Treatment of Sex Offenders

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 10 Community Control of Sex Offenders Jill S. Levenson Evolution of Contemporary Sex Offender Management Policies There are perhaps no crimes that instill fear and rage in society like sexual offenses. Over the past several decades, in response to a number of highly publicized and heinous sexually motivated abductions and murders, lawmakers have responded to the public’s demands for protective legislation. In October 1989, while riding his bike with his brother and a friend in St. Joseph, Minnesota, 11-year-old Jacob Wetterling was abducted by an unknown male assailant. Few suspects were identified, and to date, Jacob remains missing and no arrests have ever been made. The Wetterlings became advocates for more effective laws to aid in the recovery of missing children and recommended that known sex offenders be required to register their addresses with police in order to identify potential suspects in such cases. In 1994, the US Congress passed the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, requiring all 50 states to create laws mandating that sex offenders register their addresses with local law enforcement agencies so that their whereabouts are known (“Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act,” 1994 ). In July 1994, a 7-year-old New Jersey girl named Megan Kanka was lured into the home of a convicted sex offender, sexually assaulted, and strangled. Megan’s parents were horrified to learn that her killer was a sex offender living nearby and said that if they had been aware, they would not have allowed their child to play outside unsupervised. In 1996, the Wetterling Act was amended to states to make registry data available to the public, and states were later required to create publicly J. S. Levenson , Ph.D., L.C.S.W. (*) Barry University , 11300 NE 2nd Ave , Miami Shores , FL 305-899-3923 , USA e-mail: jlevenson@barry.edu © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 D.R. Laws, W. O’Donohue (eds.), Treatment of Sex Offenders, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-25868-3_10 223
224 J.S. Levenson accessible Internet registries by 2003. About half of the states assigned offenders to risk levels and notify the public differentially according to the offender’s threat to public safety. Other states employ broad community notification, publicizing the location of all sex offenders without regard to their risk. The goal of community notification is to increase the public’s ability to protect itself by making potential victims aware that a convicted sex offender lives in the vicinity. In 2006, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Act (named for a Florida child who was abducted from a shopping mall and murdered), which standardized the federal sex offender registration and notification (SORN) guidelines so that laws would be more uniform across all 50 states. The Adam Walsh Act (AWA) created guidelines for states to implement a 3-tier offense classification system with concordant registration frequencies and durations, along with increased penalties for sex offenders who failed to properly register. Currently, 17 states are compliant with AWA federal guidelines. The constitutionality of community notification statutes has been challenged. In 2003, the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Connecticut statute allowing sex offenders to be placed on an Internet registry without first holding a hearing to determine their danger to the community (“Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe,” 2003 ). In an Alaska case, the US Supreme Court ruled that registration and notification of sex offenders sentenced before the passage of the law could not be characterized as ex post facto punishment (“Smith v. Doe,” 2003 ). These decisions empowered the national movement toward more inclusive sex offender policies, including increased disclosure of information on public registries and broad dissemination rather than risk assessment-based notification. Sex offender registration and community notification originally emerged as distinct policies with different goals. Registration was designed as a tool to assist law enforcement agents to track sexual criminals and apprehend potential suspects. Notification was initiated to increase public awareness and arm communities with information which might help them to avoid contact with sex offenders and thus prevent victimization. As state and federal initiatives have moved inevitably toward Internet-based registries, however, registration and notification have become intertwined and even interchangeable. The Makeup of Registries and How They Work According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), in June of 2015, approximately 843, 260 registered sex offenders (RSO) resided in the USA. About one-third of RSOs are not listed on public registries, because they have been determined by their state’s sex offender management risk assessment process to pose a low risk for future offending (Ackerman, Harris, Levenson, & Zgoba, 2011 ). Among RSOs on public registries, about 14 % nationally have been designated by states to be high risk, predator, or sexually violent (Ackerman et al., 2011 ). Over 97 % of RSOs are male, and the average age is about 45 years old. About 85 %
Page 1 and 2:
D. Richard Laws · William O'Donohu
Page 4 and 5:
D. Richard Laws • William O’Don
Page 6 and 7:
Pref ace It can be wise for a field
Page 8 and 9:
Contents 1 Problems in the Classifi
Page 10 and 11:
Contributors Adam J. Carter , Ph.D.
Page 12 and 13:
Chapter 1 Problems in the Classific
Page 14 and 15:
1 Problems in the Classification an
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
20 L.A. Craig and M. Rettenberger O
Page 32 and 33:
Table 2.1 Glueck and Glueck’s ( 1
Page 34 and 35:
24 L.A. Craig and M. Rettenberger w
Page 36 and 37:
26 L.A. Craig and M. Rettenberger L
Page 38 and 39:
28 L.A. Craig and M. Rettenberger T
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
32 L.A. Craig and M. Rettenberger b
Page 44 and 45:
34 L.A. Craig and M. Rettenberger (
Page 46 and 47:
36 L.A. Craig and M. Rettenberger r
Page 48 and 49:
38 L.A. Craig and M. Rettenberger v
Page 50 and 51:
40 L.A. Craig and M. Rettenberger C
Page 52 and 53:
42 L.A. Craig and M. Rettenberger H
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
46 R.J.B. Lehmann et al. at reducin
Page 58 and 59:
48 R.J.B. Lehmann et al. Certain pa
Page 60 and 61:
50 R.J.B. Lehmann et al. these cons
Page 62 and 63:
52 R.J.B. Lehmann et al. to other m
Page 64 and 65:
54 R.J.B. Lehmann et al. Developing
Page 66 and 67:
56 R.J.B. Lehmann et al. ( d = 0.67
Page 68 and 69:
58 R.J.B. Lehmann et al. justified
Page 70 and 71:
60 R.J.B. Lehmann et al. (any convi
Page 72 and 73:
62 R.J.B. Lehmann et al. press ) fo
Page 74 and 75:
64 R.J.B. Lehmann et al. Importantl
Page 76 and 77:
66 R.J.B. Lehmann et al. United Sta
Page 78 and 79:
68 R.J.B. Lehmann et al. offenders
Page 80 and 81:
70 R.J.B. Lehmann et al. A good def
Page 82 and 83:
72 R.J.B. Lehmann et al. Conclusion
Page 84 and 85:
74 R.J.B. Lehmann et al. Babchishin
Page 86 and 87:
76 R.J.B. Lehmann et al. Grove, W.
Page 88 and 89:
78 R.J.B. Lehmann et al. Hilton, N.
Page 90 and 91:
80 R.J.B. Lehmann et al. Pedneault,
Page 92 and 93:
Chapter 4 Risk Formulation: The New
Page 94 and 95:
4 Risk Formulation: The New Frontie
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
108 R.J. Wilson and M.H. Miner Conv
Page 118 and 119:
110 R.J. Wilson and M.H. Miner Circ
Page 120 and 121:
112 R.J. Wilson and M.H. Miner Visu
Page 122 and 123:
114 R.J. Wilson and M.H. Miner gyne
Page 124 and 125:
116 R.J. Wilson and M.H. Miner View
Page 126 and 127:
118 R.J. Wilson and M.H. Miner comp
Page 128 and 129:
120 R.J. Wilson and M.H. Miner stim
Page 130 and 131:
122 R.J. Wilson and M.H. Miner sign
Page 132 and 133:
124 R.J. Wilson and M.H. Miner In t
Page 134 and 135:
126 R.J. Wilson and M.H. Miner sexu
Page 136 and 137:
128 R.J. Wilson and M.H. Miner Babc
Page 138 and 139:
130 R.J. Wilson and M.H. Miner King
Page 140 and 141:
Chapter 6 Polygraph Testing of Sex
Page 142 and 143:
6 Polygraph Testing of Sex Offender
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Chapter 7 The Strengths of Treatmen
Page 166 and 167:
7 The Strengths of Treatment for Se
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181: 7 The Strengths of Treatment for Se
Page 182 and 183: Chapter 8 Responsivity Dynamic Risk
Page 184 and 185: 8 Responsivity Dynamic Risk Factors
Page 198 and 199: Chapter 9 Early Detection and Inter
Page 200 and 201: 9 Early Detection and Intervention
Page 232 and 233: 10 Community Control of Sex Offende
Page 250 and 251: 244 K.N. Daly SVP laws were passed
Page 252 and 253: 246 K.N. Daly 750. 338 b. The condu
Page 254 and 255: 248 K.N. Daly had largely been a re
Page 256 and 257: 250 K.N. Daly By contrast successfu
Page 258 and 259: 252 K.N. Daly In reaching his concu
Page 260 and 261: 254 K.N. Daly with no accompanying
Page 262 and 263: 256 K.N. Daly legal significance of
Page 264 and 265: 258 K.N. Daly law which has caused
Page 266 and 267: Chapter 12 The Shortcomings of Sexu
Page 268 and 269: 12 The Shortcomings of Sexual Offen
Page 280 and 281:
12 The Shortcomings of Sexual Offen
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
282 P. Lussier practitioners have r
Page 288 and 289:
284 P. Lussier refers to someone vo
Page 290 and 291:
286 P. Lussier Morton, & Harris, 20
Page 292 and 293:
288 P. Lussier The authors compared
Page 294 and 295:
290 P. Lussier relatively stable ch
Page 296 and 297:
292 P. Lussier Offending Trajectori
Page 298 and 299:
294 P. Lussier impact or a limited
Page 300 and 301:
296 P. Lussier especially those han
Page 302 and 303:
298 P. Lussier the role of social f
Page 304 and 305:
300 P. Lussier Mulvey, 2009 ). In f
Page 306 and 307:
302 P. Lussier opportunities and re
Page 308 and 309:
304 P. Lussier Peer Influence While
Page 310 and 311:
306 P. Lussier of offending. For ex
Page 312 and 313:
308 P. Lussier Aging, self-identity
Page 314 and 315:
310 P. Lussier & Rice, 2007 ; Lussi
Page 316 and 317:
312 P. Lussier Individual and Socia
Page 318 and 319:
314 P. Lussier als subject to incre
Page 320 and 321:
316 P. Lussier opportunities extent
Page 322 and 323:
318 P. Lussier Corrado, R. R., Cohe
Page 324 and 325:
320 P. Lussier Lussier, P., & Blokl
Page 326 and 327:
322 P. Lussier Stouthamer-Loeber, M
Page 328 and 329:
324 J. Tabachnick et al. community
Page 330 and 331:
326 J. Tabachnick et al. Fig. 14.1
Page 332 and 333:
328 J. Tabachnick et al. The Need f
Page 334 and 335:
330 J. Tabachnick et al. The CDC de
Page 336 and 337:
332 J. Tabachnick et al. Practical
Page 338 and 339:
334 J. Tabachnick et al. (e.g., tru
Page 340 and 341:
336 J. Tabachnick et al. Unfortunat
Page 342 and 343:
338 J. Tabachnick et al. Banyard, V
Page 344 and 345:
340 J. Tabachnick et al. Humphries,
Page 346 and 347:
342 J. Tabachnick et al. Tharp, A.
Page 348 and 349:
344 Index Adolescent sexually abusi
Page 350 and 351:
346 Index Offense-supportive attitu
Page 352:
348 Index Structured assessment of
show all

Treatment of Sex Offenders

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?