not technically be a violation with a child victim as is written ordinances limiting the ban against offenders with convictions involving child victims. There is no reason why any adult would possess child pornography, except those who have abnormal sexual desire towards children. In the case of Alejandro Avila, the man who abducted, sexually assaulted and murdered 5-year- old Samantha Runnion in 2002, Avila spent days prior to committing his heinous act aga.nst the little girl he had never met looking at child pornography of a girl about the same age as Samantha and fantasizing about molesting children. As mentioned above, an Orange County mother was at a park enjoying the playground with her children. She saw a man holding a video camera near her children. She recognized the man from the Megan's Law website. She called the Orange County Sheriff to report the incident. The deputy sheriff could not arrest the sex offender because he was not on probation or parole. A proposed ordinance limiting the ban to offenders with child victims would not cover this defendant because his registration was based on a possession of child pornography conviction. ANALYSIS OF LAKE FOREST SEX OFFENDERS ON MEGAN'S LAW Available public records show many sex offenders who have both child and adult victims. Many offenders on the Megan's Law website have registered for committing sex offenses against both children and adults, possessing child pornography and flashing. There are other registered sex offenders in Lake Forest not listed on the public website but are known to law enforcement. A review of the public information listed on the Megan's Law website for Lake Forest shows the following: There are 17 individuals who were required to register due to felony convictions for Penal Code 288, lewd acts upon a child, or other crimes perpetrated on a child victim. One of the -17 of the sex offenders was also convicted of sex crimes committed by force or fear. He was convicted of lewd acts with a child under 14 years of age by force or fear. Five of the 17 sex offenders, committed in addition to lewd acts other related sex crimes. One was convicted of contacting a minor with the intent to commit a specified sex offense. One was convicted of attempt to send harmful matter with intent of seduction of a minor, and attempt to distribute harmful matter depicting a minor/sent to a minor via internet or email. Two were also convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child. Of the 17, two were also convicted of sexual penetration with foreign object of a victim under 14 or under 16 years of age. Two of the 17 were also convicted of more serious sex offenses due to their age difference with their victims. Their offenses consisted of lewd acts with a child 14 or 15 years of age and the offender is 10 or more years old than the victim, and oral copulation with a minor under 16 years of age and offender is 21 or more years of age. Four of the 17 sex offenders were convicted of sending, selling, distributing, or possession of obscene matter depicting a minor in sexual conduct. In addition, one of these four was also convicted of indecent exposure and misdemeanor child annoyance. Another one in this group was convicted of enticing a minor female for prostitution. 5OA-13 Two of the 17 sex offenders were also on the registry after being convicted of misdemeanor child annoyance. These 17 sex offenders would be banned from Lake Forest parks if either version of the ordinance passes- Two of the registered sex offenders in Lake Forest were required to register based on non- Califomia sex offenses, thus it is unclear whether they will be banned from parks if the version limiting the ban to child sex offenders passes. The following 5 sex offenders would still be allowed in Lake Forest parks if the version limiting the ban to sex offenders with prior child victims were to be passed. One sex offender was convicted of a sex crime where the victim was unable to give consent. This individual was convicted of oral copulation with a victim unconscious of the nature of the act. Four individuals have violent sex offense convictions against adult victims. Their victims' ages are unknown, but it is possible that the victims could be as young as 18. One was convicted of forcible rape. One was convicted of oral copulation by force or fear. One was convicted of assault with intent to commit a specific sex offense. One was convicted of sexual battery. There are individuals who intend to molest children but unknown to them, did not have an actual child victim to molest. For example, if a sex offender entered a park believing he was meeting a minor to have sex, but the "minor" was instead a fictitious character in a law enforcement sting, the limited ordinance may not apply. In 2006, a California Highway Patrol lieutenant named Stephen Deck went to a park after exchanging numerous online chats with a girl he thought was 13 years old. He inquired if the girl liked older men, made graphic sexual statements and sexually suggestive comments about "eating pie," and arranged to meet the "victim" at a Laguna Beach park- He was met instead by law enforcement who arrested 12 others in the same sting on the same night- He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to probation and one year in jail in 2010, over the strenuous objection by the People, who advocated for state prison. After he completes probation or parole, he is likely to be allowed to enter parks in jurisdictions that limit their ban to sex offenders who "committed a crime against a child," since his victim was fictitious. It should be noted there are 85,000 sex offenders who reside in California and currently have access to Lake Forest parks. They are required to register under Penal Code 290 for a variety of reasons. Would it make a parent feel safer to have their children in a park where there is a violent rapist versus a child molester? Can you distinguish the threat to children by those offenders who sexually assaulted an 18-year-old woman from those who pose a danger to minors? Should a person who possesses child pornography be allowed in parks so he can fulfill his fantasies or escalate his acts? Society deems sex offenders and their actions so reprehensible and dangerous that they are required to register annually, within five working days of his or her birthday and/or five working days of their move to a new address. Transients must update their registration every 30 days and sexually violent predators must update their registration every 90 days. Other sex offenders must be electronically tethered to law enforcement through the Global Positioning System. 5OA-14 Shouldn't these people be kept away from places where children regularly gather? REMEDIES FOR SEX OFFENDERS WHO WISH TO GO INTO PARKS There are ways to balance protection of children and providing relief to registrants with unusual circumstances. There are three ways a registered sex offender can be granted permission to enter parks. Certificate of rehabilitation Under Penal Code 290.5, which in concert with Penal Code 4852.01, certain 290 registrants can apply to a court for a certificate of rehabilitation. Upon a court finding, a registrant may be relieved of the duty to register under section 290. This alleviates the concern that the park ordinance might affect a 290 registrant whose offense was relatively "minor" and claims he no longer poses a threat to society. The court is in a better position to determine if a certain individual no longer poses a threat to the community rather than a legislative body giving a general exemption to a class of offenders without knowing their individual threat assessment. Exemption from law enforcement Second, law enforcement is in a better position to grant permission to enter a park on a case- by-case basis as it has the resources to investigate, and the knowledge and experience to gauge a sex offender's threat assessment. For example, a gardener who works on a maintenance crew at a park every Tuesday from 9 to 10 a.m. could get permission from the city's police chief to be at the park during the specified time. The sex offender need not be a resident of the city and local law enforcement are notified of the presence of a sex offender. More inclusive ordinance Third, the OCDA does not see any rationale to limit the ordinance to those whose offense was against a child victim. If however, Lake Forest wishes to limit the sex offender ordinance, the OCDA feels that more 290 registrants should be included than is currently proposed. At a minimum, the ordinance should include: (1) 290 registrants whose offense was a felony; (2) 290 registrants whose offense involved someone under the age of 18; (2) 290 registrants who violated the following Penal Code sections, whether a misdemeanor or a felony and regardless of the victim's age: (a) Any section listed in Chapter 7.5 (crimes involving obscene matter, including child pornography); and (b) Sections 207 (kidnapping), 220 (forcible and/or in concert or assault with intent to commit rape, sodomy, oral copulation, lewd acts upon a child or penetration), 261 (rape), 264 (rape), 286 (sodomy), 288 (lewd acts upon a child), 288a (oral copulation of a minor), 288.2 (sending harmful material to a minor with sexual intent), 288.3 (contacting a minor to commit forcible kidnapping or kidnapping for ransom, rape, child endangerment, sodomy, lewd acts upon a child, oral copulation of a minor, forcible sexual 5OA-15 penetration, possession of child pornography), 288.5 (continuous sexual abuse of a child), 289 (forcible sexual penetration), 314 (indecent exposure), and 647.6 (child annoyance). Thank you for your time and patience. I know we all share the desire to protect our children in every possible way from sex offenders. I hope you consider passing a similar ordinance to that of the County Ordinance for all of the above reasons. Sincerely, Tdny R kauckas District Attorney County of Orange TR. ss/ru cc Lt. Pat Higa, Chief of Police Services Scott C. Smith, City Attorney Robert C. Dunek, City Manager 5OA-16 ~x arrc TONY RACKAUCKAS ORANGE COUNTY E)ISTRIC'T ATTORNEY 9o£CO` ~ ~~op ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 401 CIVIC CENTER ORIVE WEST SANTA ANA, CA 92701 (714) 834-3636 May 14, 2012 Miguel Pulido, Mayor City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Post Office Box 1988, M31 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: Orange County Sex Offender Ordinance Dear Mayor Pulido: Thank you for taking a large step toward increasing public safety by considering enacting an ordinance in your city to prohibit registered sex offenders from entering parks where children regularly gather. Your Council had a Public Safety Committee study session recently, and 1 understand you may be meeting on May 21, 2012, to modify Santa Ana's child safety zone ordinance to incorporate the County Ordinance- As I wrote to you previously, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a County Ordinance on April 5, 2011, to create child safety zones to protect children from sexual predators in parks, playgrounds and beaches. Many other cities have either enacted or are in the process of enacting their own ordinance to protect children from sexual predators. On Nov_ 14, 2011, Hugo Godinez was convicted in a court trial for violating the Orange County Codified Child Safety Zone Ordinance 3-18-1. He is required to register as a sex offender for life because he was convicted of misdemeanor sexual battery on June 23, 2010_ On Aug_ 16, 2010, and May 2, 2011, Godinez signed two Department of Justice forms acknowledging he understood the terms and conditions of his registration. On the same date, Godinez met with a deputy probation officer to discuss Ordinance 3-18-1 pertaining to restricting registered sex offenders' access to locations where children regularly gather, such as Orange County parks. The defendant signed a copy of the Ordinance. On May 5, 2011, at around 10:53 a.m., Godinez entered Mile Square Regional Park in the City of Fountain Valley. This park is known to be a gathering place for families, especially on holidays. The 20-acre park includes two lakes, three 18-hole golf courses, archery range, baseball and softball fields, and picnic shelters. There is a 55-acre recreation center with tennis courts, basketball courts, racquetball courts, a gymnasium, the Kingston Boys & Girls Club, and a community center. On this particular date, there were many people, including children, celebrating Cinco de Mayo. The defendant did not leave the park until 2:00 p.m. There were VeriTracks Global Positioning Satellite System prints out showing the defendant's movements. He later admitted to an Orange County Sheriff's deputy on the Sex Offender Notification and Registration (SONAR) detail that he went to Mile Square Regional Park and stayed at the park for several hours knowing he was not supposed to be there and knowing it was wrong. He was sentenced on 5OA-17 Nov. 17, 2011, to 100 days in Orange County Jail and five years of formal probation with other probation terms. In August 2011, Richard Ernest Hibbard, 72, transient, became the first defendant to be convicted under the County Child Safety Zone Ordinance. Hibbard is a registered sex offender stemming from a misdemeanor child annoyance conviction from Los Angeles County. Since then, he has been convicted of numerous felonies and misdemeanors for failing to register as a sex offender in 1998, 2002, 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011. On July 21, 2011, at about 5:00 p.m., deputies from the Orange County Sheriff's Department (OCSD) responded to Dana Point Harbor. A citizen approached OCSD deputies and asked them to keep an eye on the defendant because he was "belligerent around the kids;" using profane language, and talking loudly. There were at least 10 children in the immediate vicinity where Hibbard had been standing on the dock sidewalk. On Aug. 10, 201 1 , he pleaded guilty to being in violation of Ordinance 3-18- 3 (prohibited offender entering a County park) and was sentenced to 31 days in jail. In October 2011, the City of Westminster became the first Orange County city to convict a sex offender for violating the Child Safety Zone Ordinance. Steve James Dietrich is a registered sex offender stemming from convictions for rape by force and oral copulation with a minor under 14 years of age by force or fear. On July 16, 2011, and Aug. 6, 2011, Dietrich was cited by the same police officer for entering a park where children regularly gather. He was convicted on Oct. 17, 2011. Dietrich was sentenced to probation and 60 days in jail. There are several cities undertaking this issue and considering enacting an ordinance modeled after or similar to the County Ordinance. Others are considering "residence restriction" types of ordinances or "loitering" types of statutes. Some cities are considering limiting the ban to those who have prior convictions with child victims. Although a ban against those individuals with convictions against child victims would be a good start, I would appreciate it if you would consider some of the points contained in this letter. You may find that we considered many of the same issues you are tackling and may come to similar conclusions. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS You may have heard that the Eldorado District Attorney released a disturbing videotape of child predators Philip and Nancy Garrido. The married couple was sentenced in April 201 1, to 431 years and 36 years to life in prison, respectively, for abducting former-Orange County resident, 11-year-old Jaycee Lee Dugard, from a school bus stop and sexually assaulting her for 20 years. In one of the video clips, Phillip Garrido is singing in a park while directing his wife Nancy Garrido how to shoot the video. He asks her, "Got me good?" "I can see you really good," she answers. She then films a little girl on playground equipment behind him, the child's legs splayed. There are also other children playing on swings and on the playground. The Garridas are sexual predators, watching and filming children in parks. You can view the chilling video on the Internet at http://documents_latimes.com/-qarrido-dugard-evidence/. On Feb. 8, 2012, El Dorado County passed an ordinance similar to Orange County's. The ordinance makes it a misdemeanor for registered sex offenders to enter county public parks, playgrounds, recreational areas and many other locations where children regularly gather without written permission from the El Dorado County Sheriff's Office. The El Dorado District Attorney's Office stated, "The recent case against Phillip Garrido is a good example of sex offenders' predatory behavior Phillip Garrido was a registered sex offender, who, even after kidnapping and imprisoning Jaycee Lee Dugard, would frequent parks and videotape children as they played, searching for his next victim.- 2 5OA-18 In July 2011, 33-year-old German De Jesus was arrested after putting his hand down the pants of a 6-year-oid girl and touching her vagina while at a movie night at the Grand Park in Aliso Viejo. She was standing just 10 feet from her father. This case is pending. For this case and another molest of an 8-year-old girl at another location, is charged with three felony counts of lewd or lascivious acts with a minor under 14 and a sentencing enhancement allegation of substantial sexual conduct with a child. If convicted on all counts, he faces a sentence ranging from a minimum of 15 years to life to a maximum of 45 years to life in state prison. In April 2011, a Lake Forest woman called the police when she saw a registered sex offender/child pornographer with a video camera near her children while they were playing at a park. OCSD deputies who responded told her that the man could not be arrested because he was not on probation or parole, and there was no such law in the City of Lake Forest. The City of Lake Forest enacted an ordinance in December 2011. In April 2012, William Gabriel Rodriguez, 29, Cypress, was charged with one felony count each of contacting a child with intent to commit a specified sex crime, meeting a minor with intent to engage in lewd conduct, and lewd acts upon a child. If convicted, he faces a maximum sentence of four years and eight months in state prison and mandatory lifetime sex offender registration. Rodriguez is accused of meeting 15-year-old Jane Doe on a social networking website and telling her he was 18 years old communicating with Jane Doe through his computer and phone texts for a period of two to three weeks, and meeting Jane Doe at Maple Grove Park South in Cypress. He is accused of kissing Jane Doe several times on the mouth. Cypress police officer conducting foot patrol spotted the defendant and victim. The officer noticed the victim looked much younger than Rodriguez and contacted the defendant. An example of someone who could be present in parks located in cities that do not have such an ordinance is serial child molester Sid Landau, who has been convicted of numerous child molests and found to be a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP). If a jury grants Landau's petition to be released from his SVP civil commitment at Coalinga State Prison at a trial scheduled for Oct_ 22, 2012, he could be free to roam in any park without such an ordinance. In 1982, Landau was convicted of molesting a 10-year-old boy and sentenced to three years in state prison. He was arrested again in 1987 for molesting a 5-year-old boy, but the case was ultimately dismissed. In 1988, Landau pleaded guilty to 18 counts of lewd acts on a child for molesting a 9-year-old boy and received 17 years in state prison. He was paroled in 1996, but only spent 15 months free over the next four years, as he continued to be re-imprisoned for extended periods of time for violating the terms of his parole. This included confessing to going to the zoo (a violation because Landau is prohibited from going to places where children are known to congregate), assaulting a camera man, and possessing teddy bears in his home, items which are lures for children. In 2000, Landau was placed in a mental hospital after his prison term expired and the People filed a Petition to have him declared an SVP. Landau met one of his victims while he lived at a home in Anaheim a few blocks from a park. He frequently went to the park with his beautiful Siberian Husky, which would attract attention from many other park-goers, including young boys. One of his victims, then 8, met Landau at the park when he went to pet Landau's dog_ From then on, Landau began to groom the victim until he ultimately began to sexually molest him. 3 5OA-19 At the SVP trial in 2008, the People presented evidence that Landau also molested additional victims besides those named in the prior criminal complaints. Beginning in 1961, Landau, then 21, molested an 8-year-old boy over the course of three years. In 1970, he molested another 8- year-old boy, and continued to do so until the boy was 15. While Landau can no longer be charged with these crimes due to the statute of limitations, this evidence was used to show his continued pattern of sexual deviance. During the 2008 trial, a doctor stated that based on the defendant's number of known victims and rate of offenses, Landau likely had between 1,000 and 1,500 undetected molests prior to his first conviction. Landau had declined to participate in treatment programs while in the hospital and had stopped using a prescription medication for depression, a side effect of which is a reduced sex drive. NARROWING THE BAN TO SIMPLY PROHIBIT "LOITERING" Limiting the ban to prohibit sex offenders from "loitering" in parks would not be effective. State law already prohibits sex offenders from loitering "about any school or public place at or near which children attend or normally congregate . . (Penal Code § 653b.) This would presumably apply to parks. Penal Code 653b, however, is not effective because it requires the sex offender to remain at the location or re-enter the location after being asked to leave. So long as the sex offender has not been asked to leave, he is not in violation of Penal Code 653b. In addition, it is difficult to prove loitering in a trial. "Loitering" means "to delay, to linger, or to idle about a school or public place without lawful business for being present." (Penal Code § 653b, subd. (d).) It would be difficult to prove a sex offender was "loitering" in a park when that person was simply sitting on a park bench or on the grass or strolling through the park. Even videotaping or photographing may not be considered "loitering," as those are common activities of lawful citizens- Yet, these are some of the very activities the proposed Ordinance seeks to preclude with respect to sex offenders- Their presence in parks allows them to identify, observe, and possibly interact with potential victims whom they seek to groom and eventually exploit. Finally, any loitering prohibition may be preempted by Penal Code 653b. (See O'Connell v. City of Stockton (2007) 41 Cal_4th 1061. 1 067 [a local ordinance may be preempted where it enters an area expressly or impliedly fully occupied by state law].) For these reasons, limiting the ban to "loitering" in parks would not provide an effective tool to protect children from sex offenders' activities in parks. GENESIS AND PROCESS IN DEVELOPING THE COUNTY SEX OFFENDER ORDINANCE In 2010, registered sex offender Eric Hinnenkamp lived 155 feet from a Fullerton park where children regularly gather. He was a Los Angeles County parolee who was released from prison to an apartment in Huntington Beach. Hinnenkamp inherited a house from his parents in Fullerton and was intending to live at the residence. According to Megan's Law website, his prior convictions included felony lewd conduct on child victims, indecent exposure, and restrained sexual battery. Understandably, local citizens became alarmed and asked law enforcement for a solution. The Orange County District Attorney (OCDA) began researching legal solutions and developing practical applications in response. Meanwhile, the OCDA also monitored the development of Chelsea's Law in the State legislature. The result was the development and enactment of the County Child Safety Ordinance, which closed a loophole in the existing law. RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS V. CHILD SAEFTY ZONES The OCDA initially considered enacting both sex offender restrictions, which generally fall into two categories: (1) Residency restrictions; and (2) Child safety zones. Residency restrictions 4 5OA-20 restrict an offender from residing within a specified distance of certain locations, such as schools and parks. Child safety zones restrict offenders' movement within and/or around areas where children congregate, such as schools, parks, libraries, etc. Residency Restrictions The available research found by the OCDA suggests that residency restrictions have little impact on sex offender recidivism and may even compromise public safety. Generally, researchers have been unable to correlate any meaningful relationship between residential proximity to schools, parks, etc. and sexual recidivism- Research indicates that residency restrictions diminish housing options in urban areas, which forces offenders to move to more rural locations. This limits offenders' access to social services and community resources that help prevent recidivism by transitioning into the community. Residency restrictions also decrease employment opportunities for offenders and increase their transience and homelessness. These unintended consequences reduce the number of offenders accurately tracked by local law enforcement agencies. The research findings were anecdotally supported by conversations with local and State law enforcement officials. For more detailed discussions of this topic, please see the articles and the sources cited in the quarterly bulletin Geography and Public Safety, Vol. 2, Issue 1, May 2009, and listed at: httr)://www.oip. usdoi.gov/nii/maps/q ps-bu iletin-v2i 1 . pdf. Residency restrictions also face constitutional challenges relating to the right to privacy, the right to intrastate travel, substantive due process and other rights. The outcome of such challenges is uncertain in California. In In re E.J. (2010) 47 CalAth 1258, the California Supreme Court suggested a residency restriction must be narrowly tailored to further the government interest of protecting children from sex offenders. The Court remanded the petitioners' constitutional claims to the trial court for evidentiary hearings concerning, among other things, the supply of available housing for each sex offender in their respective community- If a residency restriction makes a substantial portion of a community off-limits to sex offenders, it may be difficult to sustain its constitutionality. Meanwhile, the OCDA was waiting for the enactment of Chelsea's Law, which contained the language of the County Ordinance. Chelsea's Law - Amended The language in the drafted sex offender ordinance is adapted from proposed language in Chelsea's Law and from Penal Code 626.81, which prohibits sex registrants from entering school grounds without written permission. Until 2010, Chelsea's Law (AB 1844) would have added as Penal Code 647.9 much of the language set forth in the County Ordinance. On July 15, 2010, Chelsea's Law was amended to delete the originally proposed language as Penal Code 647.9. The bill was signed into Law on Sept. 8, 2010. Instead, the bill added section 3053.8 to the Penal Code. That section precludes Penal Code 290 registrants from entering parks where children gather without express permission, but only applies the restriction to parolees who served prison time for certain sexual offenses in which one or more of the victims was under 14 years of age- Thus, the "park restriction" in Chelsea's Law does not apply to sex registrants who have been discharged from parole. Some of these sex registrants are subject to lifetime parole and some are be subject to parole for 20 years, depending upon the particular crime committed- 5 OA-21 LEGAL ISSUES EXPLORED: Child Safety Zones - Constitutionality A court will examine each law to determine whether it is narrowly tailored to the government interest. Child safety zone laws appear easier to defend than residency restrictions. Safety zone laws are more narrowly tailored to furthering the interest of protecting children by keeping sex offenders away from areas in which children congregate. The more broadly a restriction sweeps, the more likely a court will find it is not narrowly tailored- The more tailored a law appears to protect children from sex offenders, while still permitting legitimate activities by the sex offenders, the more likely it will survive a constitutional challenge. There are two types of constitutional challenges: (1) a facial challenge, which considers only the text of the law and seeks to void the law as a whole; and (2) an as-applied challenge, which considers the law's application to a particular challenger's facts. (Tobe v. City of Santa Ana (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1069, 1084_) To defeat the entire law in a facial challenge, the challenger must show it "inevitably pose[s] a present total and fatal conflict with applicable constitutional prohibitions." (Ibid.) For example, a particular offender may argue a law aimed at all sex offenders - as opposed to a law tailored to sex offenders whose victims were children - is not narrowly tailored. It seems unlikely, however, that a court would find the law totally conflicts with constitutional principles, since many of the registered sex offenders committed crimes against children. Furthermore, many offenders have both adult and child victims (e.g_ Rodney Alcala as further explained later) while others commit crimes which may lead to future victims (e.g. indecent exposure defendants commit offenses in public places with children). Thus, the law would not be constitutionally overbroad when applied to those offenders. A particular offender could bring an as-applied constitutional challenge. Such a challenge considers whether the law is being applied in a constitutionally impermissible manner- (Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, supra, 9 Cal.4th 1069, 1084.) The court evaluates the propriety of the application on a case-by-case basis to determine whether to relieve the defendant of the sanction. (Ibid.) This could preclude application of the relevant law to a particular sex offender, but would not render the law constitutionally infirm as to others. Retroactivity In general, application of a law is retroactive only if it attaches new legal consequences to, or increases a party's liability for, an event, transaction, or conduct that was completed before the law's effective date. (In re E.J_, supra, 47 Cal.4th 1258, 1273.) Therefore, the critical question for determining retroactivity usually is whether the last act or event necessary to trigger application of the statute occurred before or after the statute's effective date. (Ibid.) In In re E.J., supra, 47 Cal.4th 1258, the court indicated it may be impermissible to apply the 2,000-foot residency restriction to a sex offender who acquired housing before the law's effective date. (Id. at pp. 1275-1276.) The offender would not have had notice of the restriction before the conduct to which the law speaks occurred. (Id_ at p_ 1276, citing Doe v. Schwarzenegger (E-D. Cal_ 2007) 476 F.Supp_2d 1178, 1179, fn. 1 [residency restriction could not be applied retroactively to persons paroled and released from prison prior to the law's effective date].) For our purposes, the last act necessary to trigger application of child safety zone laws would seem to be the offender's unlawful entry and/or loitering upon property within a protected zone. Thus, application to all offenders would not seem to be impermissibly retroactive. 6 5OA-22 Ex Post Facto An impermissible ex post facto law is one which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime after its commission. (/n re E_J., supra, 47 Cal.4th 1258, 1279.) Because the child safety zone laws would not be applied retroactively, they would not raise ex post facto issues. (/n re E.J., supra, 47 CalAth 1258, 1279-1280 [ex post facto only applies to laws applied retroactively].) Will enactment of such an ordinance create a cause of action if a registered sex offender does harm a child at a park where there is such an ordinance? Government Code section 845 Failure to provide any or adequate police protection; Responding to alarm states as follow: Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service. A police department shall not fail to respond to a request for service via a burglar alarm system or an alarm company referral service solely on the basis that a permit from the city has not been obtained. PRACTICAL ISSUE CONSIDERED What resources will the enactment of this ordinance take away from police? The OCDA believes the enactment of this ordinance will cause a minimal shift in resources. A typical scenario would be a parent calling the police when they see a person acting suspiciously in a park around children. This law is an additional tool for law enforcement to contact and arrest registered sex offenders in parks where children regularly gather. It should be noted that since the passage of the County Ordinance, the OCSD has had 14 requests by sex offenders. One waiver has been granted- ORANGE COUNTY ORDINANCE Sec. 3-18-1. - Purpose and intent. It is the purpose and intent of this article to protect children from registered sex offenders by restricting sex offenders' access to locations where children regularly gather. It is intended to reduce the risk of harm to children by impacting the ability of sex offenders to be in contact with children. It is further the intent of this article to provide additional restrictions beyond those provided for in state law by restricting sex offenders from certain limited locations, and by allowing for criminal penalties for violations of this article. It is not the intent of this article to allow conduct otherwise prohibited by state law, or to contradict state law. Orange County Parks are recognized by the County of Orange Board of Supervisors as locations where children regularly gather. (Ord. No. 11-012, § 1, 4-5-11) Sec. 3-18-3. - Prohibitions. Any person required to register pursuant to California Penal Code sections 290, et seq. who enters into or upon any Orange County Park where children regularly gather without written permission from the Orange County Sheriff or SherifF s designee is guilty of a misdemeanor. Each entry into any such area, regardless of the time period between entries, shall constitute a separate offense under this article. (Ord. No. 11 -0 12, § 1. 4-5-11 ) 7 5OA-23 Sec. 3-18-4. - Penalties for violation. Punishment for a violation of this article shall be as follows: (1) Upon a first conviction, by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than six (6) months, or by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00), or by both imprisonment and a fine. (2) Upon a second conviction, by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not less than ten (10) days and not more than six (6) months, or by both imprisonment and a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00). Upon a second conviction, however, the person shall not be released on probation, parole, or any other basis until he or she has served not less than ten (10) days. (3) Upon a third or subsequent conviction, by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not less than ninety (90) days and not more than six (6) months, or by both imprisonment and a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00). Upon a third or subsequent conviction, however, the person shall not be released on probation, parole, or any other basis until he or she has served not less than ninety (90) days. (Ord- No. 11-012, § 1, 4-5-11) Definitions There are two main terms to define: 1) park; and 2) the administrative official from whom written permission must be obtained. Some local jurisdictions may choose to leave the term as drafted without further definition- Relevant State law provisions do not define the term "park." (Penal Code § 3003.5 [precludes sex registrants from residing within 2000 feet of a "park where children regularly gather"]; Chelsea's Law (Penal Code § 647.9) [would preclude certain parolees from entering "any park where children regularly gather'].) Some local jurisdictions may want to further define the term. Some cities have local ordinances defining the term "park." For example, Grover Beach defines a "park" as "any city, county, school district, state or federal public park or playground where children are likely to be." Santa Clarita states a "'[p]ark' shall include any areas owned, leased controlled, maintained, or managed by a public entity which are open to the public where children regularly gather and which provide recreational, cultural, and/or community service activities including, but not limited to, playgrounds, playfields, athletic courts, trails, paseos, and open space-" Huntington Beach states a "'[p]ark' includes every park, recreation center, lake, pond or other body of water, riding and hiking trail, parking lot and every other recreation facility owned, managed and/or controlled by the City and under jurisdiction of the Director." Each local jurisdiction should decide whether it wishes to further define the term "park" depending upon its particular circumstances. Orange County chose to define the area as places where "children regularly gather" and specifically named certain places. Similarly, each local jurisdiction should consider the appropriate entity from where permission must be obtained before a sex registrant can enter a park. The appropriate person may vary depending upon how the local jurisdiction is organized. In Orange County, the Board of Supervisors believed that the Orange County Sheriff, who has investigative and authority and patrol responsibility in the defined areas, would be in the best position to give exemptions. 8 5OA-24 The court may imply knowledge (scienter) element to the crime. A court would require evidence showing the defendant knew or reasonably should have known the "park" was a place where children regularly gather- Some cities are contemplating whether to limit the ban to sex offenders who have been convicted of a crime against a child under the age of 18. LIMITING THE BAN TO REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS "WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME AGAINST A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF 18" While drafting the County Ordinance, Supervisor Shawn Nelson and Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas actively contemplated whether to exclude a certain class of offender in the proposed sex-offender statute. Of concern were those who, while a teenager, were convicted of engaging in consensual sex with a younger teenager and now must register as a sex offender for life, although he has subsequently grown up with no further violations. Since then, others have voiced their concern of former "fraternity. boys" who they believe now have the requirement to register as sex offenders after being arrested for urinating in public. There seem to be many myths as to the persons who are required to register as sex offenders- PENAL CODE SECTION 290 (c) states: The following persons shall be required to register: Any person who, since July 1, 1944, has been or is hereafter convicted in any court in this state or in any federal or military court of a violation of Section 187 (murder) committed in the perpetration, or an attempt to perpetrate, rape or any act punishable under Section 286 (sodomy), 288 (lewd acts upon a child), 288a (oral copulation of a minor), or 289 (forcible sexual penetration), Section 207 (forcible kidnapping) or 209 (forcible kidnapping for ransom) committed with intent to violate Section 261(rape), 286 (sodomy), 288 (lewd acts upon a child), 288a (oral copulations of a minor), or 289 (forcible sexual penetration), Section 220 (forcible and or in concert or assault with intent to commit rape, sodomy, oral copulation, lewd acts upon a child or penetration, Section 243.4 (sexual battery), paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 261 (rape of a mentally incapacitated victim, forcible rape, rape of a victim who in unable to resist due to intoxication, rape of an unconscious victim and rape using threat to retaliate, paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 262 spousal rape) involving the use of force or violence for which the person is sentenced to the state prison, Section 264.1 (forcible rape, spousal rape, sexual penetration acting on concert of another), 266 (enticing a minor into prostitution or procurement of sex with another man by fraud), or 266c (sexual intercourse or penetration, oral copulation or sodomy using fraud or force), subdivision (b) of Section 266h (pimping a minor for prostitution), subdivision (b) of Section 2661 (pandering a minor for prostitution), Section 266j (making available or transporting a minor for lewd acts), 267 (taking a minor from parents or guardian for prostitution), 269 (aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 where the perpetrator is more than 7 years older involving forcible rape, oral copulation, sexual penetration or sodomy), 285 (incest), 286 (sodomy), 288 (lewd acts upon a child), 288a (oral copulation of a minor), 288.3 (contacting of a minor to commit forcible kidnapping or kidnapping for ransom, rape, child endangerment, sodomy, lewd acts upon a child, oral copulation of a minor, forcible sexual penetration, possession of child pornography, 288.4, contact with a minor with sexual intent), 288.5 (continuous sexual abuse of a child), 288.7 (sexual intercourse, sodomy, penetration of a child under the age of 10), 289 (forcible sexual penetration), or 311.1 (distributing child pornography), subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section 311.2 (production of child pornography), Section 311.3 (developing or exchanging child pornography), 311.4 (employing minor to assist in distribution of child pornography), 311.10 (advertising or distributing child pornography), 311.11 (possession of child pornography), or 647.6 (child annoyance) former Section 647a, subdivision (c) of Section 653f (solicitation of forcible and or acting in concert, rape, sodomy, 9 5OA-25 oral copulation, lewd acts upon a child, and sexual penetration, subdivision 1 or 2 of Section 314, indecent exposure, any offense involving lewd or lascivious conduct under Section 272, contributing to a delinquency of a minor, or any felony violation of Section 288.2. sending harmful material to a minor with sexual intent; any statutory predecessor that includes all elements of one of the above-mentioned offenses; or any person who since that date has been or is hereafter convicted of the attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the above- mentioned offense. As to the issues of statutory rape cases, Penal Code 2615, 290 and 290.006, do not require registration for the offense. Penal Code 261.5 prohibits sexual intercourse with persons under 18 years old. (Penal Code § 261.5(a).) In general, the penalties for violating the statute vary depending upon whether there is an age difference of more than two years, more than three years, or whether the perpetrator is over age 21 and the victim is under age 16. (Penal Code § 261.5.) None of the offenses carries mandatory registration. Penal Code 290.006 gives the court discretion to impose registration in any offense where the person committed the offense as a result of "sexual compulsion or for purposes of sexual gratification." This statute provides a good mechanism to distinguish between young offenders who may be sexual predators and/or dangerous and young offenders who fall into the facts as described above. The offenders described above are not likely to be required to register. On the other hand, some individuals who violate Penal Code 261.5 - even at a young age - were identified and found to be sexual predators and/or dangerous by the court. If those are the facts, then it would not be wise to exclude all registrants who violate Penal Code 261.5 from the proposed park-restriction law. Another statute pertaining to unlawful sex with minors is Penal Code section 288. Among other things, that section punishes those who sexually molest a child under 14, or molest a child who is 14 or 15 years old where the perpetrator is more than 10 years older than the child. (Penal Code §288(c)(1).) Individuals who violate Penal Code 288 are required to register under Penal Code section 290 should not be excluded from the proposed park-restriction statute. Obviously, there is no requirement for registration for urinating in public, usually municipal code violations- The OCDA consulted its prosecutors in the Sexual Assault Unit, including the supervisor of the Unit, Assistant District Attorney Rosanne Froeberg. They all strenuously advised against narrowing the application of the ordinance, stating that law enforcement cannot classify 290 registrants based upon the particular type of sex offense they commit and predict the type of future sex offense based upon past sex offenses. Just because a 290 registrant's prior sex offense did not Involve a child does not mean his/her future offenses will not involve children. SEX OFFENDERS VIOLATE AGAINST BOTH ADULTS AND CHILDREN A case in point is one of Orange County's most notorious and dangerous serial killers, Rodney Alcala. Alcala's first known victim was an adult female. He sexually assaulted her in an alley while he was serving in the U.S. Army. His future victims included both children and adults. In 1968, he violently kidnapped and brutally sexually assaulted an 8-year-ofd girl he had never met. In 1971 and 1977, he brutally sexually assaulted and murdered two women in New York, both 23 years old. After returning to California, he raped, sodomized and murdered 18-year-old Jill Barcomb by smashing her face with a rock and strangling her in November 1977. In December 1977, Alcala raped, sodomized and murdered 27-year-old Georgia Wixted by beating 10 5OA-26 her face with a claw hammer and strangling her. In June 1979, Alcala raped and murdered 33- year-old Charlotte Lamb by beating her and strangling her with shoe laces. In June 1979, Alcala raped and murdered Jill Parenteau by strangling her with a cord. On June 20, 1979, Alcala kidnapped 12-year-old Robin Samsoe from Huntington Beach, murdered her, and dumped her body in the San Gabriel Mountains- Although her body was badly decomposed, her remains showed that Alcala had knocked out her front teeth. Her earring was later found in his victim "souvenir" trove in his storage locker. He was sentenced to the death penalty in Orange County for the California murders in 2010 New York charged Alcala with the two murders in January 2011, and he is awaiting trial. Alcala not only had both adult and child victims, he moved back and forth between the victims' age groups. PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS WHO USE THEIR CHILDREN TO GAIN ACCESS TO VICTIMS Some people argue that some sex offenders are parents and grandparents with children who want to go to parks, thus they should have access to parks. Most sex offenders are parents and/or grandparents. In many instances, they use their children to gain access to other children to molest. George England was convicted for using his adopted 7-year-old daughter Jackie Zudis (she has agreed to be named publicly) to molest three girls ages 9 to 10. England drilled a hole in the wall from his bedroom into the bathroom in order to watch them and take nude photos of the young girls, whom he repeatedly molested, as they bathed. Although Zudis was sexually assaulted by England for more than a decade in some of the most egregious ways, including being made to have sex with the defendant's dog, she most regrets being the instrument to the other girls' sexual assault by England. A grandfather named Octavio Cortez was convicted for molesting three girls, ages four to seven, including putting his hands down one of the Jane Doe's pants and touching her vagina while she was playing with "Barbies" with the defendant's granddaughter. Patricia Anne Serrano, 43, Fountain Valley is awaiting trial on charges she molested and engaged in substantial sexual contact with her son's 12-year-old friend. Kathia Maria Davis, 44, Laguna Niguel is also awaiting trial engaging in lewd acts and substantial sexual conduct on a 13-year-old boy and engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a 16-yearld-old boy. Both victims were friends of her son on his hockey team. INDECENT EXPOSURE Some defendants are required to register because they are convicted of indecent exposure. Our Court of Appeal, 4"' District, recently upheld the sex offender registration requirement for indecent exposure in People v. Donald Honan (2010) 186 Cal. App. 4th 175. The Court held that a person who exposes his private parts with the intent "to direct public attention to his genitals" is necessarily engaged in a purposeful and aggressive sexual display designed to provoke others. Although violators of this section are misdemeanants, their conduct is one that should be prohibited from parks. In many cases, these registrants engage in 314 (indecent exposure) in view of children in parks and park restrooms where children regularly gather. In other cases, many defendants who have Penal Code 314 (indecent exposure) convictions are also child molesters. It makes little sense not to include this class of registrants when deciding who to ban from parks in creating safety zones. 11 5OA-27 CHILD PORNOGRAPHY Another class of registrants who would not be included in the limited version of the ordinance is those who must register after a conviction for possessing child pornography. Shockingly, a lot of the child pornography being circulated today depicts very young children, sometimes even babies, engaged in various sex acts with inanimate and live objects, sometimes with other children and adult subjects. Some child pornography includes depictions of forcible encounters. Although child pornography shows the result of a violation of children, it would not technically be a violation with a child victim as is written in ordinances limiting the ban against offenders, with convictions involving child victims. There is no reason why any adult would possess child pornography except those who have abnormal sexual desire towards children. In the case of Alejandro Avila, the man who abducted, sexually assaulted and murdered 5-year- old Samantha Runnion in 2002. Avila spent days prior to committing his heinous act against the little girl he had never met looking at child pornography of a girl about the same age as Samantha and fantasizing about molesting children- As mentioned above, an Orange County mother was at a park enjoying the playground with her children. She saw a man holding a video camera near her children. She recognized the man from the Megan's Law website. She called the Orange County Sheriff to report the incident. The deputy sheriff could not arrest the sex offender because he was not on probation or parole. A proposed ordinance limiting the ban to offenders with child victims would not cover this defendant because his registration was based on a possession of child pornography conviction. ANALYSIS OF SANTA ANA SEX OFFENDERS REGISTERED ON MEGAN'S LAW WEBSITE Available public records show 235 registered sex offenders residing in the City of Santa Ana for sex crimes against children and adults, possession of child pornography, and/or indecent exposure (flashing). In addition to the 235 publicly-listed offenders, law enforcement is aware of additional registered sex offenders who reside in the City. A review of public information listed on the Megan's Law website reveals the following: Sex Crimes Against Children There are 196 sex offenders residing in Santa Ana who committed sex crimes against children. A- Lewd acts against victims under the age of 14 Of the 196, there are 125 individuals who were required to register because of felony convictions under Penal Code 288(a) for lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14. Three of the 125 also have misdemeanor child annoyance convictions. Another three of the 125 also have convictions for flashing or indecent exposure. One of 125 committed incest, and another sexually penetrated his victim with a foreign object. Of the 125, three also contacted their minor victims for the purpose of arranging a sexual encounter and went to the arranged meeting to commit a sexual offense; two possessed child pornography; and two sent pornographic material to seduce their child victims. 1. Age Difference of at least 10 years, and lewd acts with a victim under 14 There was an age difference of at least 10 years between the sex offender and the child victim in seven of the 125 cases of lewd acts against a child under the age of 14. Four of the seven were convicted of additional crimes: One is a female offender with an additional conviction for oral copulation with a minor. Another sex offender was convicted for sexually penetrating his victim with a foreign object, child molestation, and oral copulation with a minor. A third orally copulated with his victim. The fourth 12 5OA-28 sex offender committed continuous child abuse and lewd acts on a child under the age of 14 as well as on a child between the ages of 14 and 15. 2. Employing force or fear, and lewd acts with a victim under 14 Of the 125 individuals convicted of lewd acts against children under 14, there are 24 sex offenders who used force or fear against one or more victims. Three of these 24 restrained their victims to commit the act_ Another offender forcibly orally copulated with his victim, who was under the age of 14. Additionally, many of the 24 committed other sex crimes in addition to the lewd act against a child under 14. One offender forcibly sodomized his victim, who was under the age of 14, forcibly orally copulated with a minor under the age of 14, sexually penetrated a victim under the age of 14, and committed lewd acts on a child under 14. Another forcibly orally copulated with a minor under the age of 14 and sodomized and orally copulated with a victim under the age of 16. Some of those who used force may have also violated adult victims. One offender who was convicted of oral copulation with a minor under the age of 14 years was also convicted of raping a victim of unspecified age and kidnapping a victim of unspecified age with the intent to commit a sexual offense. Another offender was convicted of oral copulation with a victim of unspecified age and sodomy in concert with force against a victim of unspecified age, in addition to his conviction of oral copulation with a minor under the age of 14 by using force or fear- A third sex offender was convicted of forcibly raping a victim of unspecified age and forcibly sexually penetrating a victim of unspecified age with a foreign object, in addition to his conviction of forcible oral copulation with a child under the age of 14. A fourth offender has four convictions for crimes against children and two convictions for crimes against victims of unspecified age: lewd acts with a child under the age of 14; sodomy with a child under the age of 14; oral copulation with a minor under the age of 14; lewd acts with a child between the ages of 14 and 15; sexual assault against a victim of unspecified age; and forcible rape against a victim of unspecified age- A fifth sex offender forcibly orally copulated with a minor under 14 and forcibly sodomized a child under 14. The same offender was also required to register for sexual offenses against victims of unspecified age: forcible rape of a female incapable of giving consent; sexual penetration with a foreign object; sexual assault; sexual battery; and attempted forcible sodomy. B. Lewd acts against victims between the ages of 14 and 15 Of the 196 registered child sex offenders, 17 committed lewd acts upon a child between the ages of 14 and 15. Of the 17, one is female, one also committed sexual battery, and another also possessed child pornography. Of the 17 sex offenders, 10 were at least 10 years older than their victims. Seven of the ten were also convicted of other crime(s) in addition to the lewd act: one sexually penetrated his victim under the age of 16 with a foreign object; the second committed sexual assault; the third contacted a minor with the intent of committing a sexual offense and attempted to distribute pornographic material to his victim; and a fourth also contacted his minor victim with the intent to commit a sexual offense. The fifth offender employed or coerced a minor to produce child pornography. A sixth offender was also convicted of sexual penetration of a child under the age 13 5OA-29 of 16, molestation of a child under the age of 18, and oral copulation with a child under the age of 16 when he was over the age of 21. The seventh individual has additional convictions for sexually penetrating a child under the age of 16 and orally copulating with a child under the age of 16 when he was over the age of 21 . C. Other sex acts against minors The following is a summary of the remaining convictions for sex acts against minors of varying ages. Three sex offenders committed ongoing child sexual abuse against children of unspecified age. Thirty were convicted of misdemeanor child annoyance. Four of the 30 molesters also have convictions for indecent exposure, and one of the thirty also orally copulated with a minor under the age of 16 when he was over the age of 21. Two men orally copulated with minors under the age of 16 years. One of the two also sodomized a victim under the age of 16, and the second offender was over the age of 21 at the time of the offense. Three contacted minors of unspecified age for the purpose of committing sexual acts. Two individuals possessed child pornography, one of whom was also a seller or distributor of the pornographic material. Sex Crimes Against Adults There are 33 registered sex offenders residing in Santa Ana for sex crimes against adults. Five of the 33 individuals committed sexual offenses against mentally vulnerable victims. One of the five orally copulated with a drugged victim, and another sexually penetrated a drugged victim with a foreign object. Two of the five offenders raped victims incapable of giving consent. The fifth sex offender orally copulated with a victim who was unconscious of the nature of the act. Thirteen of the 33 sex offenders were convicted of forcible rape. One sex offender raped his victim by threat of retaliation and also committed sexual battery. Two offenders raped their victims by force and also committed sexual assault. Two other offenders forcibly raped, sodomized, and orally copulated with their victims. Five of the 33 offenders were convicted of sexual battery. One of the five also committed a second sexual battery using fraudulent representation and has an additional conviction for the nonconsensual intimate touching of another for sexual arousal. Eight of the 33 were convicted of sexual assault- Of these eight, two employed force or fear; one sexually penetrated his victim with a foreign object by force, and another indecently exposed himself- Two of the 33 sex offenders used fear or force to penetrate their victims with foreign objects. Unknown sex crimes Six individuals are registered in Santa Ana for sex crimes that were committed out-cf- state. The exact nature of the sex crimes are unknown and may have been against either children or adults- One, however, received an additional California conviction for indecent exposure. 14 5OA-30 REMEDIES FOR SEX OFFENDERS WHO WISH TO GO INTO PARKS There are ways to balance protection of children and providing relief to registrants with unusual circumstances. There are three ways a registered sex offender can be granted permission to enter parks. Certificate of rehabilitation Under Penal Code 290.5. which in concert with Penal Code 4852.01, certain 290 registrants can apply to a court for a certificate of rehabilitation. Upon a court finding, a registrant may be relieved of the duty to register under section 290. This alleviates the concern that the park ordinance might affect a 290 registrant whose offense was relatively "minor" and claims he no longer poses a threat to society. The court is in a better position to determine if a certain individual no longer poses a threat to the community rather than a legislative body giving a general exemption to a class of offenders without knowing their individual threat assessment. Exemption from law enforcement Second, law enforcement is in a better position to grant permission to enter a park on a case- by-case basis as it has the resources to investigate and the knowledge and experience to gauge a sex offender's threat assessment. For example, a gardener who works on a maintenance crew at a park every Tuesday from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. could get permission from the city's police chief to be at the park during the specified time. The sex offender need not be a resident of the city and local law enforcement are notified of the presence of a sex offender. More inclusive ordinance Third, the OCDA does not see any rationale to limit the ordinance to those whose offense was against a child victim. If, however, Santa Ana wishes to limit the sex offender ordinance, the OCDA feels that more 290 registrants should be included than is currently proposed. At a minimum, the ordinance should include: (1) 290 registrants whose offense was a felony; (2) 290 registrants whose offense involved someone under the age of 18; (2) 290 registrants who violated the following Penal Code sections, whether a misdemeanor or a felony and regardless of the victim's age: (a) Any section listed in Chapter 7.5 (crimes involving obscene matter, including child pornography); and (b) Sections 207 (kidnapping), 220 (forcible and/or in concert or assault with intent to commit rape, sodomy, oral copulation, lewd acts upon a child or penetration), 261 (rape), 264 (rape), 286 (sodomy), 288 (lewd acts upon a child), 288a (oral copulation of a minor), 288.2 (sending harmful material to a minor with sexual intent), 288.3 (contacting a minor to commit forcible kidnapping or kidnapping for ransom, rape, child endangerment, sodomy, lewd acts upon a child, oral copulation of a minor, forcible sexual penetration, possession of child pornography), 288.5 (continuous sexual abuse of a child), 289 (forcible sexual penetration), 314 (indecent exposure), and 647.6 (child annoyance). 15 5OA-31 Thank you for your time and patience. I know we all share the desire to protect our children in every possible way from sex offenders. I hope you consider passing a similar ordinance to that of the County Ordinance for all of the above reasons. Sincerely, JT ny ackauckas District Attorney TR: ss/vl6 cc: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney Teresa L. Judd, Assistant City Attorney Paul Walters, Chief, Santa Ana Police Department & Interim City Manager 16 5OA-32 Orange County DA Office Page 1 of 2 ~ D. MAN CHARGED WITH SEXUALLY ASSAULTING 13-YEAR-OLD BOY IN LIBRARY BATHROOM AND 18-YEAR-OLD MALE IN AIRPORT BATHROOM Posted Date: 3/13/2012 4:20:42 PM --r, ~ran~q County District Attorney 3- res a ease Tony Rackauckas, District Attorney 401 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92701 For Immediate Release Contacts: Susan Kang Schroeder Case # 12CF0738 Chief of Staff Office: 714-347-8408 Cell: 714-292-2718 Farrah Emami Spokesperson Office: 714-347-8405 March 13, 2012 Cell: 714-323-4486 MAN CHARGED WITH SEXUALLY ASSAULTING 13-YEAR-OLD BOY IN LIBRARY BATHROOM AND 18-YEAR-OLD MALE IN AIRPORT BATHROOM SANTA ANA - A man has been charged with sexually assaulting a 13-year-old boy in a library bathroom and an 18-year-old male in an airport bathroom. Robert Howard Claudio, 23, Anaheim Hills, is charged with three felony counts of lewd acts on a child under 14, one felony count of false imprisonment by violence, one felony count of sexual battery by restraint, and one misdemeanor count of battery, with a sentencing enhancement for substantial sexual conduct with a child. If convicted, he faces a maximum sentence of 14 years in state prison. Claudio is being held on $2 million bail and is expected to be arraigned today, Tuesday, March 13, 2012, in Department CJ-1, Central Jail, Santa Ana. On Aug. 27, 2011, Claudio is accused of approaching 18-year-old John Doe #2 in a terminal at John Wayne Airport. He is accused of speaking with the victim before assaulting him by grabbing John Doe #2's penis over his clothing. http://orangecountyda. com/templates/printer5lMi'e&sp?Type=news&page=8&recordid=2... 5/15/2012 Orange County DA Office Page 2 of 2 When John Doe 4,12 went into an airport bathroom, Claudio is accused of following him inside. The defendant is accused of climbing under a restroom stall and cornering the victim inside. John Doe #2 repeatedly tried to escape and told the defendant to leave. Claudio is accused of attempting to pull the victim's underwear down, grabbing him, and asking the victim to engage in oral copulation and anal penetration. After several minutes, John Doe #2 was able to escape and immediately reported the assault. The Orange County Sheriff's Department investigated this case. The defendant was identified, but a case was not filed due to a lack of corroboration at that time. On the afternoon of March 9, 2012, Claudio is accused of approaching 13-year-old John Doe #1 at the public library in Tustin while the victim was waiting for his mother to pick him up. The defendant is accused of luring John Doe #1 into a library bathroom and molesting the victim by engaging in substantial sexual conduct. John Doe #1 told the defendant to stop and escaped from the bathroom. He ran to the Tustin Police Department (TPD) around the corner and immediately reported the sexual assault. The defendant was arrested near.the scene. Anyone with additional information or who believes they have been a victim is encouraged to contact TPD Detective Pam Hardacre at (714) 573-3248 or Supervising District Attorney Investigator Lou Gutierrez at (714) 347-8794. If convicted, Claudio will be required to register as a lifetime sex offender and will be barred from entering County recreational areas and City parks that have passed the Sex Offender Ordinance. Visit www.orangecountyda.com to read the prior press releases on the County's Sex Offender Ordinance as well as the 11 other cities that have enacted the Child Safety Zone Ordinance. Senior Deputy District Attorney Jana Hoffmann of the Sexual Assault Unit is prosecuting this case. http://orangecountyda.com/ternplates/printer j-%n *'c34sp?type=news8epage=S&-recordid=2... 5/15/2012 TLJ 5/16/12 ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AMENDING CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE XII OF THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PROXIMITY OF REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS TO CHILDREN'S FACILITIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. On May 15, 2006, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana (the "City Council") adopted Ordinance No. NS-2712, adding Article XII, sections 10-700 to 10-703 to the Santa Ana Municipal Code, thereby regulating the proximity of registered sex offenders to children's facilities. B. The City Council continues to place a high priority on maintaining public safety and finds that registered sex offenders pose a clear threat to children residing in or visiting the City. C. Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution authorizes the City to enact and enforce ordinances that regulate conditions that may be public nuisances or health hazards, or that promote social, economic or aesthetic considerations. D. Sex offenders have high recidivism rates that exceed those exhibited by other convicted criminals. The City Council must therefore take all necessary action to protect children and potential victims from these dangerous predators. E. The City Council is concerned about the high rate of recidivism among sex offenders and their dangerousness as a class. The City Council takes legislative notice of the November 2003 report issued by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics entitled, "Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994." A fifteen (15) state study of prisoners released in 1994 showed that when compared to non-sex offenders released from state prison, released sex offenders were four times more likely to Ordinance No. NS-XXX Page 1 of 9 5OA-35 be rearrested for a new sex crime. This report is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth. A copy of this report has been made available for City Council and public review at the City Clerk's office as a public record since posting of the agenda noticing consideration of this ordinance, and will remain as such. F. The City Council agrees with the U.S. Department of Justice statements in its brief to the Supreme Court that convicted sexual offenders are much more likely to repeat the offense of conviction than any other type of felon," and "clinical rehabilitative programs can enable sexual offenders to manage their criminal sexual impulses and thereby reduce the risk of sexual recidivism, [but a] vital component of those programs is for participants to come to terms with their sexual misconduct." 0. The City Council finds that since sex offender recidivism rates are empirical data but sex offender rehabilitation depends upon an individual sex offender's personal efforts and acceptance of responsibility, factors that cannot be predicted, the danger presented by sex offenders is an unacceptable risk to the health, safety and welfare of the community that requires the City's regulatory intervention. H. On April 24th, 2012, the Santa Ana Public Safety Committee recommended the City Council adopt a revised ordinance, adding and amending certain provisions of the current ordinance, based on significant public safety considerations presented to and discussed by the Committee. 1. The findings of and discussion by the Santa Ana Public Safety Committee, the Request for Council Action for this ordinance dated May 15th, 2012, and any attachments thereto, shall by this reference be incorporated herein, and together with the findings set forth in Section 1 of Santa Ana Ordinance No. NS-2712, in this ordinance, and any amendments or supplements or oral testimony before the City Council, shall constitute necessary findings for this ordinance. J. In enacting this ordinance, the City Council does not intend to punish sex offenders for their prior illegal conduct. Rather, the purpose of this chapter is to create a regulatory and non-punitive scheme to protect children and the public health, safety and welfare for the City's residents and visitors. K. It is not the intent of this ordinance to allow conduct otherwise prohibited by state law, or to contradict state law. Ordinance No. NS-XXX Page 2 of 9 50A-36 L. Nothing in this ordinance shall be deemed to modify or in any way limit restrictions placed upon a sex offender by terms and conditions of parole or probation. M. All provisions of the Santa Ana Municipal Code which are repeated herein are repeated solely in order to comply with the provisions of section 418 of the Charter of the City of Santa Ana. Any such restatement of existing provisions of the Code is not intended, nor shall it be interpreted, as constituting a new action or decision of the City Council, but rather such provisions are repeated for tracking purposes only in conformance with the Charter. Section 2. Chapter 10, Article XII of the Santa Ana Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: Article XII. - PROXIMITY RESTRICTIONS FOR REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS TO CHILDREN'S FACILITIES Sec. 10-700. - Purpose. Sec. 10-701. - Definitions. Sec. 10-702. - Prohibitions. Sec. 10-703. - Notice. Sec. 10-704. - Penalties for violation. Sec. 10-705. - Other prosecution authorized. Sec. 10-706. - Severability. Section 10-700. - Purpose. Sex offenders pose a clear threat to the children residing in, or visiting our community. Because convicted sex offenders are more likely than any other type offender to reoffend for another sexual assault, the city council desires to impose safety precautions in furtherance of the goal of protecting our children. The purpose of this regulation is to reduce the potential risk of harm to children of our community by impacting the ability for sex offenders to be in contact with unsuspecting children in locations that are primarily designed for use by, or are primarily used by children, namely, the grounds of a school, a center or facility that provides day care or children's services, and a park. The city desires to add location restrictions to such offenders where the state law is silent. Section 10-701. - Definitions. The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Ordinance No. NS-XXX Page 3 of 9 5OA-37 Child or Children means any person under the age of eighteen (18) years of age. Children's facility means any school, day care center, or park (excluding Sasscer Park), as defined in this section, the Discovery Science Center located at 2500 N. Main Street, the Bowers Kidseum located at the corner of 18th Street and Main Street, the McFadden Learning Center located at 2627 W. McFadden, aRd the Newhope Branch Library located at 122 N. Newhope Street, the Main Library located at 26 Civic Center Plaza, KidWorks located at 1902 W. Chestnut, and the Orange County Children's Therapeutic Art Center, located at 2215 N. Broadway #1. Day care center means any child day care facility other than a family day care home, and includes infant centers, preschools, extended-day care facilities and school-age child care centers, as defined in § 1596.76 of the California Health and Safety Code and licensed pursuant to the provisions of the California Child Day Care Facilities Act (Health & Safety Code 1596.70 et seq.). Leitering meanS to delay or lingerwithiR three h •^G'F°d (300) feet of a be Park means any public park or recreation or playground area or building or facility thereon within the city, owned and maintained by the city as a public park or recreation or playground area. School as used in this article shall mean any institution of learning for minors, whether public or private, offering instruction in those courses of study required by the state Education Code and maintained pursuant to standards set by the state board of education. This definition includes a nursery school, kindergarten, elementary school, middle or junior high school, senior high school, or any special institution of education, but it does not include a vocational or professional institution of higher education, including a community or junior college, college, or university. Sex Offender means: v Nom. W he has been ° ed to a °+°r- with governmental entity as a sex offender when the URder-lyiRg f eRse war. ^ ° 1. Any person who has been required to register with a governmental entity as a sex offender when the underlying offense was a crime involving a child and/or children, including but not limited to, crimes involving child pornography; or 2. Any person who has been required to register with a governmental entity as a sex offender pursuant to California Penal Code sections 290, et seq., including but not limited to persons required to register when the underlying offense was a violation of: any section listed in Ordinance No. NS-XXX Page 4 of 9 5OA-38 Penal Code Chapter 7.5, Penal Code sections 207 (kidnapping), 220 (forcible and/or in concert or assault with the intent to commit rape, sodomy, oral copulation, lewd acts upon a child or penetration), 261 (rape), 264 (rape), 286 (sodomy), 288 (lewd acts upon a child), 288a (oral copulation of a minor), 288.2 (sending harmful material to a minor with sexual intent), 288.3 (contacting a minor to commit forcible kidnapping or kidnapping for ransom, rape, child endangerment, sodomy, lewd acts upon a child, oral copulation of a minor, forcible sexual penetration, possession of child pornography), 288.5 (continuous sexual abuse of a child), 289 (forcible sexual penetration), 314 (indecent exposure), and 647.6 (child annoyance). Section 10-702. - Prohibitions. 1. A sex offender is prohibited from being on or within three hundred (300) feet of a children's facility: (a) While there for the apparent purpose of observing a child or children, or (c) If the sex offender returns at any time after having been notified to leave by the owner or any authorized official of c-uch children's facility. Three hundred (300) feet shall be measured from the property lines of the parcel so zoned or used of each children's facility without regard to intervening structures. 2. A sex offender is prohibited from entering into or upon, or being present in or upon, any children's facility. Each entry into any such area, regardless of the time period between entries, shall constitute a separate offense under this ordinance. 3. A violation of this section is a misdemeanor. Sec. 10-703. - Notice. Registered sex offenders, prior to the date this article becomes effective, residing in the city shall be mailed a copy of the ordinance from which this article derives, first class mail, to their residence with the city police department. Thereafter, sex offenders who register with the city shall be provided a copy of the ordinance from which this article derives at the time of registration. Ordinance No. NS-XXX Page 5 of 9 5OA-39 Section 10-704. - Penalties for violation. Punishment for a violation of this section shall be as follows: (1) Upon a first conviction, by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than six months, or by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500), or by both imprisonment and a fine. (2) Upon a second conviction, by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not less than ten (10) days and not more than six months, or by both imprisonment and a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500). Upon a second conviction, however, the person shall not be released on probation, parole, or any other basis until he or she has served not less than ten (10) days. (3) Upon a third or subsequent conviction, by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not less than ninety (90) days and not more than six months, or by both imprisonment and a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500). Upon a third or subsequent conviction, however, the person shall not be released on probation, parole, or any other basis until he or she has served not less than ninety (90) days. Section 10-705. - Other prosecution authorized. Nothing in this ordinance shall preclude or prohibit prosecution under any other provision of law, which includes but is not limited to prosecution of parole and/or probation violations. Section 10-706. - Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed severable and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional, and declares that the invalid portions should be severed and the balance of the ordinance be enforced. Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana Ordinance No. NS-XXX Page 6 of 9 5OA-40 hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. ADOPTED this day of 2012 Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By: Teresa L. Judd Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers Ordinance No. NS-XXX Page 7 of 9 5OA-41 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY 1, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify that the attached Ordinance No. NS-XXX to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on , and that said ordinance was published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana. Date: _ Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Ordinance No. NS-XXX Page 8 of 9 5OA-42 "Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994" U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Published November 2003 Ordinance No. NS-XXX Page 9 of 9 5OA-43 Bureau of Justice Statistics Offender characteristics Sentences and criminal records Comparisons to other offenders Rearrests and reconvictions Rearrests for sex crimes against children U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20531 John Ashcroft Attorney General Office of Justice Programs Deborah J. Daniels Assistant Attorney General World Wide Web site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov Bureau of Justice Statistics Lawrence A. Greenfeld Director World Wide Web site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs For information contact: National Criminal Justice Reference Service 1-800-851-3420 5OA-45 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs y Bureau of Justice Statistics q, Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 By Patrick A. Langan, Ph.D. Erica L. Schmitt and Matthew R. Durose Statisticians, Bureau of Justice Statistics November 2003, NCJ 198281 5OA-46 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Lawrence A. Greenfeld, Director Patrick A. Langan, Erica L. Schmitt, and Matthew R. Durose, all BJS statis- ticians, wrote this report. Carolyn Williams and Tom Hester edited and produced it. November 2003, NCJ 198281 5OA-47 Contents Introduction and highlights 1 Four measures of recidivism 13 State where rearrested for any type of crime Definitions 3 Four measures All sex offenders (table 19) All sex offenders (table 7) Sex offenders compared to Imprisonment offense Sex offenders compared to non-sex offenders Sex offender non-sex offenders Rapists and sexual assaulters Rapist Rapists and sexual assaulters (table 19) Sexual assaulter (table 7) Child molesters and statutory Child molester Child molesters and statutory rapists (table 20) Statutory rapist rapists (table 8) First release Time to recidivism Rearrest and reconviction Prior arrest All sex offenders (table 9) for a new sex crime 24 Rearrest Rapists and sexual assaulters Rearrest and reconviction Reconviction (table 9) All sex offenders (table 21) Returned to prison Child molesters and statutory Sex offenders compared to - with a new sentence rapists (table 10) non-sex offenders - with or without a new sentence Rapists and sexual assaulters Rearrest for any type of crime 18 (table 21) Demographic characteristics 7 Child molesters and statutory Demographic characteristics rapists (table 22) All sex offenders (table 1) All sex offenders (table 1 1) Time to rearrest Rapists and sexual assaulters (table 1) Rapists and sexual assaulters All sex offenders (table 23) Child molesters and statutory rapists (table 11) Rapists and sexual assaulters (table 2) Child molesters and statutory (table 23) rapists (table 12) Child molesters and statutory Sentence length and time served 9 Time served before 1994 release rapists (table 24) All sex offenders (table 13) Demographic characteristics All sex offenders (table 3) Rapists and sexual assaulters All sex offenders (table 25) Rapists and sexual assaulters (table 3) (table 13) Time served before 1994 release Child molesters and statutory rapists Child molesters and statutory All sex offenders (table 26) (table 4) rapists (table 14) Prior arrest for any type of crime Prior arrest for any type of crime All sex offenders (table 27) Prior criminal record 11 All sex offenders (table 15) Rapists and sexual assaulters Rapists and sexual assaulters (table 27) All sex offenders (table 5) (table 15) Child molesters and statutory Sex offenders compared to Child molesters and statutory rapists (table 28) non-sex offenders rapists (table 16) Number of prior arrests for any type Rapists and sexual assaulters (table 5) Number of prior arrests for any type of crime Child molesters and statutory rapists of crime All sex offenders (table 29) (table 6) All sex offenders (table 17) Prior arrest for a sex crime Rapists and sexual assaulters All sex offenders (table 30) (table 17) Rapists and sexual assaulters Child molesters and statutory (table 30) rapists (table 18) Child molesters and statutory rapists (table 31) State where rearrested for a sex crime All sex offenders (table 32) Sex offenders compared to non-sex offenders Rapists and sexual assaulters (table 32) Child molesters and statutory rapists (table 33) Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 iii 5OA-48 Rearrest for a sex crime Rearrest for other against a child 30 types of crime 34 Undercounts of sex crimes All sex offenders (table 41) against children Rapists and sexual assaulters No data on precise ages (table 41) of molested children Child molesters and statutory Rearrest rapists (table 42) All sex offenders (table 34) Sex offenders compared to non-sex Victims of sex crimes 36 offenders Rapists and sexual assaulters Characteristics of victims of rape or (table 34) sexual assault (unnumbered Child molesters and statutory table) rapists (table 35) Prior arrest for a sex crime Methodology 37 against a child All sex offenders (table 36) Number of sex offenders released Rapists and sexual assaulters from State prisons in 1994 and (table 36) number selected for this report, Child molesters and statutory by State (Appendix table) rapists (table 37) Molester's and child's age at time of imprisonment offense Child molesters (table 38) State where rearrested for a sex crime against a child All sex offenders (table 39) Sex offenders compared to non-sex offenders Rapists and sexual assaulters (table 39) Child molesters and statutory rapists (table 40) iv Recidivism of Sex Offenders Re/eased from Prison in 1994 5OA-49 Introduction and highlights Introduction Highlights Before being released from prison in 1994, most of the sex offenders had In 1994, prisons in 15 States released The 15 States in the study released been arrested several times for differ- 9,691 male sex offenders. The 9,691 272,111 prisoners altogether in 1994. ent types of crimes. The more prior men are two-thirds of all the male sex Among the 272,111 were 9,691 men arrests they had, the greater their likeli- offenders released from State prisons whose crime was a sex offense (3.6% hood of being rearrested for another in the United States in 1994. This of releases). sex crime after leaving prison. Re- report summarizes findings from a leased sex offenders with 1 prior arrest survey that tracked the 9,691 for 3 full On average the 9,691 sex offenders (the arrest for the sex crime for which years after their release. The report served 31/2 years of their 8-year they were imprisoned) had the lowest documents their "recidivism," as sentence (45% of the prison sentence) rearrest rate for a sex crime, about 3 /o; measured by rates of rearrest, recon- before being released in 1994. those with 2 or 3 prior arrests for some type of crime, 4 /o; 4 to 6 prior arrests, viction, and reimprisonment during the Rearrest for a new sex crime 6%; 7 to 10 prior arrests, 7%; and 11 3-year followup period. to 15 prior arrests, 8%. Compared to non-sex offenders This report gives recidivism rates for released from State prisons, released Rearrest for a sex crime against a child the 9,691 combined total. It also sex offenders were 4 times more likely separates the 9,691 into four overlap- to be rearrested for a sex crime. The 9,691 released sex offenders ping categories and gives recidivism Within the first 3 years following their included 4,295 men who were in prison rates for each category: release from prison in 1994, 5.3% (517 for child molesting. - 3,115 released rapists of the 9,691 ) of released sex offenders were rearrested for a sex crime. The Of the children these 4,295 men were - 6,576 released sexual assaulters rate for the 262,420 released non-sex imprisoned for molesting, 60% were offenders was lower, 1.3% (3,328 of age 13 or younger. - 4,295 released child molesters 262,420). - 443 released statutory rapists. Half of the 4,295 child molesters were The first 12 months following their 20 or more years older than the child The 9,691 sex offenders were released release from a State prison was the they were imprisoned for molesting. from State prisons in these 15 States: period when 40% of sex crimes were Arizona, Maryland, North Carolina, allegedly committed by the released On average, the 4,295 child molesters California, Michigan, Ohio, Delaware, sex offenders. were released after serving about 3 Minnesota, Oregon, Florida, New years of their 7-year sentence (43% of Jersey, Texas, Illinois, New York, Recidivism studies typically find that, the prison sentence). and Virginia. the older the prisoner when released, the lower the rate of recidivism. Compared to the 9,691 sex offenders Results reported here on released sex and to the 262,420 non-sex offenders, offenders did not follow the familiar released child molesters were more pattern. While the lowest rate of likely to be rearrested for child molest- rearrest for a sex crime (3.3%) did ing. Within the first 3 years following belong to the oldest sex offenders release from prison in 1994, 3.3% (141 (those age 45 or older), other compari- of 4,295) of released child molesters sons between older and younger were rearrested for another sex crime prisoners did not consistently show against a child. The rate for all 9,691 older prisoners' having the lower sex offenders (a category that includes rearrest rate. the 4,295 child molesters) was 2.2% (209 of 9,691 The rate for all 262,420 The study compared recidivism rates non-sex offenders was less than half of among prisoners who served different 1% (1,042 of the 262,420). lengths of time before being released from prison in 1994. No clear associa- Of the approximately 141 children tion was found between how long they allegedly molested by the child moles- were in prison and their recidivism rate. ters after their release from prison in 1994, 79% were age 13 or younger. Recidivism of Sex Offenders Re/eased from Prison in 1994 1 5OA-50 Released child molesters with more Returned to prison for any reason than 1 prior arrest for child molesting were more likely to be rearrested for Within 3 years following their release, child molesting (7.3%) than released 38.6% (3,741 ) of the 9,691 released child molesters with no more than 1 sex offenders were returned to prison. such prior arrest (2.4%). They were returned either because they received another prison sentence Rearrest for any type of crime for a new crime, or because of a technical violation of their parole, such Compared to non-sex offenders as failing a drug test, missing an released from State prison, sex offend- appointment with their parole officer, or ers had a lower overall rearrest rate. being arrested for another crime. When rearrests for any type of crime (not just sex crimes) were counted, the study found that 43% (4,163 of 9,691) of the 9,691 released sex offenders were rearrested. The overall rearrest rate for the 262,420 released non-sex offenders was higher, 68% (179,391 of 262,420). The rearrest offense was a felony for about 75% of the 4,163 rearrested sex offenders. By comparison, 84% of the 179,391 rearrested non-sex offenders were charged by police with a felony. Reconviction for a new sex crime Of the 9,691 released sex offenders, 3.5% (339 of the 9,691 ) were recon- victed for a sex crime within the 3-year followup period. Reconviction for any type of crime Of the 9,691 released sex offenders, 24% (2,326 of the 9,691) were recon- victed for a new offense. The reconvic- tion offense included all types of crimes. 2 Recidivism of Sex Offenders Re/eased from Prison in 9994 5OA-51 Definitions Imprisonment offense The 9,691 indecent exposure and peeping tom), other nonforcible sexual act with a prisoners were men released from bestiality and other unnatural acts, minor or with someone unable to give State prisons in 1994 after serving adultery, incest between adults, and legal or factual consent. As used some portion of the sentence they bigamy. Commercialized sexual throughout this report, "rape" always received for committing a sex crime. offenses include prostitution, pimping, means "forcible rape." "Statutory rape" The sex crime they committed is and pornography. As used throughout is not a type of forcible rape. referred to throughout the report as this report, the terms "sex crimes" and their "imprisonment offense." Their "sex offenders" refer exclusively to A total of 3,115 sex offenders are imprisonment offense should not be violent sex offenses. identified in the report as released confused with any new offense they rapists - about a third (32%) of the may have committed after release. Each of the 9,691 sex offenders in this 9,691 released sex offenders. report is classified as either a rapist or However, enough information to clearly Sex offender The 9,691 released men a sexual assaulter. Classification was distinguish rapists from other sexual were all violent sex offenders. They are based on information about the impris- assaulters was not always available in called "violent" because the crimes onment offense contained in prison the prison records used to categorize they were imprisoned for are widely records supplied for each sex offender sex offenders into different types. defined in State statutes as "violent" released from prison in 1994. Also Consequently, the number of rapists sex offenses. "Violent" means the based on imprisonment offense infor- among the 9,691 was almost certainly offender used or threatened force in mation. an inmate could be categorized greater than 3,115; how much greater the commission of the crime or, while as a child molester and/or a statutory is unknown. not actually using force, the offender rapist. Classification to either of these did not have the victim's "factual" or two categories is in addition to, not An obstacle to identifying rapists from "legal" consent. Factual consent means separate from, classification as a rapist penal code information is that the label that, for physical reasons, the victim did or sexual assaulter. For example, of "rape" is not used in about half the 50 not give consent, such as when the the 3,115 sex offenders classified as States. However, released sex offend- offender had intercourse with a rapists, 338 were child molesters. Or, ers whose imprisonment offense was sedated hospital patient or with a to put it another way, the imprisonment rape could still be identified. To illus- woman who had fallen unconscious offense for 338 of the 4,295 child trate, in one State, the term criminal from excessive drug taking. "Legal" molesters identified in this report was sexual conduct refers to all types of sex consent means that the victim willingly rape. Similarly, 3,957 of the 4,295 child crimes. The statutory language was participated but, in the eyes of the law, molesters were also sexual assaulters. consulted to determine if an offender's the victim was not old enough or not sexual imprisonment offense involved "inter- sufficiently mentally capable (perhaps Child Total Rapists assaulters course" that was "forcible," in accor- due to mental illness or mental retarda- molesters 4.295 338 3,957 dance with the definition of rape used tion to give his or her "legal" consent. Statutory rapists 443 21 422 in this report. If the offense was not found to involve intercourse (or State statutes give many different The report gives statistics for all sex penetration), then the inmate was not offenders and each of the four types - classified as a rapist. The same was rape," "statutory rape," "object rape," rapists, sexual assaulters, child moles- true of force; if the statutory language "sexual assault," "sexual abuse," "forci_ ters, and statutory rapists. (See did not include a reference to force (or ble sodomy," "sexual misconduct," Methodology on page 37 for details on coercion), the offense was not catego- "criminal sexual conduct," "lascivious how sex offenders were separated into rized as rape. conduct," "carnal abuse," "sexual categories.) contact," "unlawful sexual intercourse," Sexual assaulter By definition in the "sexual battery," "unlawful sexual activ- Rapist "Violent sex crimes" are report, all sex offenders are either ity," "lewd act with minor," "indecent separated into two categories: "rape" "rapists" or "sexual assaulters." Sex liberties with a child," "carnal knowl- (short for "forcible rape") and "other offenders whose imprisonment offense edge of a child," "incest with a minor," sexual assault." As used throughout could not be positively identified as and "child molesting." this report the term "rapist" refers to a ..rape" were placed in the "sexual released sex offender whose imprison- assault" category. To the extent that "Violent" sex offenses are distinguished ment offense was defined by State law rapists were reliably distinguished from from "nonviolent" sex offenses and as forcible intercourse (vaginal, anal, or sexual assaulters, "sexual assaulters" oral) with a female or male. Rape identified in this re from "commercialized sex offenses." port were released Nonviolent sex offenses include morals includes "forcible sodomy" and sex offenders whose imprisonment and decency offenses (for example, "penetration with a foreign object." Rape excludes statutory rape or any Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 3 5OA-52 offense was "sexual assault," defined the 9,691 sex offenders' offenses were consent," meaning below the minimum as one of the following: children, and what percentage were age at which a person can legally 1. forcible sexual acts, not amounting adults. consent to having intercourse. Age of to intercourse, with a victim of any age, consent in the 50 States ranges from 2. nonforcible sexual acts with a minor In short, the 4,295 released child 14 to 18. Most States set age of (such as statutory rape or incest with a molesters in this report were men consent at 16. In those States, consen- minor or fondling), or who - sual intercourse with someone age 16 3. nonforcible sexual acts with a. had forcible intercourse or older is usually not a criminal someone unable to give legal or factual with a child or offense, but intercourse with someone consent because of mental or physical b. committed "statutory rape" below 16 generally is. However, all reasons (for example, a mentally ill or (meaning nonforcible intercourse States make exceptions to their age retarded person or a sedated hospital with a child) or rules. Consequently, consensual inter- patient). c. with or without force, engaged in course with children below the age of any other type of sexual contact consent is not always a crime, and A total of 6,576 sex offenders are with a child. consensual intercourse with children identified in this report as released Of the 4,295, at least 338 (about 8%) who are old enough to give consent is sexual assaulters. The 6,576 sexual had forcible intercourse, and at least not always legally permissible. assaulters made up about two-thirds 443 (10%) committed statutory rape. (68%) of the 9,691 released sex Exceptions for children below age of offenders. Statutory rapist State laws define consent Certain statutory exceptions various circumstances in which inter- exist to legal prohibitions against Child molester Many of the 9,691 sex course between consenting partners is nonforcible intercourse with children offenders were released prisoners illegal: for example, when one of the who are below the age of consent. whose imprisonment offense was the partners is married or when the two are One way exceptions are made in rape or sexual assault of a child. blood relatives or when one is a "child." statutes is by specifying the minimum Throughout the report, released sex Laws that criminalize consensual inter- age the offender must be (for example, offenders whose forcible or nonforcible course based solely on the marital at least age 18, at least age 20) for sex crime was against a child are status of the partners are called intercourse to be unlawful. Persons referred to as "child molesters." The "adultery laws." Those that criminalize below this minimum age generally sex crime did not have to involve inter- it based solely on blood relationship cannot be prosecuted. Another course to fit the definition of child are "incest laws." Laws that prohibit common way exceptions are made molestation. consensual sexual intercourse based (virtually every State has these provi- solely on the ages of the partners are sions in its laws) is by specifying how Of the 9,691 sex offenders, 4,295 were called "statutory rape laws." much older than the victim the perpe- identified as child molesters based on trator must be for criminal prosecution prison records made available for the Statutory rape pertains exclusively to to occur. For example, by law in one study. However, because complete consensual intercourse, as opposed State where age of consent is 16, no information was not always supplied, to other types of sexual contact with a prosecution can occur unless the age not every child molester could be child, such as forcible intercourse, difference is at least 3 years. In that identified. Of the 9,691 released sex forcible fondling, or consensual State it is legal for a 17-year-old to offenders, undoubtedly more than fondling. Statutory rape is one specific have consensual intercourse with a 4,295 were child molesters, but 4,295 form of what this study calls "child 15-year-old, even though 15 is below represent all who could be identified molestation." The child victim of statu- the age of consent; but the same act from the information available. One tory rape can be male or female, and with a 15-year-old is illegal when the reason child molesters were not easily the offender can be male or female. other is 18. That is because the identified from penal code information The offender can be almost any 17-year-old is not 3 years older than is that most States do not use the term relative ("statutory rape" includes incest the 15-year-old, whereas the 18-year- "child molester" in their penal code, with a child), an unrelated person well old is. The aim of such exceptions is to Nevertheless, all States have laws known to the child (such as a school distinguish teen behavior from exploita- against sexual activity with children, teacher, neighbor, or minister), tive relationships between adults and which does facilitate identification. As a someone the child hardly knows, or a children. Another exception is consen- result of the uncertainty regarding the stranger. sual intercourse between husband and number of child molesters among the wife; no prosecution can occur if one 9,691 sex offenders, the study cannot Statutory rape laws define a "child" as a spouse is below the age of consent. say what percentage of the victims of person who is below the "age of 4 Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 5OA-53 Exceptions for children o/d enough to (as defined above). It does not pertain this released prisoner's criminal record, give consent Certain adults can be to any earlier prison sentences offend- he is considered to have four prior prosecuted for having consensual ers may have served for some other arrests. intercourse with a child who has offense. reached the age of consent. For The second way of measuring prior example, in one State it is a third Attention is drawn to first releases arrests did include the imprisonment degree felony for a psychotherapist to because certain statistics in the report offense of the released sex offender. have intercourse with a 17-year-old - for example, "average time served," Prior arrest statistics that did include client even though 17 is over the "percent of sentence served," "child the imprisonment offense are found in minimum age of consent in that State. molester's age when he committed the sections of the report that describe the In another State, where an adult gener- sex crime for which he was recidivism rates of the 9,691 sex ally cannot be prosecuted for having imprisoned" - could only be computed offenders following their release from consensual intercourse with a 16-year- for those prisoners classified as first prison. In this case, any arrest that had old, an exception is made when the releases. For such statistics, date first occurred on a date prior to the sex adult is the child's school teacher. In admitted to prison for their imprison- offender's release from prison was that case the teacher can be prose- ment offense was needed. Since considered a prior arrest. By definition, cuted for a "class A" misdemeanor. prison records made available for the all 9,691 sex offenders had at least one Exceptions are made for other profes- study only provided this admission date arrest prior to their release, which was sions as well (clergy, for example). on first releases, first releases neces- the sex crime arrest responsible for sarily formed the basis for the their being in prison in 1994. This In this report, 443 of the 9,691 released statistics. means that the sex offender who was sex offenders are identified as statutory arrested on four different dates prior to rapists based on information supplied Prior arrest Statistics on prior arrests the arrest for his imprisonment offense by the prisons that released them. were calculated using arrest dates under the first definition of prior arrest There were more than 443 statutory from the official criminal records of the was, under this second definition, rapists among the 9,691 released male 9,691 released sex offenders. Only classified as having five prior arrests, sex offenders, but the 443 are all that dates of arrest were counted, not the once his imprisonment offense is could be positively identified with the number of arrest charges associated included. limited information available. One with that arrest date. To illustrate, one Thirteen tables in the report provide reason statutory rapists are not easily man was arrested on March 5, 1970, statistics on prior arrests (and, in 2 of identified from penal code information and that one arrest resulted in 3 the 13, prior convictions and prior available on the released sex offenders separate arrest charges being filed imprisonments). In tables 15, 16, 17, is that most States do not use the term against him. In this study, that March 5 m 27 28 29 30, 31, e36, s and 37, "statutory rape" in their laws. arrest is considered one prior arrest. prior arrests" includes the sex crime First release Though all 9,691 sex Prior arrests were measured two differ- arrest for the imprisonment offense; offenders in the study were released in ent ways in this report. The first way these tables have the heading "prior to 1994 1994, for a fourth of the offenders 1994 did not include the imprisonment release." In tables 5 and 6, "prior was not the first year of release since offense for which the sex offender was arrests" excludes that arrest; these receiving their prison sentence. This in prison in 1994. Prior arrest statistics tables have the heading prior to the group had previously served a portion that did not include the imprisonment sex crime for which imprisoned." of the sentence and were released, offense are found in sections of the In all tables, the same counting rule then violated parole and were returned report that describe the criminal was used: arrest dates, not arrest to prison to continue serving time still records of the 9,691 sex offenders at charges, were e counted to obtain the left on that sentence. For the remaining the time of release from prison. In this number of arrests. 75% of sex offenders released, the case, any arrest that had occurred on a prior a 1994 release was their "first release," date prior to the sex offender's arrest Rearrest Unless stated otherwise, this meaning their first discharge from for his imprisonment offense was recidivism measure is defined as the prison since being convicted and considered a prior arrest. For example, number or percentage of released sentenced to prison. one released sex offender was found to prisoners who, within the first three have four different dates of arrest "First release" should not be confused prior to the date of arrest for his impris- years following their 1994 release, with first ever release from a prison. onment offense. Those four arrests were arrested either in the same State "First release" pertains solely to the resulted in 17 different charges being that released them (in this report those sentence for the imprisonment offense brought against him. When describing arrests are called "in-State" arrests) or in a different State (those arrests are Recidivism of Sex Offenders Re/eased from Prison in 1994 5 5OA-54 referred to as "out-of-State" arrests). convictions in RAP sheets. For such Return to prison Two recidivism Data on arrests came from State RAP reasons, this study uses rearrest more measures are returned to prison - sheets and FBI RAP sheets. RAP often than reconviction as the measure with a new sentence sheets (Records of Arrest and Prose- of recidivism. with or without a new sentence. cution) are law enforcement records Recidivism defined as Returned to intended to document a person's entire Rearrest forms a conservative meas- prison with a new sentence pertains adult criminal history, including every ure of reoffending because many exclusively to sex offenders who, within arrest, prosecution and adjudication for crimes do not result in arrest. Not all 3 years following release, were recon- a felony or serious misdemeanor types of crime are alike in this regard. victed for any new crime in any State offense. Arrests, prosecutions and Crimes committed in nonpublic places following their release and received a adjudications for minor traffic offenses, (such as in the victim's home) by one new prison sentence for the new crime. public drunkenness, and other petty family member against another (such crimes are not as fully recorded as as by the husband against his wife, or Recidivism defined as Returned to those for serious crimes. The "percent by the father against his own child) are prison with or without a new sentence rearrested" is calculated by dividing the a type that is less likely than many includes resentenced offenders plus number rearrested by the number other types to be reported to police any who were returned to prison within released from prison in 1994. and, consequently, less likely to result 3 years because they had violated a in arrest. Sex crimes, particularly those technical condition of their release. All measures of recidivism based on against children, are a specific Technical violations include things such criminal records are subject to two example of this type. While some sex as failing a drug test, missing an types of errors. Type 1 errors arise offenders in this study probably com- appointment with their parole officer, or when the arrest or the conviction in the mitted a new sex crime after their being arrested for a new crime. Offend- released prisoner's record is for a release and were not arrested or con- ers returning to prison for such viola- crime that person did not commit. victed, the study cannot say how many. tions are sometimes referred to as Type 2 errors arise when the released "technical violators." prisoner commits a crime but he is not As mentioned above, one reason why arrested for it, or, even if he is, the sex offenders are not arrested is that Prisons should not be confused with arrest does not result in his conviction. no one calls the police. Results from jails. A prison is a State or Federal the National Crime Victimization Survey correctional facility reserved for Some amount of type 1 and type 2 indicate that the offenses of convicted persons with relatively long error is inevitable, however recidivism rape/sexual assault are the least likely sentences (generally over a year). is measured. But that does not mean crimes to be reported to the police. A jail is a local correctional facility for that all recidivism measures are equally (See Reporting Crime to the Po/ice, convicted persons with short sentences suitable, no matter the purpose they 9993-2000, March 2003, <http://Www. or for persons awaiting trial. Returns to are intended to serve. The main ojp.usdoj/bjs/abstract/rcpOO.htm>.) prison refer to any prison, not neces- purpose of this recidivism study was to sarily the same prison that released the document the percentage of sex Reconviction Except where stated offender in 1994. offenders who continued their involve- otherwise, this recidivism measure ment in various types of crime after pertains to State and Federal convic- The "percent returned to prison with a their release from prison in 1994. The tions in any State (not just convictions new sentence" is calculated by dividing more suitable measure for that is the in the State that released them) in the the number returned to prison with a one with the fewest type 2 errors: the three years following release. Informa- new sentence by the number released one, in other words, less prone to tion on convictions came from State from prison in 1994. The "percent saying someone is not committing and FBI RAP sheets. RAP sheets are returned to prison with or without a new crimes when he actually is. Between intended to document every conviction sentence " is calculated by dividing the rearrest and reconviction as the recidi- for a felony or serious misdemeanor, number returned to prison with or vism measure, the one less likely to but not every conviction for a minor without a new sentence by the number make that type of error is rearrest. offense. "Percent reconvicted" is calcu- released from prison in 1994. One reason is that the rigorous lated by dividing the number recon- standard used to convict someone - victed by the number released from Data on returns with a new sentence "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" - prison in 1994. (It is not calculated by are based on State and FBI RAP makes it certain that guilty persons will dividing the number reconvicted by the sheets. Data on returns with or without sometimes go free. Another reason is number rearrested.) a new sentence are based on State record keeping: the justice system and FBI RAP sheets plus prison does better at recording arrests than records. 6 Recidivism of Sex Offenders Re/eased from Prison in 9994 5OA-55 Demographic characteristics All sex offenders Table 1. Demographic characteristics of sex offenders released Of the 9,691 released sex offenders, from prison in 1994, by type of sex offender approximately - Percent of released prisoners - 6,503 (67.1 % of the 9,691) were Prisoner Sexual white males (table 1) characteristic All Rapists assaulters - 3,053 (31.5%) were black males Total 100% 100% 100% - 136 (1.4%) were males of other races Race (Asian, Pacific Islander, American white 67.1% 55.7% 72.5% Indian, and Alaska Native). Black 31.5 42.6 262 Other 1.4 1.7 1.3 The vast majority of sex offenders Hispanic origin were non-Hispanic males (80.1%). Hispanic 19.9% 22.6% 18.9% Half were over the age of 35 when Non-Hispanic 80.1 77.4 81.1 released. Age at release 18-24' 12.2% 10.6% 13.0% Rapists and sexual assaulters 25-29 16.4 17.3 16.0 30-34 20.0 22.4 18.8 35-39 19.1 20.9 18.3 As defined in this report, all sex offend- 40-44 13.3 13.3 13.3 ers are either "rapists" or "sexual 45 or older 19.0 15.5 20.6 assaulters." Of the 9,691 released sex Age at release offenders, 3,115 were rapists and the Average 36.8 yrs 36.1 yrs 37.1 yrs remaining 6,576 were sexual Median 35.3 34.9 35.5 assaulters. Total released 9,691 3,115 6,576 Of the 3, 1 1 5 rapists, 1,735 (55.7% of Note: The 9,691 sex offenders were released in 15 States. Data identifying 3,115) were white males and 1,327 race were reported for 98.5% of 9,691 released sex offenders; Hispanic (42.6%) were black males. Of the origin for 82.5%; age for virtually 100%. 'Age at release 18-24 includes the few who were under age 18 6,576 sexual assaulters, 4,768 (72.5% when released from prison in 1994. of 6,576) were white males and 1,723 (26.2%) were black males. Rapists and sexual assaulters were close in age at time of release: over 70% were age 30 or older. Median age at time of release was about 35 years for both rapists and sexual assaulters. Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 7 5OA-56 Child molesters and statutory rapists Table 2. Demographic characteristics of child molesters and statutory rapists Some of the 9,691 sex offenders were released from prison in 1994 men whose imprisonment offense was Percent of released a sex offense against a child. Precisely prisoners how many is unknown. In this report, Prisoner Child Statutory - the 4,295 who could be identified are characteristic molesters rapists called "child molesters" (table 2). The Total 100% 100% 4,295 identified child molesters trace included some (443 out of the 4,295) white 77.6% 73.2% whose specific sex offense against a Black 20.7 24.8 child was non-forcible intercourse. Other 1.7 2.0 These 443 are called "statutory Hispanic origin rapists." There were more than 443 Hispanic 23.5% 15.9% among the 4,295, but 443 were all that Non-Hispanic 76.5 84.1 could be identified from the limited Age at release information obtained for the study. 18-24' 11.4% 24.8% 25-29 15.4 21.2 Both the 4,295 child molesters and the 30-34 17.7 14.7 443 statutory rapists were predomi- 35-39 18.6 14.9 40-44 14.3 10.2 nantly non-Hispanic white males. 45 or older 22.6 14.2 Nearly three-fourths of the child moles- ters (73.2%) were age 30 or older. Just Age at release over half the statutory rapists Average 37.8 yrs 3 yrs rY (54%) Median 36.5 310 1.0 were 30 or older at the time they were released from prison. Total released 4,295 443 Note: The 4,295 child molesters were released in 15 States; Among the released child molesters the 443 statutory rapists in 11 States. Because of overlapping definitions, there were 3,333 white men (77.6% of all statutory rapists also appear under the column "child molesters." Data identifying race were reported for 99.5% of 4,295 released child 4,295) and 889 black men (20.7%). molesters; Hispanic origin for 87.8%; and age for 100%_ The 443 statutory rapists included 324 "Age at release 18-24 includes the few who were under age 18 white men (73.2% of 443) and 110 when released from prison in 1994. black men (24.8%). 8 Recidivism of Sex Offenders Re/eased from Prison in 1994 5OA-57 Sentence length and time served All sex offenders - on average a rapist spent more time Depending on the length of their in confinement before being released sentence and the amount of time they All 9,691 sex offenders selected to be (5'/e years) than a sexual assaulter had served before being released, in this study had a prison sentence Oust under 3 years) some of the released sex offenders greater than 1 year. The shortest terms - median sentence length was longer would have been on parole (or some were a day over 1 year; the longest other type of conditional release) for rapists (half of the rapists had a were life sentences. The fact that sex sentence of 9 years or more, while half throughout the full 3 years they were offenders with a life sentence (18 of the sexual assaulters had a tracked in this study. For example, offenders in the study) were among the sentence of 5M. years or more) when released, 63.3% of rapists had 9,691 released in 1994 should not be more than 3 years left to serve on their surprising because only rarely do life - 39.2% of the 3,115 rapists were in sentence. In their case, any new sentences in the United States literally prison for over 5 years prior to release, crimes they committed during this mean imprisonment for the remainder while 12.5% of the 6,576 sexual 3-year followup period were offenses of a person's life. Most felons receiving assaulters served 61 months or more committed while still on parole. By a life sentence are eventually paroled - rapists served 49% of their sentence comparison, just over half of released (unpublished tabulation of data from before being released, compared to sexual assaulters had more than 3 the 1997 BJS Survey of Inmates in 43% for sexual assaulters. years left to serve. State Correctional Facilities). On average, a sex offender released _ from prison in 1994 had an 8-year term Table 3. Sentence length and time served for sex offenders released and served 31/2 years of that sentence from prison in 1994, by type of sex offender (45%) before being released (table 3). Half of the released sex offenders had Sexual a sentence length of 6 years or less. Characteristic All Rapists assaulters Half had served no more than a third of Sentence length (in months) their sentence before being released. Mean 97.3 mo 134.0 mo 82.5 mo When released, the majority (54.5%)- Median 72.0 108.0 66.0 had more than 3 years of their Time served (in months) sentence remaining to be served. Mean 42.3 mo 62.6 mo 34.1 mo Median 32.3 48.2 26.5 Rapists and sexual assaulters Percent of sentence served 44.9% 49.3% 43.1% Upon release in 1994, percent Rape always involves forcible inter- who had served - course, whereas sexual assault (as the 6 months or less 4.5% 3.1% 5.0% term is used here) never does, 7-12 9-5 3.0 12.1 13-18 16.5 10.5 19.0 although it can involve other types of 19-24 9.7 5.1 11.5 forcible sexual assault. Because forci- 25-30 8.1 6.1 8.9 ble intercourse is considered to be a 31-36 9.9 8.0 10.7 37-60 more serious offense than other forms 61 months 21.6 24.9 20.2 61 months or more 20.2 39.2 12.5 of forcible sexual assault, penalties for rape are generally more severe than upon release in 1994, percent with time still remaining ng to be served those for sexual assault. 6 months or less 2.8% 2-4% 2.9% 7-12 5.0 5.7 4.7 Consistent with the more serious 13-18 8.4 6.2 9.2 nature of rape - 19-24 12.8 9.3 14.2 n Pe 25-30 8.1 6.2 8.8 - on average a released rapist had a 31-36 8.5 6.9 9.1 37-60 25.1 22.8 26.0 longer sentence Oust over 1 1 years) 61 months or more 29.4 40.5 24.9 than a sexual assaulter Oust under 7 years) Total first releases 6,470 1,859 5,860 Note: The 6,470 sex offenders were released in 13 States. Figures are based on first releases only. First releases include only those offenders leaving prison for the first time since beginning their sentence. First releases exclude those who left prison in 1994 but who had previously been released under the same sentence and had returned to prison for violating the conditions of release. Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 9 5OA-58 Child molesters and sexual assaulters Table 4. Sentence length and time served for child molesters On average, child molesters were and statutory rapists released from prison in 1994 released after serving nearly 3 years Child Statutory (33.7 months) of their nearly 7-year Characteristic molesters rapists sentence (81.1 months) (table 4). Sentence length (in months) Statutory rapists were released after Mean 81.1 mo 49.5 mo serving a little over 2 years of their Median 66.0 36.0 approximately 4-year sentence. Upon Time served (in months) release, almost half of the child moles- Mean 33.7 mo 27.6 mo ters still had at least 3 years of their Median 25.8 19.4 sentence remaining to be served. Percent of sentence served 43.3% 52.8% compared to 15% of statutory rapists. Upon release in 1994, percent who had served - 6 months or less 5.7% 9.6% 7-12 12.6 20.4 13-18 20.8 18.2 19-24 10.1 14.3 25-30 7.2 8.6 31-36 11.2 7.0 37-60 19.7 13.4 61 months or more 12.8 8.6 Upon release in 1994, percent with time still remaining to be served 6 months or less 2.5% 10.8% 7-12 5.4 17.4 13-18 10.2 26.9 19-24 16.1 13.1 25-30 7.9 8.5 31-36 8.9 8.5 37-60 24.9 9.2 61 months or more 24.1 5.6 Total first releases 3,104 317 Note: The 3,104 child molesters were released in 13 States; the 317 statutory rapists in 10 States. Because of overlapping definitions, all statutory rapists also appear under the column "child molesters." Figures are based on first releases only. First releases include only those offenders leaving prison for the first time since beginning their sentence. First releases exclude those who left prison in 1994 but who had previously been released under the same sentence and had returned to prison for violating the conditions of release- 10 Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 5OA-59 Prior criminal record All sex offenders All 9,691 were in prison in 1994 imprisonment offense was in 1982. In Arrests and convictions for minor traffic because they had been arrested and the early part of 1983, 4 months after offenses, public drunkenness, and convicted for a sex offense. For 71.5% his arrest, he was convicted of sexual other petty crimes are often not of the 9,691 men (6,929), that arrest assault and began serving a 25-year entered into official criminal records. was their first ever for a violent sex prison term. Eleven years later, in 1994 Since official records formed the basis crime. In other words, these 6,929 men at age 47, he was released. for this study's statistics on arrests and had no previous arrest for a sex 0 convictions, these statistics understate offense. For the remaining 28.5 /o For 75% of the 9,691 sex offenders, levels of contact with the justice (2.762 men), that arrest was not their their 1994 release represents their first system. Statistics shown throughout first sex offense arrest. Some had release since being sentenced for their this report on arrests and convictions been arrested once before for a sex sex offense. The remaining 25% had pertain mostly to arrests and convic- crime and some two or more times previously served time under the same before. sentence, had been released, had tions for felonies and serious violated one or more conditions of their misdemeanors. parole and, consequently, were To illustrate, one of the 9,691 sex offenders in this study had his first returned to prison to continue serving Statistics on prior arrests in this section arrest for a sex crime in 1966, when he time still remaining on their sentence. of the report do not include the impris- was age 19; he was also arrested for onment offense for which the sex sex crimes in the 1970's and 1980's, in offender was in prison in 1994. three different States. The arrest for his At the time the 9,691 male sex offend- ers were arrested for the sex crime that resulted in their imprisonment - Table 5. Prior criminal record of sex offenders released from prison in 1994, - 78.5% (7,607 of the 9,691 men) had by type of sex offender been arrested at least one earlier time Sexual (table 5) Prior to the sex crime for which imprisoned All Rapists assaulters half had 3 or more prior arrests Percent with at least 1 prior arrest for for some type of crime Any crime 78.5/ 83.1% 76.3% Any sex offense 28.5 28.7 28.4 - 58.4% (5,660 men) had at least one sex offense against a child 10.3 5.7 12.5 prior criminal conviction Prior arrests for any crime' Mean 4.5 5.0 4.2 13.9% (1,347 men) had a prior Median 3 3 2 conviction for a violent sex offense Percent with at least 1 prior conviction for - ° 4.6% 446 men) had been convicted Any crime 58.4% 62.9% 56.2% ( ) Any sex offense 13.9 14.6 13.5 for a sex crime against a child Sex offense against a child 4.6 3.4 5.2 - nearly a quarter had served time in a Prior convictions for any crime' State or Federal prison at least once Mean 1.8 2.0 1.7 before for some type of crime. Median 1 1 1 Percent with prior prison sentence for any crimes 23.7% 28% 216% Percent who were first releasesb 74.9% 66.9% 78.7°/ Total released 9,691 3,115 6,576 Note: The 9,691 sex offenders were released in 15 States. "'Prior" does not include the arrest, conviction, or prison sentence that was the reason the sex offenders were in prison in 1994. Persons with no prior arrest or prior convictions were coded zero and were included in the calculations of mean and median priors. Calculation of prior convictions excluded Ohio, and calculation of prior prison sentences excluded Ohio and Virginia. bData on first releases are based on releases from 13 States. First releases include only those offenders leaving prison for the first time since beginning their sentence. First releases exclude those who left prison in 1994 but who had previously been released under the same sentence and had returned to prison for violating the conditions of release. Recidivism of Sex Offenders Re/eased from Prison in 9994 11 5OA-60 Sex offenders compared to Table 6. Prior criminal record of child molesters and statutory rapists non-sex offenders released from prison in 1994 A total of 262,420 non-sex offenders Child Statutory were released from State prisons in Prior to the sex crime for which imprisoned molesters rapists 1994 in the 15 States. Of the 262,420 Percent with at least 1 prior arrest for - - non-sex offenders, 94% had at least 1 Any crime 76.89/6 80.6% prior arrest and 82% had at least 1 Any sex offense 29.0 38.4 prior conviction (not in a table). Overall, Sex offense against a child 18.3 19.6 the 9,691 sex offenders had a shorter Prior arrests for any crimes criminal history than the 262,420 Mean a.1 4.8 Median 2 3 non-sex offenders. Before the arrest Percent with at least t prior conviction for - - that resulted in their prison sentence, Any crime 54.6% 64.6% sex offenders had been arrested 4.5 Any sex offense 11.9 21.2 times, on average. This prior arrest Sex offense against a child 7.3 11.5 record was about half that of non-sex Prior convictions for any crimes offenders (8.9 prior arrests). In Mean 1.6 2.2 addition, among the 1994 prison Median 1 1 releases, 23.7% of the sex offenders Percent with prior prison sentence for any crime- 19.3% 23.4% (2,297), compared to 44.3% of non-sex Percent who were first releasesb 74.5% 73.7% offenders (1 16,252), had served prior Total released 4,295 443 prison sentences. Note: The 4,295 child molesters were released in 15 States; the 443 statutory rapists in 11 States. Because of overlapping definitions, all statutory rapists also appear Sex offenders were more likely to have under the column "child molesters." a'Prior" does not include the arrest, conviction, or prison sentence that was the reason the sex been arrested (28.5%) or convicted offenders were in prison in 1994. Persons with no prior arrest or prior convictions (13.9%) for a sexual offense than were coded zero and were included in the calculations of mean and median priors. Calculation non-sex offenders (6.5% with a prior of prior convictions excluded Ohio, and calculation of prior prison sentences excluded Ohio and arrest for a sex crime; 0.2% with a prior v irginia. Data on first releases are based on releases from 13 States. First releases include only those conviction for a sex crime). The same offenders leaving prison for the first time since beginning their sentence. First releases exclude is true for child molesting - about 1 those who left prison in 1994 but who had previously been released under the same sentence in 10 sex offenders had a prior arrest and had returned to prison for violating the conditions of release. for a sex offense against a child, compared to about 1 in 100 non-sex Child molesters and sexual assaulters Among those with three or more priors offenders. was a man whose first arrest for child The 4,295 child molesters had at least molesting was in 1966, when he was Rapists and sexual assaulters 1 arrest for child molesting (the arrest age 20. When released in 1994, he that led to their imprisonment). For was serving an 11-year sentence for For approximately 71 % of the 3,115 3,509 (81.7%) of them, that arrest was molesting a child under age 14. The rapists, the arrest for rape that resulted their first ever arrest for child molesting prior criminal record of this serial in their imprisonment was their first for (table 6). For the other 786 men pedophile spanned three decades, with a sex crime. The remaining 29% had (18.3% of the 4,295), that was not their arrests for child molesting in the one or more prior sex crime arrests. first. Some had one prior arrest for a 1970's, the 1980's, and the 1990's. Likewise, for sexual assaulters, the sex offense against a child, some had sexual assault arrest that led to their two, and others had three or more. imprisonment was the first arrest for a sex crime for 72% of the 6,576 sexual assaulters. The remaining 28% had been arrested at least once before for some type of sex crime. 12 Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 5OA-61 Four measures of recidivism This section measures recidivism four "Percent reconvicted" is based Within the first 3 years following their ways: on 14 of the 15 States participating release - - percent rearrested for any type of in the study • 43% (4,163 of the 9,691 ) were crime - "Percent returned to prison with a rearrested for at least 1 new crime - percent reconvicted for any type of new sentence" is based on 13 of (table 7) crime the 15 States - 24% (2,326 of the 9,691) were percent returned to prison with anew - "Percent returned to prison with or reconvicted for any type of crime prison sentence for any type of crime without a new sentence" is based 11.2% (1,085 of the 9,691) were on 9 of the 15. returned to prison with another - percent returned to prison with or Three of the four recidivism measures sentence without a new prison sentence. were calculated from data on fewer _ 38 6% of the 9 were rearrested" is calculated by than 15 States because the information .dividing "the number rearrested" by needed to returned t to o prison with or r without 9 " y perform the calculations was anew sentence. "the number released from prison in not available (or not readily available) 1994" from each of the 15 participating For approximately three-fourths of the States. Notes at the bottom of the 4,163 men who were rearrested for "Percent reconvicted" is obtained by tables alert readers to such missing some new crime, their most serious dividing "the number reconvicted" by data. rearrest offense was a felony; for the "the number released from prison in remaining fourth, the most serious was 1994." (it is not calculated by dividing Four measures a misdemeanor (not shown in table). "the number reconvicted" by "the number rearrested.") All sex offenders Of the 4,163 men rearrested for some new offense, nearly 9 in 10 (87%) were "Percent returned to prison with a new The 9,691 sex offenders in this study still on parole when taken into custody sentence" is calculated by dividing "the were all released from prison in 1994. (not shown in table). number returned to prison with a new sentence" by "the number released from prison in 1994." (it is not calcu- Table 7. Recidivism rate of sex offenders released from prison in 1994, lated by dividing "the number returned by recidivism measure and type of sex offender to prison with a new sentence" by "the number reconvicted.") Percent of released prisoners Recidivism Sexual measure All Rapists assaulters Except where stated otherwise, all four recidivism measures - within s years following release: Rearrested for any type of crime 43.0% 46.0% 415% - refer to the full 3-year period follow- Reconvicted for any type of crime- 24.0% 27.3% 22.4% ing the prisoner's release in 1994 Returned to prison with a new sentence for any type of crime° 11.2% 12.6% 10.5% • include both "in-State" and "out-of- Returned to prison with or State" recidivism. without a new sentence` 38.6% 43.6% 36.1% "in-State" recidivism refers to new Total released 9,691 3,115 6,576 offenses committed within the State Note: The 9,691 sex offenders were released in 15 States. that released the prisoner in 1994. -Because of missing data, prisoners released in Ohio were excluded "Out-of-State" recidivism is any new from the calculation of percent reconvicted. offenses in States other than the one °"New prison sentence" includes new sentences to State or Federal prisons that released him in 1994. but not to local jails. Because of missing data, prisoners released in Ohio and Virginia were excluded from the calculation of percent returned to prison with a new sentence. Not all 4 of the recidivism measures c"With or without a new sentence" includes prisoners with new sentences to State or are based on data from 15 States - Federal prisons plus prisoners returned for technical violations. Because of missing data, prisoners released in 6 States (Arizona, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, and Virginia) "Percent rearrested" is based on 15 were excluded from the calculation of percent returned to prison with or without a new sentence. States New York State custody records did not always distinguish prison returns from jail returns. Consequently, some persons received in New York jails were probably mistakenly classified as prison returns. Also, California with a relatively high return-to-prison rate affects the overall rate of 38.6%. When California is excluded, the return-to-prison rate falls to 27.9%. Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 13 5OA-62 The 2,326 reconvicted for a new crime Sex offenders compared to Rapists and sexual assaulters consisted of 1,672 (71.9%) whose non-sex offenders most serious conviction offense was a Within the first 3 years following felony, and 654 (28.1%) whose most The 15 States in this study released release - serious offense was a misdemeanor 272,111 prisoners altogether in 1994. 46.0% of the 3,115 rapists (1,432 (not shown in table). The 9,691 released sex offenders made up 3.6% of that total. The men) and 41.5% of the 6,576 sexual Of the 2,326 reconvicted for any new remaining 262,420 released prisoners assaulters (2,731 men) were crime after their release, 1,085 were were non-sex offenders. Of the rearrested for all types of crimes resentenced to prison, and the remain- 262,420 non-sex offenders, 68% (table 7) ing 1,241 were placed on probation or (179,391 men and women out of the • 27.3% of the 3,115 rapists (850 men) ordered to pay a fine or sentenced to 262,420) were rearrested for a new were reconvicted, compared to 22.4% short-term confinement in a local jail. crime within 3 years (not shown in of the 6,576 sexual assaulters (1,473 The 1,241 not resentenced to prison table). The 43% overall rearrest rate of men) for all types of crimes made up a little over half (53%) of the the 9,691 released sex offenders o total 2,326 reconvicted. One reason (4,163 out of 9,691) was low by - 12.6% of the 3,115 rapists (392 men) why over half were not resentenced comparison. and 10.5% of the 6,576 sexual as- to prison was that the new conviction saulters (690 men) were resentenced tnse for about 650 of the vict Another difference was the rearrest to prison for their reconviction offense offe 2,326 charg newly convicted men (approximately e. The rearrest offense was a - 43.6% of the 3,115 rapists (1,358 30%) was a misdemeanor rather than felony for about 3 out of 4 (75 /%o) ) of the men) and 36.1 % of the 6,576 sexual 4,163 rearrested sex offenders (not assaulters 2,374 men) were returned a felony, and State laws usually do not ( ) permit State prison sentences for shown in table). By comparison, about to prison either because of a new misdemeanors. 84% of the 179,391 non-sex offenders sentence or because of a technical were charged by police with a felony violation of their parole. Altogether, 3,741 (38.6%) of the 9,691 (not shown in table). For approximately three-fourths of the released sex offenders were returned Of the 4,163 sex offenders rearrested 1,432 rapists who were rearrested for a to prison either because of a new for a new crime, nearly 9 in 10 (87%) new crime, the crime was a felony; for sentence or a technical violation. Of the were on parole when taken into cus- the remainder, the most serious was a 3.741, 2,656 (71 were returned for a tody; of the 179,391 rearrested non-sex misdemeanor (not shown in table). technical violation, such as failing a offenders, also about 9 in 10 (85%) As indicated earlier, 2,731 sexual drug test, missing an appointment with were on parole (not shown in table). assaulters were rearrested for a new the parole officer, or being arrested for offense after their release, and for another crime; and 1,085 were There was a difference in recon- about three-fourths, their most serious returned with a new prison sentence. victions. The reconviction rate for the rearrest offense was a felony; for the The 2,656 consisted of 664 who were 9,691 released sex offenders was remainder, the most serious crime was reconvicted but not resentenced to 24.0%, compared to 47.8% for 262,420 a misdemeanor (not shown in table). prison, plus 1,992 not reconvicted. non-sex offenders released in 1994 The 850 rapists reconvicted for any (not shown in table). The 2,326 sex new crime included 617 (72.6%) whose As previously explained, a total of offenders reconvicted for any new most serious reconviction offense was 1,241 released sex offenders were crime included 1,672 (71.9%) whose a felony; the 1,473 reconvicted sexual reconvicted but not resentenced to most serious conviction offense was a assaulters included 1,052 (71.4%) who prison for their new crime. The 1,241 felony (not shown in table). Of the included 664 (described immediately 262,420 non-sex offenders, 125,437 were reconvicted for a felony (not above) who were returned to prison for (47.8%) were reconvicted, which shown in table). a technical violation. The 664 were included 94,078 (75.0%) whose most 54% of the 1,241, indicating that most serious reconviction offense was a of those who were reconvicted but not felony (not shown in table). given a new prison sentence were, nevertheless, returned to prison. 14 Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 5OA-63 Child molesters and statutory rapists were resentenced to prison for their three-fourths were charged with was a new conviction offense felony (not shown in table). Of the child molesters and statutory - 38% of the 4,295 child molesters and rapists released from prison in 1994 - 46% of the 443 statutory rapists were The 876 child molesters reconvictedofor - 1,693 of the 4,295 child molesters back in prison within 3 years as a result any type of crime included 643 (73.4 /o) (39.4%) and 221 of the 443 statutory of either a new prison sentence or a whose most serious reconviction rapists (49.9%) were rearrested for a technical violation of their parole. offense was a felony; the 145 recon- new crime (not necessarily a new sex victed statutory rapists included 97 crime) (table 8) The most serious offense for three- (66.7%) whose most serious was a - 876 of the 4,295 child molesters fourths of the 1,693 child molesters felony (not shown in table). (20.4%) and 145 of the 443 statutory who were rearrested was a felony, and rapists (32.7%) were reconvicted for a misdemeanor for the remainder (not any type of crime shown in table). Following their release in 1994, 221 statutory rapists were - 9% of the 4,295 child molesters and rearrested for a new crime. The most 13% of the 443 statutory rapists serious offense that approximately Table 8. Recidivism rate of child molesters and statutory rapists released from prison in 1994, by recidivism measure Percent of released prisoners Recidivism Child Statutory measure molesters rapists Within 3 years following release: Rearrested for any type of crime 39.4% 49.9% Reconvicted for any type of crime- 20.4% 32.7% Returned to prison with a new sentence for any type of crimeb 9.1% 13.2% Returned to prison with or without a new sentence` 38.2% 45.7% Total released 4,295 443 Note: The 4,295 child molesters were released in 15 States; the 443 statutory rapists in 11 States. Because of overlapping definitions, all statutory rapists also appear under the column "child molesters." aBecause of missing data, prisoners released in Ohio were excluded from the calculation of percent reconvicted. b"New prison sentence" includes new sentences to State or Federal prisons but not to local jails. Because of missing data, prisoners released in Ohio and Virginia were excluded from the calcu- lation of percent returned to prison with a new sentence. -With or without a new sentence" includes prisoners with new sentences to State or Federal prisons plus prisoners returned for technical violations. Because of missing data, prisoners released in 6 States (Arizona, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, and Virginia) were excluded from the calculation of percent returned to prison with or without a new sentence. New York State custody records did not always distinguish prison returns from jail returns. Conse- quently, some persons received in New York jails were probably mistakenly classified as prison returns. Also, California with a relatively high return-to-prison rate affects the overall rate of 39.4%. When California is excluded, the return-to-prison rate falls to 23.4%. Recidivism of Sex Offenders Re/eased from Prison in 1994 15 5OA-64 Time to recidivism Rapists and sexual assaulters 46.0% = 56%). Similarly, 41.5% of released sexual assaulters were rear- All sex offenders Forty-six percent of released rapists rested within the first 3 years following were rearrested within 3 years, and their 1994 release, and over half of Within 6 months following their release, over half of those rearrests (56%) those rearrests (56%) occurred in the 16% of the 9,691 men were rearrested occurred in the first year (since 25.8% / first year (since 23.4% / 41.5% = 56%). for a new crime (not necessarily another sex offense) (table 9). Within 1 year, altogether 24.2% were Table 9. Recidivism rate of sex offenders released from prison in 1994, by type rearrested. Within 2 years the cumula- of recidivism measure, type of sex offender, and time after release tive total reached 35.5%. By the end of Cumulative percent of sex offenders released from prison in 1994 the 3-year followup period, 43% (4,163 Time after Sexual of the 9,691) were rearrested for some 1994 release All Rapists assaulters type of crime. Rearrested for any type of crime within - These statistics indicate that most 6 months 16.0% 16.3% 15.8% 1 year 24.2 25.8 23.4 recidivism within the first 3 years 2 years 35.5 38.6 34.0 following release occurred in the first 3 years 43.0 46.0 41.5 year (56%, since 24.2% / 43% = 56%). Reconvicted for any type While the bulk of rearrests occurred in of crime within 6 months 3.6% 4.3% 3.3% the first year, that period did not 1 year 8.6 10.0 8.0 account for the bulk of reconvictions or 2 years 17.2 19.9 15.9 reimprison ments. This is largely 3 years 24.0 27.3 22.4 because a sizable number of those Returned to prison with a new rearrested in the first year were not sentence for any type of crime within reconvicted and reimprisoned until 6 months 1.8% 1.9% 1.8% sometime in the second year, due to 1 year 4.0 4.1 3.9 the additional time needed to 2 years 8.0 9.0 7.5 3 years 11.2 12.6 10.5 prosecute, convict, and sentence a criminal defendant. For example, by Total released 9,691 3,115 6,576 the end of the first year, 8.6% of the Note: The 9,691 sex offenders were released in 15 States. 9,691 released sex offenders were -Because of missing data, prisoners released in Ohio were excluded from the reconvicted, and by the end of the third calculation of percent reconvicted. b"New sentence' includes new sentences to State or Federal prisons but not to local jails. year, a cumulative total of 24% were Because of missing data, prisoners released in Ohio and Virginia were excluded reconvicted, indicating that the first from the calculation of percentage returned to prison with a new sentence. year accounted for a relatively small percentage of all the reconvictions in the 3 years (36%, since 8.6% / 24% _ 36%). 16 Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 5OA-65 Table 1 0. Recidivism rate of child molesters and statutory rapists released Child molesters and statutory rapists from prison in 1994, by type of recidivism measure and time after release Of the 4,295 released child molesters, Cumulative percent of sex offenders 1,693 (39.4%) were rearrested during released from prison in 1994 the 3-year followup period (table 10). Time after Child Statutory The majority of those charged (approxi- 1994 release molesters rapists mately 982 of the 1,693, or 58%) were Rearrested for any type of crime within - charged in the first 12 months. While 6 months 16.0% 18.5% 49.9% of released statutory rapists 1 year 22.9 29.8 were rearrested within 3 years, nearly 2 years 32.9 42.4 three-fifths of those rearrests occurred 3 years 39.4 49.9 within the first year following release Reconvicted for any type (29.8% / 49.9% = 60%). of crime within 6 months 3.0% 4.5% 1 year 7.1 13.6 2 years 14.5 24.4 3 years 20.4 32.7 Returned to prison with a new sentence for any type of crime within 6 months 1.5% 0.9% 1 year 3.1 4.0 2 years 6.5 9.3 3 years 9.1 13.2 Total released 4,295 443 Note: The 4,295 child molesters were released in 15 States; the 443 statutory rapists in 11 States. Because of overlapping definitions, all statutory rapists also appear under the column "child molesters." 'Because of missing data, prisoners released in Ohio were excluded from the calculation of percent reconvicted. "New sentence' includes new sentences to State or Federal prisons but not to local jails. Because of missing data, prisoners released in Ohio and Virginia were excluded from the calculation of percentage returned to prison with anew sentence. Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in -1994 17 5OA-66 Rearrest for any type of crime Table 11. Rearrest rate of sex offenders released from prison in 1994, Table 12. Rearrest rate of child by type of sex offender and demographic characteristics of released prisoners molesters and statutory rapists released from prison in 1994, Percent rearrested for any type of crime within 3 years by demographic characteristics Prisoner Sexual of released prisoners characteristic All Rapists assaulters Race Percent rearrested for any type of crime within 3 years White 36.7% 39.1% 35-8% Prisoner Child Statutory Black 56.1 55.0 57.0 characteristic molesters rapists Other 40.4 38.5 417 Race Hispanic origin White 36.2% 46.0% Hispanic 42.2% 47.7% 39.6% Black 51.7 61.5 Non-Hispanic 45.9 50.2 44.3 Other 37.8 55.6 Age at release Hispanic origin 18-24 59.8% 58.6% 60.2% Hispanic 37.1% 56.9% 25-29 54.2 53.8 54.3 Non-Hispanic 41.9 48.8 30-34 48.8 52.6 46.7 35-39 41.4 46.1 38.9 Age at release 40-44 34.7 412 31.6 18-24 59.6% 70.0% 45 or older 23.5 23.0 23.7 25-29 514 56.4 30-34 46.5 47.7 Total released 9,691 3,115 6,576 35-39 38.0 37.9 0 Note: The 9,691 sex offenders were released 15 States. Data identifying race were reported for 4045- or 44 older 2&0 44.4 23.8 98.5%; Hispanic origin for 82.5%; age for virtually 100%. Total released 4,295 443 Demographic characteristics Hispanic origin Among released sex Note: The 4,295 child molesters were offenders, non-Hispanics (45.9%) were released in 15 states; the 443 statutory All sex offenders more likely than Hispanics (42.2%) to rapists in 11 States. Data identifying race have a new arrest within the 3-year were reported for 98.5%; Hispanic origin for Race Black men (56.1 released in followup period. 82.5%; age for virtually 100%. 1994 were more likely than white men rearrested for some type of crime (36.7%) to be rearrested for a new Age The younger the prisoner when within 3 years, or more than double the crime (not limited to just a new sex released, the higher the rate of recidi- 23.5% of those age 45 or older. crime) within the first 3 years following vism. For example, of all the sex their release (table 1 1). offenders under age 25 at the time of Rapists and sexual assaulters discharge from prison, 59.8% were Race Among releasees whose impris- Table 13. Rearrest rate of sex offenders released from prison in 1994, onment offense was sexual assault, by type of sex offender and time served before release 57% of black men and 35.8% of white Percent rearrested for any type men were rearrested for all types of of crime within 3 years crimes. A higher rearrest rate for Time served in prison Sexual blacks was also found among released before 1994 release All Rapists assaulters rapists. 6 months or less 45.7% 48.3% 45.0% 7-12 42.1 32.1 43.1 Hispanic origin Among released 13-18 38.9 37.6 392 rapists, non-Hispanics (50.2%) were 19-24 46.7 51.1 45.9 more likely than Hispanics (47.7%) to 25-3 44.6 42.9 45.1 be rearrested within the 3-year followup 31-36 6 35.7 42.6 33.7 period. The same was true amon 37-60 38.9 43.2 36.7 9 61 months or more 39.9 43.4 35.5 released prisoners whose imprison- Total first releases 6,470 1,859 5,860 ment offense was sexual assault. Note: The 6,470 sex offenders were released in 13 States. Figures are based on first releases Age For both rapists and sexual only. First releases include only those offenders leaving prison for the first time since beginning assaulters, younger releasees had their sentence. First releases exclude those who left prison in 1994 but who had previously been released under the same sentence and had returned to prison for violating the conditions higher rearrest rates than older of release. releasees. 18 Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 5OA-67 Child molesters and statutory rapists Table 14. Rearrest rate of child molesters and statutory rapists released Race The rearrest rate among from prison in 1994, by time served before being released released child molesters was 51.7% for Percent rearrested for any black men and 36.2% for white men type of crime within 3 years (table 12). Among statutory rapists, Time served in prison Child Statutory black men (61.5%) had a higher before 1994 release molesters rapists rearrest rate than white men (46.0%) 6 months or less 42.9% 56.7% 7-12 39.7 45.3 13-18 34.5 43.9 Hispanic origin Among released 19-24 45.5 48.9 prisoners whose imprisonment offense 25-30 39.4 25.9 was statutory rape, Hispanics (56.9%) 31-36 27.2 59.1 37-60 1 m 31.5 z1.4 were more likely than non-Hispanics 6 (48.8%) to be rearrested within the s1 months or more zs.s 33.3 3-year followup period. The opposite Total first releases 3,104 317 was true of child molesters, as Hispan- Note: The 3,104 child molesters were released in 13 States; the 317 statutory rapists in 10 ics had a lower rearrest rate (37.1 %6) States. Because of overlapping definitions, all statutory rapists also appear under the column "child molesters." Figures are based on first releases only. First releases include only those than non-Hispanics (41.9%). offenders leaving prison for the first time since beginning their sentence. First releases exclude those who left prison in 1994 but who had previously been released under the same sentence Age The younger the sex offender was and had returned to prison for violating the conditions of release. when released, the higher was his like- lihood of being rearrested. For exam- who served between 3 and 5 years in Child molesters and statutory rapists ple, the rearrest percent for statutory prison had a higher rate of rearrest rapists younger than 25 was higher (38.9%) than released prisoners who Among released statutory rapists and (70.0%) than the rearrest percent for served 2'/z to 3 years (35.7%). child molesters, the results continued statutory rapists ages 25 to 30 (56.4%). Because of these mixed results, and to be mixed regarding an association The same was true among child others illustrated below, the data do not between the rate of recidivism and the molesters. warrant any general conclusion about amount of time served (table 14). For an association between the level of example, child molesters released after Time served before 1994 release recidivism and the amount of time serving about 2 to 2'/. years had a served. higher rate of rearrest for all types of All sex offenders crimes (39.4%) than those who served Rapists and sexual assaulters somewhat longer - about 2'/. to 3 Sex offenders who served the shortest years (27.2%). However, the rearrest amount of time in prison before being Among sexual assaulters who served rate rose (31.5%) among molesters released (6 months or less) had a no more than 6 months, 45.0% were who served more time - 3 to 5 years. higher rearrest rate (45.7%) than those rearrested for all types of crimes. who served the longest (over 5 years, Those who served a little longer - 39.9% rate) (table 13). Similarly, from about 6 months to 1 year - had prisoners who served 6 months or less a lower rearrest rate, 43.1 Those had a higher rearrest rate (45.7%) than released after serving even more time those who served 7 months to 1 year - 1 to 1'/2 years - had an even lower (42.1 However, other comparisons rate, 39.2%. However, there are did not indicate a connection between numerous instances where serving serving more time and lower more time was not linked to lower recidivism. For example, among sex recidivism. For example, rapists offenders who served 1 to 1'/z years in released after about 1 to 1'/. years in prison before being released, 38.9% prison had a 37.6% rearrest rate, while were rearrested for all types of crimes, those imprisoned a little longer - from compared to 46.7% of sex offenders about 1'/2 to 2 years - had a higher who served a bit longer - 1'/3 to 2 rate, 51.1%. years. Similarly, released prisoners Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 19 5OA-68 Table 15. Rearrest rate of sex offenders released from prison in 1994, for some type of crime prior to their by type of sex offender and prior arrest for any type of crime release from prison in 1994, and 16.9% (526 rapists) had just 1 prior arrest, the Sexual arrest for the sex crime that resulted in Arrest prior to 1994 release All Rapists assaulters their being in prison in 1994. The Percent rearrested for any type multiple prior arrests for the 2,589 of crime within 3 years rapists included the arrest for their Total 43.0% 46.0% 41.5% imprisonment offense plus at least 1 The arrest responsible for their other arrest for any type of crime. The being in prison in 1994 was 2,589 with more than 1 prior arrest had Their first arrest for any type of crime 24.8 28.3 23.6 a rearrest rate (49.6%) nearly double Not their first arrest for any type of crime 47.9 49.6 47.1 that of the 526 with just 1 prior (28.3%). Percent of released prisoners Child molesters and statutory rapists Total 100% 100% 100% The arrest responsible for their Of the 4,295 child molesters, 76.8% being in prison in 1994 was- (3,299 men) had more than 1 prior Their first arrest for any type of crime 21.5 16.9 23.7 arrest (table 16). These 3,299 child Not their first arrest for any type of crime 78.5 83.1 76.3 molesters had a rearrest rate (44.3%) Total released s,6s1 3,115 6,576 nearly double the 23.3% rate of the 996 molesters with just 1 prior arrest Note: The 9,691 sex offenders were released in 15 States. (996 is 23.2% of 4,295). The 357 statu- *By definition, all sex offenders had at least 1 arrest prior to their release: tory rapists with more than 1 prior namely, the sex crime arrest responsible for their being in prison in 1994. arrest (357 is 80.6% of 443) had a Prior arrest for any type of crime Rapists and sexual assaulters rearrest rate (55.7%) more than double the 25.6% rate of the 86 statutory All sex offenders Of the 3,115 released rapists, 83.1 % rapists with 1 prior arrest (86 is 19.4% (2,589 rapists) had more than 1 arrest of 443). For 2,084 sex offenders (21.5% of the 9,691 total), their only arrest prior to Table 16. Rearrest rate of child molesters and statutory rapists released being released in 1994 was the arrest from prison in 1994, by prior arrest for any type of crime for their imprisonment offense (a sex offense) (table 15). Among these 2,084 Child statutory released sex offenders with just 1 prior Arrest prior to 1994 release molesters rapists arrest, 24.8% were rearrested for a Percent rearrested for any type new crime (not necessarily a new sex of crime within 3 years crime). For the remaining 7,607 (78.5% Total 39.4% 49.9% of 9,691 their prior record showed an The arrest responsible for their arrest for the sex offense responsible being in prison in 1994 was - for their current imprisonment plus at Their first arrest for any type of crime 23.3 25.6 least 1 earlier arrest for some type of Not their first arrest for any type of crime 44.3 55.7 crime. Of these 7,607 prisoners, 47.9% Percent of released prisoners were rearrested, or about double the Total 100% 100% rate of their counterparts with 1 prior The arrest responsible for arrest (24.8%). their being in prison in 1994 was Their first arrest for any type of crime 23.2 19.4 Not their first arrest for any type of crime 76.8 80.6 Total released 4,295 443 Note: The 4,295 child molesters were released in 15 States; the 443 statutory rapists in 11 States. Because of overlapping definitions, all statutory rapists also appear under the column "child molesters." 'By definition, all sex offenders had at least 1 arrest prior to their release: namely, the sex crime arrest responsible for their being in prison in 1994. 20 Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 5OA-69 Number of prior arrests Table 17. Rearrest rate of sex offenders released from prison in 1994, for any type of crime by type of sex offender and number of prior arrests for any type of crime Statistics on prior arrests in this section Number of adult arrests Sexual of the report do include the imprison- prior to 1994 release' All Rapists assaulters ment offense of the released sex Percent rearrested for any type offender. of crime within 3 years 1 prior arrest for any type of crime 24.8% 28.3% 23.6% All sex offenders 2 31.9 36.4 29.9 3 36.9 36.3 37.1 The number of times a prisoner was 4 42.6 47.2 40.4 1-6 arrested in the past was a relatively 5 50.5 48.6 5 Y 6 49.7 47.3 509 0.9 good predictor of whether that prisoner 7-10 59.0 59.6 58.6 would continue his criminality after re- 11-15 65.1 63.7 66.0 lease (table 17). Prisoners with just one 16 or more 67.0 66.1 67.5 prior arrest for any type of crime had a Percent of released prisoners 24.8% rearrest rate for all types of All sex offenders 100% 100% 100% crimes. With two priors, the percent- 1 prior arrest for any type of crime 21.5 16.9 23.7 age rearrested rose to 31.9%. With 2 16.0 15.2 16.3 three, it increased to 36.9%. With four, 3 11.9 12.1 11.8 it went up to 42.6%. With additional 4 9.0 9.2 8.9 priors, there were further increases, 5 7.2 8. 6.8 6 6.3 6.6 6 6.1 ultimately reaching a rearrest rate of 7-10 14.4 15.8 13.8 67.0% for released prisoners with the 11-15 7.9 8.9 7.4 longest criminal record (more than 15 16 or more 5.8 7.2 5.2 prior arrests). -total released 9,691 3,115 6,576 Note: The 9,691 sex offenders were released in 15 States. - Rapists and sexual assaulters 'By definition, all sex offenders had at least 1 arrest prior to their release: namely, the arrest responsible for their being in prison in 1994. In this table, that arrest is counted as 1 prior arrest. Both rapists and sexual assaulters followed the pattern described immedi- ately above: the more prior arrests they had, the more likely they were to have a new arrest for some type of crime after their release in 1994. Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 21 5OA-70 Child molesters and statutory rapists Table 18. Rearrest rate of child molesters and statutory rapists released Among released prisoners with the from prison in 1994, by number of prior arrests for any type of crime smallest number of prior arrests (1 Number of adult arrests Child Statutory prior arrest), 23.3% of child molesters prior to 1994 release' molesters rapists and 25.6% of statutory rapists were Percent rearrested for any type rearrested for all types of crimes within of crime within 3 years 3 years (table 18). Rearrest rates ith each increase in the 1 Prior arrest for any type of crime 23.3% 25.6% generally rose w 2 28.0 29.3 number of prior arrests. Among 3 32.4 46.9 released prisoners with the largest 4 392 41.0 number of prior arrests (more than 15), 5 47.4 60.6 62.0% of child molesters and 76.2% of s 50.2 53.8 7-10 58.1 65.1 statutory rapists had at least 1 new 11-15 62.9 81.3 arrest after being released in 1994. 16 or more 62.0 76.2 Percent of released prisoners State where rearrested for any type of crime All sex offenders 100% 100% 1 prior arrest for any type of crime 232 19.4 2 17.2 13.1 The State where the rearrest occurred 3 12.1 11.1 was not always the State that released 4 8.5 8.8 the prisoner. In some cases, the 5 7.0 7.4 released sex offender left the State s 6.4 5.9 7-10 13.6 18.7 where he was imprisoned and was 11-15 7.3 10.8 rearrested for a new crime in a different 16 or more 4.8 4.7 State. For example, a sex offender Total released 4,295 443 released from prison in California may Note: The 4,295 child molesters were released in 15 States; the 443 statutory rapists in 11 have traveled to Nevada, where he was states. Because of overlapping definitions, all statutory rapists also appear under the column arrested for committing another crime. "child molesters." 'By definition, all sex offenders had at least one arrest prior to their release: namely, the arrest Sex offenders responsible for their being in prison in 1994. In this table, that arrest is counted as 1 prior arrest. Rearrested sex offenders had a higher were rearrested for any new crime A total of 4,163 sex offenders were percentage: 1 in 6 of their rearrests for (table 19). For 17.4% of the 1,432 rearrested for some type of new crime any type of crime were in a State other rearrested rapists, and 15.2% of the after their 1994 release. Of the 4,163 than the one that released them. 2,731 rearrested sexual assaulters, the arrests, 16.0% - or 1 in 6 - were place where the arrest occurred was in outside the State where the prisoner Rapists and sexual assaulters a different State than the one that was released (table 19). The rest released them. (84.0%) were made in the State that Following their 1994 release, 1,432 released them. rapists and 2,731 sexual assaulters Sex offenders compared to non-sex offenders Table 19. Where sex offenders were rearrested for any new crime following release from prison in 1994, by type of sex offender The 15 States in this study released 262,420 non-Sex offenders in 1994, of Percent of rearrested prisoners whom 179,391 were rearrested for a State where rearrested Sexual new crime within 3 years (not shown in within 3 years All Rapists assaulters table). Of the 179,391 arrests for any Total 100% 100% 100% type of crime, 1 1.2%, or 20,092 arrests, same State where released 84.0 82.6 84.8 were arrests that occurred outside the Another State 16.0 17.4 15.2 State that released them. Total rearrested for any new crime 4,163 1,432 2,731 Note: The 4,163 rearrested sex offenders were released in 15 States, but table percentages are based on 14 States. 22 Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 19 4 5A-71 Child molesters and statutory rapists Table 20. Where child molesters and statutory rapists were rearrested Out of the 4,295 child molesters, 1,693 for any new crime following release from prison in 1994 were rearrested for any new crime after Percent of rearrested prisoners being released from prison in 1994 State where rearrested Child Statutory (table 20). The 1,693 recidivists within 3 years molesters rapists consisted of 84.8% whose new arrest Total 100% 100% was in the same State that released Same State where released 84.8 83.4 them in 1994, and 15.2% whose Another State 152 16.6 alleged violation occurred in a different State. Total rearrested for any new crime 1,693 221 Note: The 1,693 rearrested child molesters were released in 15 States, About half of all statutory rapists were but table percentages are based on 14 States. The 221 rearrested statutory rapists not rearrested for any type of crime were released in 11 States, but table percentages are based on 10 States. after their release. Of the 221 who were, 16.6% were rearrested outside the State where they were released. Recidivism of Sex Offenders Re/eased from Prison in 1994 23 5OA-72 Rearrest and reconviction for a new sex crime Rearrest and reconviction all the prisoners released in 1994 Child molesters and statutory rapists (517 / 3,845 = 13% and 3,328 / 3,845 All sex offenders = 87%). After their release, 5.1% (221 men) of the child molesters and 5.0% (22 men) Based on official arrest records, 517 of Rapists and sexual assaulters of the statutory rapists were rearrested- the 9,691 released sex offenders for a new sex crime (table 22). Not all (5.3%) were rearrested for a new sex Of the 3,115 rapists, 5.0% (155 men) of the new sex crimes were against crime within the first 3 years following had a new arrest for a sex crime (either children. The new sex crimes were their release (table 21). The new sex a sexual assault or another forcible forcible rapes and various types of crimes for which these 517 men were rape) after being released. Of the 6,576 sexual assaults. arrested were forcible rapes and sexual released sexual assaulters, 5.5% (362 assaults. For virtually all of the 517, the men) were rearrested for a new sex Following their release, 3.5% (150 most serious sex crime for which they crime (either a forcible rape or another men) of the 4,295 released child were rearrested was a felony. Their sexual assault). molesters were convicted for a new victims were children and adults. The sex crime against a child or an adult. study cannot say what percentage A total of 100 released rapists were The sex crime reconviction rate for the were children and what percentage reconvicted for a sex crime. The 100 443 statutory rapists was 3.6% (16 were adults because arrest files did not men were 3.2% of the 3,115 rapists reconvicted men). record the victim's age. released in 1994. Among the 6,576 released sexual assaulters, 3.7% (243 Of the total 9,691 released sex, 3.5% men) were reconvicted for a sex crime. (339 of the 9,691) were reconvicted for a sex crime (a forcible rape or a sexual Table 21. Of sex offenders released from prison in 1994, percent rearrested assault) within 3 years. and percent reconvicted for any new sex crime, by type of sex offender Sex offenders compared Sexual to non-sex offenders All Rapists assaulters Percent rearrested for any new The 15 States in this study released a sex crime within 3 years 5.3% 5.0% 5.5% total of 272,111 prisoners in 1994. The Percent reconvicted for any new 9,691 released sex offenders made up sex crime within 3 years` 3.5% 3.2% 3.7% less than 4% of that total. Of the Total released 9,691 3,115 6,576 remaining 262,420 non-sex offenders, Note: The 9,691 sex offenders were released in 15 States. 3,328 (1.3%) were rearrested for a new `Because of missing data, prisoners released in Ohio were excluded from sex crime within 3 years (not shown in the calculation of percent reconvicted. Due to data quality concerns, table). By comparison, the 5.3% calculation of percent reconvicted excluded Texas prisoners classified as rearrest rate for the 9,691 released sex "other type of release." offenders was 4 times higher. Table 22. Of child molesters and statutory rapists released from prison in 1994, Assuming that the 517 sex offenders percent rearrested and percent reconvicted for any new sex crime who were rearrested for another sex crime each victimized no more than Child Statutory one victim, the number of sex crimes molesters rapists they committed after their prison Percent rearrested for any new release totaled 517. Assuming that the sex crime within 3 years 5-1% 5.0% 3,328 non-sex offenders rearrested for Percent reconvicted for any new a sex crime after their release also sex crime within 3 years' 3.5% &6% victimized one victim each, the number Total released 4,295 443 of sex crimes they committed was 3,328. The combined total number of Note: The 4,295 child molesters were released in 15 States; the 443 statutory rapists in 11 sex crimes is 3,845 (517 plus 3,328 = States. Because of overlapping definitions, all statutory rapists also appear under the column 3,845). Released sex offenders molesters. `Because of missing data, prisoners released in Ohio were excluded from the calculation accounted for 13% and released of percent reconvicted. Due to data quality concerns, calculation of percent reconvicted non-sex offenders accounted for 87% excluded Texas prisoners classified as "other type of release." of the 3,845 sex crimes committed by 24 Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 5OA-73 Time to rearrest Child molesters and statutory rapists Hispanic origin Among released sex offenders, non-Hispanics were more All sex offenders For child molesters and statutory likely to be rearrested for a new sex rapists, the first year following their offense (6.4%) than Hispanics (4.1 Within 6 months following their release, release was the period when the One reason for the lower rearrest rate 1.4% of the 9,691 men were rearrested largest number of recidivists were for Hispanics may be that some were for a new sex crime (table 23). Within 1 rearrested. Similar to rapists and deported immediately following their year the cumulative total grew to 2.1 % sexual assaulters, about 40% of the release. rearrested. By the end of the 3-year arrests for new sex crimes committed followup period, altogether 5.3% had by child molesters and statutory rapists Age Recidivism studies typically find been rearrested for another sex crime. occurred during the first year (table 24). that, the older the prisoner when The first year was the period when released, the lower the rate of recidi- 40% of the new sex crimes were Demographic characteristics vism. Results reported here on re- committed (since 2.1% / 5.3% = 40%). leased sex offenders did not follow the All sex offenders familiar pattern. While the lowest rate Rapists and sexual assaulters of rearrest for a sex crime (3.3%) did Race Among sex offenders released belong to the oldest sex offenders The first year following release from prison in 1994, black men (5.6%) (those age 45 or older), other compari- accounted for 40% of the new sex and white men (5.3%) were about sons between older and younger crimes committed by both released equally likely to be rearrested for prisoners did not consistently show rapists (since 2.0% / 5.0% = 40%) and another sex crime (table 25). older prisoners' having the lower released sexual assaulters (since 2.2% rearrest rate. / 5.5% = 40%). Table 23. Of sex offenders released from prison in 1994, percent rearrested Table 25. Of sex offenders released for any new sex crime, by type of sex offender and time after release from prison in 1994, percent rearrested for any new sex crime, Cumulative percent rearrested for any by demographic characteristics new sex crime within specified time of released prisoners Time after Sexual 1994 release All Rapists assaulters Percent of released sex 6 months 1.4% 1.3% 1-4% offenders rearrested for 1 year 2.1 2.0 2.2 Prisoner any new sex crime within 2 years 3.9 3.7 4.1 characteristic 3 years 3 years 5.3 5.0 5.5 Total released 5.3% Total released 9,691 3,115 6,576 Race Note: The 9,691 sex offenders were released in 15 States. White 5.3% Black 5.6 Other 4.4 Table 24. Of child molesters and statutory rapists released from prison in 1994, Hispanic origin percent rearrested for any new sex crime, by time after release Hispanic 4.1% Non-Hispanic 6.4 Cumulative percent rearrested for any Age at release new sex crime within specified time 18-24 6.1% Time after Child Statutory 25-29 5.5 1994 release molesters rapists 30-34 5.8 . 6 months 1.3% 35-39 61 1.4% 40-44 5.6 1 year 2.2 2.0 45 or older 3.3 2 years 3.9 3.2 3 years 5.1 5.0 Total released 9,691 Total released 4,295 443 Note: The 9,691 sex offenders were released Note: The 4,295 child molesters were released in 15 States; in 15 States. Data identifying race were the 443 statutory rapists in 11 States. Because of overlapping definitions, reported for 98.5% of 9,691 released sex offenders; Hispanic origin for 82.5 /o; age all statutory rapists also appear under the column "child molesters." for virtually 100%. Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 9994 25 5OA-74 Time served before 1994 release Prior arrest for any type of crime rearrested for another sex crime (5.9% compared to 3.3%). All sex offenders All sex offenders Rapists and sexual assaulters The study compared recidivism rates Of the 9,691 released sex offenders, among prisoners who served different 21.5% (2,084 of the 9,691) had only 1 Of the 3,115 released rapists, the lengths of time before being released arrest in their criminal record up to the majority (83.1 % of the 3,115, or 2,589 from prison in 1994. No clear associa- time they were released (table 27). men) had more than 1 arrest (for any tion was found between how long they That one arrest was the arrest for the type of crime) prior to release from were in prison and their recidivism rate sex crime that resulted in a prison prison in 1994. Of these 2,589 released (table 26). For example, those sex term. The remaining 78.5% (7,607 rapists, 5.4% (140) had a new arrest offenders who served from 7 to 12 men) had the arrest for their imprison- for a sex crime. The rate was lower months were rearrested for a new sex ment offense in their record, and they (3.0%) for the 526 released rapists crime at a higher rate (5.2%) than also had at least 1 earlier arrest for with no prior arrest. those who served slightly less time some type of crime. For example, (3.8%), which seemed to suggest that some had an earlier arrest for theft or a Results for sexual assaulters followed serving more time raised the recidivism drug offense. Most of them did not the same pattern: the 5,017 sexual rate. But other comparisons suggested have an earlier arrest for a sex crime. assaulters with more than 1 prior arrest the opposite. Compared to men who (76.3% of 6,576 is 5,017) were more were confined for 7 to 12 months (5.2% Compared to the 2,084 sex offenders likely to be rearrested for a new sex rearrest rate) those who served more with the 1 arrest in their criminal record, crime (6.2%) than the 1,559 with just time (13 to 18 months) were less likely the 7,607 with a longer prior arrest the 1 prior arrest (23.7% of 6,576 is to be rearrested for any new sex crime record were more likely to be 1,559). (4.1%). Table 26. Of sex offenders released Table 27. Of sex offenders released from prison in 1994, from prison in 1994, percent percent rearrested for any new sex crime, by type of sex offender rearrested for any new sex crime, and prior arrest for any type of crime by time served before being released Percent of released Sexual Arrest prior to 1994 release All Rapists assaulters sex offenders rearrested for Percent rearrested for any Time served in prison any new sex crime new sex crime within 3 years before 1994 release within 3 years 6 months or less 3.8% Total 5.3% 5.0% 5.5% 7-12 5.2 The arrest responsible for their being 13-18 4-1 in prison in 1994 was 19-24 6.4 Their first arrest for any type of crime 3.3 3.0 3.4 25-30 5.2 Not their first arrest for any type of crime 5.9 5.4 6.2 31-36 3.3 37-60 5.2 Percent of released prisoners 61 months or more 4.9 Total 100% 100% 100% Total first releases 6,470 The arrest responsible for their being Note: The 6,470 sex offenders were released in prison in 1994 was in 13 States. Figures are based on first Their first arrest for any type of crime 21.5 16.9 23.7 releases only. First releases include only Not their first arrest for any type of crime 78.5 83.1 76.3 those offenders leaving prison for the first time since beginning their sentence. First Total released 9,691 3,115 6,576 releases exclude those who left prison in Note: The 9,691 sex offenders were released in 15 States. 1994 but who had previously been released 'By definition, all sex offenders had at least 1 arrest prior to their release: namely, under the same sentence and had returned the arrest responsible for their being in prison in 1994. "First arrest for any type to prison for violating the conditions of of crime" pertains exclusively to those released prisoners whose first arrest was release. the sex offense arrest responsible for their being in prison in 1994. 26 Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 5OA-75 Child molesters and statutory rapists Table 28. Of child molesters and statutory rapists released from prison in 1994, percent rearrested for any new sex crime, by prior arrest Released child molesters with more for any type of crime than one prior arrest were more likely than those with only one arrest in their child Statutory criminal record to be rearrested for a Arrest prior to 1994 release molesters rapists new sex crime (5.7% compared to Percent rearrested for any new sex crime within 3 years 3.2%) (table 28). The same was true of statutory rapists (5.3% compared Total 5.1% 5.0% to 3.5%). The arrest responsible for their being in prison in 1994 was Their first arrest for any type of crime 3.2 3.5 Number of prior arrests Not their first arrest for any type of crime 5.7 5.3 for any type of crime Percent of released prisoners Total 100% 100% All sex offenders The arrest responsible for their being in prison in 1994 was Their first arrest for any type of crime 23.2 19.4 The more arrests (for any type of Not their first arrest for any type of crime 76.8 80.6 crime) the sex offender had in his Total released 4,295 443 criminal record, the more likely he was to be rearrested for another sex crime Note: The 4,295 child molesters were released in 15 States; the 443 statutory rapists in 11 States. Because of overlapping definitions, all statutory rapists also appear under the column "child after his release from prison (table 29). molesters." Sex offenders with one prior arrest (the 'By definition, all sex offenders had at least 1 arrest prior to their release: namely, the arrest arrest for the sex crime for which they responsible for their being in prison in 1994. "First arrest for any type of crime" pertains exclusively to those released prisoners whose first arrest was the sex offense arrest had been imprisoned) had the lowest responsible for their being in prison in 1994. rate, about 3%; those with 2 or 3 prior arrests for some type of crime, 4%; Table 29. Of sex offenders released from prison in 1994, percent rearrested 4 to 6 prior arrests, 6%; 7 to 10 prior for any new sex crime, by number of prior arrests for any type arrests, 7%; and 11 to 15 prior Y Y Y Ype of crime arrests, 8%. Number of adult arrests Percent rearrested for any new prior to 1994 release sex crime within 3 years All sex offenders 5.3% 1 prior arrest for any type of crime 3.3 2 4.3 3 4.4 4 5.8 5 6.3 6 6.1 7-10 6.9 11-15 7.8 16 or more 7.4 Percent of released prisoners All sex offenders 100% 1 prior arrest for any type of crime 21.5 2 16.0 3 11.9 4 9.0 5 7.2 6 6.3 7-10 14.4 11-15 7.9 16 or more 5.8 Total released 9,691 Note: The 9,691 sex offenders were released in 15 States. By definition, all sex offenders had at least 1 arrest prior to their release: namely, the arrest responsible for their being in prison in 1994. In this table, that arrest is counted as one prior arrest. Recidivism of Sex Offenders Re/eased from Prison in 1994 27 5OA-76 Prior arrest for a sex crime released child molesters with just 1 extensive record of prior arrests prior arrest for a sex crime. for sex crimes were more likely to be All sex offenders rearrested for another sex crime (8.8%) Prior to their release in 1994, 2,762 of Similar results were found for released than those with just one past arrest the sex offenders (28.5% of the total statutory rapists. Those with a more (2.6%). 9,691) had 2 or more arrests for a sex offense in their criminal record: the Table 30. Of sex offenders released from prison in 1994, percent rearrested arrest for the sex offense that resulted for any new sex crime, by type of sex offender and prior arrest for any sex crime in their imprisonment, plus at least 1 earlier arrest for a sex crime (table 30). Sexual For the remaining 6,929 (71.5% of the Arrest prior to 1994 release All Rapists assaulters total 9,691 their only prior arrest for a Percent rearrested for any new sex crime within 3 years sex crime was the arrest that brought Total 5.3% 5.0% 5.5% them into prison. (Any other prior The arrest responsible for their being in prison in 1994 was - arrests the 6,929 may have had were Their first arrest for any sex crime 4.2 4.0 4.2 for non-sex crimes.) Following their Not their first arrest for any sex crime 8.3 7.4 8.7 release, the 2,762 with more than 1 sex Percent of released crime in their criminal background were prisoners about twice as likely to be rearrested Total 100% 100% 100% for another sex crime (8.3%) as the The arrest responsible for their being in prison in 1994 was 6,929 with a single prior arrest (4.2%). Their first arrest for any sex crime 71.5 71.3 71.6 Not their first arrest for any sex crime 28.5 28.7 28.4 Rapists and sexual assaulters Total released 9,691 3,115 6,576 Rapists (4.0%) and sexual assaulters Note: The 9,691 sex offenders were released in 15 States. (4.2%) with one prior arrest for a sex 'By definition, all sex offenders had at least 1 arrest prior to their release: namely, the arrest crime were less likely to be rearrested responsible for their being in prison in 1994. "First arrest for any sex crime" pertains exclusively to those released prisoners whose first arrest was the sex offense arrest responsible for their for another sex crime than rapists being in prison in 1994. (7.4%) and sexual assaulters (8.7%) who had been arrested two or more times for a sex crime prior to release Table 31. Of child molesters and statutory rapists released from prison in 1994, from prison in 1994. percent rearrested for any new sex crime, by prior arrest for any sex crime Child Statutory Child molesters and statutory. rapists Arrest prior to 1994 release molesters rapists By definition, all 4,295 child molesters Percent rearrested for any new had been arrested for a sex offense at sex crime within 3 years least once prior to their release in 1994 Total 5.1% 5.0% - the sex offense that landed them in The arrest responsible for their being prison. For 3,049 of them (71 % of in prison in 1994 was 4,295), that arrest was their only prior Their first arrest for any sex crime 3.8 2.6 arrest for a sex offense (table 31). The Not their first arrest for any sex crime 8.4 8.8 remaining 1,246 child molesters (29% Percent of released prisoners of 4,295) had at least 2 prior arrests for Total 100% 100% a sex crime: the arrest for their impris- onment offense plus at least 1 other The arrest responsible for their being prior arrest for a sex offense not in prison in 1994 was ( Their first arrest for any sex crime 71.0 61.6 necessarily one against a child). Of the Not their first arrest for any sex crime 29.0 38.4 1,246 child molesters with multiple sex Total released 4,295 443 crimes in their past, 8.4% (105 of the 1.246) were rearrested for another sex Note: The 4,295 child molesters were released in 15 States; the 443 statutory rapists, 11 States. crime (not necessarily another sex Because of overlapping definitions, all statutory rapists also appear under the column "child molesters." crime against a child) or more than *By definition, all sex offenders had at least 1 arrest prior to their release: namely, the arrest double the 3.8% rate for the 3,049 responsible for their being in prison in 1994. "First arrest for any sex crime" pertains exclusively to those released prisoners whose first arrest was the sex offense arrest responsible for their being in prison in 1994- 28 Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 5OA-77 State where rearrested for a sex Child molesters and statutory rapists released them in 1994. For the remain- crime ing 13.4%, the arrest was elsewhere. A total of 221 child molesters were When sex offenders were arrested for rearrested for a new sex crime (not Of all statutory rapists, 5% (22) were new sex crimes after their release, the necessarily against a child) after their rearrested for a new sex crime after new arrest typically occurred in the release (table 33). Among the 221 their release. Of these 22, none had same State that released them. Those were 191 (86.6%) whose new sex the new arrest outside the State that arrests are referred to as "in-State" crime arrest was in the same State that released them. arrests. When released sex offenders left the State where they were incarcer- Table 32. Where sex offenders were rearrested for a new sex crime ated and were charged by police with following their release from prison in 1994, by type of sex offender new sex crimes, those arrests are referred to as "out-of-State" arrests. Percent of rearrested prisoners State where rearrested Sexual All sex offenders within 3 years All Rapists assaulters Of the 9,691 released sex offenders, Total 100% 100% 100% 517 were rearrested for a new sex Same State where released 85.2 85.2 85.2 crime within 3 years. Most of those sex Another State 14.8 14.8 14.8 crime arrests (85.2% of the 517, or 440 men) were in the same State that Total rearrested for a new sex crime 517 155 362 released them (table 32). Seventy- seven of them (14.8% of the 517) were Note: The 517 rearrested sex offenders were released in 15 States, arrests in a different State. but table percentages are based on 14 States. Sex offenders compared Table 33. Where child molesters and statutory rapists were rearrested to non-sex offenders for a new sex crime following their release from prison in 1994 The 15 States in this study released Percent of rearrested 262,420 non-sex offenders in 1994, of prisoners State where rearrested Child Statutory whom 3,328 were rearrested for a new within 3 years molesters rapists sex crime within 3 years (not shown in Total 100% 100% table). Of the 3,328 non-sex offenders arrested for a new sex crime, an Same State where released 86.6 100 estimated 10% were men rearrested Another State 13.4 O outside the State that released them. The 15% figure for released sex Total rearrested for a new sex crime 221 22 offenders was high by comparison Note: The 221 rearrested child molesters were released in 14 States, (table 32). but table percentages are based on 13 States. The 22 rearrested statutory rapists were released in 6 States, but table percentages are based on 5 States. Rapists and sexual assaulters A total of 155 released rapists and 362 released sexual assaulters were rearrested for a new sex crime within the 3-year followup period. In-State arrests for new sex crimes accounted for 85% of the rearrested rapists and 85% of the rearrested sexual assaulters. Out-of-State arrests accounted for the rest. Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 29 5OA-78 Rearrest for a sex crime against a child Undercounts of sex crimes Rearrest Sex offenders compared against children to non-sex offenders This section documents percentages of AH sex offenders men who were arrested for a sex crime Prisons in the 15 States in the study Following their release in 1994, 209 released 272,111 prisoners altogether against in a 1 child ll To after some their unknown wn from of the total 9,691 released sex offend- in 1994, 9,691 of whom were the sex extent, these recidivism rates under- ers (2.2 /o) were rearrested for a sex offenders in this report. As previously count actual rearrest rates. That is offense against a child (table 34). For stated, 2.2% of the 9,691 sex offenders because the arrest records that the virtually all 209, the rearrest offense were rearrested for a child sex crime study used to document sex crime was a felony. For the reason given after their release. That rate is high arrests did not always contain enough earlier, the 2.2 /o figure undercounts compared to the rate for the remaining information to identify those sex crime the percentage rearrested for a sex 262,420 non-sex offenders. Of the arrests in which the victim of the crime offense against a child. It seems 262,420 non-sex offenders, less than was a child. Some sense of the poten- unlikely that the correct figure could be half of 1 percent (1,042 of the 262,420) wa size of the undercount can be as high as 5.3 /o (table 21), which is the were rearrested for a sex offense tial gained by comparing rearrests for any percentage rearrested for a sex crime against a child within the 3-year sex crime and rearrests for any sex against a person of any age. The only followup period (not shown in table). crime against a child. Rates of rearrest way it could be that high i if none of for a sex crime (tables 21 and 22) are the sex crime arrests after r release Since each of the 1,042 was charged percentage points higher were crimes in which the victim was an at arrest with molesting at least 1 child, from r 2 toates % p rearrest for a sex crime adult, an unlikely possibility. The more the total number they allegedly moles- than rates against s a child of r (tables 34 and cri likely possibility is that the 2.2% figure ted was conservatively estimated at suggesting that rates of rearrest fora undercounts the rate by a maximum of 1,042. Of the conservatively estimated 1 or 2 percentage points. 1,042 children, 65/o were age 13 or sex most, crime few against a child points could below be, ow at younger, 11 /o were 14- or 15-years- actual rates. An estimated 76% of the children alleg- old, and 24% were 16- or 17-years-old edly molested by the 209 men after (not shown in table). (These percent- No data on precise ages their prison release were age 13 or ages were based on the 554 cases out younger, 12% were 14- or 15-years- of the 1,042 in which the approximate of molested children o age of the child could be determined. old, and the remaining 12 /o were 16- ) This section also documents the ages or 17-years-old. of the children that the men were alleged to have molested after their Table 34. Of sex offenders released from prison in 1994, percent rearrested release from prison. Sex crime statutes for a sex crime against a child, and percent of their alleged victims, contained in the arrest records of the by age of victim and type of sex offender released prisoners were used to obtain Percent rearrested for a sex crime ages. The first step was to identify against a child within 3 years those sex crime statutes that were Sexual applicable just to children. Among All Rapists assaulters those that were, some were found to Total 2.2% 1.4% 2.5% apply just to children whose age fell Number released 9,691 3,115 6,576 within a certain range (for example, under 12, or 13 to 15, or 16 to 17). Age of child that sex offender was Percent of Those statutes applicable to children charged with molesting after release allegedly molested children within specified age ranges became 13 or younger 76.2% 89.3% 72.3% the source of information on the 14-15 11.5 O.O` 14.9 approximate ages of the allegedly 16-17 12.3 10.7' 12.8 molested children. Information on Number of molested children 209 44 165 precise ages could not be determined Note: The 9,691 sex offenders were released in 15 States. The approximate ages of the children because statutes applicable just to allegedly molested by the 209 prisoners after their release were available for 58.4% of the 209. children of a specific age (for example, "Number of molested children" was set to equal the number of released sex offenders rearrested just to 12-year-olds, or just to age for child molesting. 15-year-olds) do not exist. ,Percentage based on 10 or fewer cases. - 30 Recidivism of Sex Offenders Re/eased from Prison in 1994 5OA-79 Assuming that the 209 sex offenders Table 35. Of child molesters and statutory rapists released from prison who were rearrested for a sex crime in 1994, percent rearrested for a sex crime against a child, against a child each victimized no more and percent of their alleged victims, by age of victim than one child, the number of sex crimes they committed against children Percent rearrested for a sex after their prison release totaled 209. crime against a child within 3 years Assuming that the 1,042 non-sex child Statutory 9 molesters rapists offenders rearrested for a sex crime Total 3.3% 2.5% against a child after their release also victimized only one child, the number of Number released 4,295 443 sex crimes against a child that they Age of child that sex offender was Percent of committed was 1,042. The combined charged with molesting after release allegedly molested children total number of sex crimes is 1,251 13 or younger 79.2% 30.0'% (209 plus 1,042 = 1,251). Released sex 14-15 9.1 10.0' offenders accounted for 17% and 16-17 11.7 60.0' released non-sex offenders accounted Number of molested children 141 11 for 83% of the 1,251 sex crimes Note: The 4,295 child molesters were released in 15 States; the 443 statutory rapists in 11 against children committed by all the States. Because of overlapping definitions, all statutory rapists also appear under the column prisoners released in 1994 (209 / 1 ,251 "child molesters." The approximate ages of the children allegedly molested by the 141 prisoners = 17% and 1,042 / 1,251 = 83%) after their release were available for 54.6% of the 141. "Number of molested children" was set to equal the number of released sex offenders rearrested for child molesting. 'Percentage based on 10 or fewer cases. Rapists and sexual assaulters Prior arrest for a sex crime child molesting were more likely to be Following their 1994 release, 1.4% of against a child arrested for child molesting (6.4%) than the 3,115 rapists (44 men) and 2.5% of those who had no arrest record for sex the 6,576 sexual assaulters (165 men) All sex offenders with a child (1.7%) (table 36). were rearrested for molesting a child (table 34). After their 1994 release from prison, sex offenders with a prior arrest for Child molesters and statutory rapists Table 36. Of sex offenders released from prison in 1994, percent rearrested Within 3 years following their release for a sex crime against a child, by prior arrest for a sex crime from prison in 1994, 141 (3.3%) of the against a child and type of sex offender released 4,295 child molesters and 11 Sexual (2.5%) of the 443 released statutory Arrest prior to 1994 release All Rapists assaulters rapists were rearrested for molesting . For the Percent rearrested for a sex crime another child (table 35) reasons outlined earlier, these percent- against a child within 3 years ages undercount actual rearrest rates Total z.z% 1.a% z.s% by a few percentage points at most. The arrest responsible for their being in prison in 1994 was Each of the 141 released molesters Their first arrest for a sex crime against a child 1.7 1.3 1.9 rearrested for repeating their crime Not their first arrest for a sex crime against a child 6.4 4.0 6.9 represented at least 1 child victim. Of Percent of released prisoners the conservatively estimated 141 Total 100% 100% 100% children allegedly molested by released child molesters, 79% were age 13 or The arrest responsible for their being in prison in 1994 was younger, 9% were 14 or 15 years of Their first arrest for a sex crime against a child 89.7 94.3 87.5 age, and 12% were ages 16 or 17. Not their first arrest for a sex crime against a child 10.3 5.7 12.5 Total released 9,691 3,115 6,576 Note: The 9,691 sex offenders were released in 15 States. By definition, all sex offenders had at least 1 arrest prior to their release: namely, the arrest responsible for their being in prison in 1994. "First arrest for a sex crime against a child" pertains exclusively to those released prisoners whose first arrest was the sex offense arrest responsible for their being in prison in 1994. Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 9994 31 5OA-80 Rapists and sexual assaulters Table 37. Of child molesters and statutory rapists released from prison in 1994, percent rearrested for a sex crime against a child, by prior arrest for a sex crime After being released in 1994, 4.0% of against a child rapists with a prior arrest record for child molesting and 1.3% of those Child Statutory without were arrested for child molest- Arrest prior to 1994 release molesters rapists ing. The same pattern - having a Percent rearrested for a sex history of alleged child molesting was crime against a child within 3 years 3.3% 2.5% associated with a greater likelihood of The arrest responsible for their being in prison in 1994 was arrest for child molesting - was found Their first arrest for a sex crime against a child 2.4 1.4 for sexual assaulters. Those with a Not their first arrest for a sex crime against a child 7.3 6.9 prior arrest had a 6.9% rate; those Percent of released prisoners 100% 100% without, 1.9%. The arrest responsible for their being in prison in 1994 was - Their first arrest for a sex crime against a child 81.7 80.4 Child molesters and statutory rapists Not their first arrest for a sex crime against a child 18.3 19.6 The 4,295 released child molesters fell Total released 4,295 443 into 2 categories: 1) 3,509 (81.7% of Note: The 4,295 child molesters were released in 15 States; the 443 statutory rapists in 11 States. Because of overlapping definitions, all statutory rapists also appear under the column the 4,295) whose criminal record prior "child molesters." to their 1994 release contained no 'By definition, all sex offenders had at least 1 arrest prior to their release the arrest responsible for more than 1 arrest for a sex offense their being in prison in 1994. "First arrest for a sex crime against a child" pertains exclusively to against a child (this was the offense for those released prisoners whose first arrest was responsible for their being in prison in 1994. which they were imprisoned); and 2) 786 (18.3%) whose record showed the Table 38. Among child molesters released from prison in 1994, the molester's arrest for their imprisonment offense age when he committed the crime that resulted in his imprisonment, the child's plus at least one earlier arrest for a sex age, and percent rearrested for a sex crime against a child offense against a child (table 37). After Percent of released child molesters release, 7.3% of the 786 and 2.4% of Percent rearrested for a sex crime the 3,509 were rearrested for molesting Age characteristic of total against a child within 3 years another child, indicating that child Child molester's age when he committed molesters with multiple arrests for child the sex crime for which imprisoned- molesting in their record posed a 18-24 19.7% 4.1% greater risk of repeating their crime 25-29 17.4 3.1 30-34 18.7 3.3 than their counterparts. 35-39 16.3 1.2 40-44 11.5 2.8 Similarly, the 443 statutory rapists 45 or older 16.4 3.0 consisted of - Age of child he was imprisoned for molestingb - 356 (80.4%) whose first arrest for a 13 or younger 60.3% 2.8% sex offense against a child was the 14-15 30.5 3.7 arrest that resulted in their current 16-17 9.2 1.2 imprisonment How much older he was than the child - 87 (19.6%) with more than 1 prior he was imprisoned for molesting arrest for a sex offense against at child. Up to 5 years older 3.9% 4.9'% 5 to 9 years older 13.6 3.6 . 10 to 19 years The 87 were more likely to be 20 o more ye older 34.1 32 years older 48.4 2.5 rearrested for child molesting (6.9%) than the 356 (1.4%). Total first releases 3,104 3,104 Note: The 3,104 child molesters were released in 13 States. Figures are based on first releases Molester's and child's ages at time only, those offenders leaving prison for the first time since beginning their sentence. First releases exclude those who left prison in 1994 but who had previously been released under of imprisonment offense the same sentence and had returned to prison for violating the conditions of release. Data - identifying the child molester's age were reported for 100% of the released child molesters. Child molesters Data identifying the approximate age of the child were reported for 88.1 'The molester's age at the time of the crime for which imprisoned was estimated by subtracting 6 months (the approximate average time from arrest to sentencing) from his age at admission. The released child molesters were all "The approximate age of the child "he was imprisoned for molesting" was usually obtained from men who were arrested, convicted, and the State statute the molester was convicted of violating. `Percentage based on 10 or fewer cases. 32 Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 5OA-81 sentenced to prison for a sex crime release from prison in 1994 (table 39). child within 3 years. Out-of-State against a child. At the time they In 180 cases (86.3%), the alleged arrests for child molesting accounted committed their imprisonment offense, crime took place in the State that for 13.5% of the 44 rearrested rapists most (62.9%) were age 30 and older, released him. In the 29 others (13.7%), and 13.7% of the 165 rearrested sexual and most (60.3%) molested a child it occurred elsewhere. assaulters. who was age 13 or younger (table 38). Some of the victims were below age 7. Sex offenders compared Child molesters and statutory rapists Nearly half of the men (48.4°/x) were 20 to non-sex offenders years or more older than the child they Police arrested 141 of the 4,295 were imprisoned for molesting. The 15 States in this study released released child molesters for repeating 262,420 non-sex offenders in 1994, of their crime (table 40). For 126 of them Among the men who were in prison for whom 1,042 were rearrested for a sex (89.2%), the new arrest for child molesting a child age 13 or younger crime against a child (not shown in molesting was in the same State that and who were released in 1994 for that table). Of the 1,042 arrests, 11 % were released them. For 15 (10.8%), the crime, 2.8% were subsequently out-of-State rearrests. The comparable new charges for child molesting were arrested for molesting another child. figure for released sex offenders was filed in a different State. Of those whose imprisonment offense higher: 14% (table 39). was against a 14- or 15-year-old, 3.7% Of the 443 statutory rapists released had a new arrest for child molesting Rapists and sexual assaulters from prison in 1994, 11 were after their release. Of the men who rearrested for child molesting. All 1 1 were in prison for molesting a 16- or Forty-four released rapists and 165 of the arrests were in the same State 17-year-old, 1.2% were arrested by released sexual assaulters were that released the men. police for molesting another child after rearrested for a sex crime against a leaving prison in 1994. Table 39. Where sex offenders were rearrested for a sex crime against a child Among the men who were 20 years or following their release from prison in 1994, by type of sex offender more older than the child they were imprisoned for molesting, 2.5% were Percent of rearrested prisoners rearrested for another sex offense State where rearrested Sexual within 3 years All Rapists assaulters against a child within the first 3 years Total 100% 100% 100% following their release. That is a lower rate than the 3.2% rate for men who Same State where released 86.3 86.5 86.3 were 10 to 19 years older than the child Another State 13.7 13.5 13.7 victim in their imprisonment offense, Total rearrested for a new and compared to the 3.6% for those 5 sex crime against a child 209 44 165 to 9 years older than the victim in their Note: The 209 rearrested sex offenders were released in 10 States, imprisonment offense. but table percentages are based on 9 States. State where rearrested for a sex Table 40. Where child molesters and statutory rapists were rearrested for a crime against a child sex crime against a child following their release from prison in 1994 Percent of rearrested prisoners When sex offenders were arrested for child Statutory new sex crimes against children after State where rearrested within 3 years molesters rapists their release, the new arrest typically Total 100% 100% occurred in the same State that released them. Those arrests are Same State where released 89.2 100 referred to as "in-State" arrests. When Another State 10.8 0 arrests occurred in a different State, Total rearrested for a new they are referred to as "out-of-State." sex crime against a child 141 11 Note: The 141 rearrested child molesters were released in 9 States, All sex Offenders but table percentages are based on 8 States. The 11 rearrested statutory rapists were released in 3 States, but table percentages Of the 9,691 sex offenders, 209 were are based on 2 states. rearrested for child molesting after their Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 33 5OA-82 Rearrest for other types of crime All sex offenders Among the 6,576 released sexual - 12.6% (826) were rearrested Of the 9,691 male sex offenders assaulters - for a property offense. released from prison in 1994 - - 41.5% (2,731) were rearrested Nearly 1 in 20 released sexual - 43 /0 4,163 men) were rearrested for a crime of an kind ° ( ) - 16.4% (1,076) were rearrested were assaulters (4.7%, or 308 of the 6,576) for a crime of any kind (table 41) for a violent crime were charged with committing the - 5.3% (517 men) were rearrested . 0.3% for a were rearrested same type of crime for which had just for a sex offense for killing someone served time in prison. - 17.1% (1,658 men) were rearrested for a violent crime - 13.3% (1,285 men) were rearrested Table 41. Rearrest rate of sex offenders released from prison in 1994, for a property crime of some kind. by type of sex offender and charge at rearrest Percent rearrested for specified Of the 9,691 released men, 168 (1.7%) offense within 3 years were rearrested for rape and 396 Sexual (4.1 were rearrested for sexual Rearrest charge All Rapists assaulters assault. The 168 rearrested for rape All charges- 43.0% 46.0% 41-5% plus the 396 rearrested for sexual violent offensesb 17.1% 18.7% 16.4% assault totals 564, which is 47 greater Homicide- 0.5 0.7 0.3 than the total 517 who were rearrested Sex offensed 5.3 5.0 5.5 for a sex crime. The reason is that 47 Rape 1.7 2.5 1.4 men were rearrested for both rape and sexual assault 4.1 2.8 4. Robbery 2.7 3.9 2.1 1 sexual assault. Assault 8.8 8.7 8.8 The category of violent crime for which Property offenses- 13.3% 14.7% 12.6% Burglary 3.8 4.4 3.5 a prisoner was most likely to be Larceny/theft 5.7 6.1 5.6 rearrested was assault (8.8%, or 848 of Motor vehicle theft 1.7 2.3 1.4 the 9,691); the category least likely was Fraud 2.1 1.8 22 homicide (0.5%, or 45 of the 9,691 Drug offenses' 10.0% 11.2% 9.4% men). Public-order offenses 21.1% 20.4% 214% Just over 1 in 5 sex offenders (2,045 Other offenses 5.9% 5.0% 6.3% out of 9,691) were rearrested for a public-order offense, such as a parole Total released 9,691 3,115 6,576 violation or traffic offense. Note: The 9,691 sex offenders were released in 15 States. Detail may not add to totals because persons may be rearrested for more than one type of charge. -All offenses include any offense type listed in footnotes b through f plus Rapists and sexual assaulters .other" and "unknown" offenses. Among the 3,1 15 released rapists -Total violent offenses include homicide, kidnaping, rape, other sexual assault, robbery, 9 assaults, and other violence. - 46% (1 ,432) were rearrested `Homicide includes murder, voluntary manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter, negligent manslaughter, nonnegligent manslaughter, unspecified manslaughter, and unspecified homicide. for a crime of any kind ,Includes both rape and sexual assault- - 18.7% (582) were rearrested -Total property offenses include burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, fraud, forgery, for a violent crime embezzlement, arson, stolen property, and other forms of property offenses. - 0.7% (22) were rearrested for fDrug offenses include drug trafficking, drug possession, and other forms of drug offenses. -Public-order offenses include traffic offenses, weapon offenses, probation and parole homicide violations, court-related offenses, disorderly conduct, and other such offenses- - 14.7% (459) were rearrested for a property offense. A relatively small percentage of rapists (2.5%, or 78 of the 3,115) were charged with repeating the crime for which they were imprisoned. 34 Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 5OA-83 Child molesters and statutory rapists Table 42. Rearrest rate of child molesters and statutory rapists released Of the 4,295 child molesters released from prison in 1994, by charge at rearrest from prison in 1994 Percent rearrested for specified • 39.4% (1,693) were rearrested offense within 3 years Child Statutory for a crime of any kind (table 42) Rearrest charge molesters rapists - 0.4% (17) were rearrested All charges- 39.4% 49.9% for intentionally or negligently killing someone. Violent offenses' 14.1% 21.2% Homicide` 0.4 0.7 Child molesters were less likely to be sex offense' 5.1 . Y Rape 1.3 1 1.6 6 rearrested for a property crime (10.6%, Sexual assault 4.4 3.6 456 of 4,295) than a violent crime Robbery 1.7 4.3 (14.1%, 607 of 4,295). Assault 7.1 12.6 Property offenses- 10-6% 22.6% Of the 443 statutory rapists released Burglary 2.8 4.3 in 1994 - Larceny/theft 4.6 10.8 Motor vehicle theft 1-5 3.8 49.9% (221) were rearrested Fraud 1.9 3.6 for some new crime Drug offenses' 8.6% 12.0% • 0.7% (3) were rearrested for homicide Public-order offensese 20.0% 27.1% • 22.6% (100) were rearrested for a property crime Other offenses 7.8% 4.3% • 21.2% (94) were rearrested Total released 4,295 443 for a violent crime. Note: The 4,295 child molesters were released in 15 States; the 443 statutory rapists in 11 States. Because of overlapping definitions, all statutory rapists also appear under the column "child molesters." Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. -All offenses include any offense type listed in footnotes 6 through f plus "other" and "unknown" offenses. bTotal violent offenses include homicide, kidnaping, rape, other sexual assault, robbery, assaults, and other violence. cHomicide includes murder, voluntary manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter, negligent manslaughter, nonnegligent manslaughter, unspecified manslaughter, and unspecified homicide. ,Includes both rape and sexual assault. .Total property offenses include burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, fraud, forgery, embezzlement, arson, stolen property, and other forms of property offenses. 'Drug offenses include drug trafficking, drug possession, and other forms of drug offenses. OPublic-order offenses include traffic offenses, weapon offenses, probation and parole violations, court-related offenses, disorderly conduct, and other such offenses. Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 35 5OA-84 Victims of sex crimes Survey of State inmates Among inmates who were in prison for percent of the inmates reported their a sex crime against a child, the child child victims to have been strangers. The 9,691 prisoners in this study were was the prisoner's own child or step- Among adult victims, 34% were all men sentenced to prison for sex child in a third of the cases. Seven strangers to their attacker. crimes. Characteristics of the victims of these sex crimes were largely Characteristics of victims of rape or sexual assault, for which male inmates unavailable for the study. For informa- were serving a sentence in State prisons, 1997 tion on imprisoned sex offenders and Percent of victims of rape or sexual assault their victims, data were drawn from a Victim age survey covering the approximately Victim characteristic All 18 years or older Under 18 years 73,000 male sex offenders in State Total 100% 100% 100% prisons nationwide in 1997. Gender Male 8.8% 2.8% 111% Of the 73,000 victims of their sex Female 91.2 97.2 88.9 crimes - Race - about 90% were female white 73.2% 66.0% 76.4% - nearly 75% were white Black 22.8 30.2 19.4 - 89% were non-Hispanic Other 4.0 3.8 4.2 - 36% were below age 13 Hispanic origin - altogether, 70% were under age 18. Hispanic 11.3% 9.9% 12-1% Non-Hispanic 88.7 90.1 87.9 Child victims of sex crimes were more Age likely than adult victims to be male 12 or under 36.4% 51.6% 1 % versus 3%). Whites made u 13-17 34.1 48.4 (1 p 18-24 10.8 36.7% 76% of child victims and 66% of adult 25-34 11.2 37.9 victims. 35-34 7.0 23.8 55 or over 0.5 1.6 The biggest difference between child Victim was the prisoner's - victims and adult victims was their Spouse 1.1% 3.8% 0% relationship to the man who committed Ex-spouse 0.6 2.0 0 the sex crime: Parent/steppa rent 0.6 0.4 0.6 Own child 11.5 1.4 15.7 Stepchild 112 0.4 15.8 Among cases where the victim was Sibling/stepsibling 1.3 0.4 1.7 under 18, the boy or girl was the Other relative 9.4 2.1 12.7 prisoner's own child (16%), stepchild Boy/girlfriend 5.5 8.2 4.4 Ex-boy/girlfriend 1.1 2.0 0.8 (16%), sibling or stepsibling (2%), or Friend/ex-friend 22.7 24.8 22.0 other relative (13%) in nearly half of all Acquaintance/other 19.4 20.1 19.6 child victim cases (46%). Among Stranger 15.6 34.4 6.7 cases where the victim was an adult, Total estimated number 73,116 20,958 50,027 the victim was a relative less Note: Data are from the BJS Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities, 1997. This table often (111 is based on 73,116 prisoners who reported having one victim in the crime for which they were sentenced to prison. (They accounted for approximately 84% of all incarcerated male sex offenders in 1997) .Data identifying victim's sex were reported for 99.8% of the 73,116 males incarcerated for sex crimes; victim's race were reported for 98.9%; Hispanic origin for 98.2%; victim's age for 97.1 victim's relationship to prisoner for 98.3%. Detail may not sum to total due to missing data for age of victim. --Not applicable. 36 Recidivism of Sex Offenders Re/eased from Prison in 1994 5OA-85 Methodology 3-year followup period State statutes, and when they were statute the offender was imprisoned for used they did not always conform to violating, or the statute the released For analytic purposes, "3 years" was the study's definitions of them. In prisoner was charged with violating defined as 1,096 days from the day of deciding which type of sex offender to when he was rearrested for a sex release from prison. Any rearrest, classify the prisoner as, importance crime. The former was obtained from reconviction, or re-imprisonment occur- was attached not to the label the law the prison records assembled for the ring after 1,096 days from the 1994 gave to his conviction offense, but to study; the latter, from the assembled release was not included. A conviction how well the law's definition of the arrest records. after 1,096 days was not counted even offense fit the study's definition of the if it resulted from an arrest within the type. None of the sex statutes was found to period. apply to a victim of a specific age; for Sex offenders compared to non-sex example, just to 12-year-olds. But Separating sex offenders into four offenders some were found to apply just to types children in a certain age range; for In 1994, prisons in 15 States released example, under 12, or 13 to 15, or 16 The report gives statistics for four types 272,111 prisoners, representing to 17. While specific ages of children of sex offenders. Separating sex offen- two-thirds of all prisoners released in could not be obtained from statutes, ders into the four types was done using the United States that year. Among the the availability of information on age information - in particular, the statute 272,111 were 262,420 released prison- ranges at least made it possible to number for the imprisonment offense, ers whose imprisonment offense was obtain approximate ages. The rule that the literal version of the statute, a not a sex offense. Non-sex offenders was adopted was to record the victim's numeric FBI code (called the "NCIC" include inmates, both male and female, (or alleged victim's) age as the upper code, short for "National Crime Infor- who were in prison for violent crimes limit of a statute's age range. To illus- mation Center") indicating what the (such as murder or robbery), property trate, a statute might indicate that the imprisonment offense was, and miscel- crimes (such as burglary or motor complainant/victim be "at least 13 but laneous other information - available vehicle theft), drug crimes, and public less than 16 years of age." In that case, in the prison records on the 9,691 men. order offenses. Like the 9,691 male the age of the child was recorded as However, the prison records obtained sex offenders examined in this report, 15, since the statute indicated the for the study did not always contain all all non-sex offenders were serving upper limit of the age range as any age four pieces of information on the prison terms of one year or more in "less than 16." As another example, if a imprisonment offense. Moreover, the State prison when they were released statute indicated the complainant/ available offense information was not in 1994. victim be "under 12 years of age," the always detailed enough to reliably child's age was recorded as 11, as the distinguish different types of sex At various places, this report compares phrasing of the age range did not offenders. 9,691 released male sex offenders to include 12-year-olds, only those "under 262,420 released non-sex offenders. 12." Because the victim (or alleged The process of sorting sex offenders While labeled "non-sex offenders," the victim) was always assigned the age of into different types involved first creat- 262,420 actually includes a small the oldest person in the age range, the ing the study's definitions of the four number- 87- who are sex offenders. study made the victims (or alleged types, and then determining which The 87 are all the female sex offenders victims) appear older than they actually State statute numbers, which literal released from prisons in the 15 States were. versions of those statutes, and which in 1994. NCIC codes conformed to the defini- How missing data were handled in the tions. Each inmate was next classified Ages of molested and allegedly report into one of the types (or possibly into molested children more than one type, since the four are In many instances, the data needed to not mutually exclusive) depending on Information on the ages of molested calculate a statistic were not available whether the imprisonment offense children was needed for two calcula- for all 9,691 released sex offenders. information available on him fit the tions: 1) age of the child the released For example, the 9,691 were released study's definition. sex offender was sent to prison for in 15 States, but data needed to deter- molesting, and 2) age of the child alleg- mine the number reconvicted were only An obstacle to classifying sex offenders edly molested by the released sex available for the 9,085 released in 14 of into types was that the labels "rape," offender during the 3-year follow-up the 15. Of the 9,085, 2,180 (24%) were "sexual assault," "child molestation," period. The most frequent source of reconvicted. When data were missing, "statutory rape" were not widely used in both was a sex statute: either the sex the statistic was computed on those Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 37 5OA-86 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 from data on first releases (for Because no sampling was used to example, percent of sentence served), select sex offenders, numbers and Appendix table. Number of sex Michigan was excluded from all tables offenders released from State prisons percentages in this report for sex in 1994 and number selected for this based on first releases. offenders were not subject to sampling report, by State error. However, comparisons in the Analysis of statutory rape laws report between sex offenders and Sex offenders non-sex offenders were subject to released from 1994 The ublication's anal sis of statuto prison in p y ry sampling error because sampling was select elected rape laws in the United States benefit- used to select non-sex offenders. to be in ted greatly from the report "Sexual Where sex offenders were compared State Total this report Relationships Between Adult Males to all non-sex offenders released in Total 10,546 9,691 and Young Teen Girls: Exploring the 1994, sampling error was taken into Arizona 156 122 Legal and Social Responses," by account. All differences discussed California 3,503 3,43955 Delaware 53 Sharon G. Elstein and Noy Davis, were statistically significant at the .05 Florida 1,053 965 American Bar Association, Center on level. Illinois 775 710 Children and the Law, October 1997. Maryland 277 243 Not all 10,546 sex offenders in the Michigan 477 444 Minnesota 249 239 Sampling error sample were used in the report. To be New Jersey 449 429 in the report, the sex offender had to New York 799 692 In 1994 State prisons in 15 States be male and meet all 4 of the following North Carolina 508 441 released 302,309 prisoners altogether. criteria: Ohio 824 606 Oregon 452 408 A total of 38,624 were sampled for a Texas 708 692 recidivism study. Results of that study 1. A RAP sheet on the prisoner was Virginia 263 260 and information regarding sampling found in the State criminal history Note: "Total released" includes both male and and other methodological details are repository. female sex offenders; "Total selected to be in available in the BJS publication Recidi- 2. The released prisoner was alive this report" includes only male sex offenders. vism of Prisoners Released in 1994, throughout the entire 3-year followup NCJ 193427, June 2002. period. (This requirement resulted in 21 Using the 3,741 and the 9,691, the sex offenders' being excluded.) reader could exactly reproduce the The 302,309 total released consisted 3. The prisoner's sentence was greater results. However, the reader should be of 10,546 released sex offenders plus than 1 year (missing sentences were aware that in a few places, the calcu- 291,763 released non-sex offenders. treated as greater than 1 year). lated percentages will differ slightly The 38,624 sample consisted of 4. The State department of corrections from the percentages found in the 10,546 released sex offenders plus that released the prisoner in 1994 did report. This is due to rounding. For 28,078 released non-sex offenders. not designate him as any of the follow- example, 43.0%, or 4,163, of the 9,691 The number of sex offenders in the ing release types: release to sex offenders were rearrested; sample was the same as the number in custody/detainer/warrant, absent however, 4,163 / 9,691 is 42.96%, the 302,309 total because all sex without leave, escape, transfer, admin- which was rounded to 43.0%. offenders released in 1994 in the 15 istrative release, or release on appeal. States were selected for the study, not Offense definitions and other methodo- a sample of them. A total of 9,691 released male sex logical details are available in the BJS offenders met the selection criteria. publication Recidivism of Prisoners The number of them released in each Released in 1994, NCJ 193427, June State is shown in the appendix table. 2002. Other methodological details To help the reader understand the percentages provided in the report, both the numerator and denominator were often given. In most cases, the reader could then reproduce the percentages. For example, the report indicates 38.6% (3,741) of the 9,691 sex offenders were returned to prison. Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 39 5OA-88 Methodology 3-year followup period State statutes, and when they were statute the offender was imprisoned for used they did not always conform to violating, or the statute the released For analytic purposes, "3 years" was the study's definitions of them. In prisoner was charged with violating defined as 1,096 days from the day of deciding which type of sex offender to when he was rearrested for a sex release from prison. Any rearrest, classify the prisoner as, importance crime. The former was obtained from reconviction, or re-imprisonment occur- was attached not to the label the law the prison records assembled for the ring after 1,096 days from the 1994 gave to his conviction offense, but to study; the latter, from the assembled release was not included. A conviction how well the law's definition of the arrest records. after 1,096 days was not counted even offense fit the study's definition of the if it resulted from an arrest within the type. None of the sex statutes was found to period. apply to a victim of a specific age; for Sex offenders compared to non-sex example, just to 12-year-olds. But Separating sex offenders into four offenders some were found to apply just to types children in a certain age range; for In 1994, prisons in 15 States released example, under 12, or 13 to 15, or 16 The report gives statistics for four types 272,111 prisoners, representing to 17. While specific ages of children of sex offenders. Separating sex offen- two-thirds of all prisoners released in could not be obtained from statutes, ders into the four types was done using the United States that year. Among the the availability of information on age information - in particular, the statute 272,111 were 262,420 released prison- ranges at least made it possible to number for the imprisonment offense, ers whose imprisonment offense was obtain approximate ages. The rule that the literal version of the statute, a not a sex offense. Non-sex offenders was adopted was to record the victim's numeric FBI code (called the "NCIC" include inmates, both male and female, (or alleged victim's) age as the upper code, short for "National Crime Infor- who were in prison for violent crimes limit of a statute's age range. To illus- mation Center") indicating what the (such as murder or robbery), property trate, a statute might indicate that the imprisonment offense was, and miscel- crimes (such as burglary or motor complainant/victim be "at least 13 but laneous other information - available vehicle theft), drug crimes, and public less than 16 years of age." In that case, in the prison records on the 9,691 men. order offenses. Like the 9,691 male the age of the child was recorded as However, the prison records obtained sex offenders examined in this report, 15, since the statute indicated the for the study did not always contain all all non-sex offenders were serving upper limit of the age range as any age four pieces of information on the prison terms of one year or more in "less than 16." As another example, if a imprisonment offense. Moreover, the State prison when they were released statute indicated the complainant/ available offense information was not in 1994. victim be "under 12 years of age," the always detailed enough to reliably child's age was recorded as 11, as the distinguish different types of sex At various places, this report compares phrasing of the age range did not offenders. 9,691 released male sex offenders to include 12-year-olds, only those "under 262,420 released non-sex offenders. 12." Because the victim (or alleged The process of sorting sex offenders While labeled "non-sex offenders," the victim) was always assigned the age of into different types involved first creat- 262,420 actually includes a small the oldest person in the age range, the ing the study's definitions of the four number- 87- who are sex offenders. study made the victims (or alleged types, and then determining which The 87 are all the female sex offenders victims) appear older than they actually State statute numbers, which literal released from prisons in the 15 States were. versions of those statutes, and which in 1994. NCIC codes conformed to the defini- How missing data were handled in the tions. Each inmate was next classified Ages of molested and allegedly report into one of the types (or possibly into molested children more than one type, since the four are In many instances, the data needed to not mutually exclusive) depending on Information on the ages of molested calculate a statistic were not available whether the imprisonment offense children was needed for two calcula- for all 9,691 released sex offenders. information available on him fit the tions: 1) age of the child the released For example, the 9,691 were released study's definition. sex offender was sent to prison for in 15 States, but data needed to deter- molesting, and 2) age of the child alleg- mine the number reconvicted were only An obstacle to classifying sex offenders edly molested by the released sex available for the 9,085 released in 14 of into types was that the labels "rape," offender during the 3-year follow-up the 15. Of the 9,085, 2,180 (24%) were "sexual assault," "child molestation," period. The most frequent source of reconvicted. When data were missing, "statutory rape" were not widely used in both was a sex statute: either the sex the statistic was computed on those Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 37 5OA-89 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 "l 7", 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-90 from data on first releases (for Because no sampling was used to Appendix table. Number of sex example, percent of sentence served), select sex offenders, numbers and offenders released from State prisons Michigan was excluded from all tables percentages in this report for sex in 1994 and number selected for this based on first releases. offenders were not subject to sampling report, by State error. However, comparisons in the Analysis of statutory rape laws report between sex offenders and Sex offenders non-sex offenders were subject to released from The publication's analysis of statutory sampling error because sampling was prison in lssa Selected rape laws in the United States benefit- used to select non-sex offenders. to be in n ted greatly from the report "Sexual Where sex offenders were compared State Total this report Relationships Between Adult Males to all non-sex offenders released in Total 10,546 9,691 and Young Teen Girls: Exploring the 1994, sampling error was taken into Arizona 156 122 California 3,503 3,395 Legal and Social Responses," by account. All differences discussed Delaware 53 45 Sharon G. Elstein and Noy Davis, were statistically significant at the .05 Florida 1,053 965 American Bar Association, Center on level. Illinois 775 710 Children and the Law, October 1997. Maryland 277 243 477 444 Not all 10,546 sex offenders in the Michigan Minnesota 249 239 2a9 239 Sampling error sample were used in the report. To be New Jersey 449 429 in the report, the sex offender had to New York 799 692 h Carolina 441 24 508 In 1994 State prisons in 15 States be male and meet all 4 of the following Nort 8 released 302,309 prisoners altogether. criteria: Orreg Oeg sea 606 Oregon 452 408 A total of 38,624 were sampled for a Texas 708 692 recidivism study. Results of that study 1. A RAP sheet on the prisoner was Virginia 263 260 and information regarding sampling found in the State criminal history Note: "Total released" includes both male and and other methodological details are repository. female sex offenders; "Total selected to be in available in the BJS publication Recidi- 2. The released prisoner was alive this report" includes only male sex offenders- vi sm of Prisoners Released in 1994, throughout the entire 3-year followup NCJ 193427, June 2002. period. (This requirement resulted in 21 Using the 3,741 and the 9,691, the sex offenders' being excluded.) reader could exactly reproduce the The 302,309 total released consisted 3. The prisoner's sentence was greater results. However, the reader should be of 10,546 released sex offenders plus than 1 year (missing sentences were aware that in a few places, the calcu- 291,763 released non-sex offenders. treated as greater than 1 year). lated percentages will differ slightly The 38,624 sample consisted of 4. The State department of corrections from the percentages found in the 10,546 released sex offenders plus that released the prisoner in 1994 did report. This is due to rounding. For 28,078 released non-sex offenders. not designate him as any of the follow- example, 43.0%, or 4,163, of the 9,691 The number of sex offenders in the ing release types: release to sex offenders were rearrested; sample was the same as the number in custody/detainer/warrant, absent however, 4,163 / 9,691 is 42.96%, the 302,309 total because all sex without leave, escape, transfer, admin- which was rounded to 43.0%. offenders released in 1994 in the 15 istrative release, or release on appeal. States were selected for the study, not Offense definitions and other methodo- a sample of them. A total of 9,691 released male sex logical details are available in the BJS offenders met the selection criteria. publication Recidivism of Prisoners The number of them released in each Re/eased in 1994, NCJ 193427, June State is shown in the appendix table. 2002. Other methodological details To help the reader understand the percentages provided in the report, both the numerator and denominator were often given. In most cases, the reader could then reproduce the percentages. For example, the report indicates 38.6% (3,741) of the 9,691 sex offenders were returned to prison. Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 39 5OA-91 40 Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 5OA-92