Once fallen presents… - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Once fallen presents…Slide2

Myth: A popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Not all myths are pure fiction; some are misrepresentations of facts, facts taken out of context, or exaggerations of facts

Myths

A

re Deeply

I

ngrained

I

n

O

ur

B

rainsSlide3

Dan Gunderson, “A Better Approach to Sex Offender Policy.” Minnesota Public Radio, June 18th, 2007

“Misinformation and a lack of information often shapes sex offender policy…Most of the legislators in

[a study by Lisa Sample of U. of Nebraska- Omaha] said their primary

source

of information was the news media.”In most cases, lawmakers didn’t read studies/ reports relevant to legislation they supported.Sample: Most sex offender legislation follows the abduction and murder of a child, and the resulting public outrageIn Minnesota, a panel of experts recently completed a comprehensive report to serve as a guide for sex offender policy in the state. One of the report’s authors says the biggest challenge is just getting lawmakers to read it.Bottom Line: It is our job to educate the people

Myths Are Deeply Ingrained In Our BrainsSlide4

Common logical fallacies:A

d hominem: Personal attacks, “Only

pedos reject SO laws.”

Appeals to emotion: What ifs, “What if it was

your child raped/ murdered, If it saves just one child.”Ad ignorantiam: You can’t prove OR disprove myth, “Sex offenses are notoriously underreported.”Appeal to authority: “The NCMEC/ Oprah states that….”Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc: A preceded B, therefore A caused B; questionable cause; “Sex crime rates dropped in the 90s, therefore the registry works.”Red herring: Misleading/detracting from the

issue, “Vote

for the Senate Farm Bill, or you give food stamps to pedophiles, and pedophilia harms children.”

Myths Are Deeply Ingrained In Our BrainsSlide5

Common logic fallacies Continued…Cherry

picking:

Placing a narrow focus on one supporting area in a study while

neglecting other parts of a study.

The Moving Goalpost: Moving the standard of proof or setting impossible boundaries, “Even 1% recidivism is too high.”Straw Man: Ignoring a person's actual position and substituting a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position,

“You say reoffending is low.

I disagree entirely. Reoffending is high because pedophiles are clever and most go undetected!"

Myths Are Deeply Ingrained In Our BrainsSlide6

Common logic fallacies Continued…“Twististics

:” Intentionally showing a stat in the most misleading way possible, a “false light;” “Sex offender reoffending is low BUT they are four times as likely to reoffend than non-sex offenders.”

“Data Soup:” Throwing a bunch of loosely related stats together, implying a great danger in high numbers (Sex is the #1 search term online, porn is a $20 BILLION a year industry, the average SO commits 117 sex crimes, etc.)

Myths Are Deeply Ingrained In Our BrainsSlide7

Part II:

The “Dirty Dozen” S.O. MythsSlide8

“The risk or recidivism posed by sex offenders is ‘frightening and high.’” (Smith v. Doe, 538 US at 103)

SCOTUS relied on the

Prentky study as well as part of the US Dept. of Justice study as “proof” of high recidivism rates.

The bad news: SCOTUS, for now, declares high recidivism rates a “settled” or established fact. They are WRONG.

Myth #1: High Recidivism RatesSlide9

Understanding recidivism: Recidivism means the rate at which a person previously convicted of a crime commits another crime.Recidivism studies use varying standards for measuring recidivism—re-conviction

rates, re-arrest rates, informal reports to child agencies,

self-reporting, violations of conditional release, or simply being questioned by police. The broader the

definition

, the higher the number.Myth #1: High Recidivism RatesSlide10

Recidivism (sometimes

called General/ Baseline

Recidivism) means person commits a offense of any type, include parole violations, traffic violations, other crime

types.

Re-offense (sometimes called Specific/ Sexual Recidivism) means the sex offense committed a new sex offense. Some studies include “Failure To Register” as a sex crime.Myth #1: High

Recidivism

RatesSlide11

US Department of Justice, “Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released into the Community in 1994.”Three-year follow-up period of 9,641 SOs released in

15 states in 1994

517 sex offenders (5.3% of all sex offenders) were arrested for a sex crime within 3 years, 3.5% were reconvictedNearly 1/3 of those arrested were not convicted (

F

alsely accused? Not enough evidence?)Myth #1: High Recidivism RatesSlide12

Advocates For Change Recidivism Handout (from 2012 RSOL Conference)“A composite of 27 studies from 24 states and countries involving 69,307 sex offenders released from prison and followed for an average of 4.2 years show 3.68% were convicted for a new sex offense.”

Myth #1:

High

Recidivism RatesSlide13

Factors affecting recidivism rates:#1: The longer someone is out, the less likely that person will reoffend: 5

year recidivism rate for offenders who have

been out of prison five years was 7%; among offenders out 10 years, 5%; and among offenders out 15 years, 4

%.

[Harris, A. J. R., Hanson, R. K. (2004) “Sex Offender Recidivism: A Simple Question.”]Myth #1: High Recidivism RatesSlide14

Factors affecting recidivism rates:

#2:

Of those who do reoffend, about 2/3 do so within three years of release -- Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, “Ten Year Recidivism Follow-up of 1989 Sex Offender Releases

.”

This is why short term studies are sufficient for determining recidivism and re-offense ratesMyth #1: High Recidivism RatesSlide15

Factors affecting recidivism rates:

#3: Sex Crime recidivism among

Sex Offender sub-groups: From the Harris and Hanson study 2004 study (in parentheses

,

recidivism rates after 5 years, 10 years, and 15 years):Extended Incest Child Molesters (6%, 9%, 13%)“Girl Victim” Child Molesters (9%, 13%, 16%)Rapists (14%, 21%, 24%)“Boy Victim” Child Molesters (23%, 28%, 35%)Myth #1: High Recidivism RatesSlide16

Factors affecting recidivism rates:

#4: One

time offenders (10%, 15%, 19%) recidivated at a lower rate than those who had two or more prior convictions (25%, 32%, 37%)

-- Harris and Hanson 2004Note: All totals from Harris and Hanson study are cumulative.Myth #1: High Recidivism RatesSlide17

Understanding perspective: “Cumulative” totals can easily lead to misuseCumulative totals break the law of gravity: What goes up keeps going up, never down

H

arris and Hanson study gives a TOTAL re-offense rate in 5 year increments (14%, 20%, 24%)People will ASSUME 14% PLUS 20% PLUS 24%; thus, assume the longer one

The truth: In the first five years, overall re-offense rates were 14%, but between years 5-10, 6% reoffended, and between 10-15 years, only 5% reoffended

Myth #1: High Recidivism RatesSlide18

Myth #1:

High

Recidivism RatesSlide19

Myth #1:

High

Recidivism RatesSlide20

The “Prentky Study” [Prentky, R., Lee, A., Knight

, R., &

Cerce, D. (1997). “Recidivism rates among child molesters and rapists: A methodological analysis

.”] claims a 52% recidivism rate.

Problems with the study: The sample consisted of those released from civil commitment centers with multiple offenses, the author has declared the sample is not representative of all SOs, the 52% rate is an estimate rather than the actual rate of recidivismMyth #1: High Recidivism RatesSlide21

“Lifetime Sex Offender Recidivism: A 25 year Follow-Up Study,” by Ron

Langevin

claims a 90%-94% re-offense rate. This study has been universally rejected by the experts

because

the researchers intentionally removed non-recidivists from the study once they remained offense-free for 15 years. “Nearly 100% of reoffenders reoffend.” Myth #1: High Recidivism RatesSlide22

“When convicted sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault”

McKune

v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 34 (2002)

[citing

U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sex Offenses and Offenders 27 (1997); U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983, p. 6 (1997)]Myth #2: Sex offenders are “four times more likely to reoffend”Slide23

US Department of Justice, “Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released into the Community in 1994

.”

9,641 SOs released, 262,420 non-SOs released in same 15 states in 1994

517 sex offenders (5.3

%) were arrested for a sex crime within 3 years3,228 non-sex offenders (1.3%) were arrested for a sex crime in same 3 yearsSix times as many sex crimes were committed by non-RSOs released from prison as RSOs in the same period

Myth

#2: Sex offenders are

“

four times more likely to reoffend”Slide24

All offenders tend to specialize, but re-offense rates for registrants are lower than other crimesMichigan

Parole Board, Recidivism

Stats 1990-2000Follow-up Period: 4 years Recidivism RatesSex

Offenders

2.46%Burglary 10.56%Drugs 6.42%Robbery 5.17%Myth #2: Sex offenders are

“

four times more likely to reoffend”Slide25

Myth #3: Stranger Danger

“…the FBI (in the 1950s) distributed a poster that epitomized this attitude. It showed a man, with his hat pulled down, lurking behind a

tree

with a bag of candy in his hands. He was waiting for the sweet little girl walking home from school alone

.” (Kenneth V. Lanning, “Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis,” National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 2001, p. 13)Slide26

NISMART-2 [National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children] of 797500 Missing children reports in 2002:

357,600 runaway/ throwaway

340,500 benign reasons

61,900 Missing involuntarily/ lost/ injured

56,500 Family Abduction12,100 Non-family Abduction115 “stereotypical kidnappings,” of those 45 permanently missing/ deadMyth #3: Stranger DangerSlide27

In 2002, there were 73.1 Million kids under 18 in the US, 45 killed/ permanently missing, or 1 in 1,624,444

American Academy of Pediatrics stated in 2010 that 77 kids a year die from choking to death on a hot dog

.

Should we register Oscar Meyer?

Myth #3: Stranger DangerSlide28

Myth #3: Stranger Danger

Only 6.7% of victims under 18 and 34.4% of victims over 18 were victimized by strangers

Source: BJS Survey of Inmates in State Correctional FacilitiesSlide29

Myth #3: Stranger Danger

Fact: The younger the age, the less likely a stranger is involved.Slide30

Myth #3: Stranger Danger

Fact: Most juvenile sex crimes are committed by other juvenilesSlide31

Myth #3: Stranger Danger

“95.9

% of rape arrests and 94.1% of child molestation arrests were of first time

offenders.” Source: Sandler

, Freeman, & Socia, “Does a Watched Pot Boil? A Time-Series Analysis of New York State’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Law

.Slide32

Most sex crimes are committed in the home (Howard N. Snyder, Ph.D., "Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics." National Center for Juvenile Justice, July 2000): "Most (70%) of the sexual assaults reported to law enforcement occurred in the residence of the victim, the offender, or the residence of another individual."

Myth #3: Stranger DangerSlide33

Myth #4: All Sex Offenders are “Pedophiles” or “Predators”

“Sex Offender” and “Pedophile” are often used interchangeablySlide34

“Pedophile” is a clinical term

Sex Offender is a

legal termYou cannot

be convicted of “pedophilia” but you can be convicted of a sex offense. There is no such thing as a “convicted pedophile.”

You can be a pedophile without committing a offense. You can commit a sex offense and not be a pedophile.There are a myriad of derogatory terms: Predator, pervert, sex beast, sex fiend, monster, kid toucher, baby-raper, chicken hawk, kid fucker, Sexually Violent Predator (SVP), even “predophile”Myth #4: All Sex Offenders are “Pedophiles” or “Predators”Slide35

Only a small portion of convicted sex offenders against minors are actually preferentially attracted to children. In spite of this fact, studies typically use the word “pedophile” interchangeably with terms such as “child molester,” “sex offender,” “abuser,” and “rapist

.” – Source:

Okami, P. & Goldberg, A., “Personality Correlates of Pedophilia: Are They Reliable Indicators?”, Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 29, No. 3, 1992, pp. 297-328.

Myth

#4: All Sex Offenders are “Pedophiles” or “Predators”Slide36

Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger

).

[And:] The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies caused marked distress or interpersonal difficulty

.

[And:] The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old.Myth #4: All Sex Offenders are “Pedophiles” or “Predators”Slide37

Situational/ Opportunistic/ Regressed Offenders: Not attracted exclusively to children, more amenable to treatment, more capable of feeling remorse, less likely to have multiple victims, mostly within family or close circle of friends, often motivated by reasons other than sex, triggered by stressors (more common)

Fixated/ Preferential Offenders:

Exclusively attracted to children, premeditated behaviors, more likely to abuse multiple victims, less amenable to treatment (very uncommon)

Myth

#4: All Sex Offenders are “Pedophiles” or “Predators”Slide38

Only 4% of sexual offenders in Montana prisons are classified as

“Pedophiles”

Facts, Figures and Estimates Regarding Treatment for Incarcerated Sex Offenders in Montana (01/06/2011)

Myth

#4: All Sex Offenders are “Pedophiles” or “Predators”Slide39

“There seems virtually no evidence predators can actually be ‘cured.’ Discussions about this sound like alcoholism in that you can never be cured but the key is to control the urge.”

– Anderson Cooper,

“Can sexual predators ever be cured?” CNN.com (2007)A

ssumption #1: All sex offenders have an “incurable illness.”

Assumption #2: All sex offenders pose an equal and high risk (they are “homogeneous”) Myth #5: Sex offenders cannot be curedSlide40

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, “Ten Year Recidivism Follow-up of 1989 Sex Offender Releases.”7.1% of sex offenders who went through treatment recidivated

16.5% of sex offenders who did not undergo treatment recidivated

16.5 divided by 7.1= a 65% decrease

Myth

#5: Sex offenders cannot be curedSlide41

“Sexual recidivism by COSA Core Members is 70% lower than that of the matched comparison sample, and is less than one-quarter of the actuarial sexual

recidivism

rates projected by the Hanson and Thornton STATIC-99 survival curves - a statistically significant result.” -- Robin J. Wilson, Janice E. Picheca & Michelle

Prinzo

. "Circles of Support & Accountability: An Evaluation of the Pilot Project in South Central Ontario." Correctional Service of Canada, May 2005Myth #5: Sex offenders cannot be curedSlide42

Facts, Figures and Estimates Regarding Treatment for Incarcerated Sex Offenders in Montana (01/06/2011):Recidivism (returning

to prison for

any violations)25% of treatment complete inmates return to prison

49% of treatment non-complete inmates return to prison

Re-offending (returning to prison for a new sexual offense)2% of treatment complete inmates re-offend20% of treatment non-complete inmates re-offendMyth #5: Sex offenders cannot

be curedSlide43

We use the term “treatment” rather than “cure” – most people are amenable to “treatment.” Not all treatment programs are equal– programs that shame the offender/ negative actions/ techniques that are based on distrust and shame (such as use of the polygraph and

plethysmographs

) are examples of bad programsSome good programs: Stop It Now! Circles of Support and Accountability, Faith Based Initiatives

Myth

#5: Sex offenders cannot be curedSlide44

Myth #6: Sex Offenders have

hundreds

of victims

“The

average serial child molester has between 360-380 victims in his lifetime… The average adolescent sex offender will, without treatment, go on to commit 380 sex crimes during his lifetime.” (From Laura Ahearn’s “Parents For Megan’s Law” Statistics Page)Slide45

Gene Abel

"Self-Reported Sex Crimes of Non-Incarcerated

Paraphiliacs"

(1986

)There are a number of problems with the study-- few offenders were voluntary (which would compel false admissions), inclusion of non-criminal paraphilias such as consensual homosexual relations, and Abel lists an estimated number of acts and victims over a lifetime. Abel states the study suggested paraphiliacs, “through coercion or varying degrees of compliance

, repeated acts are carried out with the same victims or partners

” Myth

#6:

Sex Offenders have

hundreds

of victimsSlide46

Male Victims, # of actsMean -- 281.7Median -- 10.1

Female Victims, # of acts

Mean -- 23.2Median -- 1.4Male Victims, # of Victims

Mean

-- 150.2Median -- 4.4Female Victims, # of victimsMean -- 19.8Median -- 1.3Myth #6: Sex Offenders have hundreds of victims

Abel Study: Means (average) versus medians (halfway number)

At least half of the study’s participants have

less than 5% of the “average number of victims”Slide47

“The typical offender is male, begins molesting by age 15, engages in a variety of deviant behavior, and molests an average of 117 youngsters, most of whom do not report the offense

.” – Attributed to Gene Abel (1985) “The

Evaluation of Child Molesters: Final Report to the Center on Antisocial and Violent Behavior.” Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health

.

No one has a copy of the original study! But…Myth #6: Sex Offenders have hundreds of victimsSlide48

“The Stop Child Molestation Book: What Ordinary People Can Do In Their Everyday Lives To Save 3 Million Children” by Nora

Harlow and

Gene G. Abel “On average, a pedophile molests 11.7 children compared to a non-pedophile molester, who molests, on average, 2.9 children.”

“On average, a molester with pedophilia commits 70.8 molestation acts. On average, a molester without pedophilia commits 6.5 acts

.”Moving decimal point?Myth #6: Sex Offenders have hundreds of victimsSlide49

“The Impact of Polygraphy on Admissions of Victims and

Offenses in Adult Sexual

Offenders” by Sean Ahlmeyer, Peggy Heil,

Bonita McKee

, and Kim English (2000)Also relies on self-reporting and includes non-criminal paraphilias but adds POLYGRAPHS. “Comparatively, conclusions cannot be made on the frequency of sexual offending for inmates and parolees, because of the unique external confounds present for each setting.” The end result was the belief that polygraphs influenced more self-reporting because the inmates believed they worked.Myth #6:

Sex Offenders have

hundreds of victimsSlide50

Kokish, Levenson, and Blasingame

. “Post-conviction Sex Offender Polygraph

Examination: Client-Reported Perceptions of Utility and Accuracy” (2005)

Researchers

found that participants reported a relatively low incidence of false indications of both deception (22 of 333 tests) and truthfulness (11 of 333) tests, suggesting that clients agreed with examiners’ opinions 90% of the time. About 5% of participants reported that they responded to allegedly inaccurate accusations of deception by admitting to things they had not done. In other words, the interpretation of the test relies solely on what the researcher believes in the hearing.Myth #6: Sex Offenders have

hundreds

of victimsSlide51

Myth #6: Sex Offenders have

hundreds

of victims

No other study has validated these outlandish claims.

If 700,000 Registered Offenders had 100 to 300 victims like the myth claims, there would be around a 70 to 280 million victims. The USA only has 300 million individuals and around 70 million minorsSlide52

Myth #7: The Underreporting

Myth

“The

majority of sexual assault are not reported to the police (an average of 54% of assaults in the last five years were not reported). Those rapists, of course, will never spend a day in prison. But even when the crime is reported, it is unlike to lead to an arrest and prosecution. Factoring in unreported rapes, only about 3% of rapists will ever serve a day in prison

.” [Source: The R.A.I.N.N. website’s “Statistics” page]Slide53

Since under-reporting is an "unknown" factor, many victim advocates claim astronomical numbers, such as "90%+" in claiming how

many

sex crime cases go unreported. The current largest and best measure of under-reporting comes from the National Crime Victimization Surveys (NCVS). The NCVS is a “self-report study” that includes “attempted” as well as “completed” acts, including “verbal threats.” The study relies on the survey taker, not a trained law enforcement official, to determine whether an act is an “unreported crime.”

Myth

#7: The Underreporting MythSlide54

The unreported numbers have been steadily declining over the years:

2003 NCVS: 67.3% of rapes and attempted rapes (attempts included verbal threats of sexual violence) and 53.2% of sexual

assaults go unreportedB

etween 2003-2005, sex assaults/ rapes were consolidated

2005 NCVS: 61.7% of rapes/ sexual assaults go unreported2010 NCVS: 50% of rapes/ sexual assaults go unreportedMyth #7: The Underreporting MythSlide55

The NCVS understands it has limitations: “The

estimates of rape/sexual assault are based on

a small number of cases reported to the survey. Therefore, small absolute changes and fluctuations in the rates of victimization can result

in large year-to-year percentage change estimates. For 2010, the estimate of rape or sexual assault is based on 57

unweighted cases compared to 36 unweighted cases in 2009." That is 57 "unreported cases" out of sample size of nearly 71000 people: In 2010, 40974 households and 73283 individuals age 12 and older were interviewed for the NCVS. Each household was interviewed twice during the year. The response rate was 92.3% of households and 87.5% of eligible individuals." Still, the survey strongly suggests the amount of under-reporting may be over-reported.

(2010

NCVS summary)Myth

#7:

The Underreporting

MythSlide56

So WHY do people fail to report sex crimes?Citing a Besserer and Trainor

(2000) study,

which used “a very broad definition of sexual assault,” including all unwanted forms of sexual touching and threats, and possibly “behaviors not conforming

to

the popular image of a sexual offense,” Hanson and Harris point out 59% of the respondents of this study stated the reason for not reporting was they felt the “incident was not important enough” to report. “Consequently, readers may wonder what counts as a sexual assault.” (Harris & Hanson 2004, p. 1-2)Myth #7: The Underreporting MythSlide57

From the NCVS 2005:Non-reporting when a stranger is involved: Reported to another official (49.6%), Police

don’t

want to be bothered (19.9%), Offender unsuccessful (12.7%), Fear of reprisal (11%), and Police inefficient, ineffective, or biased (6.9%).

T

op reasons for non-reporting when a non-stranger is involved: Other Reasons (47%), Private or personal matter (31.1%), Police don’t want to be bothered (10.8%), Report to another official (5.1%), Police ineffective, inefficient, biased (2.8%), and Too incontinent, time consuming (2.4%)Myth #7: The Underreporting MythSlide58

"Today, nearly one out of every five paroled sex offenders (100,000 in all) has gone missing. They've evaded state laws, exploited loopholes and disappeared, free to use their newfound anonymity to prey on new victims. This new law will help put an end to that freedom

.”

Scott Berkowitz, President of RAINN NOTE: This “100,000 missing RSOs” number has remained the same since the myth was created in 2002.

Myth

#8: 100,000 Missing Sex OffendersSlide59

Myth #8: 100,000 Missing

Sex

Offenders

Source of the myth was a 2002

Parents for Megan's Law survey in which only 32 states participated and very few states kept accurate records, giving only rough estimates of non-compliance. PFML concluded

24%, or about a fourth, of registrants were unaccounted for.

(In 2002 there were roughly 400,000 registrants). PFML has never released the study for peer review.

eAdvocate

, “The

Saga of 100,000 Missing Sex Offenders: Now the truth

.” Sex

Offender Reports, Charts, and

Other Papers..(2009).

http

://

sexoffender-reports.blogspot.com/2009/05/saga-of-100000-missing-sex-offenders.html Slide60

“The number is 100,000. Depending on the account, it has been used to represent the number of sex offenders in the United States who are

‘missing,’ ‘noncompliant,’ ‘fugitive,’ ‘evading

authorities,’ or ‘absconded.’” – Source: Jill S.

Levenson

and Andrew J. Harris. “100,000 Sex Offenders Missing . . . or Are They? Deconstruction of an Urban Legend.” Criminal Justice Policy Review, 2011.Myth #8: 100,000 Missing Sex

OffendersSlide61

Myth #8: 100,000 Missing

Sex

Offenders

Ackerman

, A. R., Harris, A. J., Levenson, J. S., & Zgoba, K. (2011). “Who are the people in your neighborhood? A descriptive analysis of individuals on public sex offender registries.” International Journal of Psychiatry and LawTotal Registrants: 445,127

A

bsconded: 5,349Missing:” 1,264FTRs: 4,152

Total Lost: 10,765 (2.4%)

Homeless: 6,923Slide62

Zgoba KM, Levenson J. (June 2012) “Failure

to register as a predictor of sex offense recidivism: the big bad wolf or a red herring

?” Sex Abuse, 24(4):328-49“Failure to register was not a significant predictor of sexual recidivism, casting doubt on the belief that sex offenders who are noncompliant with registration are especially sexually dangerous. Few differences between groups were detected, but FTR offenders were more likely to have sexually assaulted a stranger and to have adult female victims, further challenging the stereotype of the child predator who absconds to evade detection

.”

Myth #8: 100,000 Missing Sex OffendersSlide63

The 50,000 Internet predator myth is attributed to controversial Chris Hansen and "To Catch a Predator;" Hansen admits he conjured the number out of thin air

(

Benjamin Radford. “Predator Panic: A Closer Look.” Skeptical Enquirer, 9/2006) So the myth was debunked… or was it?“Federal authorities believe that at least 500,000 to 750,000 predators are “on-line” on a daily basis, constantly combing through these blog sites, crawling around in Internet chat rooms and on-line dating services, pretending to be someone and something they’re not.” Clint Van

Zant

, MSNBC analyst & former FBI profile, in 2006, and cited on Dateline NBC’s “To Catch a Predator”Myth #9: "Internet Predators"Slide64

“FBI Profiler Kenneth Lanning calls 50,000 the "Goldilocks number," meaning the number doesn't sound like too much or not enough. The number 50,000 has been applied for many unknown numbers --

Korean

War casualties, deaths and annual deaths from second hand smoke, number of children allegedly sacrificed to Satan during the satanic cult scares of the 1980s”

(Brooke Gladstone, “On the Media: Prime Number.” NPR/ WNYC radio, May 26, 2006

)Myth #9: "Internet Predators"Slide65

Actual online child exploitation crimes 2006 [Source: Janis Wolak

, David

Finkelhor & Kimberly J. Mitchell (2009) “Law Enforcement Responses to Online Child Sexual Exploitation Crimes: The National Juvenile Online Victimization Study, 2000 &

2006.” Crimes Against Children Resource Center]

615 arrests for online predation3,100 arrests for solicitations to undercover investigators posing online as minorsFor every “online predation” arrest. Six more were by undercover copsMyth #9: "Internet Predators"Slide66

“1 of 5 children who use a computer chat room has been approached

by a pedophile (child molester

)” – Judy Cornett, Safe Zone Advocacy “30% of young people consider an online encounter while 14% have already met in person with someone they met online

.” – from

“Slavery No More” http://www.slaverynomore.org/"Things are not always what they seem. For example, sexual predators lie about their age and are ‘always older’ than they admit.” – Pamela Bennett, FL Child Predator CyberCrime Unit, 2007Myth #9:

"Internet Predators"Slide67

“1 in 5” stat: came from Youth Internet Safety Survey (YISS)19% received a broad term "sexual solicitation,"

which included anything from sexual spam to someone asking if a person

“got lucky” on a date Only one in 33 experienced an "aggressive sexual solicitation," or a request to contact offline

24% came from adults, 48% came from other juveniles, and 24% from unknown people

One cannot assume all solicitations came from "online predators"Myth #9: "Internet Predators"Slide68

Cox Communications/ NCMEC Teen Internet Safety

Survey (2006)

Sample size: 1,100 teens age 13-1714% have actually met face-to-face with a person they had known only through the Internet (9% of 13- to 15-year-olds and 22% of 16- to 17-year-olds). The survey never discusses who they meet or for what purposes

Subsequent studies from COX and the YISS have found these numbers have been reduced, but many sites don’t quote the newer results

Myth #9: "Internet Predators"Slide69

“Janis Wolak, David Finkelhor, Kimberly J. Mitchell, and Michele L. Ybarra. "Online 'Predators' and their victims." American Psychologist, Vol. 63 No. 2 February-March

2008

Internet offenders pretended to be teenagers only 5% of the time

Online SOs

are seldom violent, and cases involving stalking or abduction are very rare.Youth who engaged in 4+ risky online behaviors were much more likely to report receiving online sexual solicitations. Online risky behaviors included maintaining buddy lists that included strangers, discussing sex online with people they did not know in person and being rude or nasty online.Myth #9:

"Internet Predators"Slide70

"The publicity about online 'predators' who prey on naive children using trickery and violence is largely inaccurate. Internet sex crimes involving adults and juveniles more often fit a model of statutory rape—adult offenders who meet, develop relationships with, and openly

seduce

underage teenagers—than a model of forcible sexual assault or pedophilic child molesting. This is a serious problem, but one that

requires approaches different from those in current prevention messages emphasizing parental control and the dangers of

divulging personal information" (Janis Wolak, David Finkelhor, Kimberly J. Mitchell, and Michele L. Ybarra. "Online 'Predators' and their victims." American Psychologist, Vol. 63 No. 2 February-March 2008)Myth #9: "Internet Predators"Slide71

Myth #10: Tough on crime

"Increasing penalties against those who prey on these vulnerable children will deter criminals from committing such crimes.“

– NY State Sen

. Joe

Robach, Apr. 1, 2013Slide72

Myth #10: Tough on crime

Source: DOES

A WATCHED POT

BOIL? A

Time-Series Analysis of New York State’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Law.” Jeffrey C. Sandler, Naomi J. Freeman, and Kelly M. Socia (2008)Slide73

FACT: Sex offender laws have no positive impact on crime, but the effects of the

law can increase

crime: REGISTRATION: “…Results of the analyses indicate that the 1996 enactment of SORA (and thus the beginning of the registry) had

no significant

impact on rates of total sexual offending, rape, or child molestation, whether viewed as a whole or in terms of offenses committed by first-time sex offenders or those committed by previously convicted sex offenders (i.e., repeat offenders).” – Sandler et al. “Does a Watched Pot Boil”Myth #10: Tough on crimeSlide74

RESIDENCY RESTRICTION LAWS: In 2005, Iowa began enforcing 2000 foot residency restrictions. In the year following enactment:

The number of sex crime arrests increased by 15, and convictions increased by 12 (the second year, arrests increased by 167 and convictions increased by 45)

Failure to Register cases increased by 184137 charges for violating residency restrictions

700 of Iowa’s 6000 registrants fled the state or the US or simply stopped registering.

Iowa scaled back restrictions for most registrants in 2009See http://www.oncefallen.com/residencylaws.html for full referencesMyth #10: Tough on crimeSlide75

ADAM WALSH ACT“Results showed that those offenders

classified as

Tier 1 (lowest risk) were rearrested for both sexual and nonsexual offenses more quickly than both Tier 2 (moderate risk) and Tier 3 (highest risk) offenders

and were

rearrested for sexual offenses at a higher rate than Tiers 2 and 3 offenders.” Freeman, N. J., & Sandler, J. C. (2010). The Adam Walsh Act: A False Sense of Security or an Effective Public Policy Initiative? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21(1), 31-49.“…AWA tiers did a poor job of identifying high-risk offenders, and thus may not meaningfully guide sex offender management practices.” [Zgoba, Milner, Raymond Knight, Elizabeth Letourneau,

Jill

Levenson, and David Thornton. 2012. “A Multi-State Recidivism Study Using Static-99R and Static 2002 Risk Scores and Tier Guidelines from the Adam Walsh Act.” Research Report Submitted to the National Institute of Justice.]

Myth #10: Tough on crimeSlide76

FACT: Sex offender laws promote social ostracism and vigilante violenceAs

former offenders are denied opportunities to reintegrate into society and stigmatized, they lose hope. Stigmatized offenders are more

likely to recidivate than reintegrated offenders, as the resistance to recidivate diminishes among offenders who are ostracized. On the

other

hand, a ‘pro-social identity,’ including concrete recognition of their reform, is integral to reducing recidivism (Hollida Wakefield, “The Vilification of Sex Offenders: Do Laws Targeting Sex Offenders Increase Recidivism and Sexual Violence?” Journal of Sex Offender Civil Commitment: Science and the Law, 2006, p. 141-149)Myth #10: Tough on crimeSlide77

Psychologist John Q. LaFond points out a Washington state study that found notification laws do not prevent crime; instead, it leads to quicker arrest times, either by the constant scrutiny, or by disrupting employment, housing, and support for the sex offender, causing stress and increasing the likelihood of recidivism

(

LaFond, "Preventing Sexual Violence." APA 2005)

Myth

#10: Tough on crimeSlide78

“Employment problems experienced by the RSO, and subsequent financial hardships, emerged as the

most pressing

issue identified by family members. The likelihood of housing disruption was correlated with residential restriction laws; larger buffer distances led to increased frequencies of housing crisis

. Family members living with an RSO were more likely to experience threats

and harassment by neighbors. Children of RSOs reportedly experienced adverse consequences including stigmatization and differential treatment by teachers and classmates. More than half had experienced ridicule, teasing, depression, anxiety, fear, or anger. Unintended consequences can impact family members’ ability to support RSOs in their efforts to avoid recidivism and successfully reintegrate.” -- Levenson, J. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2009). Collateral damage: Family members of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice.

Myth

#10: Tough on crimeSlide79

“The amount of actual jail time a sex offender serves is short. VERY short. Anecdotal evidence seemed to reveal that sex offenders serve less time than people who were convicted of stealing or drug possession

.” – From the ‘Instant Checkmate” Blog (a background check service site)

Myth #11: The

“slap on the wrist”Slide80

Myth #11: The

“slap on the wrist”

Child Porn Convictions lead all major offenses in federal sentencing (Source: US Sentencing Commission)Slide81

Florida Department of Corrections, Bureau of Research and Data Analysis: Sentence length for 2008/2009 Murder: 23.5 years

Sex crimes: 11.9 years

Robbery: 8.2 yearsOther violent crime: 4.3 years

Drugs: 3.0 years

Washington State “Sex Offender Sentencing” 2004: In fiscal year 2003, the average sentence length for all felonies was 37.3 months, compared to 90.8 months for sex offenses.Myth #11: The “slap on the wrist”Slide82

Myth #12: Megan’s Law “Raises Awareness”

"The purpose of the law was to provide an awareness to

parents. It

was put there for parents to know where the offenders are living. Five million people have gone to the state web site. It's doing what it was supposed to do.

We never said it was going to stop them from reoffending or wandering to another town.” Maureen Kanka, in a telephone interview with The Star-Ledger. Slide83

2005 Gallup Poll (of 1,006 people) taken just after the Jessica

Lunsford

tragedy hit the media found only 38% of individuals were even aware their state even maintains a registry. Even though

94% of those polled favored registries, only 23% have ever checked the registry, while 34% stated concerns

over harassment and vigilantism as a result of the registry [Lydia Saad, “Sex Offender Registries are Underutilized by the Public.” Gallup, June 9, 2005] Myth #12: Megan’s Law “Raises Awareness”Slide84

When the state of Florida proposed cutting e-mail notification alerts in 2008 due to budget cuts, it was noted only 44,000 of the state’s 16 million residents (or 0.275

%) signed up for the program

, or roughly one signee per registrant -- Whitney Ray, “Amber Alerts and Sexual Offender Registry May Be Cut by FDLE.” WJHG 7, Nov. 13, 2008,

http://www.wjhg.com/news/headlines/34417494.html, Retrieved Feb. 10, 2009

Myth #12: Megan’s Law “Raises Awareness”Slide85

“Familiarity with and Uses of Sex Offender Registries” Nicole Wilkes &

Leana

A. Bouffard (2013)

(73.6%) were familiar with sex offender registries,

7% were unsure of their familiarity, 19.6% unfamiliar with registryAmong those familiar with the registry, 40.9% had accessed it for themselves, 17.8% had accessed it for someone else, and 30.2% had not accessed itReasons for accessing the registry: 40% of respondents accessed it because they were curious, 18% because they were worried for their safety and about 12% because they were concerned about young children’s safety.Ways people discovered the registry: Word of mouth (35.9%), internet search (22.4%), and television (13.2%).Myth #

12:

Megan’s Law “Raises Awareness”Slide86

“Familiarity with and Uses of Sex Offender Registries” Nicole Wilkes & Leana A. Bouffard (2013

) cont’d…

The most common reason respondents gave was not knowing what to do with the information/believing there was nothing they could do (11.7%), and the least common response was not being interested (4%).

Of those who looked at

the registry, 18.8% accessed it once, 24.6% twice, and 38.1% had used it three to five timesWhen respondents were asked about their reasons for accessing the registry, nearly 40% of respondents accessed it because they were curious, 18% because they were worried for their safety and about 12% because they were concerned about young children’s safety.Myth #12: Megan’s Law

“

Raises Awareness”Slide87

Myth: “Halloween is a pedophile’s holiday (implying children are more at risk on Halloween)Truth: There is no “H

alloween effect” (increase in sex crimes around Halloween) and laws forcing Registrants to be on lockdown for Halloween has no impact on sex crime rates

Source: Mark Chaffin, Jill Levenson, Elizabeth Letourneau and Paul Stern. "How safe are trick-or-treaters? An

analysis

on sex crime rates on Halloween." Sex Abuse 2009; 21; 363Other MythsSlide88

The Child Trafficking Myth: “It's between 100,000 and 300,000 child sex slaves in the United States today

,”

Ashton Kutcher Source: End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography, and the Trafficking of Children for Sexual

Exploitation (ECPAT

). 1996. Europe and North America Regional Profile (issued by the World Congress Against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, held in Stockholm, Sweden, August 1996, p.70.)Fact: These numbers are “estimates” of individuals “at risk” youth. Actual risks for sex trafficking are far lower than expected. Total sex trafficking arrests (Jan. 2008-June 2010) 410 suspects and 460 victims, of which 248 are under age 18. [Duren Banks and Tracey Kyckelhahn (2011) “Characteristics of Suspected Human Trafficking

Incidents,

2008-2010. BJS.govOther MythsSlide89

Child Trafficking Myths cont’d, by ECPATFollowup source: Estes

, Richard J. and Neil Alan Weiner, “The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children In the U. S., Canada and Mexico”, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,

2001, p.10“A Cautionary

Note: These

estimates reported in Exhibit ES.2a reflect what we believe to the number of children in the United States ‘at risk’ of commercial sexual exploitation, i.e., children who because of their unique circumstances as runaways, thrownaways, victims of physical or sexual abuse, users of psychotropic drugs, members of sexual minority groups, illegally trafficked children, children who cross international borders in search of cheap drugs and sex, and other illicit fare, are at special risk of sexual exploitation. The numbers presented in these exhibits do not, therefore, reflect the actual number of cases of the CSEC in the United States but, rather, what we estimate to be the number of children ‘at risk’ of commercial sexual exploitation.”

Other MythsSlide90

Myth:

Myth “up to 100000 sex traffickers” will flock to Super Bowl.

"The Super Bowl is the greatest show on Earth, but it also has an ugly

underbelly. It's

commonly known as the single largest human trafficking incident in the United States.“ Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott told USA Today in 2011 Actual arrests for underage

prostitution

for Super Bowl in Miami (2010) – 16, according to Klaas Kids and Kristi House

Other MythsSlide91

Part III :

Becoming a myth busterSlide92

Myth Busting Tips #1. Consider the SourceUniversity studies trump media reports/ polls; victim industry advocates being least reliable

Rand Corp., Gallup, Pew Center polls tend to be better than media polls, especially the online polls

Is the study peer reviewed? Are these merely preliminary results?

Watch out for “estimates,” “round numbers,” “One In” stats, and “Goldilocks Numbers”

Be wary of media reports on the study, they tend to simplify/ misread resultsKeep everything in perspective: Media loves spotlighting small numbersMyth BustingSlide93

Myth Busting Tip #2: Read the sourceWho is the author? Who does this person represent? Be especially wary of v

ictim advocate studies (NCMEC, PFML)

When was the study? Anything before the 1990s may not reflect today’s sex offender climateWhat is the sample size? The more people participating, the better.

Brush up in your math and semantics (Ex: how do they define recidivism? What is the correlation between X and Y?)

Time savers: Introductory paragraphs summarize previous researchPay greatest attention to the results, discussion, and limitationsWatch for critiques of studiesMyth BustingSlide94

Myth Busting Tip #3: Watch out for and arm yourself against common deflection tactics:

Watch for

logical fallacies: Ad hominem (personal attacks): Appeals to emotion; ad ignorantiam (stats that can’t be proven or disproven); Appeal to authority; Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc; Red herrings,

Cherry picking, The Moving Goalpost, Straw

Man, “Data Soup,” and Twististics“Stick to your guns:” Have a game plan and don’t deviate from it. Reporters want that “deer in the headlines” look (the “gotcha!” moment)Myth BustingSlide95

Myth Busting Tip #4: Don’t rely solely on stats to prove a pointWe may have the facts on our side, but many people will say, “Don’t confuse me with the facts, I’ve made up my mind.”

Using emotional testimony is not always a fallacy

We ALL have a story to tell, and we have tragedies on our end. Fight fire with fire, or in this case, emotion with emotion.

Myth BustingSlide96

Myth Busting Tip #5: “Know Thy Enemy”If gearing up for a debate or response, read the opposition’s works, watch them on TV/

Youtube

Practice your talking points (take a Verbal Assertive Training class, find someone to role play/ quiz you, memorize short catchphrases)

Don’t be afraid to “turn the tables” – Make THEM prove themselves, “show me the proof”

Myth BustingSlide97

Myth Tip #6 “Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative”Accentuate the positive

: It is all about perspective. Instead of saying “Sex offenders have a 5% recidivism rate” say “Over 95% of registrants never reoffend.” the larger number is in OUR favor. Emphasize it!

Eliminate the negative

: Know your sources, compound the positive numbers, & force the other side cite their sources

Myth BustingSlide98

Myth Busting In ActionExample #1: The “

Butner

” study by Michael Bourke and Andres Hernandez (2007) that claimed 85% of C.P. viewers also committed a “hands on offense” (Sample size: 155)The US Bureau of Prisons, who funded the study, requested the study be retracted because it did not meet their standards

Henrandez

himself says this about the study: ““Some individuals have misused the results of [BOP study] to fuel the argument that the majority of CP offenders are indeed contact sexual offenders and, therefore, dangerous predators. This simply is not supported by the scientific evidence.”R.W. Wollert points out that the study was inadequately designed and misleading in its results. Former Butner patients have disclosed that “they were expected to disclose new offenses on an ongoing basis as part of their treatment participation.” (i.e., Coercion under the guise of treatment)

Myth BustingSlide99

Myth Busting In Action

Example #2: Study claims “1 in 6 RSOs are intentionally manipulating data to hide in plain sight”

Source: Donald Rebovich, Ph.D., executive director of Utica College’s Center for Identity Management and Information Protection (CIMIP

) – a Data analyst, NOT a criminologist

The study is still unavailable for reviewPreliminary findings indicated that several of the most frequent identity manipulation methods utilized by sex offenders to avoid detection were: Using multiple aliases. Using various identifying information such as SS#s or date of birth. Stealing identifying information from family members. Manipulating either their own name, or changed name through marriage.

Using

the address of family members or friends.Altering physical appearance.Moving to other states with less stringent laws.

Myth BustingSlide100

Created by Derek W. Logue of Once Fallen © 2013, All Rights Reserved