Sex offender registration and recidivism risk in juvenile sexual offenders

Abstract

Juvenile sex offenders are increasingly included in sex offender registration laws, based, in part, on the assumption that they pose a distinctively high risk for future sexual violence and registration may help to mitigate this risk. To test this assumption, the current study compares risk scores on the static scales of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (JSOAP-II; Prentky & Righthand, 2003) and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI; Hoge, Andrews, & Leschied, 2002), between samples of 106 registered and 66 unregistered juvenile sex offenders. New criminal charges, including sexually based crimes, were examined over a mean follow-up of 49.2 months (SD = 29.6 months). Results indicated that registered youth had lower risk scores on scales that most accurately predicted recidivism and registered youth were charged with new crimes at rates similar to those of unregistered youth. Reoffense risk, as measured by the risk scales, was not moderated by registration. The findings did not support the assumption that registration can effectively lower the risk for reoffense in juvenile offenders.

Predicting Sexual and Nonsexual Recidivism in a Consecutive Sample of Juveniles Convicted of Sexual Offences

“…Overall, an acceptable predictive validity was found only for the J-SOAP-II Antisocial and the J-SOAP-II Adjustment scale. Thus, in agreement with previous findings (Caldwell & Dickinson, 2009;Caldwell et al, 2008;Martinez et al, 2007;Viljoen et al, 2008), the J-SOAP-II Sexual…”

“…Up to now, it remains unclear which sexual behavioural patterns are associated with sexual recidivism. However, based on the present and previous findings (Caldwell & Dickinson, 2009;Caldwell et al, 2008;Martinez et al, 2007;Viljoen et al, 2008) the J-SOAP-II Sexual Drive scale did not adequately address sexual recidivism and should, therefore, this score should be excluded from risk assessments by clinicians. Finally, research on the J-SOAP-II may be further specified by abstaining from a total score which is simply based on a sum of isolated risk factors.…”

“…Furthermore, in some states JSO perceived to be at high risk of violent re-offending are placed on public sex offender registries (Caldwell & Dickinson, 2009). Considering the potentially large impact of these interventions, courts often rely on clinical expertise for discriminating high from low risk JSO.…”

Sex Offender Registration and Notification Policy Increases Juvenile Plea Bargains

“…Other researchers have demonstrated that federal standards for juvenile sex offender registration fail to distinguish between youth who will reoffend or not (Batastini, Hunt, Present-Koller, & DeMatteo, 2011;Caldwell, Ziemke, & Vittacco, 2008) as do state-specific methods in New Jersey, Texas, and Wisconsin (Caldwell & Dickinson, 2009;Caldwell et al, 2008). The basis for these federal and state policy failures might lie, in part, with the low sexual recidivism rate of youth adjudicated for sex offenses (Caldwell, 2002;Vandiver, 2006).…”

Sex Offender Supervision in Context

“…Several scholars have found that sex offender registration and notification laws do not significantly reduce recidivism (Caldwell & Dickinson, 2009;Prescott & Rockoff, 2011) and may actually increase recidivism by negatively impacting community reintegration (Levenson, Brannon, et al, 2007;Levenson & Cotter, 2005;Mercado et al, 2008;Sevitz & Farkas, 2004;Tewksbury & Lees, 2007). Several scholars have found that sex offender registration and notification laws do not significantly reduce recidivism (Caldwell & Dickinson, 2009;Prescott & Rockoff, 2011) and may actually increase recidivism by negatively impacting community reintegration (Levenson, Brannon, et al, 2007;Levenson & Cotter, 2005;Mercado et al, 2008;Sevitz & Farkas, 2004;Tewksbury & Lees, 2007).…”