Sex offenders reoffending

[SardineQueen]

in the mail today

"More than 400 sex offenders freed to rape: Soft justice anger over the sexual predators who strike again
New figures show one in seven convicted rapists had a previous conviction for a sex crime"

It has long been the understanding amongst govt, charities, from studies and so on that sex offenders

a. usually start with more "minor" crimes and escalate
b. are frequently serial offenders

Also we know that sex offenders are are hard to catch and convict - due to low reporting levels and low conviction rates.

Looking at all of this, it confirms the view that I have come to, that people who are convicted of this type of violence should be treated as a danger to the public (which they are) and imprisoned until such time as the authorities (doctors etc) believe beyond reasonable doubt that they no longer are a risk to the public. Whether they are held in prison, or hospital, or some other kind of secure place - i don't mind. I don't want them treated badly, I don't care if they have a DS and SKY or whatever. I just want them held until they are no longer dangerous and if that is a long time / forever then so be it.

What do you think?

I would wonder why we would just restrict this to sex offenders. Recidivist rates for most crimes involving prison sentences are way too high across the board. Prisons are a dumping ground for some of the most problematic people in our society, and the rehabilitation aspect of a sentence is too often overlooked. Either keep them in, or help to fix the problems whilst they are incarcerated.

Well I guess the article is about sex offenders.

And from what I understand they have higher reoffending rates than other crimes and many people who know say that mostly they cannot be "treated".

For me anyway it is different to people who commit crime due to eg addiction. For them often the crime is a means to an end. For violent criminals - who are not getting anything out of it except their own gratification - I think the scope for treatment is rather slim. So your sex offenders / DV people / that sort of thing.

Having said that, yes I do think that as a general point the protection of the public aspect of imprisonment is not being applied too well - plus the fact that there appears to be little attempt at rehabilitation / a lot of people who are in prison have mental health problems and really should be treated properly and carefully rather than just banged up / and of course addiction is a huge cause of crime and a huge issue.

Agreed. As a complete non-expert in this field, it does seem that violent/sex offenders have little hope of losing their urges. I just think that if we could remove huge chunks of the prison population by fixing their problems at the first try, a lot of resources would be freed up to keep those who must be incarcerated inside for a long, long time.

Yes I think that is right.

Apparently if you dish our heroin to addicts rather than methadone, the crime rate goes through the floor. they did it somewhere, I forget where, and all of the opportunistic mugging / theft / burglary type stuff more or less stopped.

Needs to be provided in conjunction with access to really proper treatment. prob with addiction is, people don't give up until they want to. there is no point sending an addict for treatment if they are not at that stage yet - it's a waste of money.

All of this seems pragmatic and logical to me, but politically just a total non starter.

here is an article

This line is key, I think, about the people in the trial who were given heroin: "Those on the programme were also given psychological support and help with their housing and social needs."

Mind you this is probably off the topic.

I think this is one of main issues that people want to ignore about rape. They want to ignore there are so many who are let free to reoffend and they're all over the place.
I guess a good solution would be to scare rapists with a conviction in the first place. Apart from serial sex offenders (who represents a very low rate of all the rapists), I think many would think twice before reoffending after getting jailed. The problem is...they're not even prosecuted at all.

I also don't think sex offenders have higher reoffending rates than other crimes. I'd say it's a problem to convict them in the first place. I'm sure the article was referring to the fact that many had had allegations in the past but weren't convicted. I'm a witness of such a case, my ex wasn't ever convicted despite allegations over allegations. In a way or another, everything was always blamed on the victim and he was let free.

Furthermore, abusers and rapists are NOT curable. Most of them have no mental health problems of any kind. Following any psychology article or book you can find everywhere, who abuses or rapes does it out of choice. There's only a slim percentage of rapists and abusers who also have psychiatric issues.
So it wouldn't be worth keeping them in a jail forever hoping they're cured. Cured of having a choice?
There's no rehabilitation for them, many even think they were innocent and they've been falsely accused of rape or sexual assault, they believe they've been jailed because the jury bought the woman's word and not theirs.

Yes, anything the Daily Mail says needs to be taken seriously. It's constantly being quoted here.

Merlin they are talking about the number of people convicted of rape, who have previous convictions for sex offences. So it's not allegations they are talking about.

Agree that improving the reporting / prosecution and conviction rates would be a huge help.

"Apart from serial sex offenders (who represents a very low rate of all the rapists)" - is this a gut feeling or an evidence thingy? I have always heard that sex offenders are very likely to be serial offenders - starting "small" and escalating. And of course as many women don't report there will be nothing on file to say they are serial attackers - no way of telling? They aren't going to offer that info.

interesting article about sex offences and reoffending

includes

"On the surface, official statistics for 2008 (PDF) suggest the re-offending rate for sex offenders is low at 26.8%, compared with non-serious violent crime (33.5%), robbery (38.1%), public order or riot (36.6%), and domestic burglary (53.9%).

However, a Home Office study published in 2003 (PDF) looked at the success of sex offender treatment programmes and found that the recidivism rate - a more comprehensive measure of behaviour - was more than five times that of the re-conviction rate.

"Often these offenders are incredibly furtive," Prof Wilson says.

"They may have committed many, many offences before being caught - their conviction is only the tip of the iceberg.""

"Merlin they are talking about the number of people convicted of rape, who have previous convictions for sex offences. So it's not allegations they are talking about."

Sorry for the confusion. I re-read the article and you're right. Anyway, at this point I'm shocked that so many convicted rapists are let free of re-offend!! :(

Sex offenders are in a very low percentage serial offenders. After what happened to me I started joining several groups of DV and rape, plus having weekly contacts with several abuse and rape organizations. You should be shocked to hear those stories
So, it's evidence, not a gut feeling at all :(

The thought that many sex offenders are serial offenders comes out because the "violent rapist in a dark alley" rape myth doesn't want to die. But it should. Many rapists and abusers have allegations and not convictions. Many rapists never were caught and, above all, they raped or sexually abused people known to them.

Remember that until a case doesn't go to court, previous allegations of any kind aren't taken into account.
Rape is a crime of violence. Someone who raped can become violent in other ways (like the article states at some point, about previous convictions of another kind), they can steal, rob a bank, abuse a child and so on forever before someone manages to be brave and report them.

"They may have committed many, many offences before being caught - their conviction is only the tip of the iceberg.""

Completely agree. Thanks for posting that Sardinequeen.

Ian Huntley (Soham murderer) had a long record of allegations against him, but no convictions. Ended with child murder.

Merlin I think what you are saying is that many sex offenders will not appear to be serial offenders - because they are caught and convicted so infrequently

But in fact many of them have done multiple sex crimes in their history

Is that right? That is my understanding as well and it seems to be what you are saying from your posts.

I am so sorry that something obviously happened to you (I don't know your story) and I can only imagine how awful the stories are at the places you go.

Sex offenders have a huge sense of entitlement and do not think that other people's wishes matter in the least. This is why it's bullshit to tell women to stay indoors, cover up and avoid alcohol: most men, who are not sex offenders, aren't suddenly motivated to rape a woman just because she's there. Rape isn't an impulse crime, it's a premeditated one. They do it because they want to do it.

In my mind a sex offender starts as a teenager with a really distorted view of sex and behaviour. I'm not sure how you treat the attitude that makes an adult think sexual offences aren't offences (or do they recognise they are? but do it anyway?)

That is what I'd really like to tackle...nip it in the bud.

An entrenched adult attitude is much harder to change

I'd be interested in a study which explored the attitudes of men - asking them for their explanation

The only article I could find in my limited brief search suggests a number of causes but early exposure to pornography was one suggestion. The incidence of this must be rising as it is so accessible...this is of concern

Tiredness it is true though, isn't it, that men who are convicted of rape are very likely to have carried out sex attacks previously, of various types, but the "system" is not aware of them. Because of the terribly low reporting rate, and the low number of cases that go to prosecution.

So whether a man has a previous conviction for a sex crime, or not, is not a true indication of whether he has committed related crimes previously.

Your post ties in closely with another thread on here at the mo where people are discussing sex education in schools.

tiredness that is also true BUT and it's a big BUT, we know that sex offenders are very high risk of reoffending, unlikely to be caught in the first place or later, and if they do reoffend it causes such immense harm.

We also know that the police are shitto at catching these bastards and the criminal justice system is shitto at locking them up. So given all of that, IMO erring massively on the side of caution is the way forward.

So, commit an offence and possibly (probably?) get an until natural death life sentence on the statistical basis that they might possibly do it again?

Why don't you just admit you'd like to shoot them? It would be kinder and probably a lot cheaper, if done 'correctly'.

"Totally agree with you sardine, more effort has to go into raising reporting, charging and conviction."

Tiredness,
You can't raise reporting if you don't raise convictions. To be honest, I live in the very up north of the UK and here police even turns on the victims in the 50% of rape cases. Do you think it's discouraging enough to report knowing that you can get a conviction out of your report? And the accused let free, of course :(

To be honest, like other posters said, it would be great to raise boys and girls iin a world free of rape myths and prejudice, maybe that would also change justice system's point of view on rape cases.
At the moment, a raped woman who knows that she has only 6% of chance to see her rapist convicted is enough to discourage anyone to report.

Sardinequeen, I've been through a very terrible story but I've heard much worse and I'm still shocked that some of these offenders were let free with the victims losing everything, including job and house (meaning women fired because they reported a colleague, landlords throwing you out of the house because they don't want to have anything to do with people involved in reports, neighbours/friends/relatives starting to act detached or even stopping to speak to the victims).

Helxi I don't want to shoot anyone.
I want dangerous violent people to be imprisoned until they no longer pose a risk to the pubic, as established by suitable experts.
If they do reoffend the price is too high. The article means that 300 people have been raped who would not have been raped if the men had remained locked up. Probably more, because we know that rape usually goes unreported.
If a man has a history of sexual violence I really don't see what is so outrageous about keeping him away from the public until such time as he no longer poses a risk. Rather than the current system of putting him away for a handful of years and then letting him out to go and devastate more men, women or children (depending on his preference).

Why not shoot them or give them the rope? You think you're being more humane by potentially locking them up for the rest of their lives to rot in a concrete cell, hoping that today isn't going to be the day they get shanked by some psychopath inmate who gets his violent laughs under the pretence he's making the world a better place? Don't tell me they'd be placed in 'special psychitric hospitals'; no government is going to spend the money to build them.

Think about that before suggesting we lock up people for crimes they haven't been found guilty of.