How Do Sex Offenders Return To Prison

A therapist ONLY addressing an offender 's mental illness may be problematic because offenders have criminogenic needs that need to be treated in order to reduce criminal behavior. The Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model of corrections and rehabilitation was designed by Andrews, Honta, and Hoge in 1990. This model has demonstrated the strongest research-support on its ability to explain and treat criminal behavior. Andrews and Bonta have shown that in order to produce a successful rehabilitation program, the program must "respect the individual, have a psychological theory basis, and should work in junction with the enhancement of preventative services". This model reveals the importance of going beyond ONLY addressing an offender 's mental illness and providing treatment relevant to

The most common myth the sex offender registry office receives daily is, “An offender was on the registry yesterday, why are they not on there now?”

The term "sex offender" means an individual who was convicted of a sex offense. Research has shown that Sex offenders that commit a crime against a person has not previously been convicted of a violent offence before. They do these crimes unders a masks of a normal relationship. Most Sexual offences committed against the person are mostly perpetrated by family members and acquaintances, and the big majority of them are unreported. Not all crimes are the same because there is such a wide spectrum of sex crimes. The punishments vary widely, between states, from fines and counseling to life in prison. Sex Offenders can be categorized into three tiers according to federal law. A Tier is a level in which a Sex Offender is categorized based on his/her sex offense.

There are different types of sex offenders which make recidivism complex to handle. Unfortunately, recidivism remains a difficult concept to measure, especially in the context of sex offenders. The surreptitious nature of sex crimes, the fact that few sexual offenses are reported to authorities, and variation in the ways researchers calculate recidivism rates all contribute to the problem.

Offenders who are fortunate enough to experience these programs have showed significantly lower rates of recidivism than those who do not receive any reintegrative support. One of the prime examples is Circles of Support and Accountability; by working directly with sex offenders in a safe environment, helping them share their voice, and equipping them with tools to succeed in society, these offenders, “had a significantly lower rate of any recidivism (11.4%) compared with controls [offenders who did not experience a circle process] (38.6%). They also… had a significantly lower rate of sexual recidivism (2.3%) compared with controls (13.7%)” (Clarke et al, p. 21). These programs are imperative in helping offenders build up confidence and self-esteem so that they can reintegrate properly and safely into their community. By learning how to be genuinely accountable for their actions, past offenders who go through the COSA program are substantially less likely to reoffend, or at least reoffend to the same degree, than offenders who do not receive that kind of support. There are programs across the country that are dedicated to restoration and healing for victims and offenders alike, and it has become abundantly clear that these programs are vital for introducing effective reintegration practices into

In the article, “What Works”, Roger Pryzbylski mentions that “More than 30 years of research has produced a body of evidence that clearly demonstrates that rehabilitation programs work. A variety of programs, properly targeted and well implemented, can reduce recidivism and enhance public safety.” (Pryzbylski 2008). Methods such as educational outlooks, treatments of substance abuse, sex offender, family therapy are just one of the many treatment methods to help reduce the impact statistics of mass incarceration. There are other multiple citings of evidence for this to be proven fully as “Effective intervention is intensive and targets behavioral change. Intensive treatment occupies 40% to 70% of the offender’s time and is 3 to 9 months in duration. Behavioral programs focus on changing the cognitions and values that maintain anti-social behavior, and they emphasize positive reinforcement rather than the threat of punishment to strengthen prosocial behavior.” (Pryzblyski 2008). As time locked up for inmates shows

n 1984, Leroy Hendricks was convicted of having indecent liberties with two 13-year old boys. As punishment for his action, Mr. Hendricks was remanded to the penal institutional system to serve his prison sentence. After serving ten years in prison, Mr. Hendricks was going to be stepped down to a halfway house. In the state of Kansas, they implemented the Sexually Violent Predator Act in 1994. This act “establishes procedures for the civil commitment of persons who, due to a mental abnormality or a personality disorder, are likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence (Brody & Acker, 2010, p.4). Due to the extensive sexually offensive history against minors that Mr. Hendricks had, he was deemed to continue to pose a threat to those in society. It was his past history of performing sexual acts against children and his own admission that he could not control his urges, that inclined the District Attorney’s ofice to file a motion to have Leroy Hendricks civilly committed under the Sexually Violent Predator Act. Mr. Hendricks attorney requested that his client be evaluated to determine if he could be labeled as a sexually violent offender. Based on Mr. Hendricks testimony

Chapter Eight of the book Flawed Criminal Justice Policies, authors take the closer look at the laws and faulty policy regarding the sex offenders. According to the book policy makers started the myriad laws to protect the public from the sex offenders with increased prison sentences, and restricting the residences to the violators. Today we have very similar situation when it comes to treatment of sexual offenders. The process starts with the sex offender being committed to the prison sentence, and lastly to being registered as a sex offender on many public websites, so that the people could distinguish who the sex offender is and where he/she lives.

According to Department of corrections and rehabilitation there is approximately 2.3 million adult offenders currently detained and which consist of 316,229 prisoners which are overseen by correctional officers on an ongoing basis costing on an average of $49 per prisoner, additionally their current budget is approximately $11 billion, which is distributed between 33 state prisons, 40 camps, as well as 12 community correctional facilities.

The Parole division will monitor sex offenders using the following policy. The goal of this policy will help improvise the system administration of sex offenders in the State of California owning sex offenders liable for the damage created by sexual abuse crimes with the conclusive objective of spotting potential harm to victims. In this structure to provide best of class safety to the community, offenders shall be closely monitored and comply with these restrictions. The offender shall be restraining to follow three purposes, which are no contact what so ever with children, unnoticed visits to home and work and GPS monitoring. The main purpose will oversee the offender behavior and restrain the offender within prefer barrier set by the parole officer and enhance public security.

It is clear that we have not embraced the theory of rehabilitation because we still use prisons to “warehouse” offenders. The concern with “warehousing” is that the offender will more than likely end up back in prison. We have learned that recidivism is a major concern facing society today because offenders have little chance of employment, no funds or housing, and often time’s very little support from family or friends. I stand behind rehabilitation for offenders because I feel like it is the only way to truly stop crime. In

Sex offenders are known to live in economically deprived and socially disorganized communities with limited access to public notification. (Levenson, et al., 2015) Consequently, people living in low-income communities may not have access to a computer to keep up with the sex offender’s registry, which put them more at risk. In my opinion, professionals have a primary duty to promote the recovery of sex offenders. There should be psychological and rehabilitation treatment available to help sex offenders re-entry back into the communities. Policies have supported Megan’s Law despite the absence of evidence creating a variety of problems within states that Megan’s Law has achieved its goal. While notification laws and access to sex offender databases may give parents a sense of security, they may distract parents from paying attention to friends and family members who pose a potentially higher risk than the sex offenders on state registries. (Larson, 2016) The number of unreported sex crimes committed by registered sex offenders relative to the number of individuals without a record of sexual offenses is unknown. (Bonnar-Kidd, 2010) In my opinion, Megan’s Law has reduced sexual violence by a specific number of reported sexual

“Teenager’s Jailing Brings a Call to Fix Sex Offender Registries,” is an article written by Julie Bosman, and published by the New York Times Newspaper. The article is written about a 19-year-old named Zachery Anderson who is listed on a sex offender registry for life. The cause of this was talking to an under aged female through a dating app called “Hot or Not.” Although, Zachary Anderson did not know that the girl who had lied about her being 17, was actually 14, he later plead guilty to what had happened. Reading this newspaper article had me thinking about all sorts of things, whether it was about the fact that Zachary had sex with a female who was under the age of consent in Michigan or the fact that he was put on the sex offender registry.

America has a strict law, which protects our citizens from predators; sex offender registries are exemplifications. In the article “Protect Yourself, Family From Sex Offenders,” Rick Schneider argues that sex offender’s name should not be taken off even after they had served their time. Many can argue that registries are a good way for the government authorities to keep track, and to protect the community from any violence caused by sex offenders. For example, many people may believe the registry protects people from predators because it allows others to know where the predators are and how likely they are to strike again. On the other hand, some people consider that it is “horribly unfair” to release the names and addresses of offenders that

Should some sex offenders be excluded from treatment? The question is particularly daunting since some studies seem to suggest that although treatment can reduce the probability of an offender committing a crime after being treated, it is impossible for adult offenders to be properly cured. An article in the Medical News Today explains that paedophilia and other sex crimes cannot be cured, and although the likelihood of an offender repeating his crimes drops forty percent after treatment, the end result of the treatment is that people are released into society who are just as likely to cause harm. Similarly, the Business Insider explains that since being a sex offender is not a medical issue it cannot be cured, and different measures can be