Nine ways to stop sex offenders from committing new crimes

Could rolling back Jessica's Law actually decrease sex crimes?

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation released a report today that recommends changes to the way the state monitors people who have served prison sentences for sex crimes and are now back in the community. Many of the recommendations are ideas that have been floating about in the academic and policy worlds, but the advent of the report is still momentous: any time you talk about changing the laws regarding sex offenders and how they’re tracked, things can get politically dicey. This report, unlike previous ones, comes from the hands of police officers, sheriffs deputies, parole officers, prosecutors, and prison system officials–and much of it is meant to clear up some common misconceptions about sex offenders, who they are, and what kinds of things actually prevent them from hurting more victims. Some of the suggestions promise to be controversial, calling for the roll-back of politically popular laws.

Overall, the report calls for nine changes in the way sex offenders are supervised while on parole:

  1. Implement a “containment model.” Which basically means that sex offender supervision should always be looked at with all of its complexities and all the people it affects in mind. Which means involving victims groups, working with legislators, and regularly auditing progress.
  2. Change how the department assesses who’s at highest risk for re-offending. Currently, each sex offender is given a risk assessment when they’re released from prison that looks at their past behavior and determines what level of supervision they should receive. But there are other factors that contribute to risk–like living situation, work life, emotional health, supportive families. What’s called a “dynamic” risk model takes things like these into effect–and can change as an ex-offender’s situation evolves.
  3. Have different levels of supervision for different people. Some sex offenders are high risk; others are not. Many fall somewhere in the middle. Currently, there are two levels of supervision that a sex offender can be assigned. The report recommends there be more, and that the level of supervision change depending on how well the offender responds to being back in the community.
  4. Get rid of “passive” GPS monitoring. Right now, about 6,600 paroled sex offenders are monitored on GPS. But that doesn’t mean someone’s watching every step they take. For some of them, a parole agent looks at where they’ve been about once a week. The report recommends that everyone’s travels be tracked once a day.
  5. Build a monitoring center. That said, more and more of a parole officer’s time is spent looking at a computer and responding to alerts that the GPS bracelets give off all the time (thousands a day statewide). If there were a monitoring center that took care of checking the alerts, parole agents could presumably spend more time in the field, checking up on parolees.
  6. Switch experienced parole officers to sex offender units. Instead of assigning the least experienced officers to sex offender units, send the most experienced ones, the report says. Those who know what to look for to see if a parolee is hiding something.
  7. Reduce caseloads. Right now, parole officers in sex offender units have from 20-40 parolees each under their supervision. The report says that number shouldn’t be higher than 20.
  8. Increase oversight. After Jaycee Lee Dugard was found to be living in a tent complex in Philip Garrido’s back yard in Antioch, many people pointed out the fact that Garrido was a registered sex offender, that parole agents had visited his house, and yet still, no one noticed Dugard’s continued imprisonment. The report recommends more managerial oversight and evaluations of how parolees are being monitored.
  9. Get rid of Jessica’s Law housing restrictions. This recommendation promises to be the most controversial. Jessica’s Law was passed as Proposition 83 in 2006 and among other things, it created strict rules for where sex offenders can and can’t live. According to the law, sex offenders cannot live within 2,000 feet of a school, park, or place where children regularly gather. Which means that in some cities (like SF) they can’t live anywhere and must declare themselves transient. Before the law passed, there were 88 homeless sex offenders on parole in California. Right now, there are about 2,100. The report says there’s no evidence to suggest that residency restrictions actually change the likelihood a sex offender will commit a new crime–they actually hurt public safety by ensuring unstable situations for already troubled people. The report recommends that the restrictions be dropped.

So what now? Robert Ambroselli, the Director of the Division of Adult Parole Operations at the CDCR, told a group of reporters this afternoon that the department is reviewing the recommendations and seeing which ones can be implemented and how. The large remaining questions, which CDCR does not yet have answers to, are whether the resources and political will are there to see them through. Reducing the caseloads and switching experienced parole officers to sex offender units would either require taking resources from other areas of parole or getting a chunk of money from a state budget that’s already over-strained. Rolling back Jessica’s Law would also take considerable political maneuvering–a two-thirds vote of the legislature would be required to alter it. Senator Mark Leno, the chair of the Senate’s Public Safety Committee has said that he and other legislators are working on getting a bipartisan coalition together to take on the residency restrictions. Last week, a Los Angeles judge declared the residency restrictions unconstitutional, though the ruling only applies to LA county.

  • https://me.yahoo.com/a/SzUChQNkyZsQHnrEI.dTjvKSAkD9a1XuM4uEuzGAMf6a6c8-#8e687 Shelomith

    There is much here that is based on research and evidence. Number 9 probably has the most significance in that, even as California–and other states and jurisdictions–are realizing how self-defeating and useless residency and like restrictions are, other parts of the country, Wisconsin for example, are considering putting them in place. The law that needs to passed next is that no one at either the local, the state, or the federal level may propose a law or restriction unless they can show, in writing, valid evidence based research supporting the efficacy of the law or restriction. Most of the nonsense created by today’s sex offender industry would not exist if that one law had been in existence.

  • pixiedust

    Parole doesn’t work, it never has and never will. It’s just an expensive little game that is used to make the public think that they are safe. Unless you assign one parole agent to each parolee 24/7, there is absolutely nothing that prevents them from re-offending. It’s just like sex-offender residency restrictions. How does that protect the public? For every registered sex offender there are probably 10 more who have never been convicted. Wouldn’t it make more sense to educate people on how to protect themselves and their families from predators?

  • Anonymous

    How about keeping them locked up?

  • Just Wondering

    Does the CCPOA encourage recidivism in order to decrease the work loads for the Parole Officers? Also if you send them back to prison, it keeps the prisons full and therefore more work for CCPOA members. Is there a bonus package from CCPOA for keeping Parole Officers thinking “send ‘em back”?

  • Anonymous

    Sounds great Carisma. But are you willing to pay the higher taxes to ‘lock’em up and throw away the key?’

  • Anonymous

    We are already paying taxes for keeping track of them. If they commit a sex crime against a child they never should see the light of day. Why let them ruin more childrens lives?

  • http://twitter.com/SOIssues SOIssues

    “Nine ways to stop sex offenders from committing new crimes”

    This title is misleading, no matter how many laws you pass, it won’t stop people from committing sexual crimes. If we had a magical wand that would do this, then the world would be free of all crime.

    Stop living on Fantasy Island and come back to reality! These changes are good, but they won’t prevent anything.

    http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com

  • http://twitter.com/SOIssues SOIssues

    How about stop lumping all sex offenders into the “Child molesting, pedophile predator” group?

  • Thrdchance

    Its great we want to tackle the housing restrictions for sex offenders but dont they need jobs in order to pay for those houses to live in? Oh thats right – politicians again – cart before the horse knee jerk reaction.

  • Rightor1

    More than 90% of child molestation cases occur within the known circle of family and friends.
    According to the Bureau of Justice, there is less than a 5% recidivism rate. Why fall into all the fearmongering that the politicians want the ill-informed to believe in order to justify ridiculous budgets for law enforcement?

  • Anonymous

    In this I agree with you but the big mistake that was made was treating sex offenders the same as sexual predators.

    One targets the weak, the other is involved in crap that some prudish people think is wrong despite it being a mistake.

    It is like assigning the death penalty to both the bank robber that hurt no one when he robbed Bank of America and the bank robber who left behind 30 bodies in the vault when he robbed Wells Fargo.

    But the problem is that politicians want to make it look like they are keeping society ‘safe’ all the while hoodwinking the shadow jumping population into re-electing them because they look ‘tough’ on the 10 year old who slapped a girl on the butt, the streaker during homecoming and other stupid things all the while ignoring the real dangers.

  • Iwunder

    Or there’s the CDCr most effective way of keeping sex offenders off the streets: Hire them to work as guards in the in California’s Youth Prisons while drawing a tax payer funded salary. Not sure why this one wasn’t on their list they’ve been doing it successfully for decades.

  • ayannaaana

    this is every helpful…………………. NOT!!!

  • ayannaaana

    this is every helpful…………………. NOT!!!