Claims of “frightening and high” recidivism rates, endorsed by the Supreme Court, have no basis in fact.

 

A New York Timesop-doc” posted this week zeroes in on a persistent myth that has helped inspire and sustain harsh policies aimed at sex offenders: the idea that their recidivism rate is “frightening and high,” as Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy put it in a pair of cases decided a decade and a half ago. David Feige, a former public defender who directed Untouchable, a 2016 documentary about sex offenders, shows how an uncorroborated assertion in a 1986 Psychology Today article continues to influence the politicians who pass laws and the judges who uphold them.

In McKune v. Lile, a 2002 decision that upheld a mandatory prison therapy program for sex offenders, Kennedy said “the rate of recidivism of untreated offenders has been estimated to be as high as 80%,” a number he called “frightening and high.” He repeated that claim the following year in Smith v. Doe, which upheld retroactive application of Alaska’s registration requirements for sex offenders. As of 2015, according to a review published in Constitutional Commentary, Kennedy’s phrase had been echoed in 91 judicial opinions and the briefs filed in 101 cases.

Yet there was never any evidence to support Kennedy’s assertion, and research conducted during the same period when it was proliferating indicates that it is not even remotely true. As Feige notes in a commentary that accompanies his video, “Nearly every study—including those by states as diverse as Alaska, Nebraska, Maine, New York and California as well as an extremely broad one by the federal government that followed every offender released in the United States for three years—has put the three-year recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders in the low single digits, with the bulk of the results clustering around 3.5 percent.” Studies covering longer periods find higher recidivism rates, but still nothing like 80 percent, even for high-risk offenders.

The authors of the Constitutional Commentary article, Ira Ellman and Tara Ellman, found that the original source of the 80-percent figure—which Kennedy apparently got from Solicitor General Ted Olson, who cited a 1988 Justice Department handbook—was a 1986 Psychology Today article by Robert Longo, a counselor who ran a treatment program at an Oregon prison, and Ronald Wall, a therapist who worked for him. “Most untreated sex offenders released from prison go on to commit more offenses,” they wrote, explaining the value of the work from which they earned their livelihoods. “Indeed, as many as 80% do.” As Ellman and Ellman pointed out, it was “a bare assertion” with “no supporting reference.”

Longo himself repudiated the estimate in a March 2016 interview with Joshua Vaughn, a reporter at the Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Sentinel, saying it does not accurately reflect recent research and should not be used as a basis for public policy. In Feige’s video, Longo says it is “absolutely incorrect” to suggest that anything like 80 percent of sex offenders commit new crimes after serving their sentences. That number, he says, was the high end of the range indicated by research at the time, although he once again fails to cite any actual studies.

“You don’t cite popular psychology magazines” as a basis for upholding laws, Longo says. “It’s not a scientific journal. I’m appalled that this could happen. This is not my intent.”

Feige also tracked down Barbara Schwartz, the psychologist who wrote the 1988 DOJ manual that cited Longo’s article and was in turn cited by Olson. “I couldn’t find any” information on sex offenders’ recidivism rates, Schwartz says, “so basically I just made up a model.” She had a grand total of six references, including a dictionary and “the paper that Rob Longo did for Psychology Today.” Schwartz adds that “the best we were doing was making a bunch of guesses.” Relying on such speculation makes no sense, she says, now that there is “hard-core, scientifically based research.” She says ignoring the work that has been done since the 1980s amounts to “deliberate indifference.”

All the rulings claiming “frightening and high” recidivism rates, Miami civil rights attorney Valerie Jonas tells Feige, “cite to the Supreme Court, which rested its assumptions on nothing.” Two cases the Court could soon decide to review give it a chance to do better.

Snyder v. Doe is an appeal of the 2016 decision in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit concluded that Michigan’s Sex Offender Registration Act violates the constitutional ban on ex post facto laws by imposing retroactive punishment. The 6th Circuit noted the lack of evidence to support the claim that sex offenders’ recidivism rates are “frightening and high,” citing research indicating that sex offenders “are actually less likely to recidivate than other sorts of criminals.”

Karsjens v. Piper involves a challenge to Minnesota’s system of civil commitment for sex offenders who have completed their prison sentences. In 2015 a federal judge said the program, which supposedly is aimed at “curing” its involuntary “patients” but has never succeeded in doing so, amounts to unconstitutional preventive detention, violating the right to due process. Last year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit overturned that decision. Minnesota’s program is based the premise that the state can identify sex offenders who are especially likely to commit new crimes and decide when they no longer pose a threat—impossible tasks, according to Gov. Mark Dayton, who nevertheless defends the policy.

SOURCE

 

5 thoughts on “Claims of “frightening and high” recidivism rates, endorsed by the Supreme Court, have no basis in fact.

  • September 14, 2017 at 7:10 pm
    Permalink

    Love the headline…”have no basis in fact” which sums up the entire sex offender registry.

    It is nothing without false truth aka lies. It never did work. It will not work.

    It is just a political tool to manipulate the ignorant masses with a boogeyman just like the war on terror and the war on drugs.

    It is pretty f–king frightening to learn that this group of supposedly wise judges are using a pop psychology magazine (Psychology Today) as their sole source for legislation that will destroy so many lives.

    Makes you wonder about ALL their “wise” decisions doesn’t it. Perhaps it is just that they…like most of society at large…doesn’t give a rats ass about fairness or facts when it comes to vile sex offenders!

    Reply
    • September 17, 2017 at 4:06 pm
      Permalink

      So we base Constitutional law on a 30 year old article in a magazine that has since been refuted by the author? Also, precisely who was being imprisoned, classified and treated in 1986? Many of the offenses that would get you on the registry today were ones that would get you probation or would only draw a short sentence if you had a bad lawyer back then. Mandatory “universal” treatment is a product of the 90’s and early 2000’s as best as I can tell. This is kind of like a study on current internet use patterns based on data from AOL and Compuserve customers in 1992..

      Reply
      • September 18, 2017 at 7:50 am
        Permalink

        Excellent points JoeM!

        Reply
        • September 18, 2017 at 1:34 pm
          Permalink

          The author of the 1986 paper said that he was treating the “worst of the worst” back then and had no real data, so he just guessed and threw out the 80% number for the most incorrigible predators if I am understanding what he said in the interview. The the magazine and as a result of the article, the DOJ appears to have ignored or never even read the rest of his exaggerated numbers and even the lady who wrote the manual said they were just guessing. So the “facts” from the bogus article and handbook get cited in 100+ cases and have ignored subsequent studies. The NYT film mentioned a number of states, but the one set of “facts” that I heard a while back came from a current or former FBI employee who said that their numbers for people who had actually been through treatment indicated a recidivism rate of more like 4% for 5 years IIRC. Apparently recidivism is like cancer survival. If you make it beyond 5 years, you are pretty much “clear” statistically speaking. I personally have made it 19 years and have no plans to go back to my wicked ways if for no other reason that a significant new offense would draw 25-Life. . One time was enough for me or, perhaps more accurately, one time too many. I went overboard and ended up going about 99% celibate. I have been intimate with another human being twice in the last 11 years and both time with the same person, a crazy old out of town friend who was between her 3rd and 4th husband at the time and who has known about my problem from years. She was also my last “partner” back in 2006 when she was between husband 2 and 3. LOL I have endeavored not to break any “rules” of sexual morality since I was convicted even if the other consenting adult party is ready willing and able. My crime and subsequent registration has pretty much made it impossible to have a normal relationship and at age 56, I don’t see that improving.

          Reply
  • September 16, 2017 at 7:46 am
    Permalink

    Gotta love it – 🙂 Now how long will it take for the public to get this through their heads?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *