CA - North State Psychotherapist wants changes to Megan's Law

Dawn Horwitz-Person

Original Article

04/25/2014

Dawn Horwitz-Person is a Sex Offender Treatment Specialist in Chico. She deals with some of the most violent and dangerous convicted sex offenders in the north state. She has also been featured on "Oprah," and "Anderson Cooper 360." Oprah Winfrey flew to Chico in 2010 to meet with Horwitz-Person and four of her patients, who openly discussed how and why they chose their victims.

Horwitz-Person is one of many California Phycho-therapists hoping for changes to the California Department of Justice's sex offender registry Megan's Law, because she says it is misleading. Says Horwitz-Person, "If 90 percent of the people are offended by someone they know and love and trust, how is knowing where somebody lives going to keep your child safe?" She describes what she calls three fundamental problems with Megan's Law. She says it gives people a false sense of security, because they look at the dots on the sex offender map, determine they don't live close to any offenders, and feel safe. She says, "Ok, nobody lives by me. This is safe, and they forget that most offenders offend because they're family. People they know and love and trust. They're people they allow into their homes." Horwitz-Person adds that the registry makes people think about the stranger in the van down the street, instead of focusing on those who are allowed in the home, and given access to their kids. She says, "If it's focused on keeping that stranger danger myth alive, how are we really protecting our kids if they're not getting accurate information? We need to have conversations with our children about 'OK touch' and 'Not Ok touch.' Ninety percent of the current sex crimes are committed by people who have never been arrested, before we know who they are law enforcement knows who they are." Horwitz-Person says many predators are able to plea bargain off the registry, even though they are at high risk to re-offend. She says, "Something that may start out as felony rape will be plea bargained to somebody accepting a felony sexual battery. Felony sexual battery doesn't have to register. That person could be a really dangerous person, and they're not on Megan's Law." She cites one former patient who lives in Chico with multiple sexual battery offenses, who was able to stay off the list. She says, "I'm talking somebody who has crossed all barriers, with children, adults, men, women, animals, you name it. And this person, nobody knows about, and he's not on the registry." She says the final problem with Megan's Law is that it lumps in all offenders together, without taking into consideration the type or date of offense, and the risk assessment. She says it's a waste of money and resources to monitor some offenders, while others who are considered high-risk are not monitored once they're off probation.

The California Sex Offender Management Board has asked Governor Jerry Brown to create a risk-tier system, so that the most dangerous offenders can be more closely monitored. To watch Horwitz-Person's appearance on Oprah, click here.

Sex offender therapy: A battle on multiple fronts

Original Article

03/31/2014

By Michael Hubbard

Working with individuals with sex offense convictions is a specialized area of counseling. There are also “specialties within the specialty” when factoring in the different venues for treatment, including programs in prison, in private practice (often with those on postprison supervision or probation) and in mental institutions. The individuals within this population are generally quite different, and the dynamics are made even more complex when considering whether the offenders are adult males, adult females (yes, there are female sex offenders) or juveniles. The research on each population varies considerably. There is a paucity of research on female sex offenders, and research is still somewhat lacking (although growing) on the ever-complex juvenile offenders.

Sex offender therapy is challenging regardless of the nature of the clients, and other factors also come into play. There exists the constant issue of resistance to treatment, particularly when treatment is a condition of probation or parole. Criminogenic thinking pervades the scene, and counselors must be on guard for the often subtle signs of that mind-set. For instance, individuals convicted of sex offenses can be highly manipulative, not only with their therapist but also with others in their therapy groups. Power plays, deflection, grooming and lying are a few examples of the criminal thinking that may be evident. Many offenders will also present with a virtual encyclopedia of thinking errors. Often topping the cognitive distortion list are victim stance (“This label is unfair”), minimization (“All I did was grope her”), justification (“We’d had sex before and she didn’t complain”) and entitlement.

In addition to the cognitive distortions and potential for criminogenic behavior, counselors may also have to contend with other factors such as addictions, co-occurring disorders and, of course, shame, guilt and incredibly demeaning self-talk. The ultimate goal of sex offender therapy is relapse prevention, based first upon accountability and assumption of responsibility for offensive behavior. But when all of these factors are thrown into the mix, the counselor is often faced with denial on several levels: denial of facts (“It wasn’t me”); denial of intent (“I was drunk”); denial of impact (“She didn’t seem to mind”); and denial of the need for treatment.

Research supports the best practice of sex offender therapy being conducted in groups whenever possible. The peer support, which includes challenging denial and other thinking errors, is invaluable in treatment and also lends itself to generally better outcomes. Part of the reason for this is that so many sex offenses are based in secrecy. Bringing offenses out into the open is generally conducive to discussion and to the cognitive elements that are so important to reducing recidivism.

Of course, group therapy adds still other elements for the therapist to consider, including properly populating groups (for example, matching risk factors, genders and ages) and building and maintaining effective group dynamics. Sex offenders don’t want to talk about their “stuff” in front of others. Consequently, providing a safe environment and building trust are staples of effective sex offender therapy groups.

While this represents a formidable enough battlefront on its own, sex offender therapists are faced with another perhaps even more challenging front — that of our society, including our lawmakers.

Society’s perception

In this discipline, we understand that risk mitigation is a primary concern. After all, society demands and deserves protection, and we all share the goal of ensuring that there will be no more victims of sex offenses. In fact, that is a primary directive.

Yet our society is also responsible for erecting many of the barriers that stand in the way of the recovery that sex offender therapists and our clients strive to achieve. Understandably, victim advocacy is far more palatable than the thought of treating a population that most would prefer to exile. However, the sad fact is that punitive barriers such as limited jobs, housing restrictions and sex offender registration raise significant risk factors for recidivism. These barriers often negate the efforts of sex offender therapists and those clients who possess legitimate desires to recover and return as productive members of society. In fact, our society may be contributing to future victimization — just the opposite of our primary goal.

As we all know, hopelessness is like a vampire to therapy. As our restrictive policies and biases feed that hopelessness, treatment and recovery are undermined, and relapse can become more likely. The short of it is that society’s efforts are based on a significant amount of misinformation and myths about sex offenders, and politicians and law enforcement officials often respond to the public’s demand for protection with tougher and more restrictive laws. Those laws and policies, even when couched as seemingly more sensible restrictions on living locations (as though all sex offenders are child molesters), send a clear message of “not on our block, in our neighborhood or in our town.”

In the meantime, the question of “Who is a sex offender?” is often overlooked. When I describe a 19-year-old who had consensual sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend of two years, some people will respond, “Well, he’s not a sex offender in that case.” Yet I have worked with a number of individuals convicted in similar situations who are now registered as sex offenders for life and required to complete treatment. In fact, there were so many such cases in Oregon that the state finally passed what is referred to as the “Romeo and Juliet law.” Under this law and similar laws in some other states, there is generally no charge of engaging in unlawful sex even if the “victim” is underage and the “offender” is an adult, as long as the age difference is no more than three years and the sexual act was consensual. My point here is that there is no set “profile” for all individuals labeled as sex offenders, yet society and the media frequently attempt to paint one.

Common myths

This particular battle is not restricted entirely to public sentiment. In the state institution in which our program operates, the public’s general misconceptions about sex offenders are often shared by some staff members. And I should point out that those in our counseling community are not immune. Some of the common myths about sex offenders are as follows.

Most sex offenders are predators. Reality: The most common sex offender is opportunistic, has one victim and is known to the victim.

Most sex offenders are dirty old men, strangers and pedophiles who will grab children off playgrounds. Reality: First, pedophiles (those sexually attracted to children) are not necessarily child molesters, for most do not commit offenses regardless of their attraction. Most sex offenders and child molesters are relatives or otherwise known to the family; only 2-3 percent of such offenses are committed by strangers. An estimated half of all child molestations are committed by teenagers.

Once a sex offender, always a sex offender (most sex offenders will reoffend). Reality: Study results vary considerably depending on the nature of the crime, whether the offender was previously incarcerated, whether the offender received treatment, what kind of support exists and the time after release and/or treatment completion. Yet contrary to popular belief, studies and statistics (including those from the Bureau of Justice) indicate that recidivism rates for sex offenders are lower than those for the general criminal population. A five-year study from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services noted a rate of recidivism ranging from 6 to 23 percent, depending on the offense (incest had the lowest recidivism rate, while molestation of boy victims had the highest recidivism rate). The Center for Sex Offender Management cites a recidivism rate of 12-24 percent but adds that many such offenses are underreported.
- NOTE: It also depends on how they define recidivism.  If they define it as any new unrelated crime or violation then the statistics are higher, but if they only include new sexual crimes then the stats are a lot lower, below 5%.

Treatment for sex offenders does not work. Reality: This statement has been a source of debate for decades. The effectiveness of treatment depends on a number of factors, including the type of offender, the type of treatment and how much management, supervision and support the offender has. Although the risk of recidivism exists even in the best of cases, most offenders can and will lead productive and offense-free lives after treatment.

Most sex offenders were sexually abused when they were children. Reality: Although sex offenders are more likely to have been sexually abused than nonoffenders, the vast majority of individuals who were sexually abused will not go on to commit sex crimes. A 2001 study by Jan Hindman and James Peters found that 67 percent of sex offenders initially reported sexual abuse in their history. Yet, when subjected to a polygraph, that figure dropped to 29 percent, suggesting that reports of sexual abuse were initially exaggerated to justify or rationalize their offenses.

I recall my former graduate school classmates, and even some of my professors, asking me, “How can you do that kind of work?” Most often the question came from those working with victims of sexual and physical abuse. Others in law enforcement and victim advocacy programs often repeated the question. The implication from some is that a counselor who treats the instigators of sexual abuse cannot also identify with the victims of such abuse. That argument could not be more fallacious.

Other obstacles

In our sex offender treatment program at a state hospital, a primarily forensic mental institution, our first challenge is getting patients with sex offenses into our program. We run an evidence-based program, principally using cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), that serves all risk levels and populations that have regular and diminished cognition with a variety of biopsychosocial diagnoses. Most of the patients in our program are in the hospital under a “guilty except for insanity” adjudication and under the jurisdiction of Oregon’s Psychiatric Security Review Board (PSRB). No matter why they are here, any patient with a history of a sexual offense or who engages in inappropriate sexual activity is referred to our sex offender treatment program.

When referred, a sex offender risk assessment is conducted to evaluate risk and appropriateness for sex offender therapy and to provide recommendations. Participating in sex offender treatment at the hospital is not mandatory, although the PSRB — concerned with risk mitigation — may consider nonparticipation a risk factor when contemplating the patient’s release to a less restrictive facility.

The patients often balk at the thought of living with the “sex offender” designation, fearful they will be subjected to harassment and other abuse. Their fear is warranted; many are labeled with terms such as chimo (child molester), pedophile or predator and become targets for possible physical assault. Staff members are not immune to falling into the judgment trap, sometimes in the form of what we call the “ick factor.” Even if they try not to show it, the patients can read it. Many sex offender patients carry so much shame and guilt that any suggestion of judgment can keep them from engaging in treatment or create a setback. We use a considerable amount of motivational interviewing to facilitate patients’ decisions to engage in the treatment they sorely need to progress through this institution.

Because our team operates in a state institution, we face some challenges not seen as often in private practice or other counseling venues. Our patients have mental illness, with everything from schizophrenia spectrum disorders to various personality disorders. In addition, more than one-third of the members in the groups we facilitate have diminished cognition. This represents another barrier to effective treatment, especially when considering that CBT and adjunct approaches such as dialectical behavior therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy are the most foundational and evidence-based practices when working with sex offenders. Indeed, the dynamic risk factors between the populations vary considerably.

As stated before, therapists in this field often deal with criminogenic thinking. Although we may expect that with many clients on postprison supervision, it is easy to forget in this hospital, where we are working with those who have been diagnosed with some form of mental illness. But the guilty except for insanity plea and accompanying diagnoses do not preclude criminogenic thinking. We witness manipulation, victimization and other criminal activities all too frequently. Given all these factors, providing sex offender therapy in our program is sometimes like looking through a fractured lens and still trying to divine a clear image of each patient and how to work with that patient for engagement and progress.

How might this apply to you?

Those of us currently in this field, as well as those counselors who may one day work with sex offenders, must realize that our approach to treatment will be negatively affected should we hold on to the same misconceptions and biases that are so prevalent in society. We are already familiar with the more general bias toward mental illness. Consider how much more that can play out in a charged atmosphere of offenses with the prefix sex. If you are a counselor and saying to yourself, “I have no intention of working with sex offenders,” here’s news for you: Most counselors will work with sex offenders, although perhaps without even knowing it.

Consider that a U.S. Department of Justice report from 2005 said studies suggest that sexual assault is one of the most underreported crimes. That same report estimated that 60 percent of rapes go unreported. As a counselor, you may be just as likely to work with a client who has committed a sexual offense, even though the client comes to you for another unrelated reason, as you are to work with a client who eventually discloses that he or she was sexually molested. Given the underreporting of sexual crimes, it is not unthinkable that you may have a client who has offended and is coming to you due in part to the guilt that he or she is experiencing. Or you may have someone well into therapy for a different reason (for example, depression), only to finally have that client confess to sexual offending.

So, how should you prepare? As with any area in counseling, seek out information, research and guidance. There are a number of excellent resources in the field of sex offender therapy, including the Center for Sex Offender Management, the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) and the New England Adolescent Research Institute. All provide forums for research and to improve the work we do, both in treatment and in support for recovery. ATSA has many organizations under its umbrella on a state level that offer workshops on sex offender therapy and related topics. It also hosts an annual conference with a plethora of research and presentations.

For those inclined to explore or promote advocacy, these organizations (as well as others) produce important educational information. Speaking of which, another misconception exists that if a therapist advocates for a recovery-minded approach in treating sex offenders, that person is precluded from advocating for victims. Some people even view us as “offender defenders.” But most of us have treated, and continue to treat, victims of sexual and other abuse. In doing so, we often treat individuals who are both victims and offenders.

Current research indicates that the most evidence-based therapy for sex offenders, with the best outcomes, is CBT. In addition, a person-centered approach has been demonstrated to be most effective. This is understandable given the shame and suspicion felt by many offenders. An interdisciplinary team that communicates well is another key factor for optimal treatment and supervision. When working with clients on postprison supervision in private practice, this team would include the therapist, the parole officer and other professionals such as polygraphers. In our hospital setting, the communication and cooperation between our sex offender treatment program personnel and the unit psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses and other staff such as treatment care plan specialists are essential to crafting and implementing treatment plans, considering and managing outings and other privileges, and working toward the patients’ recovery and eventual transition to other settings such as group homes.

Other programs, such as one begun in Canada called the Circle of Support and Accountability (COSA), have recognized the need to provide ongoing support and guidance as sex offenders leave treatment and attempt to make their way back into society as productive members. Studies involving the original COSA and those established in states such as Minnesota have demonstrated a significant reduction in recidivism — in some cases, in excess of 70 percent. In turn, this has had a positive fiscal impact by reducing prison time due to relapse and reconviction. Most important, that translates to fewer victims.

As stated earlier, group treatment is best practice in the field of sex offender treatment. Of course, many counselors in private practice may not have enough clients to establish a group. When there are enough members, setting up and running sex offender groups presents another level of challenge. First, groups should be set up with homogeneity in risk level, age and gender. In other words, low-risk clients should not be mixed with high-risk clients, genders should not be mixed and juveniles should not be included in groups with adults.

Once established, group dynamics become a focal point. Even though all group members will have committed some form of sex offense, some members will not be above judging others. For instance, a person convicted of raping an adult female may object to being in the same room with someone who molested a child, a relative or a male adult. Although society may not make distinctions between sex offenders, the offenders themselves sometimes have their own hierarchy.

Another challenge, yet to be sorted out by sufficient research, is treatment of offenders who are developmentally delayed. Some therapists have raised valid questions about using CBT with those who have diminished cognition. In addition, there are some risk factor differences between those with regular cognition and those with diminished cognition. Many treatment programs that handle both populations simply modify their regular program for clients who are developmentally delayed. Others have more distinct programs, with the one for developmentally delayed clients focused more on addressing emotional dysregulation and other dynamic risk factors.

Closing thoughts

Sex offender therapy is a controversial topic. No matter your involvement (or lack of involvement) in working with or advocating for the treatment of this population, you may still experience the battlefront I have outlined. The research and dissemination of findings will be limited as long as there is polarization around sex offender issues and as long as those perceived “sides” are not willing to listen to each other.

As counselors, we all know that listening, and especially reflective listening, involves a number of skills, not the least of which is seeing through the issues without allowing our own emotions to get involved. The public needs to receive an education on these issues. In addition, politicians, government agencies and policymakers must be urged to listen rather than simply striving to establish more “tough on offender” laws that sometimes make little sense and may, in fact, ultimately contribute to additional victims.

As counselors, however, we first focus on caring and applying our skills as best we can. We know that we cannot cure, but we can do our best to prevent future victims. In the process, it’s very likely that you will be faced with the task and frequent frustration of educating others who will not care. In fact, many will suggest that you simply throw away the key rather than provide treatment.

NJ - State Senate to vote Thursday on Jessica Lunsford Act

DiAnne Gove

Original Article

03/25/2014

By STEVE PRISAMENT

GALLOWAY – A state Senate vote on the Jessica Lunsford Act has been scheduled for Thursday, March 27, according to the District 9 delegation, which has cosponsored the legislation in both state houses.

The vote is the final legislative hurdle for the bill to be sent to Gov. Chris Christie’s desk for approval. It was passed 77-0 Thursday, March 20, by the state Assembly.

That same day it was passed by the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee, clearing it for this week’s floor vote.

Galloway resident Anna Jezycki said she is hopeful for the act to become law.

“This has been going on for so many years,” Jezycki said. “It would be one of the best things that ever happened for New Jersey.”

For the past dozen or so years, Jezycki has been the leader of CUFFS, Community United for Family Safety, which she started with some neighbors when they learned of a sex offender living near a school bus stop.

“This is long overdue,” Jezycki said. “It’s been a long time coming and will be well accepted by the people.”

She said she expects that if Gov. Christie considers whether to sign the bill, the governor will remember receiving thousands of letters from CUFFS a few years ago during a previous attempt at sex-offender legislation.

The District 9 senator and Assembly members who represent Galloway and Port Republic in Atlantic County and coastal communities to the north have been pushing for the legislation for a while based – in part – on input from Galloway residents.

“For nearly a decade, our delegation has cosponsored and consistently advocated in favor of enacting the Jessica Lunsford Act, here in New Jersey, just as at least 25 other states have done,” Sen. Christopher J. Connors told The Current Monday, March 24. “Mandatory sentencing would serve the interest of public safety, as sexual predators who prey upon children would be incarcerated for longer periods of time as opposed to being released onto the streets.”

The act, which is named after a Florida girl who was sexually assaulted and murdered by a convicted sex offender, requires mandatory terms for persons convicted of aggravated sexual assault against a child under the age of 13. Sentences would range between 25 years and life imprisonment, with 25 years having to be served before parole eligibility.

Assemblyman Brian E. Rumpf said victims’ interests would be better served.

“The courts would be enabled under the law to mandate that sexual predators serve sentences befitting of the heinous nature of their crimes,” Rumpf said. “For these and other compelling reasons, there is tremendous support for the Jessica Lunsford Act among concerned parents, grandparents, community groups and local public officials, including in our legislative district, who remain actively engaged in the effort to strengthen the state’s sexual offender laws.”

Assemblywoman DiAnne C. Gove cited strong support from two major forces.

“It is extremely important to note that this legislation is supported by Mark Lunsford (Video, Child Porn), Jessica’s father, who has worked tireless for Jessica’s Law to be enacted by every state so that a conviction of a sexual assault committed against a child in the first degree carries with it a mandatory minimum prison sentence of 25 years,” Gove said. “Critical to the continued advancement of this legislation is that both the Senate and Assembly versions of the Jessica Lunsford Act have strong bipartisan support from representatives across the state.”

The Assembly Judiciary Committee passed its version of the act, A-892 (PDF), Feb. 24. The Judiciary Committee was the only committee to hear A-892 before it moved to its unanimous Assembly approval March 20.

In the Senate, it required approval from two committees to reach this week’s vote. The Law and Public Safety Committee approved S-215 (PDF) Jan. 30 and the Budget and Appropriations Committee OK’d it March 13.

The 9th District delegation has established an online petition drive in support of the Jessica Lunsford Act as well as other sex offender legislation that residents can sign.

Connors, Rumpf and Gove are also prime sponsors of legislation that would require a sexual offender to be tiered – rated on the risk for re-offense – prior to his release from prison.

Currently, the ability of an offender to obtain housing following release is a determined by his tiering level.

NJ - Legislators Want Sexual Offenders’ Re-offense Risk Determined Prior to Prison Release

Original Article

03/20/2014

To address what they see as a flaw in the state’s current sexual offender laws, Sen. Christopher J. Connors, Assemblyman Brian E. Rumpf and Assemblywoman DiAnne C. Gove have reintroduced legislation to require county prosecutors to determine sexual offenders’ risk of re-offense – or tier – prior to their release from incarceration.

Prosecutors classify sex offenders in one of three tiers based on the degree of risk they pose to the public: low risk/tier 1, moderate risk/tier 2, or high risk/tier 3.

“Current law prevents sex offenders from being tiered until they have been released into the community because the offender’s residence status is a factor that is considered in determining risk of re-offense,” the three members of the 9th District delegation said in a joint statement. “To address this glaring defect in the current law, our legislation would remove the residency from the factors used in the determination process so that sexual offenders are tiered before they are released into the community.”

The introduction of this legislation, the lawmakers explained, followed conversations with local law enforcement personnel, including county prosecutors, “who warned about the inherent problems created by tiering convicted sex offenders after they have been released from incarceration. Given the transient nature of sexual offenders, it is not uncommon for these individuals to flee before ever being tiered.”

“As a consequence, in these situations law enforcement and the public do not have a complete picture as to the offender’s likelihood of re-offending. Tiering classifications determine the level of community notification, which includes such information as an offender’s name, description and photograph, address, place of employment or school if applicable, a description of the offender’s vehicle and license plate number, and a brief description of the offense.”

Throughout the past several legislative sessions, Connors, Rumpf and Gove have called for the state’s existing sexual offender statutes to be strengthened to better protect children and communities.

“While there are those that would argue that the residency factor allows for better determination of a sexual offender’s risk of re-offending, we strongly feel that it actually serves to the detriment of public safety and only complicates the responsibilities of law enforcement in tracking persons required to register under Megan’s Law,” they noted.

Upon reintroduction, the measures were referred to the Senate Law and Public Safety Committee and the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Both companion measures have bipartisan sponsorship.

FL - Indefinite Detention of Sex Offenders Flouts the Rule of Law

Original Article

So what's next? Concentration camps? Oh wait, these are concentration camps! They are just naming them differently!

02/26/2014

By Jacob Sullum

Although _____ completed his prison sentence in 2006, the state of Missouri kept him behind bars, repeatedly trying to commit him as a “sexually violent predator.” After three juries deadlocked on the question of whether _____ suffers from a “mental abnormality” that makes him “more likely than not” to commit new sex crimes after he is released, a fourth jury on Friday unanimously agreed he does not. In effect, the state retroactively extended _____'s sentence from 10 years to 17.

The military prison at Guantanamo Bay is notorious as a place where people can be held indefinitely without charge because the usual rules of criminal justice do not apply. Twenty states have their own versions of Guantanamo Bay for sex offenders, a fact that attracts little attention and generates little outrage because the detainees are even less sympathetic than suspected terrorists.

At the age of 18, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports, _____ “got caught sticking his hand in the pants of a 5-year-old girl playing in a yard.” He pleaded guilty to sexual abuse, got probation and underwent treatment. Fourteen years later, after he was arrested for molesting the 7-year-old daughter of close friends, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

You may well think a 10-year sentence is too short for a child molester. The prosecution thought 25 years would have been appropriate. But that is not the sentence _____ got, and lengthening a prison term after it has been completed is a practice usually associated with arbitrary dictatorships, not liberal democracies that supposedly respect the rule of law.

When it upheld a law similar to Missouri's in the 1997 case Kansas v. Hendricks, the Supreme Court said preventive detention of sex offenders is constitutional as long as the aim is not “punitive” and the procedures for committing people meet the requirements of due process. In a concurring opinion, however, Justice Anthony Kennedy warned that if the official rationale for commitment is treatment, “but the treatment provisions were adopted as a sham or mere pretext,” that fact would indicate “the forbidden purpose to punish.”

Missouri's Sex Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Services (SORTS), the target of a federal lawsuit that argues it locks people in a prison disguised as a hospital, seems to illustrate Kennedy's point. “Since the program started in 1999,” the Post-Dispatch reports, “nobody has completed treatment.” In a 2009 memo, the director of Missouri's Department of Mental Health worried that such a record would prove SORTS is nothing but a “sham.”

Minnesota, with more civilly committed sex offenders per capita than any other state, has a similarly dismal record, even though it spends $120,000 a year to detain each of those “patients,” three times the cost of keeping someone in prison. Last week, in a ruling that allowed a lawsuit challenging the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) to proceed, U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank noted that “no civilly committed sex offender has ever been discharged.” Assuming the facts alleged by the plaintiffs are true, he said, “it appears that MSOP may very well be serving the constitutionally impermissible purposes of retribution and deterrence.”

Some states have better records. But overall, as you might expect given the incentives involved, civilly committed sex offenders are almost never deemed to be “cured,” and so they are almost never released.

In Kansas v. Hendricks, the Supreme Court emphasized that a sex offender could be committed only if he suffered from a “mental abnormality” or “personality disorder” that undermined self-control, justifying “a prediction of future dangerousness.” But according to Justice Department data, most prisoners have “mental health problems,” and many of them surely have behaved in ways that would make a “prediction of future dangerousness” plausible.

Is that all it takes to lose your freedom forever? If so, the idea that people should be imprisoned only for crimes they have committed, as opposed to crimes they might commit in the future, may one day seem positively quaint.

OR - Sex offender registry to see changes

Original Article

02/11/2014

By Chris Holmstrom

PORTLAND (KOIN) - When a convicted sex offender is ready for parole, the state makes a risk assessment to determine if he’s likely to once again commit a sexual crime.

_____, who served his sentence for sexually abusing four children at a 24-Hour Fitness in Hillsboro, was released from parole and is unsupervised because officials determined he was not a predatory risk.

The father of one of his victim’s — who became an advocate for sexual abuse victims in 2005 — is not happy.

“He’s not going to be watched, he’s not going to be supervised,” the father said. “The community does not need to be notified because he’s not rated as a predator, which I believe is false.”

“Certain sex offenders are rated as predatory or non-predatory,” he said. “I’d love to see and have that become a much stricter ratings assessment.”

Changes are coming to the way Oregon classifies sex offenders.

Last summer, Oregon lawmakers passed a bill that mandates all sex offenders be classified by their risk level in society. It also establishes rules for community notification. Now, only the predatory offenders are on the state’s public sex offender website.

Starting on December 1, 2016 the state will be on a three-tier sex offender registry, similar to Washington.

All sex offenders will be given a risk assessment, which will rate whether they are level 1, 2 or 3. Currently, the state only publishes public information for offenders that are considered predatory — only about 2.5% of them.

The new law will put the more at-risk offenders on the public site, but not the low level ones. It will even give people on level 1 and 2 a chance to be reclassified and possibly off the list completely.