Tweet
http://insidetime.org/download/resea...xOffenders.pdf
Key points
• The proportion reconvicted of another sexual offence during both follow-up periods was relatively low: less than 10%, even amongst those who could be followed up for six years. However, those who were reconvicted committed very serious crimes.
• The proportion reconvicted varied according to the type of victim:
• none of those imprisoned for an offence against children in their own family unit was reconvicted of a sexual or serious violent crime
• just over a quarter of those imprisoned for a sexual crime against a child victim not in their family were reconvicted of another sexual offence, and nearly a third were imprisoned for a sexual or violent crime
• of those imprisoned for an offence against an adult, one in 13 was reconvicted of a sexual offence, and one in seven was imprisoned for a sexual or violent offence within six years of release from prison.
• All those subsequently convicted of a further sexual offence within the four-year follow-up period (and all but one followed-up for six years) had been identified as ‘dangerous’ or ‘high risk’ by at least one member of the Parole Board panel.
• However, nine out of ten of those thought to pose a ‘high risk’ were not reconvicted of a sexual offence within four years of their release (three-quarters of those followed up for six years). They were ‘false positives’. Particularly prominent amongst them were:
• Where no member of the Parole Board panel identified a sex offender as a ‘high risk’, only one was reconvicted of a sexual offence even after six years – the sole ‘false negative’.
• An actuarial risk assessment instrument (Static-99) produced fewer ‘false positives’ but more ‘false negatives’ than Parole Board members’ assessments of ‘high risk’
RF: That's because they didn't offend in the first place. For those with loved ones inside coming up to Parole maybe you can make use of this article - who to the probation officer who is assessing "risk".
Key points
• The proportion reconvicted of another sexual offence during both follow-up periods was relatively low: less than 10%, even amongst those who could be followed up for six years. However, those who were reconvicted committed very serious crimes.
• The proportion reconvicted varied according to the type of victim:
• none of those imprisoned for an offence against children in their own family unit was reconvicted of a sexual or serious violent crime
• just over a quarter of those imprisoned for a sexual crime against a child victim not in their family were reconvicted of another sexual offence, and nearly a third were imprisoned for a sexual or violent crime
• of those imprisoned for an offence against an adult, one in 13 was reconvicted of a sexual offence, and one in seven was imprisoned for a sexual or violent offence within six years of release from prison.
• All those subsequently convicted of a further sexual offence within the four-year follow-up period (and all but one followed-up for six years) had been identified as ‘dangerous’ or ‘high risk’ by at least one member of the Parole Board panel.
• However, nine out of ten of those thought to pose a ‘high risk’ were not reconvicted of a sexual offence within four years of their release (three-quarters of those followed up for six years). They were ‘false positives’. Particularly prominent amongst them were:
• offenders against children within their own family
• those who denied their offence: only one ‘high-risk’ ‘denier’ was reconvicted of a sexual crime.
• those who denied their offence: only one ‘high-risk’ ‘denier’ was reconvicted of a sexual crime.
• An actuarial risk assessment instrument (Static-99) produced fewer ‘false positives’ but more ‘false negatives’ than Parole Board members’ assessments of ‘high risk’
RF: That's because they didn't offend in the first place. For those with loved ones inside coming up to Parole maybe you can make use of this article - who to the probation officer who is assessing "risk".