Talk:Sex offender

sexting

If sexting "usually results in a mandatory sex-offender classification," then 20% of teens and 33% of young adults are sex-offenders.

"In a 2008 survey of 1,280 teenagers and young adults of both sexes on Cosmogirl.com sponsored by The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 20% of teens (13-20) and 33% of young adults (20-26) had sent nude or semi-nude photographs of themselves electronically. Additionally, 39% of teens and 59% of young adults had sent sexually explicit text messages."

More Details

POV? Almost all of this article seems to be arguing against the severity of the offense (or the punishment.) Surely it is supposed to be descriptive, not judgmental? Whole rafts of text purport to show how sex offenders (by most definitions) do not pose a danger to society and are disproportionately punished. That may or may not be true, but it is, IMO totally skewed.ExpatSalopian (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Although I don't necessarily question the findings of the DoJ study, I have one problem - the study says there's like 234,000 sex crimes a day. That translates to roughly 84,000,000 a year - so evenly distributed, about one in three people are sex criminals (every year). Unevenly distributed (say as many as 5 are for a person per year) then that makes the rate about 17 million people per year which translates to roughly one in 17.5 people committing 5+ sex crimes a year. To me at least this sounds ridiculous. Another thing:

http://www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org/materials/10myths.php

That site shows distinctly different figures from more recent studies. Some important, like 93% of molestation is done by trusted members of families. Second, at least two state studies show relocation is ineffective in preventing recidivism. Also sex offender registries don't openly distinguish statutory and non-statutory rape. I'd also like to note that the recidivism rate for sex offenders is 5.3%, yet the DoJ says they recidivism rate for any offense is 43% - I'm wondering how much of it is persecution, like if any study showed the majority of the charges were things like tresspassing, menacing, etc, any offense which can be thrown at someone and they'll be shoved back in prison/jail, even if there's no evidence.

Also, anyone care to mention the 14 year old sex offender? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/03/26/2009-03-26_14yearold_new_jersey_girl_may_get_sex_of.html I think there should be at least some youth section, talking about the controversy with charging minors with sexual crimes, especially if there's no "victim" (as in they cases in which they publish media of themselves)

Finally, the wiki is literally a copy-paste of the DoJ page. At minimum, the info should be condensed like "Recidivism" - Sex offenders re-offend an estimated x%<citation> times within 3 years and x% within a lifetime for sex crimes. Other criminal offense recidivism rates are typically x% within a lifetime. At least TRY to reduce all that space and prevent copy/paste. I will admit people (especially fanatics) will link a bajillion references putting sex offenders at like a 150% recidivism rate after 1 minute of freedom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.97.220 (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note--would someone care to add information on the tier systems, for examples, from a CNN post today, an article mentions that an offender was a convicted tier three offender (link: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/24/ohio.missing.girl/index.html ), a definition of a tier system would be great--I can't seem to find it anywhere.

Double standard

Why is the only mention of the word female a broken link at the bottom of the page? I think this article supports an incomplete perception that sex offenders, sexual predators, are only male. Slordax (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Contested move

I'm trying to understand why people are constantly moving this page to "Child sex offender" when the page is supposed to talk about more than child sex offenders. Please stop? Pretty please?--Rookiee 18:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it is "supposed" to talk about other offenders, but at the moment it only talks about child sex offenders. If you want to keep the title, please bring in additional material. -Willmcw 20:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The "Sex Offenders' Register" in the UK has expanded in scope but seems to be commonly understood as covering only "child sex offences". 81.178.224.140 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch

It looks like someone just copied another web page into this article. 71.179.35.115 19:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (DavidJCobb)

"Convicted"

I'm sure I read about a "caution" or something similar resulting in registration. Can't remember if UK or US. Rich Farmbrough. 21:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Possibley Pete Townshend? Rich Farmbrough. 21:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Accepting a Police caution for a relevant offence does indeed make one subject to the requirement to notify. See part II of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. 81.178.224.140 23:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

9.1 million sex offenders in LA?

How could this be possible when only 3.5 million people live in Los Angeles? -Unsigned

Some redacting

Made some edits, reasons being:

• "The word (sex offender) is also widely used in public discourse to describe persons accused of participating in sexually offensive behavior, irrespective of whether or not they were actually charged and convicted.

Hmmm. Well, I would certainly think that it wouldn't be used that way in public discourse by any entity that could be sued. That is, I would be very surprised if a newspaper or TV station etc. were to say "Sex offender Joe Smith spoke today at the Lions Club..." or whatever if Smith had never been charged with a crime (or even if he had been charged but never convicted). And I live in the USA where libel/slander laws are looser than the the UK. So um this just doesn't seem to fly. Of course, alleged this-or-that is applied people who are, well, alleged to have done this-or-that (by the authorities or by authoritative sources, of course). But that applies to all human activities ("Alleged uber-bitch Josephine Smith..."). So I can't see singling it out for sex offenders is particular.

Now, if the editor is saying that ordinary people in private conversation use "sex offender" to mean "person that my cousin says is a sex offender", two questions arise: 1) verifiability of that, and 2) so what. People refer to other people in private conversation as jerks, cheaters, crooks, tightwads, and on and on based on little evidence, I guess. So why are we specifically talking about that here in regard to sex offenders? So I'm removing that passage, subject to debate of course.

• "The tolerance for deviant sexual behavior and sex crimes in western society has declined drastically over the last 20 years"

Er, is this true? What is meant here by "deviant sexual behavior"? If (say) homosexuality, I'd definitely have to see some good cites on that... I think the common feeling (not always right, I know) is that gays are if anything more tolerated than in 1985. If it's criminal-type "deviant" behavior (don't like that word "deviant" - can we find another?)... Which sex crimes were drastically more tolerated in 1985 than now? I can't think of any. Was (say) rape really really significantly more tolerated in the West in 1985 than now? Child sex abuse? What, exactly? Anyway I'm removing that passage, subject to debate and some good citations, of course.

• "As a result, unlike other crimes, the term "sex offender" often stigmatizes ex-convicts for the rest of their lives.

So um "murderer" does not stigmatize someone for the rest of their lives? "Embezzler"? "Bank robber"? Hmmmm I'm not sure I agree with that. I think what the editor is trying to talk about is the Sex Offender Registries. If so, he should say so.

• A significant portion of the public believes that those who have committed sex crimes are "incurable"...

Lose the scare quotes. Other than that, the rest of the article is OK for now I guess, although it's not very good or balanced, but enh for now whatever.

Actually I don't see why this article exists. In the article Sex crime you have "Sex crimes are forms of human sexual behavior that are crimes. Someone who commits one is said to be a sex offender" which pretty much covers it. A reasonable exposition on the sex offender registries, the indefinite incarceration of "sexually dangerous persons", etc. might be a reason for the article, but as it stands the article is pretty lame.Herostratus 06:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I'm OK with merging the two articles. Herostratus 05:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I would be in favor of keeping Sex offender registration separate. It definitely can support a separate article by itself. –SESmith 09:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not merge Merging articles makes sense when one or both or the related articles are relatively short. But as I have noticed, when an article gets long, it tends to be split, with conspicuous links between them. Both these articles are quite long, and therefore belong separate. Shaliya waya 13:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Iowa

This section, while informative, seems really out of place and would be better suited in the article on Iowa. -Unsigned

Adding the word plysmograph to Wikipedia

I was doing a research paper on On-Line Sex Offenders, and while talking to an investigator here in Denver, CO he mentioned that many states are now using an additional test called a plysmograph. The only source of information I am able to find is that it was orginated in 2002 and known as the "Pervo Parks Penile Plysmograph". I think there should be further investigation into this word and added to the sex offender page because it is a requirement in many states now as part of probabtion. -Adam Aberle of Denver, CO, ajax2up@msn.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.218.226.203 (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Be bold, add it to the Wiktionary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dfpc (talk • contribs) 17:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

It's called a penile plethysmograph, not a "plysmograph." Daivox 19:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Recividism rates

Recidivism rates vary widely depending on the study that is being looked at. Rates from 3% (Bureau of Justice Statistics) to 95.9% (Langevin) can be found. The focus of recidivism studies may vary widely. Each study may be looking at a mix of particular types of sex offenders such as rapists, pedophiles, voyeurs and/or individuals caught via online stings. The study group can be offenders who were only given probation, or individuals who were released from a mental institution. The general trend of these studies is that the longer sex offenders are studied, then the higher the recidivism rate. Richardpowers1 18:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)richardpowers1

Of course, if you take one group of people and study them for one year, five years, ten years, or even thirty years, there is always a better chance of more recidivism. If the studied group remains the same throughout any given time frame, you will have a certain number of people at whatever arbitrary point in time is chosen that have recidivated. Now, how can recidivism stats go down in such a case? Those who have recidivated can't be counted twice, and those who haven't are the only ones remaining that can change the count; the count can only move up if the initial group is unmodified over time. Your comment is a convenient twisting of what is otherwise quite obvious, and you haven't provided sources to back anything you just said up, and I would caution all readers here to be very wary of the presentation chosen by those who comment. What exactly WAS the point of your comment, again? Judging by your choice of wording and your decision to withhold any credible sources, I must say that I have a "perception of deception." An item of interest, since you mention "Langevin," would be the summary of a bigger article on the subject here: http://www.ccja-acjp.ca/en/cjc/cjc48a1.html#four Daivox 22:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The general trend of these studies is that the longer sex offenders are studied.... This is expected. For a given set of subjects and a given set of criteria, would be impossible otherwise. If 5% of them re-offend in the first 5 years after release, then the 10-year recidivism rate will include these 5% plus everyone who re-offended in years 6-10. The "interesting" number that you rarely see is how long before the person becomes very unlikely to re-offend. That is, if he's been clean for X years, we can safely assume he's no more likely to re-offend for the rest of his life than a person of similar age/gender/what-not that never offended in the first place. Once a person falls into the "no more than average" risk, it's a waste of resources to keep him on the sex-offender registry. Dfpc 23:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Judderwocky (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)I don't really feel like enough studies are presented in this section. More studies would give the reader a better feel for the range of data on this topic. This section seems clipped. There are plenty of studies out there showing a range. With so many I have to wonder why one with such low numbers was chosen.

Many of the studies on sex offender recidivism suffer from application of a "reverse scientific method" where the study parameters are carefully built to artificially report much higher recidivism rates. If a study is methodologically faulty, it should not be here. Many of the studies cited which have low recidivism rates are also the most straightforward and simple to verify, because the methodology is often "take list of released convicts, see if they were convicted of another sex offense within X years of release, count up the results and calculate a recidivism percentage." Contrast this with studies such as that by Langevin et al, showing "an 88.3% recidivism rate" only by cherry-picking the study subjects and artificially inflating figures to maximize the number. http://www.ccja-acjp.ca/en/cjc/cjc48a1.html Daivox (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The state of State of Ohio,Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, in April 2001, published a study "Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up Of 879 Sex Offenders Released in 1989" which as of 2014-01-04 is still available to view at the link "http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Reports/Ten_Year_Recidivism.pdf". In this study, after ten years the recidivism rate for new sex crimes found was 8.0%. More importantly is that the time to recidivism for "new sex crimes, technical sex offenses and technical sex lapses" is shown and it clearly shows that the recidivism rate for new sex crimes rapidly decreases over time from release, so that after 3 to 6 years of not committing a new sex crime, the recidivism greatly decreases. Directly from this data the accumulated recidivism rate for "new sex crimes, technical sex offenses and technical sex lapses" is:

• From release thru 10 years 11.0%.
• From 1 year after release thru 10 years is 8.2%.
• From 2 year after release thru 10 years is 5.1%.
• From 3 year after release thru 10 years is 3.6%.
• From 4 year after release thru 10 years is 3.0%.
• From 5 year after release thru 10 years is 2.4%.
• From 6 year after release thru 10 years is 1.8%.
• From 7 year after release thru 10 years is 1.0%.
• From 8 year after release thru 10 years is 0.3%.
• From 9 year after release thru 10 years is 0.1%.

Graphs of strictly only data from this Ohio State report are combined into a presenting "non-cumulative recidivism, cumulative recidivism and declining recidivism" as shown from the time to recidivism data from the study. http://childhood-destroyed-for-what.com/01-100-000-my-story/01-160-100-sex-offender-info/01-170-100-Sex-Offender-Recidivism/Ohio%202001%20Recidivism%20Data%20Only.png. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.250.113.184 (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Georgia

I watched this set of edits go by an an antivandalism editor, and while I am hesitant to revert good-faith editing, I have huge problems with the changes that were made to the Georgia section today: (1) it doesn't fit stylistically, (2) it's not at all NPOV, it even makes Wikipedia appear to take a stance on pending litigation, and (3) it's a very disproportionately large part of the article now. Rather than just revert it, I'm going to bend over backwards in an attempt to salvage it, and edit it into more suitable form. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

03/10/2009 - The user Bionga has screwed up the GEORGIA section by copying it, and modifying it with the ILLINOIS label, and thus causing issues with the GEORGIA section. Can someone consider undoing their changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.23.35 (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Illinois has the laws mentioned in the 'Georgia/Illinois section'. Illinois law clearly states that no sex offender may live within less than 3 miles and 6 city blocks of any school, church, park, playground, day care center, and any place where minors are known to congregate, and that no sexual predator may live within less than 6 miles and 2 city blocks of the aforementioned places, nor may any sex offender live within less than 1,000 feet of a residence that contains individuals under 18 years of age, and nor may any sexual predator live within less than 5 miles of a residence that contains minors. In addition, Illinois law really does require castration of all sex offenders and sexual predators. Boinga (talk) 07:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Gack! This is one of the ugliest pages I've ever seen. I removed most of the state-by-state legalistic info (which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia), and summed it up briefly in the first paragraph. However, there is a lot more that needs to be done. Especially, many sections are headed with "Source:" followed by a link to a website, which is not in keeping with our WP:MOS. I'll be continuing cleanup efforts, and help would be appreciated. To whoever's work I just deleted....sorry, but it really didn't belong here. It's often best to discuss things like that on the takpage first, to avoid having large amounts of your work deleted. Doc Tropics 20:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue with anything you're doing. An editor had changed some of the content significantly just before you deleted things last night and I saw that too much of what the editor added (which was at the least, quite wrong) still remained and couldn't easily be extracted from the current version, so I decided it was best to go back to a version prior to that edit and go from there. I am sorry that it undid some of your changes, but I didn't see a way not to do that. Cheers and good luck. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks W. Sometimes things just get messy and the only fix is a restart. It needed a lot more work anyway, so no great loss. thanks for such a clear edit summary tho, that really helped. Happy editing! Doc Tropics 02:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections. I watch this article as a function of WP:CRIME. Some of the articles are a mess and need a hatchet and forty whacks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"sex offender"?

The term “sex offender” is erroneous. It is a western/christian cultural phenomenon spawned by sexual oppression which includes homosexuals. In states where “sodomy” is officially illegal, homosexuals convicted or pleading guilty to such a “crime” are, by definition, “sex offenders”. How many people are on this so called “sex offenders registry” who’s only crime is being gay? What a horror. Western culture makes me sick. -amunptah777 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amunptah777 (talk • contribs) 14:38, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section needs a rewrite

The "criticism" section of this article is, basically, crap. There is no significant discussion of criticisms regarding the term "sex offender" or what it means, and I'm not entirely sure that "Criticisms" is an appropriate section to have in the first place. If it can't gather more than a single poorly-written semi-paragraph of content, we should remove it and put its content in other parts of the article. Daivox (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur. I've reviewed and deleted the section. It was off-topic, not about sex offenders, only about a mismanaged database; and, the source was of dubious reliability.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Therapies section is poorly written

There are numerous errors in the 'Therapies' section of this article, and once again I do not have the time to fix it. If you have the time and inclination, please take a look at this section and demangle its contents as you deem appropriate; it has plenty of grammatical and punctuation errors, and that's just half the problem. Daivox (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

USA

Why does this only feature infomation about the USA? This article is far too biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.140.83 (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Be bold, introduce information about other nations' laws then, if you have found some information about them. Many contributers are US citizens therefore have more knowledge of the laws where they live. Also, I cleaned up. ESL? Tyciol (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Recidivism

This entire section is a confused collections of links and semi-random facts from the U.S. DOJ website. Personally, I really don't think that it adds enough useful content to the article to justify the space and verbage involved. I'd like to axe most of it and copy a couple of lines of useful content into the section above. Keeping the entire section would require a total rewrite and I find that very daunting. Are there any strong arguments for keeping the entire mess, or can I start whacking? Doc Tropics 02:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Unify the USDOJ information into one section. I've put the NC material back because information gleaned from the NC registry regarding recidivist-status offenders illustrates recidivism rates that are far lower than other studies which are more well-known. It is not state-specific legislation information, it is either an anomaly in recidivism rates or a very big problem with how accurate North Carolina's public registry information is. Please don't strip it out again without some specific discussion about why it should be removed; I feel that your reason as stated in the edit misses the point of the information's inclusion. Granted, though, it could use some rewording and needs to be more concise; I'm pretty horrible at being brief, so by all means, tear into it to shorten it and make it less confusing! Daivox (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is about a global issue and giving article space to a single (questionable) study from one U.S. state is going to be undue weight no matter how it is phrased. I understand that you feel the information belongs here, but imagine if we tried to include detailed information about every study ever published, or specific information from every legal jurisdiction in the world. Why is this information so special that it should be given space when we don't do the same for every other municipality in the world? Frankly, without strong references explicity backing up your opinions, both the reasons that you presented are nothing more than speculation (OR). In short, the study doesn't belong at all, and the USDOJ info needs to be reduced to a few (properly wikified) sentences, not several indepenent sections, which is what I had tried to do. Doc Tropics 15:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Judderwocky (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)I agree with Doc. The entire presentation of recidivism looks like it was either written with a particular bias or laziness.

Comment

Anonymous said... I Work in the financial department of the California government in the Sacramento office. The laws do not work and not only do we know it but several of our so-called bosses are proud of it. The money spent does not even go where it is intended. In CA it costs the taxpayers OVER $1800 per unit PER MONTH for the electronic tracking units that we use. These units are LEASED at this price and they are no more complex than a cell phone transmitter with a GPS tracking chip. A similar program is happening in Texas. And the units are bad. They are badly designed as the signals drift from area to area causing several of our parolees to be violated for technical violations that they are not even responsible for. The units are so badly designed that they are even using NiCad batteries which are prone to fail with extended use. We have recently contracted a "psycho-therapy" company, "CPC Inc." claiming OVER 30 years experience in treating sex offenders and other such "criminals" in our state and others and, going over the financial records, discovered that they did not even exist thirty days ago. I went to one of their offices and was shocked to find a literally "fly by night" operation in which the signs on the door were handwritten on binder paper, perhaps two tables and laptop computers on the floor. When I reported this to my superiors I was outright threatened that if I should continue with this investigation or pursue ANY oversight that I would be attending those courses myself before long. I am afraid for my freedom and the safety of my family and children. I am under contract to the state and cannot even break said contract for fear of this. Almost the entirety of our golden state is now run by the equivalent of organized crime. This is the reason that unconstitutional, unjust and outright illegal laws Have been allowed, and forced, to pass. We are in the grip of the criminals that we have elected and I am guilty of this as any of you. My contract will be up soon and not only do I have no intention of renewing, I and my family are leaving the country. Should I make it that far. This is no longer the country that I was raised to believe in nor a place that I want my children to grow up in. Should I be able to before I leave I plan to release ALL of the financial records to the net and I encourage all within the state governments and especially any in the financial departments who feel as I do to do the same. As even with legal action they will not release them or if they do, it is published in such ways that make the records impossible to read as well as how much they receive in kickbacks. Even though they are blatant in such things. May God forgive us for what we have done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.79.188 (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Under Victims: Megan's Law was actually enacted Federally in 1996, not just in Ca. As well the Kanka family were NJ residents at the time the crimes were committed, which seems unclear (though maybe not significant). Also, it says "punishment" when this law was specifically positioned as an "administrative" action NOT punishment. That is how (at least in the US) our government managed to get it ex-post-facto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.247.73.130 (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Under Risk assessment: In addition to Static-99, for pre-release assessment of re-offense risk there are numerous other tests, including, but not limited to RRASOR (older than Static-99, but still used) and MinSOST (also Min-SOST/minsost/MINSOST).

Under Recidivism rates: As long as you are including stats from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf how about including the never talked about but very real statistic found in Page 1:Highlights:paragraph 3 - During the study 517 sex offenders were rearrested for sex crimes and 3,328 non-sex offending felons were arrested for sex crimes, the sex offenders accounted for only 7.4% of the arrests for sex offenses during the study. This might indicate a flaw in the penal system as there seem to be more sex offenders coming out than there are going in.

Maybe a section should be added to discuss controversies and contradictions? IDK 76.125.82.8 (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Victims: Adam Walsh

The section is long and without citations, it begins with an editorial comment, and most importantly is about a murdered boy. If there is evidence that the child was molested before being murdered then the section should be fixed up. Otherwise, it should simply be removed.

/mo'n —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.131.224 (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Added comment by anonymous reader, regarding the 'See Also: Victims: Adam Walsh' section:

I agree that the Adam Walsh section (or everything but the link and first sentence or two) should be removed. Grammatically, it does not even make sense in places, and it implies things that are contradicted on the actual Adam Walsh Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.68.115 (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Came to express similar opinion on the Adam Walsh commentary. It's a mess and surprised it still stands after over two years. Tickerhead (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Actually, the presence of a victims list is non-encyclopedic selective memorializing and doesn't belong here at all. Tickerhead (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request from LODweed, 2 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Under the recidivism section, I think the following should be added:

One study with a follow-up period of 25 years, however, found that when "undetected crimes" were accounted for, the recidivism rate for sex offenders rose to 88.3%.

Ron Langevin et al., Lifetime Sex Offender Recidivism: a 25-Year Follow-Up Study, 46 Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, no. 5 (2004).

LODweed (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting fact, but could you clarify how exactly 'undetected crimes' are accounted for? It goes without saying that by virtue of being undetected the crimes are not accounted for. Intelligentsium 01:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.—C45207 | Talk 00:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, sexual offense recidivism is a very complicated research field with many contradictory findings. Typically, we don't put much weight on individual, unreplicated findings. Personally, unless one is attempting to collect a comprehensive list of all reported findings, I would not overturn a very solid, very well-replicated finding on the basis of a single report in a relatively low-end journal. As they say, "One swallow doesn't make a summer"...or even more on point, "Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence." IMO.

— James Cantor (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Disclosure.

I added to the external links on the mainpage a link to ATSA, the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. Although I doubt that that is controversial, I feel I should point out that I am a member of that organization, and am the editor of their research journal.— James Cantor (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Globalize tag

It appears that based on previous discussions on this page, and the content in the article itself, that this article is USA-centric in its coverage. Therefore, I've tagged that article with {{globalize}} so that the article will be put into appropriate categories and will attract the attention of editors who might be able to expand/adjust the article as needed. Cheers. elektrikSHOOS 03:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Salon.com just published an interview comparing U.S. to Canadian approaches to sex offender management/policy (as well as providing other info):

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/13/child_abuse_were_making_the_problem_worse/singleton/

— James Cantor (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Is Fanny Hill still obscene?

This sentence in the lead bothers me: "Pandering obscenity offences range from the possession of the book, within the United States, Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure by author John Cleland,..." I thought that Memoirs v. Massachusetts had established that the work was not obscene. It sounds as if being found in possession of this work is still grounds for being declared a sex offender. It sounds like a misstatement. --Auric (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Recidivism Rates in DOJ Study

The Recidivism section makes a couple important misrepresentations: 1. The wiki states that the DOJ study found that "recidivism" rates among sex offenders was 5.3%. The study clearly states that the 5.3% number was not for "recidivism," but for "rearrests"--the distinction is HUGE. Also, this rate covers only the three years immediately following release. 2. The article then fails to present the vital fact that the DOJ study found that only 1.3% of non-sex offenders were rearrested within the same three years. The study itself states: "... the 5.3% rearrest rate for the 9,691 released sex offenders was 4 times higher [than the non-sex offender rate]." The section introduces bias by deliberately ignoring the comparison data in the same study immediately followed by the data for rearrests for any offense (tending to further lead the reader to a different conclusion than might be reached by the inclusion of the comparison data) and listing only the conviction rate for the sex offender group.

Because the article derives its authority in this section in large part from the DOJ study, it is important that the study not be misrepresented in the article.

Papasavant (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Residency Restrictions

The section on registration includes information about residency restrictions, but, in addition to being biased towards the US (which is noted at the top of the page, so okay I guess), it also presents state and locality specific restrictions as though they applied everywhere. Residency restrictions are HIGHLY variable, and this is incredibly misleading. Residency restrictions are so controversial that I feel they deserve, if not a separate article or separate subject heading, at least a separate component under registration. The specific restrictions that are currently listed should say to which jurisdictions they apply, and the others should note that they are merely examples of common residency stipulations. I can come back and make edits later if no one else does, but I'm not as familiar with wiki guidelines so I'm hesitant to do so. I can provide resources as needed. The misconceptions about residency restrictions are so problematic that the general public is constantly confused. I'd love to see this wiki article be something people could use to get some clarification, instead of becoming even MORE confused. Elimeny (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)elimeny

Edit request on 6 March 2012

I work for the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) and see that one of the external links to our website is no longer valid. Please replace the External Link: "Facts about Sex Offenders (ATSA)" with "Ten Things You Should Know About Sex Offenders and Treatment" (http://www.atsa.com/ten-things-you-should-know-about-sex-offenders-and-treatment). 50.39.116.36 (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Done I have made the requested change. Thanks for letting us know. Keith D (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Jammu Siltavuori

Finnish pedophile who killed 2 little girls and raped them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.228.228 (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 June 2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender#Post-incarceration_registries_and_restrictions 1st sentence in this section. "A sex offender registry is a system in place in a number of jurisdictions designed to allow authorities to keep track of the residence and activity of sex offenders (including those released from prison))." ← Why two parentheses? This is bothering me.

74.183.49.231 (talk) 02:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks for pointing it out. Rivertorch (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Class edits

Hi I'm doing a class project to edit Wikipedia and I was thinking about adding a section that deals with the use of phallometry on sex offenders in applied behavioral analysis. I also wanted to mention the dangers of sex offenders with developmental disabilities. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenniwey (talk • contribs) 18:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Residency Restrictions

This paragraph has some serious flaws:

Megan's Law, in the U.S., is designed to sanction sex offenders and reduce their recidivism rate. The law is enacted and enforced on a state-by-state basis. Most states also restrict where convicted sex offenders can live after their release, prohibiting residency within a designated distance of schools and daycare centers (usually 1,000–2,000 feet (300–610 m)). Guided by the 2007 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, sex offenders must avoid of such areas as schools, bus stops, gyms, recreation centers, playgrounds, parks, swimming pools, libraries, nursing homes, and places of worship by 500 to 2,500 feet (150 to 760 m). However, residence stipulations vary from state to state. Some states (such as Arkansas, Illinois, Washington and Idaho) do not require sex offenders to move from their residences if a forbidden facility is built or a law is enacted after the offender takes up residency.

Errors:

1. The AWA does NOT mandate residency restrictions (RRs) at all. RRs have nothing to do with AWA and vice versa, not to mention most states' RRs preceded AWA 2. The intent of Megan's Law and its predecessor the Jacob Wetterling Act, was not intended to "sanction" as it is supposedly "regulatory/civil in nature. At least that was the justification SCOTUS used in the 2003 Smith v Doe decision, but to provide a list of potential suspects in the event of a missing person case. And there should be mention made of the studies that find no link between the registry and reduced recidivism in the interest of fairness. 3. The Adam Walsh Act (AWA) was signed into law in 2006, not 2007 4. There are two famous studies, a 2003 Colorado Dept of Public Safety study from 2003 and a Minnesota Dept of Corrections study in 2004, that found no correlation between residences and recidivism. Also, it is worth noting a number of municipalities are scaling back residency laws, as did the state of Iowa in 2009 (see http://www.oncefallen.com/residencylaws.html for more on this) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UltimaHolyFlare (talk • contribs) 03:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Broken Reference Links

Both reference link 16 and 17 are broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.162.165 (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Discrepancies In This Wiki's Mention Of Ottis Toole & The Ottis Toole Wiki

I'd like to point something out in the section of the article listing various sex offenders. They have Ottis Toole listed as a sex offender and claims that he confessed to multiple rapes & murders. But the wikipedia article on Ottis Toole makes absolutely no mention of him confessing to any rapes. And Toole was in fact not a rapist or sex offender but was a serial murderer and arsonist and sexual offenses were not a part of his modus oparandi. The murder of Adam Walsh was just that, a murder, a very heinous one. But it did not involve sexual assault or a sexual motive. There was no indication at all that Adam was sexually assaulted or that his abduction and murder was sexually motivated in any way. So I have to question why the Adam Walsh act targets sex offenders instead of murderers, arsonists, and other violent criminals. Even the wikipedia page on Adam Walsh only mentions murder and says nothing about sexual assault or sexual motive. Not that wikipedia is the authority on the matter but other complete and authoritative articles on the matter make no mention of sexual assault or motive either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.57.240 (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Massive POV and neutrality problems

The article is currently a disastrous example of POV-pushing and WP:Activism by people who seem to be trying to minimize the severity of sexual offenses and criticize the "excessively harsh" treatment of sex offenders. Examples:

• The definitional sentence includes the activist minimization "a person who has committed....in some instances mere public urination."
• The "Overview" starts with a mention that "many jurisdictions are reforming their laws to prevent the over-prosecution of sex offenders" re: child porn.
• There's an entire, fairly large section (admittedly well-sourced) on "sex offender panic" and how sex offenders are not as bad as you think they are (low recidivism, sexual offense laws a product of "intelligent dishonesty and populism thriving on moral panic", whatever that means)
• WP:WEASEL words are liberally distributed: "some critics," "some have argued," "many academics," "considered cruel by many."

There are other issues (persistent copyediting problems, a "See also" full of editorial memorializations of victims and lists of trivial offenders), but the above are the major POV points. I'm tagging the page as "disputed neutrality," because User:ExpatSalopian's comment above drew no effective response. FourViolas (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)