Reductions in risk based on time offense-free in the community: Once a sexual offender, not always a sexual offender.

Abstract

Whereas there is a common assumption that most individuals with a criminal record can be eventually reintegrated into the community, the public has different expectations for sexual offenders. In many countries, individuals with a history of sexual offenses are subject to a wide range of long-term restrictions on housing and employment, as well as public notification measures intended to prevent them from merging unnoticed into the population of law-abiding citizens. This article examines the testable assumption that individuals with a history of sexual crime present an enduring risk for sexual recidivism. We modeled the long-term (25-year) risk of sexual recidivism in a large, combined sample (N > 7,000). We found that the likelihood of new sexual offenses declined the longer individuals with a history of sexual offending remain sexual offense-free in the community. This effect was found for all age groups and all initial risk levels. Nonsexual offending during the follow-up period increased the risk of subsequent sexual recidivism independent of the time free effect. After 10 to 15 years, most individuals with a history of sexual offenses were no more likely to commit a new sexual offense than individuals with a criminal history that did not include sexual offenses. Consequently, policies designed to manage the risk of sexual recidivism need to include mechanisms to adjust initial risk classifications and determine time periods where individuals with a history of sexual crime should be released from the conditions and restrictions associated with the “sexual offender” label.

Severe mental illness diagnoses and their association with reoffending in a sample of men adjudicated for sexual offences

“…We then updated the dataset to include a longer recidivism period (11.4 years on average but up to 35 years for some offenders in the sample). A follow-up length of this nature would have caught most recidivists (e.g., Hanson et al, 2018). Perhaps less obviously, the sample of origin involved an extended interview with the supervising officer who were often keen to discuss cases they saw as complex, interesting, and difficult.…”

The economic burden of child sexual abuse in the United States

“…These interventions have been ineffective (Belzer, 2015; Lafond, 1998; Socia, 2014; The Council of State Governments, 2010; Zgoba, Witt, Dalessandro, & Veysey, 2008). Even if these criminal justice interventions were effective, they would have minimal effects on preventing new cases of abuse because most cases of CSA – as many as 95%-are committed by first-time offenders (Sandler, Freeman, & Socia, 2008) and because most adjudicated sex offenders – as many as 80%-never reoffend sexually (Hanson, Harris, Letourneau, Helmus, & Thornton, 2018). It is hoped that a credible, comprehensive and current estimate of the national financial burden of CSA will bring attention to the high but unmet potential of CSA prevention programming and serve as a benchmark against which to evaluate cost-effectiveness of subsequent prevention efforts.…”

Predictive Properties of the Violence Risk Scale–Sexual Offense Version as a Function of Age

“…Use of the VRS-SO normative sample to examine age-related discrimination and calibration also increases the potential for model overfitting, and the present study findings and conclusions would be strengthened through replication and extension to other samples. A further consideration is that, time free in the community post release has important implications for continued risk reduction and cessation of offending; that is, the longer an individual stays out of custody and remains crime free, the less likely is that individual to return to custody for a new sexual or violent crime (Hanson, Harris, Letourneau, Helmus, & Thornton, 2018). It was beyond the scope of the present study to examine the interaction of risk, time free, and/or support services in the community or even prerelease to estimated rates of future sexual offending, when the focus instead was on the psychometric properties of a sexual violence risk tool among age stratified groups.…”