General Rules

This blog is open to everyone. Please be aware that we do not in any way, shape, or form condone sex abuse.
You are welcome to post here freely. We encourage an open debate forum. Understand that when you post here you agree to abide by the rules.
There will be no hateful, derogatory, or threatening comments or posts allowed.


Thursday, August 9, 2012

Prosecutor suspended over courtroom photos

Original Article 

Updated: Friday, 27 Jul 2012, 2:57 PM EDT
Published : Friday, 27 Jul 2012, 9:27 AM EDT
DANBURY, Conn. (AP) — A state prosecutor in Danbury has been placed on administrative leave, reportedly over complaints that he surreptitiously took photos of women's legs and feet in court.
Senior Assistant State's Attorney David Holzbach, 52, allegedly used a camera concealed in a pen to take the photos inside state Superior Court, The News-Times of Danbury reported in Friday's print editions, citing multiple sources it did not identify.
Holzbach, a prosecutor in Danbury for 24 years, didn't return a phone message left at his home by The Associated Press.
He told the newspaper earlier this week that he has not been informed of the nature of the allegations against him.
"I don't even know what the claim is," Holzbach said before declining further comment.
Holzbach's boss, Danbury State's Attorney Stephen Sedensky III, confirmed Friday that Holzbach has been on paid administrative leave for "a couple months." He declined to say why. Holzbach's salary is $129,000 a year.
Sedensky also said the case wasn't a criminal matter, but declined to elaborate.
"It's just a personnel matter that I can't comment on," Sedensky told the AP.
The state's voyeurism law makes it illegal to photograph or videotape someone's image without his or her permission, but it doesn't apply to public places such as courtrooms where the person would be in plain view and doesn't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
Chief State's Attorney Kevin Kane also declined to release the allegations against Holzbach on Friday, saying it was "an administrative matter." He said Holzbach will remain on leave until the administrative process ends. He declined to say whether Holzbach faces a disciplinary hearing.
Former Danbury State's Attorney Walter Flanagan, who retired in 2007, also told the newspaper he had received several complaints about Holzbach from female employees at the courthouse, but Flanagan wouldn't elaborate.

(If it were anyone else but a public official you can bet that they would be sitting in jail and further it would be a criminal matter. But as usual the good "ole" boys just look out for one another.)

 

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Former Norwich officer rejects offer in sexual assault case

A former Norwich police officer charged with carrying on a sexual relationship with an underage girl has opted to take his case to trial rather than spend a year in prison and 10 years on the state’s sexual offender registry.
Kenneth Nieves appeared in New London’s Part A court Tuesday on a scheduled “accept or reject” date for pending sexual assault charges.
Judge Patrick J. Clifford announced that the plea offer, which would have settled his case short of trial, was five years, suspended after one year in prison, followed by 10 years of probation. In exchange for the sentence, Nieves would have had to agree to plead guilty to the charge of risk of injury to a minor.
Nieves, 45, who politely answered Clifford’s questions about his decision, rejected the offer. He is charged with three counts each of second-degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a minor. Police allege he began a four-year sexual relationship in 2003 with a girl who was 14 years old.
Defense attorney Charles Tiernan said Nieves maintains his innocence and does not agree with the state’s timeline of events.
“As far as he’s concerned, he didn’t violate the law,” Tiernan said. “That’s why he chose not to take this offer.”
The case was moved to the jury list for a possible future trial, and the offer was withdrawn.
Nieves was married at the time of his arrest. He resigned from the Norwich police department in 2011 after an internal investigation that uncovered allegations of misconduct, including claims he had sex with a woman in his police cruiser while on duty. Those allegations were not related to what later became a state police investigation into the alleged sexual assault of an underage girl.
Nieves told the girl, “You know you can never tell anyone about this. I would lose my job and go to jail,” according to the arrest warrant affidavit.
The girl said Nieves also took photos of her while she was nude or partially clothed.
Nieves’ resignation came on the eve of his termination by Norwich Police Chief Louis J. Fusaro.
He is free on bail.


(I personally could not agree more with the actions of this officer. I have no idea if he is guilty or not. If he is then he should pay the penalty as would anyone else. I do agree with the fact that he is taking it to trial. For one if a person is willing to go to trial, especially on an issue such as this, it begs the question as to what really is the truth. Further our justice system needs a serious wake up call and more people guilty or innocent should force the state to take it to trial. Our court systems that were once the envy of the world, our nothing more then money making machines and more often then not justice is never served. It is time that this changes for everyone's sake)

Thursday, August 2, 2012

The Connecticut Recidvism Study

Connecticut Recidivism
The above link will take you directly to the www.ct.gov site. Please note that a .gov domain is owned by the government and not by any individual. This is a very interesting read and shows yet again how low the rate of recidivism truly is.

2.7% is the rate.

Recidivism among sex
offenders in Connecticut
State of Connecticut
Office of Policy and Management
Criminal Justice Policy & Planning Division
February 15, 2012
1
Introduction
Each February 15 the Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division of the Office of Policy and Management issues two criminal justice reports:
Annual Recidivism Report
Correctional Population Forecast Report
These reports provide policy makers and front-line professionals with the information they need to continue the progress our state has experienced in recent years. Governor Dannel P. Malloy has set two goals for our state’s criminal justice system: reduce crime and maximize efficiency. Recidivism and changes in the correctional population are two important indicators of progress in this regard.
This year our report puts the focus on sex offenders. You will see in this analysis a new and somewhat unique perspective. For the first time, we measure offenders with previous sex offense convictions as well as convicted offenders who were originally charged as sex offenders but who were ultimately convicted of other offenses. We believe this will provide policy makers and practitioners with the data and analysis they need to identify offenders with a high risk for committing new sex offenses following release from prison. At the end of the day, our goal is public safety by reducing the level of recidivism. Based on our analysis, post-release supervision focused on the high-risk sex offenders appears to be a cost-effective strategy to prevent crime.
Please feel free to share your ideas about how we can best accomplish these goals going forward. With your help, I am confident that our state can continue to achieve better outcomes with offenders who are incarcerated or who are being supervised by parole or probation officers. As the prison population continues to decline, it is my hope that some of the consequent budgetary savings will be reinvested in the supervision and treatment programs that have demonstrated success.
Thank you for taking the time to read this report. Please visit our website for more information on current trends in Connecticut’s criminal justice system.
Mike Lawlor
Under Secretary
Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division
State Office of Policy and Management
450 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106-1365
(Office) 860-418-6394
www.ct.gov/opm/cjppd
2
Acknowledgements
This report could not have been produced without the help and assistance of many people. First and foremost, the research published here reflects the guidance, advice and feedback of an advisory panel of experts who work on the front lines of State efforts to manage, supervise and treat Connecticut’s population of sex offenders. The analysis could not have been accomplished without the data and support provided by the Department of Correction and the Judicial Branch’s Court Support Services Division. Without them, it would have been impossible to collect complete criminal histories on 14,398 offenders within the time that was available. The Office of the State Public Defender and the Board of Pardons and Parole provided invaluable access to their staff who explained their important roles in the process. In addition, there are dozens of people from various State criminal justice agencies that helped to move this project forward in one way or another.
Finally, it is necessary to acknowledge that this report is funded, in part, through a grant awarded by the Bureau of Justice, Office of Justice Programs at the U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed here are those of the contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Ivan Kuzyk, Author
Director, CT Statistical Analysis Center
Office of Policy and Management
Criminal justice Policy & Planning Division
3
Table of Contents
Introduction by Under Secretary Mike Lawlor
1
Acknowledgements
2
Table of Contents
3
Executive Summary
4
Findings
Sex offenders in Connecticut
6
Recidivism among 746 sentenced sex offenders
8
Recidivism among sex offender subgroups
14
Releases and discharges in 2005
17
The Sex Offender Registry
18
A final caveat
19
Appendices
Advisory panel
20
Methodological questions
21
Sex offender typologies, chart
25
Recidivism – 1,395 offenders with a prior arrest for a sex crime
26
Recidivism – 896 offenders with a prior conviction for a sex crime
28
Recidivism – 746 offenders with a sentence history for a sex crime
29
Recidivism – 423 offenders whose last sentence was for a sex crime
31
Recidivism – 1,229 offenders w/Sex Treatment Scores higher than 2
33
Summary of new prison sentences for sex crimes
36
General criminality among offenders who were released in 2005
37
Sex offenders, parole and special parole
38
Age at first arrest for a sex crime
39
Age at first sex offense resulting in a prison sentence
40
The Connecticut Risk Assessment Board
41
Special Management Unit – DOC Community Services Division
42
The Collaborative Model in Connecticut
43
Glossary
45
4
Executive Summary Although the term “sex offender” is commonly used to describe anyone who has been convicted of sex-crimes, it is important to recognize that individuals who have committed sex offenses do not constitute a single, homogenous population. Together they exhibit a wide range of criminal behaviors that may or may not include violence or contact with other persons. As a consequence, the risk, or likelihood, of committing new sex crimes is not consistent across all sex offender types.
This study tracked 14,398 men for a five-year period following their 2005 release or discharge from a CT prison in 2005. Every subsequent arrest, criminal conviction or reincarceration event was captured and analyzed to produce the 5-year recidivism rates for the group.
In addition to analyzing recidivism among all offenders released or discharged during 2005, the study identified five subgroups from the total cohort who were either convicted for sex offenses or thought to have been involved in criminal sexual crimes but not convicted. The five subgroups were:
 1,395 men who had had a prior arrest for a sex-related offense
 896 men who had a prior conviction for a sex-related offense
 746 men who had served a prison sentence for a sex-related offense before being released in 2005
 423 men, a subset of the 746, whose last prison sentence before release was for a sex-related offense, and
 1,229 men who were assigned Sex Treatment Scores of 2 or higher by the Department of Correction prior to their 2005 release or discharge.
In 2005, 746 offenders who had served a prison sentence for a least one sex-related offense were released or discharged from prison. Over the next five years:
o 27 (3.6%) of these men were arrested and charged with a new sex crime.
o 20 (2.7%) were convicted for new sex offense, and
o 13 (1.7%) were returned to prison to serve a sentence for a new sex crime.
The sexual recidivism rates for the 746 sex offenders released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The real challenge for public agencies is to determine the level of risk which specific offenders pose the public.
5
Recidivism data for each sex-offenders subgroup is presented in the Appendix.
In 2005, 37% of non-sex offenders completed their sentences in prison. In contrast, 79% of the 746 sex offenders who had served a prison sentence for a new sex crime were discharged directly from a prison facility at the end of their sentences (EOS). The reason the EOS discharge rate was so high for sex offenders reflects two facts: 1) the DOC did not release TS-eligible sex offenders into the community and 2) sex offenders were not accepted in most of the DOC’s residential, halfway house network. Almost 50% of sex offenders were sentenced to probation at the completion of their sentences compared to 33% for non-sex offenders.
According to this analysis, arrest on a prior sex charge was the single best predictor of being sentenced to prison for a new sex crime in the five years following release from prison. Of the 1,395 offenders who had been arrested on sex charges before 2005, 2.4% were sentenced to prison for new sex offenses within 5 years. This compares with a 1.9% rate among offenders who had a prior conviction for a sex crime, and a 1.7% rate for offenders who had served a prison sentence for a prior sex crime. This finding warrants further study. It suggests that conviction and incarceration for a sex crime exerts a positive impact on reducing future sex crimes.
The DOC-Sex Treatment Score was the 2nd best predictor of sexual recidivism. Among the 1,229 offenders with Sex Treatment Scores of 2 or higher, 2.3% were sentenced to prison for new sex offenses.
Connecticut employs a unique collaborative approach in supervising and treating sex offenders in the community. The approach links parole officers and probation officers, victim advocates and a non-profit provider of sex offender treatment and programming. Together these organizations design oversight and supervision plans for every offender.
Some sex offenders have extensive, violent non-criminal histories. Among the 195 offenders who had been convicted for Sex Assault 1 prior to 2005, 29.2% had also served a prison sentence for a burglary related crime; 13.3% had served a sentence for robbery. The high incidence of burglaries and robberies among this group indicates both a heightened willingness to use force and overstep boundaries. Among the entire population of male prisoners released in 2005, only 16% had been convicted of burglary-related charges and less than 8% had been convicted for a robbery.
6
Sex offenders in Connecticut The following table contains data supplied by the CT State Police, the Department of Correction, CSSD Adult Probation and the Special Offender Management Unit at the DOC Division of Parole. It is published here to provide readers with an appreciation for the size of the sex offender population in CT.
Although the term “sex offender” is commonly used to describe anyone who has been convicted of sex-crimes, it is important to recognize that individuals who have committed sex offenses do not constitute a single, homogenous population. Together they exhibit a wide range of criminal behaviors that may or may not include violence or contact with other persons. Sex offenders vary by age, ethnicity and social background. They also vary by their motivations, the nature of their crimes and by the extensiveness of their non-sex-related criminal histories. As a consequence, the risk, or likelihood, of committing new sex crimes is not consistent across all sex offender types.
This study tracked 14,398 sentenced male offenders for a five year period following their discharges from prison in 2005. Prior to their 2005 releases, almost one-in-ten of these men (1,395) had been arrested and charged with a sex-related crime. Eight hundred ninety-six (896) of these men had been convicted for a sex-related offense and 746 had served a prison sentence for a sexual offense prior to their 2005 release.
The following chart was produced, with the assistance of this study’s advisory panel, to help readers recognize some of the typologies that are observed among the population of sex offenders. The illustration identifies three broad groups: 1) Child molesters 2) Rapists, and 3) Non-contact offenders. It also distinguishes between offenders who have committed contact crimes and those whose crimes have involved no physical contact with a victim. A more comprehensive chart appears in the appendices.
Sex offender counts in CT on January 1, 2012OffendersOffenders on the Connecticut Sex Offenders Registry5,397Offenders out of compliance with registry requirements929Offenders supervised by Probation's Sex Offender Management Unit 2,273Offenders supervised by Parole's Sex Offender Management Unit 223Inmates w/DOC Sex Treament Score of S2 to S53,117Sex treatent score: S2, non-contact offender 184Sex treatent score: S3, contact offender, one victim2,266Sex treatent score: S4, contact offender, more than one victim636Sex treatent score: S5, contact offender, gratuitous or sadistic violence31
7
During the course of this study, it was not possible to assign a definitive sex-offender typology to any of the sex offenders who were released in 2005. That information is not currently available in a manner that would allow us to study recidivism outcomes by sex offender typology. The Department of Correction assigns a Sex Treatment (Needs) Score to every offender who is sentenced to prison. These scores, however, were designed as population management tools, i.e., to assist staff in placing offenders in appropriate prison facilities. The scores were not designed for diagnostic risk assessment. As no coding scheme has been implemented that provides an accurate method of differentiating typologies or risk among sex offenders, the Sex Treatment Score is sometimes used as a de facto measure for differentiating risk among incarcerated sex offenders.
8
Recidivism among 746 sentenced sex offenders In 2005, 14,398 sentenced, male offenders were released or discharged from a Connecticut prison. Over the next five years, 286 of these men were arrested and charged with sex offenses committed after they were released from prison. One hundred thirty-four (134) of these men were convicted for new sex offenses after they were released and 99 were returned to the prison to begin a new prison sentence for a sex crime1. Of the 99 men who received prison sentences for new sex crimes, only 13 had ever served a prior prison sentence for a sexual offense.
Within the population of 14,398 men released from prison in 2005, 746 had served either their last sentence - or a previous prison sentence - for a sex- related offense. In this section of the report the rearrest, reconviction and reincarceration histories of these men will be highlighted. It is important for readers to recognize, however, that these men were not the only men released from prison in 2005 who had been involved in prior crimes in which a significant, criminal sexual component had been present. These 746 men were the only ones who had actually been convicted for specific sexual offenses and sentenced to prison. Within the total population of men released in 2005, this study was able to identify several hundred men who almost certainly were involved in a sex crime but had been able to avoid a conviction on a sex-related offense. Because their numbers were so significant, this study evaluated recidivism among four additional sex offender subgroups, in addition to the 746. Data on these sex offender groups are contained in the Appendices.
The following table contains a summary of all sexual offenses that resulted in a prior prison sentence for the 746 sex offenders highlighted in this section of this report. The data contains counts for both offenses and offenders. Almost one quarter of these men had been sentenced to prison for Sex Assault 1. Twenty-six percent of these men had been sentenced to prison for Risk of Injury to a Minor, the most common child molestation charge. A small percentage of men had been incarcerated for prostitution related offenses. Prostitution-related offenses were included here even though it could be argued that these are morals offenses and not strictly sex offenses. Prior sentences related to Sex Registry non-compliance were also included since they indicated a prior conviction for a sex crime.
1 It is widely acknowledged that sex crimes are among the least-reported serious crimes. As a result not all sex offenses result in an arrest.
9
In 2005, 746 sentenced offenders who had served a prison sentence for a least one sexrelated
offense were released or discharged from prison. Over the next five years, 27
(3.6%) of these men were arrested and charged with a new sex crime. Twenty (20),
2.7%, were convicted for new sex offense, and 13, 1.7%, were returned to prison to
serve a sentence for a new sex crime.
Aggregate sex-related sentence history for 746 offenders released in 2005
DOC Statute Offense
Sentences
imposed
Offenders
sentenced
Percent of 746
offenders with sexrelated
prison
sentence
53A070 SEXUAL ASSAULT, 1ST DEGREE F 203 181 24.3%
53A072 RAPE, FIRST DEGREE BF 9 9 1.2%
53A070B SEX ASLT, SPOUSE/COHAB RELATIONSHIP BF 8 8 1.1%
53A070A SEXUAL ASSAULT 1ST DEGREE - AGGRVTD F 7 7 0.9%
53-238 RAPE F 1 1 0.1%
53A071 SEX ASSAULT, SECOND DEGREE F 231 201 26.9%
53A073 RAPE, SECOND DEGREE CF 3 3 0.4%
53A073A SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE 106 91 12.2%
53A072A SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF 72 67 9.0%
53-021* INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F 216 194 26.0%
53A196A EMPLOY MINOR IN OBSCENE PERFORMANCE AF 1 1 0.1%
53A090A ENTICING A MINOR 1 1 0.1%
54-252 REG PERSON WHO COMM SEX VIOL OFF DF 21 20 2.7%
54-251 REG OF PERSON COMMIT CRIM OFF MINOR DF 4 4 0.5%
53A082 PROSTITUTION AM 46 21 2.8%
53A083 PATRONIZING A PROSTITUTE AM 14 14 1.9%
53A088 PROMOTING PROSTITUTION, 3RD DEGREE DF 7 8 1.1%
53A087 PROMOTING PROSTITUTION, 2ND DEGREE CF 5 5 0.7%
53A086 PROMOTING PROSTITUTION, 1ST DEGREE BF 4 4 0.5%
53A196D POSSESSING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY F 12 7 0.9%
53A196C IMPORTING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY F 1 1 0.1%
53A186 PUBLIC INDECENCY BM 58 35 4.7%
53A189A VOYEURISM 1 1 0.1%
Child pornography
Indecency/voyeurism
Sex assault 1
Sex assault 2
Other sexual assault
Crimes against minors
Registry offenses
Prostitution related
5-year sex-crime recidivism - 746 offenders with a DOC sentence history for a sex crime
Offender group Males
Any new
sex crime
arrest
New sex
crime
arrest rate
New sex
crime
conviction
New sex
crime
conviction
rate
New
sentence,
sex crime
New
sentence,
sex crime,
rate
No sex sentence history 13652 259 1.9% 114 0.8% 86 0.6%
Sex sentence history 746 27 3.6% 20 2.7% 13 1.7%
Total cohort 14398 286 2.0% 134 0.9% 99 0.7%
10
The recidivism rates for new sex crimes, shown here for the 746 sex offenders released in 2005, are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict the conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high recidivism rates. In reality, the picture is considerably more complex. While some sex offenders certainly pose an extremely high risk for committing new offenses, this does not appear to be the case for the majority of offenders. The real challenge for public agencies is to determine the level of risk specific offenders pose to the public.
While only 27 of the 746 sex offenders observed here were arrested on new sex-related charges, the new arrest rate for non-sex crimes was significantly higher. In fact, of the 746 sex offenders in the study, 76%, or 567, were rearrested within 5 years. This high rearrest rate was surpassed, barely, by the 13,652 offenders who did not have a prior sex-related sentence history. Of this larger group, 78.8% were rearrested.
Of the 567 sex offenders who were rearrested, 369 (65%) were arrested for Violation of Probation (VOP). Among the 10,751 offenders without prior sex sentence histories who were arrested, only 48% were arrested for violating the terms of their probation. It is not clear, at this point, whether the difference in VOP-arrest rates reflects tighter oversight of sex offenders on probation, or the higher proportion of sex offenders sentenced to probation.
Sex offenders were more likely than others to be sentenced to serve terms of probation once they had completed their prison sentences. In 2005, 47.9% of the 746 sex offenders in the study were sentenced to probation. That figure compares with just 33% for all offenders who were released.
New arrest rate - 746 offenders with a DOC sentence history for a sex crimeOffender groupMalesAny new arrestAny new arrest, rateAny VOP arrestVOP arrest rateAny registry arrestRegistry arrest rateAny new sex crime arrestNew sex crime arrest rateNo sex sentence136521075178.8%518238.0%300.2%2591.9%Sex sentence history74656776.0%36949.5%21228.4%273.6%total143981131878.6%555138.6%2421.7%2862.0%
11
In the five years following their 2005-releases from prison, 20 of the 746 sex offenders
identified here were convicted for new sex offenses. This rate was over three times
higher than the rate for non-sex offenders. Overall conviction patterns appeared similar
to overall rearrest patterns. Once again, the non-sex crime group had a slightly higher
recidivism rates for overall convictions. In the five years following their release in 2005,
69.3% of all offenders were convicted on new criminal charges. Among the 746
offenders with prior sex sentence histories the rate was slightly lower, 66.1%.
Within five years of release, 493 of the 746 sex offenders released in 2005 were
convicted for a wide range of new offenses. One quarter of these 493 men were
convicted for violating the conditions of the CT Sex Offender Registry. While is not clear
whether the high rate of registry-related arrests and convictions had any impact on
reducing the number of sex crimes that were, or might have been, committed, it is
apparent that the conditions attached to sex offender registration have a significant
impact on the overall recidivism rate of sex offenders in the state.
Three hundred (300) of the 746 sex offenders featured here were returned to prison to
serve new sentences within five years of their releases. These offenders were
sentenced to prison at a significantly lower rate (40.2%) than the 13,652 offenders who
had no prior sex sentence history (50.3%). The rate at which the sex offenders were
sentenced to prison for new sex crimes, however, was considerably higher than the rate
for non-sex offenders, 1.7% compared to 0.6%.
Offenders sentenced to probation following the completion of their 2005 prison sentences
Probation to
follow
All
males
No sexrelated
sentence
history
Sexrelated
sentence
history
Last
sentence
not sexrelated
Last
sentence
was sexrelated
Sex
treatment
score: 0 or 1
Sex
treatment
Score >1
DOC sex
treatment
score: 2
DOC sex
treatment
score: 3
DOC sex
treatment
score: 4
DOC sex
treatment
score: 5
No 9652 9263 389 9520 132 8916 736 76 583 75 2
Yes 4746 4389 357 4455 291 4253 493 24 400 69
Total 14398 13652 746 13975 423 13169 1229 100 983 144 2
Probation to
follow, % 33.0% 32.1% 47.9% 31.9% 68.8% 32.3% 40.1% 24.0% 40.7% 47.9% 0.0%
New conviction rate - 746 offenders with a DOC sentence history for a sex crime
Offender group Males
Any
conviction
Any
conviction
rate
Any VOP
conviction
VOP
conviction
rate
Any
registry
conviction
Registry
conviction
rate
New sex
crime
conviction
New sex
crime
conviction
rate
No sex sentence 13652 9489 69.5% 4772 35.0% 18 0.1% 114 0.8%
Sex sentence history 746 493 66.1% 338 45.3% 128 17.2% 20 2.7%
total 14398 9982 69.3% 5110 35.5% 146 1.0% 134 0.9%
12
The 13 sex offenders who were sentenced to prison for new sex crimes were convicted
on a range of charges. Five of the thirteen were sentenced for crimes against children.
All of these sex offenders had DOC Sex Treatment Scores indicating that they had
committed contact crimes with their victims prior to being released in 2005. Four of the
13, those with scores of 4, had prior criminal sexual histories involving more than one
victim.
In addition to tracking new arrests, convictions and prison sentences, this study also
looked at 5-year recidivism rates for any new reincarceration. Most reincarceration
events fall into three categories: 1) readmissions as pre-trial detainees facing new
charges 2) remands for technical violations and criminal violations while on community
supervision, and 3) returns to prison to begin a new prison sentence. Within 5 years of
release, more than two-thirds of all offenders released in 2005 had been readmitted to
prison, for at least one night.
Return to prison with a new sentence - 746 offenders with a prior DOC sentence for a sex-related crime
Offender group Males
Any new
prison
sentence
Any new
prison
sentence,
rate
Any new
VOP
sentence
Any new
VOP
sentence,
rate
Any
registryrelated
sentence
Any
registryrelated
sentence,
rate
New
sentence,
sex crime
New
sentence,
sex crime,
rate
No history 13652 6864 50.3% 1513 11.1% 10 0.1% 86 0.6%
Prior history 746 300 40.2% 70 9.4% 69 9.2% 13 1.7%
Total cohort 14398 7164 49.8% 1583 11.0% 79 0.5% 99 0.7%
New prison sentences - 746 offenders with a prior sex-related prison sentence
Offender
DOC Sex
Treatment
Score Statute Sentence Offense
Offender 1 4 53A196D POSSESSING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY F
Offender 2 3 53A186 PUBLIC INDECENCY BM (2 Counts)
Offender 3 3 53A186 PUBLIC INDECENCY BM
Offender 4 3 53-021* INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F (2 counts)
Offender 5 4 53A072A SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF
Offender 6 4 53A073A SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE
Offender 7 3 53-021* INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F
Offender 8 3 53A071 SEX ASSAULT, SECOND DEGREE F
Offender 9 3 53A072A SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF
Offender 10 4 53A072A SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF
Offender 11 3 53-021* INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F
53A073A SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE
Offender 12 3 53A196E ILL POSSESS CHILD PORN 2ND DEG F
53A196 OBSCENITY AS TO MINORS F
Offender 13 3 53-021* INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F
53A073A SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE
13
While the overall recidivism rate of both groups was remarkably similar, the initial
pathway back into prison for the 746 sex offenders was significantly different than the
pattern for the larger, non-sex group. The following table contains the 5-year recidivism
rates for both groups. The table also identifies the type of readmission event associated
with that first prison return. Among the 746 sex offenders, 77% returned to prison as
pre-trial detainees, i.e., facing new charges. In contrast, only 57% of non-sex offenders
were readmitted to prison as pre-trial defendants. The higher rate of pre-trial
detentions among sex offenders may have been driven by higher rates of arrest for
Violations of Probation and higher bonds levied against former sex offenders.
Among non-sex offenders returning to prison, 24% first returned for a technical or
criminal violation. Among the 513 sex offenders who were returned to prison within 5
years, only 13% were remanded for criminal or technical violations. The low remand
rate for sex offenders is certainly related to the fact that only a low percentage of sex
offenders, compared to other offenders, were released to community supervision
programs in 2005.
In 2005, only 37% of non-sex offenders completed their sentences in prison. In contrast,
79% of the 746 sex offenders featured here were discharged directly from a prison
facility at the end of their sentences (EOS). The reason the EOS discharge rate was so
Return to prison within 5 years
Offender group Males
Returned to
prison w/in 5
years
Returned to
prison, rate
No sex sentence history 13652 9270 67.9%
Sex sentence history 746 513 68.8%
Total cohort 14398 9783 67.9%
Return readmission, by type, to prison within 5 years
Readmit reason
Entire
cohort
No sex
sentence
history
No sex
sentence
history, rate
by type
Sex
sentence
history
Sex
sentence
history, rate
by type
New charges, unsentenced 5697 5301 57% 396 77%
Technical violation, remand 1348 1303 14% 45 9%
New prison sentence 1028 993 11% 35 7%
Criminal violations, remand 940 921 10% 19 4%
All other admit types 770 752 8% 18 4%
Total readmitted 9783 9270 100% 513 100%
Offenders in group 14398 13652 746
Rate returing to prison, % 67.9% 67.9% 68.8%
Offenders not readmitted 4615 4382 233
14
high for sex offenders reflects two simple facts: 1) the DOC did not release TS-eligible sex offenders into the community and 2) sex offenders were not accepted in most of the DOC’s residential, halfway house network.
Although the reasons that offenders in both groups were first readmitted to prison varied considerably, the rate at which they were readmitted was remarkably consistent. By the 22nd month following their 2005 releases, 50% of all members of either group had been readmitted to prison for at least one night.
Recidivism among sex-offender subgroups
The appendices, at the back of this report, contain recidivism findings for five sex offender sub-groups that were identified during the course of this research. These groups, like the 746 offenders featured in the previous section, were culled from the 14,398-man cohort that was released from prison in 2005. There were solid methodological reasons for evaluating the recidivism rates for five over-lapping sex offender groupings. Perhaps most importantly, it provided an opportunity to test whether different criteria used in the identification of sex offenders would produce different recidivism outcomes.
The vast majority of criminal cases disposed in state courts each year are the product of a near-ubiquitous plea-negotiation process. Prosecutors and defense attorneys wrestle over evidence, charges, dispositions and sanctions, each seeking to maximize the interests of public safety on one side and the interests of the defendant on the other. One unpleasant consequence of this system is that a significant but undetermined number of men who have committed sex crimes avoid convictions on sex-related charges each and every year. As described later (see Appendix, page A-22), there is some evidence that some of these men present a high risk of committing new sex
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%159131721252933374145495357Cum. percent reincarceratedMonths since 2005 discharge or releaseTime to first reincarceration event13,653 w/o sex offenses, cum %746 w/sex offense history, cum %
15
crimes although they are not required to register with the state’s sex offender registry. Nor are they compelled to participate in sex offender treatment programs.
In order to test the intersection between actual offender outcomes and court-disposition outcomes, five sex offender subgroups were isolated in a manner that allowed the study to test whether criminal, sexual recidivism rates varied by group criteria. The five subgroups that were created were:
o 1,395 men who had had a prior arrest for a sex-related offense
o 896 men who had a prior conviction for a sex-related offense
o 746 men who had served a prison sentence for a sex-related offense before being released in 2005
o 423 men, a subset of the 746, whose last prison sentence before release was for a sex-related offense, and
o 1,229 men who were assigned Sex Treatment Scores of 2 or higher by the Department of Correction prior to their 2005 release or discharge.
Because of overlaps, a total of 1,712 offenders, in the 14,398-man cohort, met at least one sex offender criterion. Differentiating different groupings of sex offenders allowed the study to compare outcomes for offenders who were a) charged with sex crimes but not convicted, b) convicted for sex offenses but not incarcerated, and c) identified by the DOC as sex offenders but had no conviction history for a sex offense. If the criminal justice system operated in an ideal way, we would expect that criminal, sexual recidivism rates of persons arrested for sex crimes but not convicted would be lower than the rates for offenders who were convicted of sex crimes. Further, we would expect that that the criminal sexual recidivism rates for, both, arrested and conviction groups would be lower still than for groups of offenders who had been convicted and sentenced to prison for sex-related offenses.
The following table contains data that compares the 5-year recidivism data for offenders receiving new prison sentence for new offenses. The 746-man sex offender group, highlighted in the previous section, is included here for the sake of continuity. The last column on the right contains the recidivism rate for offenders who received prison sentences for new sex-crimes committed after they were released form prison in 2005.
16
According to this analysis, arrest on a prior sex charge was the single best predictor of being sentenced to prison for a new sex crime. Of the 1,395 offenders who had been arrested on sex charges before 2005, 2.4% were sentenced to prison for sex offenses within 5 years. This compares with a 1.9% rate among offenders who had been convicted for a sex crime in the past, and a 1.7% rate for offenders who had served a prison sentence for sex crimes in the past. This finding warrants further study. It suggests that conviction and incarceration for a sex crime exert a positive impact on reducing future sex crimes.
Among the sex offender grouping criteria, the DOC’s Sex Treatment Score was the 2nd best predictor of sexual recidivism. Among the 1,229 offenders with Sex Treatment Scores of 2 or higher, 2.3% were sentenced to prison for new sex offenses. The Sex Treatment Score’s predictive capacity is certainly related to the fact that scoring is based not only on conviction history but also on assessments of police reports, pre-sentence investigations and other information that can provide a more complete and thorough understanding of the nature and context of an offender’s crimes.
A comparison of the recidivism rates among sex offenders with different Sex Treatment Scores revealed significant variability in rates between sex offender groups. Six percent (6%) of offenders with Sex Treatment Scores of 2 were returned to prison within 5 years on new sex charges. A treatment score of 2 indicates a non-contact sex offender. Many of these offenders had been charged, in the past, with public indecency, i.e., a crime associated with exhibitionists. The next highest recidivism rate, 2.8%, was found among prisoners with Treatment scores of 4, an indication that they had a prior sexual criminal history involving more than one victim.
Return to prison with a new sentence - by sex offender flag groupOffender groupMales in group Any new prison sentenceAny new prison sentence, rateAny new VOP sentenceAny new VOP sentence, rateAny registry-related sentenceAny registry-related sentence, rateNew sentence, sex crimeNew sentence, sex crime, ratePrior arrest, sex-related139563745.7%17212.3%684.9%332.4%Prior conviction, sex-related89637141.4%9410.5%637.0%171.9%Sentence history, sex-related74630040.2%709.4%699.2%131.7%Last sentence, sex-related42312028.4%307.1%348.0%92.1%Sex treatment score: 2 - 5122954244.1%13811.2%735.9%282.3%STS = 112904656350.9%143711.1%60.0%710.6%STS = 21005555.0%1212.0.0%66.0%STS = 398343143.8%11311.5%656.6%181.8%STS = 41445638.9%139.0%85.6%42.8%Total cohort14398716449.8%158311.0%790.5%990.7%
17
Releases and discharges in 2005 Most inmates leaving prison in Connecticut undergo a period of DOC supervision in the community prior to completing of their sentences. In 2005, only 39% of offenders completed their prison sentences while in a prison facility. Most were released to community-based programs, like parole and transitional supervision (TS), where they could be observed and supervised as they re-acclimated to life outside prison walls. Among sex offenders, the pattern was much different. In 2005, 79% of 746 sex offenders who has served a prison term for a sex crime left prison at the completion of their sentences (EOS). In other words, these offenders were discharged directly into the community without any further DOC engagement. Almost 50% of the sex offenders who left prison at the end of their sentences were placed on probation.
In the wake of the Cheshire murders in 2007, significant structural changes were implemented at the Board of Pardons and Parole. Today, every parole-eligible offender, who does not waive the right to parole, has their case heard by a three-person panel from the Board of Pardons and Parole. The panel interviews every offender and reviews prison records, police reports and pre-sentence investigation reports before deciding when or if the offender will be released, and what conditions and restrictions will be applied to the offender’s community supervision plan.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that a significant number of parole eligible sex-offenders who have been granted parole complete their sentence in prison because they lack sponsors and/or appropriate housing. The evidence also suggests that some offenders, with long sentences and parole-eligibility at 85%, waive parole because they prefer to complete their entire prison sentences and avoid the restrictions and stipulations that would be placed on them as parolees.
Major release and discharge types in 2005, males Releases and dischargesAll offendersNo sex sentenceNo sex sentence, %Sex sentence historySex sentence history, %End of sentence (EOS)5631504537%58679%Release to TS2033203015%30%Release to Parole1778167212%10614%Release to Furlough1752174813%41%Release to HWH1543154011%30%Discharge to Special Parole2562362%203%All others 1405138110%243%Total1439813652100%746100%
18
Among all the cases that members of the Board of Pardons and Parole (BOPP) consider for release to parole, sex offender cases weigh most heavily on them. Despite the fact that BOPP members are provided with packets of information that include evidence-based actuarial assessments of offender risk, given the nature of the sex crimes they review, Board members often find it difficult to decide cases solely on actuarial assessments. Board members also expressed an interest in seeing evidence concerning the efficacy of prison- and community-based treatment programs for parole-eligible sex offenders.
Correctional Managed Health Care (CMHC), at UConn, has been the sole provider of programs to treat sex-offenders incarcerated by the Department of Correction for over a decade. At the time of this analysis, it could not be determined where the data on offender participation in these programs resides. As a result, the state cannot make any determination about the efficacy of the programming provided to sex offenders in Connecticut prisons.
The Sex Offender Registry
Offenders who are included on the state’s Sex Offender Registry (SOR) appear there because they have been convicted for specific criminal offenses. The impact of the Registry on preventing new sex crimes is unknown. By statute (CGS §§ 54-250-54-261), the Registry, which is maintained by the Department of Emergency Services & Public Protection, does not consider or assess the risk of re-offense for individuals that it lists. Nor does the Department make any determination that an individual included on the Registry is currently dangerous. According to the Department’s website, “individuals listed on the registry are included solely by virtue of their conviction record and state law. The Department’s main purpose is to make the information more accessible to the public but not to warn about any specific individual threat or risk.”
Connecticut does not have a reliable mechanism to distinguish its high-risk sex offender population from the low-risk population on the registry. Although static and dynamic assessments are performed on many sex offenders, this information is not collected and synthesized in a manner that can be used to track or evaluate the quality of the treatment, management and supervision of the state’s sex offender population.
19
In recent years, surrounding states have adopted tiered registry-system based on assessments of offender risk in addition to conviction histories. Relying solely on criminal conviction histories does not guarantee that all offenders who pose a risk of committing new sex-related crime are identified and managed appropriately. In the state’s criminal justice system, where negotiated plea agreements are the norm, significant numbers of defendants who are charged with sex offenses are able to “plead out” to other, non-sexual charges and thus avoid the SOR requirements. In this study, we identified 1,410 men, out of 14,398 offenders who were released from prison in 2005, who had been arrested and charged with a sex-related crime prior to their 2005 release. 1,395 of these offenders faced a court disposition on a docket containing at least one sex-related charge. In those dispositions, 1,150 offenders were convicted: 896 for a sex-related offense, 254 for a non-sexual crime that appeared on the same docket (See Appendix page A-4).
In 2007, the CT Legislature established a Risk Assessment Board (HB 7408) to assign “weights to various risk factors including, but not limited to, the seriousness of the offense, the offender's prior offense history, the offender's characteristics, the availability of community supports, whether the offender has indicated- or credible evidence in the record indicates -that the offender will reoffend if released into the community and whether the offender demonstrates a physical condition that minimizes the risk of reoffending, and specifies the risk level to which offenders with various risk assessment scores shall be assigned.” (See Appendix page A-22)
A final caveat
This study is based on data for offenders released from prison during 2005. Two years later, in July 2007, two parolees committed one of the most infamous crimes in recent state history, the murderous home invasion at the Petit-family home in Cheshire. As anyone familiar with Connecticut knows, the Petit case cast a tremendous shadow over the criminal justice system. In the months following those crimes, the state’s parole system stopped functioning, the prison system grew by almost 1,000 inmates and remand rates soared. This study did not attempt to relate its findings with changes in the state’s criminal justice system in the months and years following the crimes in Cheshire.
20
Advisory Panel
William Anselmo is a Chief Probation Officer with the Judicial Branch’s Court Support Services Division (CSSD) where he oversees sex offender supervision units. He is responsible for policy development, adherence and implementation and provides support and training to line staff and personnel.
Charles Barber is Director of The Connection Institute for Innovative Practice and a Lecturer in Psychiatry at the Yale University School of Medicine. He has written two widely recognized books on mental health, and co-wrote a chapter in What is Criminology published in 2011 by Oxford University Press.
Sergeant Joseph Biela is a 24 year veteran of the Connecticut State Police and Commanding Officer of the Sex Offender Registry Unit. Sergeant Biela has been assigned to the Sex Offender Registry Unit since November 2007 and supervises the operational and administrative functions of the SOR Unit. The Sex Offender Registry Unit is responsible for the State of Connecticut’s Sex Offender Registry public website and for the monitoring and compliance of registry requirements for over 5,400 active registered sex offenders. Laura Cordes is the Executive Director of the Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services, a statewide non-profit coalition of nine community-based sexual assault crisis programs, which provide pre- and post-conviction services to victims of sexual assault and their families. CONNSACS employs a specialized team of advocates who represent victims’ interests in the state’s sex offender supervision and parole special management units. Ms. Cordes serves on Connecticut’s Office of Victim Services Advisory Council, the Commission on the Standardization of the Collection of Evidence in Sexual Assault Investigations, and the Criminal Justice Policy Advisory Commission.
Eric Ellison is a Parole Manager and he has served with the Department of Correction since 1989. He currently oversees the Parole and Community Services Division's Special Management Unit. The Unit consists of 10 parole officers and has statewide responsibility for the supervision of 225 sex offenders.
Patrick Hynes was appointed as director of the DOC's Best Practices Unit, which was established July 1, 2011. He was previously Director of Programs and Treatment. His responsibility is to assist the DOC to improve the utilization of evidence-based practice.
David Rentler is the supervising psychologist at the Board of Pardons and Parole. He conducts clinical and forensic risk assessments, case reviews, and consults with Board Members, the parole community and Board officers and managers on matters relating to the parole decision making process.
Randall Wallace is the Program Director for the Center for the Treatment of Problem Sexual Behaviors where he oversees adult sexual offender outpatient treatment and evaluation services, the Day Reporting program for adult sexual offenders transitioning back into the community, Post Conviction Sexual Offender polygraph services, home-based treatment services for juveniles with problem sexual behavior, and the January Center. Dr. Wallace, Psy.D., is a licensed Psychologist and a certified polygraph examiner. He has provided sexual offender treatment and evaluation services for over 20 years.
21
Methodological questions
Each year, The Criminal justice Policy & Planning Division at OPM (CJPPD) is mandated to produce an annual study of recidivism among Connecticut prisoners. In October 2011, Mike Lawlor, OPM Under-Secretary decided that the Division would produce an analysis of recidivism rates of sex offenders leaving Connecticut prisons.
Within a month, an advisory panel of experts was convened to provide guidance over the project. In short order, it was determined that, at a minimum, the study would need to produce an analysis that tracked sex offenders released from prison for at least a five year period. In order to meet the five years criteria, the study chose to gather criminal justice records on 14,398 male offenders who were released or discharged from a sentence at a Connecticut prison during 2005.
In recent years, CJPPD has produced annual studies that track four measures of recidivism among former sentenced prisoners. These measures are 1) new arrests 2) new reincarceration events 3) new convictions, and 4) subsequent returns to prison with a new prison sentence. The analysis has proved to be helpful by establishing baseline recidivism data for the state and by providing insight into some of the factors that contribute to higher rates of recidivism among certain offender sub-groups. In 2009, Department of Correction was able to validate its static assessment instrument, the TPAI, using benchmark recidivism data on 30,000 offenders released in 2004 and 2005.
The Data
Since the number of female sex offenders is so small, and because the pattern of their criminality is so different from males, female prisoners were not included in the study.
The Department of Correction identified all inmates who were released or discharged during 2005 and provided electronic data on each offender’s DOC movement history, sentence history, classification and need scores, and general demographic information. Using this data, the first 2005 prison release or discharge date was identified for each 14,398 offender in the study. This date became the start date against which all subsequent recidivism events would be calculated.
Connecticut is fortunate to have an excellent network that connects state criminal justice agencies. Each month, researchers, information specialists and operations personnel from all state criminal justice agencies meet to share information and discuss opportunities for collaborative research.2 Because of this network, Department of Correction data for the 14,398 offenders was easily linked with State Police and Judicial Branch data. The Judicial Branch’s Court Support Services Division employed probabilistic matching software to
2Research Workgroup of the state’s Criminal Justice Policy and Advisory Commission meets monthly drawing together a select group of IT, research, and operations staff from the Department of Correction, Court Support Services Division, Court Operations, the Board of Pardons and Parole, the State Police, Parole, the Office of the State Public Defender and the Office of Policy and Management. The group is a key component in insuring smooth communications and substantive collaboration between various criminal justice agencies.
22
produce complete arrest and conviction histories every offender in the study cohort. This data was matched, assembled and delivered within two weeks.
Research questions
With the data in hand, several methodological questions quickly emerged. The first question concerned the types of events that would be counted as genuine recidivism events. The second question centered on the criteria would be used to identify who, among the 14,398 offenders released in 2005, would be considered as a sex offender. The final major question concerned what criminal charges would be considered as sex crimes.
For the first question, it was recognized that calculating recidivism rates for sex offenders required a significantly different approach from the one that would be used in calculating general recidivism rates for all prisoners. With sex offenders, in addition to knowing when or if they return to the system, it is also critical to identify the circumstances associated with each new arrest or conviction. While the public may not be concerned if a sex offender commits a new drug or property offense, they are certainly concerned about any new sex-related offenses. As a result, it was necessary for the study to differentiate sex-related recidivism events from non-sex-related events. To do so, recidivism events were identified in each of four ways 1) general recidivism for all types of offenses 2) recidivism related to non-compliance with the sex offender registry 3) recidivism related to violations of probation, and 4) recidivism related to new sex offenses.
Defining who would be considered as a sex offender for the purposes of the study posed a different set of challenges. The narrowest legal view would have restricted sex-offenders to individuals who been convicted for a sex offense that required registration on the state’s sex-offender registry (SOR). It was clear, however, that significant numbers of offenders, who had participated in sex crimes, had been able to avoid conviction on a sex-related charge through the plea negotiation process. The state’s defense attorneys are well aware that their clients are often best served by pleading guilty to substantive non-sexual charges to avoid conviction for a sexual offense that would require special supervision and inclusion on the state’s Sex Offender Registry. From their perspective, prosecutors cite the difficulty of taking sex cases to trial as a reason why some defendants avoid conviction for sex crimes. The trade-off for prosecutors is that many defendants who avoid a conviction for a sex charge do plead guilty to non-sexual offenses that carry significant sentences.
For the purposes of this study, five sex offender subgroups were selected from the general population based on relatively simple criteria. All persons who were arrested and charged with a sex offense prior to their 2005 release from prison constituted the largest group. This group of 1,395 offenders included several hundred men who had been arrested and charged but not convicted for sex offenses. The second group was composed of 896 men, a subset of the 1,395, who had been convicted for a sex offense prior to 2005. Not all of these men were incarcerated for their sex-related crimes. The third group consisted of 746 men who had served a prison sentence for a sex crime prior to being released in 2005. The fourth group, a subgroup of the third group, contained 423 men whose last sentence before they were released in 2005 was for a sex-related offense. The final group consisted of 1,229
23
men who had been classified as sex offenders by the CT Department of Correction because they had a Sex Treatment Score of 2 or higher when they were released in 2005.
The following chart illustrates the relationships between each of the five sex offenders groups that were identified by the study. Of the 1,395 men who were arrested on sex-related offences, only 896 were convicted for sexual offenses.
Significant overlaps existed between offenders in each group. Out of 14,398 offenders that were released or discharged from prison in 2005, 1,712 met at least one criterion as a presumed, though not-necessarily convicted sex offender. The following table illustrates the overlaps.
24
The final major methodological question centered on what offenses would be considered as sex crime in computing sexual recidivism rates. There was no consensus on whether arrests and convictions for offenses like PATRONIZING A PROSTITUTE (53A-083) or PROSTITUTION (53A-082) should be included in calculating sexual recidivism. Although there were good, solid arguments for excluding these charges from consideration, the study continued to include prostitution-related crimes as sex offenses that counted as recidivism triggers. In subsequent analyses, CJPPD may reconsider using these charges in calculating sexual recidivism rates.
A significant percentage of the sex offenders in the study were rearrested and convicted on charges relating to non-compliance with the state’s Sex Offenders Registry. Although the original charges that required inclusion on the registry were no doubt sexual, this study does not include these registry-compliance offenses as sex offenses in computing sexual recidivism. The large number of registry-related arrests and convictions that appeared in the data made it necessary to break these events out separately.
Prior CJPPD recidivism studies contained survival curves for released offenders that showed the rates at which offenders returned to the criminal justice system. In contrast, the recidivism rates reported here were designed to capture any single trigger event that occurred within 5 years (1,826 days) of an offender’s 2005 release from prison. All trigger events that occurred within 5 years were used in summary tables.
Criteria metSex treatment score > 1Prior arrest for a sex crimePrior conviction for a sex crimeAny sentence for a sex offenseLast sentence sex relatedOffenders meeting criteria5XXXXX4064XXXX2324XXXX74XXXX53XXX863XXX183XXX103XXX32XX1792XX1492XX552XX21X3011X2511X61XX2122913958963234231712Sex offender membership, by criteria
25
Sex offender typologies chart
26
Recidivism -1,395 offenders with a prior arrest for a sex crime
New arrest rate - 1,395 offenders with a prior arrest history for a sex offense regardless of conviction status
Offender group Males
Any new
arrest
Any new
arrest,
rate
Any VOP
arrest
VOP arrest
rate
Any
registry
arrest
Registry
arrest rate
Any new
sex crime
arrest
New sex
crime
arrest rate
No prior arrest for sex 13003 10229 78.7% 4905 38% 26 0.2% 218 1.7%
Prior sex arrest history 1395 1089 78.1% 646 46% 216 15.5% 68 4.9%
total 14398 11318 78.6% 5551 39% 242 1.7% 286 2.0%
New conviction rate - 1,395 offenders with any prior (pre-2005 release) arrest history for a sex crime
Offender group Males
Any
conviction
Any
conviction
rate
Any VOP
conviction
VOP
conviction
rate
Any
registry
conviction
Registry
conviction
rate
New sex
crime
conviction
New sex
crime
conviction
rate
No prior sex arrests 13003 9014 69.3% 4516 34.7% 17 0.1% 86 0.7%
Priior sex arrest history 1395 968 69.4% 594 42.6% 129 9.2% 48 3.4%
total 14398 9982 69.3% 5110 35.5% 146 1.0% 134 0.9%
Return to prison with a new sentence - 1,395 offenders with a prior arrest for a sex-related crime
Offender group Males
Any new
prison
sentence
Any new
prison
sentence,
rate
Any new
VOP
sentence
Any new
VOP
sentence,
rate
Any
registryrelated
sentence
Any
registryrelated
sentence,
rate
New
sentence,
sex crime
New
sentence,
sex crime,
rate
No history 13003 6527 50.2% 1411 10.9% 11 0.1% 66 0.5%
Prior history 1395 637 45.7% 172 12.3% 68 4.9% 33 2.4%
Total cohort 14398 7164 49.8% 1583 11.0% 79 0.5% 99 0.7%
Readmissions to prison w/in 5 years, 1,395 offenders with a prior arrest for a sex offense
Readmit type Total
No prior
arrest for a
sex crime
No prior
arrest for a
sex crime, %
Prior sexrelated
arrest
history
Prior sexrelated
arrest
history, %
NEW CHARGES 5,697 5,006 38.5% 691 49.5%
TECH VIOL 1,348 1,260 9.7% 88 6.3%
NEW SENT 1,028 947 7.3% 81 5.8%
CRIM VIOL 940 888 6.8% 52 3.7%
READMIT CIVIL OR FINE 216 196 1.5% 20 1.4%
RTN ABSCOND 194 184 1.4% 10 0.7%
RTN ESC CHARGES 163 158 1.2% 5 0.4%
OTHER 83 71 0.5% 12 0.9%
RTN W/O PREJ 55 53 0.4% 2 0.1%
RTN ESC 36 35 0.3% 1 0.1%
RTN ESC SENT 23 21 0.2% 2 0.1%
NO PRISON READMIT 4,615 4,184 32.2% 431 30.9%
14,398 13,003 100.0% 1,395 100.0%
27
Sex charges associated w/new prison sentences for the 33 offenders in the 1,395-offender group with a prior sex-related arrestOffenderDOC Sex Treatment ScoreStatuteSentence OffenseOffender 1353-021*INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR FOffender 2353-021*INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR FOffender 3453A196DPOSSESSING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY FOffender 4153A082PROSTITUTION AMOffender 5153A082PROSTITUTION AM (4 counts)Offender 6353A186PUBLIC INDECENCY BMOffender 7353A186PUBLIC INDECENCY BMOffender 8253A186PUBLIC INDECENCY BMOffender 9353A186PUBLIC INDECENCY BM (2 Counts)Offender 10253A186PUBLIC INDECENCY BM (2 Counts)Offender 11253A186PUBLIC INDECENCY BM (3 Counts)Offender 12153A071SEX ASSAULT, SECOND DEGREE FOffender 13353A071SEX ASSAULT, SECOND DEGREE FOffender 14153A071SEX ASSAULT, SECOND DEGREE FOffender 15353A071SEX ASSAULT, SECOND DEGREE FOffender 16353A070SEXUAL ASSAULT, 1ST DEGREE FOffender 17153A070SEXUAL ASSAULT, 1ST DEGREE FOffender 18353A070SEXUAL ASSAULT, 1ST DEGREE FOffender 19453A072ASEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DFOffender 20353A072ASEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DFOffender 21453A072ASEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DFOffender 22153A073ASEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREEOffender 23153A073ASEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREEOffender 24153A073ASEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREEOffender 25153A073ASEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREEOffender 26453A073ASEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREEOffender 27153A073ASEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREEOffender 28253A196FILL POSSESS CHILD PORN 3RD DEG DF53A070SEXUAL ASSAULT, 1ST DEGREE F53A196AEMPLOY MINOR IN OBSCENE PERFORMANCE AF53A072SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DFOffender 29153-021*INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F53A070SEXUAL ASSAULT, 1ST DEGREE FOffender 30353A073ASEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE53-021*INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR FOffender 31353A196EILL POSSESS CHILD PORN 2ND DEG F53A196OBSCENITY AS TO MINORS FOffender 32153A186PUBLIC INDECENCY BM53A073ASEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREEOffender 33353-021*INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F53A073ASEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE
28
Recidivism data for 896 offenders with a prior conviction for a sex crime
New arrest rate - 896 offenders with a prior conviction a sex-related offense
Offender group Males
Any new
arrest
Any new
arrest,
rate
Any VOP
arrest
VOP arrest
rate
Any
registry
arrest
Registry
arrest rate
Any new
sex crime
arrest
New sex
crime
arrest rate
No prior arrest for sex 13502 10636 78.8% 5124 38% 38 0.3% 250 1.9%
Prior sex arrest history 896 682 76.1% 427 48% 204 22.8% 36 4.0%
total 14398 11318 78.6% 5551 39% 242 1.7% 286 2.0%
New conviction rate - 896 offenders with any prior (pre-2005 release) conviction for a sex-releated crime
Offender group Males
Any
conviction
Any
conviction
rate
Any VOP
conviction
VOP
conviction
rate
Any
registry
conviction
Registry
conviction
rate
New sex
crime
conviction
New sex
crime
conviction
rate
No prior conviction (sex) 13502 9390 69.5% 4719 35.0% 26 0.2% 106 0.8%
Prior sex-rel. conviction 896 592 66.1% 391 43.6% 120 13.4% 28 3.1%
total 14398 9982 69.3% 5110 35.5% 146 1.0% 134 0.9%
Return to prison with a new sentence - 896 offenders with a prior conviction for a sex-related crime
Offender group Males
Any new
prison
sentence
Any new
prison
sentence,
rate
Any new
VOP
sentence
Any new
VOP
sentence,
rate
Any
registryrelated
sentence
Any
registryrelated
sentence,
rate
New
sentence,
sex crime
New
sentence,
sex crime,
rate
No history 13502 6793 50.3% 1489 11.0% 16 0.1% 82 0.6%
Prior history 896 371 41.4% 94 10.5% 63 7.0% 17 1.9%
Total cohort 14398 7164 49.8% 1583 11.0% 79 0.5% 99 0.7%
Readmissions to prison w/in 5 years, 896 offenders with a prior conviction for a sex offense
Readmit type
Total Of
Inmate No
2005
No prior
conviction for
a sex crime
No prior
conviction for
a sex crime, %
Prior sexrelated
conviction
history
Prior sexrelated
conviction
history, %
NEW CHARGES 5697 5245 38.8% 452 50.4%
TECH VIOL 1348 1294 9.6% 54 6.0%
NEW SENT 1028 981 7.3% 47 5.2%
CRIM VIOL 940 911 6.7% 29 3.2%
READMIT CIVIL OR FINE 216 205 1.5% 11 1.2%
RTN ABSCOND 194 188 1.4% 6 0.7%
RTN ESC CHARGES 163 162 1.2% 1 0.1%
OTHER 83 73 0.5% 10 1.1%
RTN W/O PREJ 55 55 0.4% 0.0%
RTN ESC 36 36 0.3% 0.0%
RTN ESC SENT 23 23 0.2% 0.0%
NO PRISON READMIT 4615 4329 32.1% 286 31.9%
14398 13502 100.0% 896 100.0%
29
Recidivism - 746 offenders with a sentence history for a sex crime
Sex charges associated w/new prison sentences for the 17 offenders in the
896-offender group with a prior sex-related conviction
Offender
DOC Sex
Treatment
Score Statute Sentence Offense
Offender 1 3 53-021* INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F
Offender 2 3 53-021* INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F
Offender 3 4 53A196D POSSESSING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY F
Offender 4 1 53A082 PROSTITUTION AM
Offender 5 1 53A082 PROSTITUTION AM (4 counts)
Offender 6 3 53A186 PUBLIC INDECENCY BM
Offender 7 2 53A186 PUBLIC INDECENCY BM
Offender 8 3 53A186 PUBLIC INDECENCY BM (2 Counts)
Offender 9 2 53A186 PUBLIC INDECENCY BM (2 Counts)
Offender 10 3 53A071 SEX ASSAULT, SECOND DEGREE F
Offender 11 1 53A070 SEXUAL ASSAULT, 1ST DEGREE F
Offender 12 4 53A072A SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF
Offender 13 3 53A072A SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF
Offender 14 4 53A072A SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF
Offender 15 4 53A073A SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE (2 counts)
Offender 16 3 53A196E ILL POSSESS CHILD PORN 2ND DEG F
53A196 OBSCENITY AS TO MINORS F
Offender 17 3 53-021* INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F
53A073A SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE
New arrest rate - 746 offenders with a DOC sentence history for a sex crime
Offender group Males
Any new
arrest
Any new
arrest,
rate
Any VOP
arrest
VOP arrest
rate
Any
registry
arrest
Registry
arrest rate
Any new
sex crime
arrest
New sex
crime
arrest rate
No sex sentence 13652 10751 78.8% 5182 38.0% 30 0.2% 259 1.9%
Sex sentence history 746 567 76.0% 369 49.5% 212 28.4% 27 3.6%
total 14398 11318 78.6% 5551 38.6% 242 1.7% 286 2.0%
New conviction rate - 746 offenders with a DOC sentence history for a sex crime
Offender group Males
Any
conviction
Any
conviction
rate
Any VOP
conviction
VOP
conviction
rate
Any
registry
conviction
Registry
conviction
rate
New sex
crime
conviction
New sex
crime
conviction
rate
No sex sentence 13652 9489 69.5% 4772 35.0% 18 0.1% 114 0.8%
Sex sentence history 746 493 66.1% 338 45.3% 128 17.2% 20 2.7%
total 14398 9982 69.3% 5110 35.5% 146 1.0% 134 0.9%
30
Return to prison with a new sentence - 746 offenders with a prior DOC sentence for a sex-related crime
Offender group Males
Any new
prison
sentence
Any new
prison
sentence,
rate
Any new
VOP
sentence
Any new
VOP
sentence,
rate
Any
registryrelated
sentence
Any
registryrelated
sentence,
rate
New
sentence,
sex crime
New
sentence,
sex crime,
rate
No history 13652 6864 50.3% 1513 11.1% 10 0.1% 86 0.6%
Prior history 746 300 40.2% 70 9.4% 69 9.2% 13 1.7%
Total cohort 14398 7164 49.8% 1583 11.0% 79 0.5% 99 0.7%
Readmissions to prison w/in 5 years, 746 offenders with a sentence history for a sex offense
Readmit type Total
No sentence
history for sex
offenses
No sentence
history for sex
offenses, %
Offenders w/a
sentence
history for sex
offenses
Offenders w/a
sentence
history for sex
offenses, %
NEW CHARGES 5697 5301 38.8% 396 53.1%
TECH VIOL 1348 1303 9.5% 45 6.0%
NEW SENT 1028 993 7.3% 35 4.7%
CRIM VIOL 940 921 6.7% 19 2.5%
READMIT CIVIL OR FINE 216 211 1.5% 5 0.7%
RTN ABSCOND 194 189 1.4% 5 0.7%
RTN ESC CHARGES 163 163 1.2% 0.0%
OTHER 83 75 0.5% 8 1.1%
RTN W/O PREJ 55 55 0.4% 0.0%
RTN ESC 36 36 0.3% 0.0%
RTN ESC SENT 23 23 0.2% 0.0%
NO PRISON READMIT 4615 4382 32.1% 233 31.2%
14398 13652 100.0% 746 100.0%
Sex charges associated w/new prison sentences for the 13 offenders in the
746-offender group with a sex-related sentence history
Offender
DOC Sex
Treatment
Score Statute Sentence Offense
Offender 1 4 53A196D POSSESSING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY F
Offender 2 3 53A186 PUBLIC INDECENCY BM (2 Counts)
Offender 3 3 53A186 PUBLIC INDECENCY BM
Offender 4 3 53-021* INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F (2 counts)
Offender 5 4 53A072A SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF
Offender 6 4 53A073A SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE
Offender 7 3 53-021* INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F
Offender 8 3 53A071 SEX ASSAULT, SECOND DEGREE F
Offender 9 3 53A072A SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF
Offender 10 4 53A072A SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF
Offender 11 3 53-021* INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F
53A073A SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE
Offender 12 3 53A196E ILL POSSESS CHILD PORN 2ND DEG F
53A196 OBSCENITY AS TO MINORS F
Offender 13 3 53-021* INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F
53A073A SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE
31
Recidivism - 423 offenders whose last sentence was for a sex crime
New arrest rate - 423 offenders whose last sentence was a sex crime
Offender group Males
Any new
arrest
Any new
arrest,
rate
Any VOP
arrest
VOP arrest
rate
Any
registry
arrest
Registry
arrest rate
Any new
sex crime
arrest
New sex
crime
arrest rate
No sex sentence 13975 11026 78.9% 5341 38.2% 133 1.0% 270 1.9%
Sex sentence history 423 292 69.0% 210 49.6% 109 25.8% 16 3.8%
total 14398 11318 78.6% 5551 38.6% 242 1.7% 286 2.0%
New conviction rate - 423 offenders whose last sentence was sex-related
Offender group males
Any
conviction
Any
conviction
rate
Any VOP
conviction
VOP
conviction
rate
Any
registry
conviction
Registry
conviction
rate
New sex
crime
conviction
New sex
crime
conviction
rate
No sex sentence 13975 9742 69.7% 4919 35.2% 91 0.7% 123 0.9%
Sex sentence history 423 240 56.7% 191 45.2% 55 13.0% 11 2.6%
14398 9982 69.3% 5110 35.5% 146 1.0% 134 0.9%
Return to prison with a new sentence - 423 offenders whose last sentence prior to release was for a sex-related crime
Offender group Males
Any new
prison
sentence
Any new
prison
sentence,
rate
Any new
VOP
sentence
Any new
VOP
sentence,
rate
Any
registryrelated
sentence
Any
registryrelated
sentence,
rate
New
sentence,
sex crime
New
sentence,
sex crime,
rate
No history 13975 7044 50.4% 1553 11.1% 45 0.3% 90 0.6%
Prior history 423 120 28.4% 30 7.1% 34 8.0% 9 2.1%
Total cohort 14398 7164 49.8% 1583 11.0% 79 0.5% 99 0.7%
Readmissions to prison w/in 5 years, 423 offenders whose last sentence was sex-related
Readmit type Total
Last sentence
not sexrelated
Last sentence
not sexrelated,
%
Last sentence
was sexrelated
Last sentence
was sexrelated,
%
NEW CHARGES 5697 5480 39.2% 217 51.3%
TECH VIOL 1348 1327 9.5% 21 5.0%
NEW SENT 1028 1013 7.2% 15 3.5%
CRIM VIOL 940 934 6.7% 6 1.4%
READMIT CIVIL OR FINE 216 213 1.5% 3 0.7%
RTN ABSCOND 194 193 1.4% 1 0.2%
RTN ESC CHARGES 163 163 1.2% 0.0%
OTHER 83 78 0.6% 5 1.2%
RTN W/O PREJ 55 55 0.4% 0.0%
RTN ESC 36 36 0.3% 0.0%
RTN ESC SENT 23 23 0.2% 0.0%
NO PRISON READMIT 4615 4460 31.9% 155 36.6%
14398 13975 100.0% 423 100.0%
32
Recidivism - 1,229 offenders with Sex Treatment Score of 2 or higher
Sex charges associated w/new prison sentences for the 9 offenders in the
423-offender group whose last sentence in 2005 was for a sex-related offense
Offender
DOC Sex
Treatment
Score Statute Sentence Offense
Offender 1 4 53A196D POSSESSING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY F
Offender 2 4 53A072A SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF
Offender 3 4 53A073A SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE
Offender 4 3 53-021* INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F
Offender 5 3 53A071 SEX ASSAULT, SECOND DEGREE F
Offender 6 3 53A072A SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF
Offender 7 4 53A072A SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF
Offender 8 3 53-021* INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F (2 counts)
Offender 9 3 53-021* INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F
53A073A SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE
New arrest rate - 1,229 offenders with DOC sex treatment scores of S-2 or higher
Sex treatment score Males
Any new
arrest
Any new
arrest,
rate
Any VOP
arrest
VOP arrest
rate
Any
registry
arrest
Registry
arrest rate
Any new
sex crime
arrest
New sex
crime
arrest rate
0 265 136 51.3% 48 18.1% 0.0% 4 1.5%
S-1 12904 10222 79.2% 4937 38.3% 12 0.1% 225 1.7%
S-2 100 81 81.0% 38 38.0% 2 2.0% 10 10.0%
S-3 983 766 77.9% 448 45.6% 195 19.8% 42 4.3%
S-4 144 113 78.5% 80 55.6% 33 22.9% 5 3.5%
S-5 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Treatment Sscore >1 1229 960 78.1% 566 46.1% 230 18.7% 57 4.6%
total 14398 11318 78.6% 5551 38.6% 242 1.7% 286 2.0%
New conviction rate - 1,229 offenders with DOC sex treatment scores of S-2 or higher
Sex treatment score males
Any
conviction
Any
conviction
rate
Any VOP
conviction
VOP
conviction
rate
Any
registry
conviction
Registry
conviction
rate
New sex
crime
conviction
New sex
crime
conviction
rate
0 265 107 40.4% 45 17.0% 0.0% 0.0%
S-1 12904 9040 70.1% 4537 35.2% 7 0.1% 97 0.8%
S-2 100 71 71.0% 34 34.0% 1 1.0% 8 8.0%
S-3 983 660 67.1% 420 42.7% 116 11.8% 26 2.6%
S-4 144 104 72.2% 74 51.4% 22 15.3% 3 2.1%
S-5 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
STS>1 1229 835 67.9% 528 43.0% 139 11.3% 37 3.0%
total 14398 9982 69.3% 5110 35.5% 146 1.0% 134 0.9%
33
Return to prison with a new sentence - 1,229 offenders with 2005 sex treatment scores higher than 1
Offender group Males
Any new
prison
sentence
Any new
prison
sentence,
rate
Any new
VOP
sentence
Any new
VOP
sentence,
rate
Any
registryrelated
sentence
Any
registryrelated
sentence,
rate
New
sentence,
sex crime
New
sentence,
sex crime,
rate
STS = 0 or 1 13169 6622 50.3% 1445 11.0% 6 0.0% 71 0.5%
STS = 2 through 5 1229 542 44.1% 138 11.2% 73 5.9% 28 2.3%
Total cohort 14398 7164 49.8% 1583 11.0% 79 0.5% 99 0.7%
Return to prison with a new sentence - offenders by sex treatment score
Offender group Males
Any new
prison
sentence
Any new
prison
sentence,
rate
Any new
VOP
sentence
Any new
VOP
sentence,
rate
Any
registryrelated
sentence
Any
registryrelated
sentence,
rate
New
sentence,
sex crime
New
sentence,
sex crime,
rate
No score 265 59 22.3% 8 3.0% 0.0% 0.0%
STS = 1 12904 6563 50.9% 1437 11.1% 6 0.0% 71 0.6%
STS = 2 100 55 55.0% 12 12.0% 0.0% 6 6.0%
STS = 3 983 431 43.8% 113 11.5% 65 6.6% 18 1.8%
STS = 4 144 56 38.9% 13 9.0% 8 5.6% 4 2.8%
STS = 5 2 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total cohort 14398 7164 49.8% 1583 11.0% 79 0.5% 99 0.7%
STS = 2 through 5 1229 542 44.1% 138 11.2% 73 5.9% 28 2.3%
Readmissions to prison w/in 5 years, 1,229 offenders with sex treatment scores above 1
Readmit type
Total Of
Inmate No
2005
Sex treatment
score lower
than 2
Sex treatment
score lower
than 2, %
Sex treatment
scores: 2
through 5
Sex treatment
scores: 2
through 5, %
NEW CHARGES 5697 5043 38.3% 654 53.2%
TECH VIOL 1348 1292 9.8% 56 4.6%
NEW SENT 1028 971 7.4% 57 4.6%
CRIM VIOL 940 908 6.9% 32 2.6%
READMIT CIVIL OR FINE 216 199 1.5% 17 1.4%
RTN ABSCOND 194 179 1.4% 15 1.2%
RTN ESC CHARGES 163 163 1.2% 0.0%
OTHER 83 71 0.5% 12 1.0%
RTN W/O PREJ 55 55 0.4% 0.0%
RTN ESC 36 36 0.3% 0.0%
RTN ESC SENT 23 23 0.2% 0.0%
NO PRISON READMIT 4615 4229 32.1% 386 31.4%
14398 13169 100.0% 1229 100.0%
34
Readmissions to prison w/in 5 years, by sex treatment scoreReadmit typeTotal Treatment score null or S1Treatment score: S2Treatment score: S3Treatment score: S4Treatment score: S5NEW CHARGES 569750435451981TECH VIOL134812927427NEW SENT10289715475CRIM VIOL9409081274READMIT CIVIL OR FINE216199116RTN ABSCOND1941792112RTN ESC CHARGES163163OTHER8371192RTN W/O PREJ5555RTN ESC3636RTN ESC SENT2323NO PRISON READMIT4615422929312432Total14398131691009831442%%%%%%NEW CHARGES 39.6%38.3%54.0%52.8%56.3%0.0%TECH VIOL9.4%9.8%7.0%4.3%4.9%0.0%NEW SENT7.1%7.4%5.0%4.8%3.5%0.0%CRIM VIOL6.5%6.9%1.0%2.7%2.8%0.0%NO PRISON READMIT32.1%32.1%29.0%31.7%29.9%100.0%
35
Sex charges associated w/new prison sentences for the 28 offenders in the 1,229-offender group whose sex treatment score were higher than S1OffenderDOC Sex Treatment ScoreStatuteSentence OffenseOffender 1453A196DPOSSESSING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY FOffender 2353A186PUBLIC INDECENCY BM (2 Counts)Offender 3353A070SEXUAL ASSAULT, 1ST DEGREE FOffender 4353A186PUBLIC INDECENCY BMOffender 5353A088PROMOTING PROSTITUTION, 3RD DEGREE DFOffender 6353A070SEXUAL ASSAULT, 1ST DEGREE F (2 counts)Offender 7353A186PUBLIC INDECENCY BMOffender 8253A186PUBLIC INDECENCY BM (3 Counts)Offender 9353-021*INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F (2 counts)Offender 10353A073ASEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREEOffender 11453A072ASEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DFOffender 12253A196DPOSSESSING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY FOffender 13253A186PUBLIC INDECENCY BMOffender 14353A070SEXUAL ASSAULT, 1ST DEGREE FOffender 15253A186PUBLIC INDECENCY BMOffender 16353A070SEXUAL ASSAULT, 1ST DEGREE FOffender 17253A186PUBLIC INDECENCY BM (2 Counts)Offender 18353-021*INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR FOffender 19453A073ASEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREEOffender 20353A071SEX ASSAULT, SECOND DEGREE FOffender 21353-021*INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR FOffender 22353A071SEX ASSAULT, SECOND DEGREE FOffender 23353A072ASEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DFOffender 24453A072ASEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DFOffender 25253A072SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF53A070SEXUAL ASSAULT, 1ST DEGREE F53A196FILL POSSESS CHILD PORN 3RD DEG DF53A196AEMPLOY MINOR IN OBSCENE PERFORMANCE AFOffender 26353-021*INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F53A073ASEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREEOffender 27353A196EILL POSSESS CHILD PORN 2ND DEG F53A196OBSCENITY AS TO MINORS FOffender 28353-021*INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F53A073ASEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE
36
Crime group Offense
No prior
sex arrest
Sex arrest
history
No prior
sex
conviction
Sex
conviction
history
No sexrelated
DOC
sentence
DOC sex
releated
sentence
history
Last DOC
sentence
not sexrelated
Last DOC
sentence
sexrelated
Sex
treatment
score <2
Sex
treatment
scores: 2
through 5 All males
SEXUAL ASSAULT, 1ST DEGREE F 17 5 21 1 22 22 16 6 22
SEXUAL ASSAULT 1ST DEGREE - AGGRVTD F 2 2 2 2 2 2
RAPE, FIRST DEGREE BF 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sub-total 19 6 24 1 25 0 25 0 18 7 25
SEX ASSAULT, SECOND DEGREE F 19 4 22 1 22 1 22 1 21 2 23
RAPE, SECOND DEGREE CF 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sub-total 20 4 23 1 23 1 23 1 22 2 24
SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 5
SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE 11 9 17 3 17 3 18 2 16 4 20
Sub-total 13 12 19 6 19 6 20 5 18 7 25
INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F 10 5 12 3 10 5 11 4 9 6 15
EMPLOY MINOR IN OBSCENE PERFORMANCE
AF 1 1 1 1 1 1
OBSCENITY AS TO MINORS F 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sub-total 10 7 13 4 11 6 13 4 9 8 17
Prostitution related
PROSTITUTION AM 2 5 2 5 7 7 7 7
PATRONIZING A PROSTITUTE AM 1 1 1 1 1 1
PROMOTING PROSTITUTION, 2ND DEGREE CF 1 1 1 1 1 1
PATRONIZING A PROSTITUTE FROM A MV 1 1 1 1 1 1
PROMOTING PROSTITUTION, 3RD DEGREE DF 4 4 4 4 3 1 4
Sub-total 9 5 9 5 14 0 14 0 13 1 14
POSSESSING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
ILL POSSESS CHILD PORN 3RD DEG DF 3 1 4 4 4 3 1 4
ILL POSSESS CHILD PORN 2ND DEG F 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sub-total 4 3 5 2 5 2 6 1 3 4 7
PUBLIC INDECENCY BM 6 11 11 6 14 3 17 6 11 17
Sub-total 6 11 11 6 14 3 17 6 11 17
Total 81 48 104 25 111 18 118 11 89 40 129
Offenders in group 13,003 1,395 13,502 896 13,652 746 13,975 423 13,169 1,229 14,398
Child pornography
Indecency/voyeurism
Sex-offenses, by crime type, resulting in new prison sentences
Sex assault 1
Sex assault 2
Other sex assault
Crimes against minors
Summary of new prison sentences for sex crimes, by sex offender sub group
37
Sentences by major offense type, 2005 release cohort
Males Rate:
Sentenced offender 14398 100.0%
Violation of probation 7,108 49.4%
Drug offenders 6,622 46.0%
DUI offenses 2,802 19.5%
Burglary charges 2,304 16.0%
Robbery 1 or Robbery 2 1,101 7.7%
Viol. of a restrain. or prot. order 747 5.2%
Any sex-releated offense 746 5.2%
Sex assault 1 or Rape 195 1.4%
Illegal sexual contact - minor 196 1.4%
Offenses in common among 746 offenders with a sentence history invovling a sex crime
Risk of injury
to a minor
(sexual)
Risk of
injury to a
minor
(sexual),
%
Sexual
assault 1
Sexual
assault 1,
%
Public
indecency
Public
indecency,
%
196 100.0% 195 100.0% 35 100.0%
Drug offenses 24 12.2% 53 27.2% 11 31.4%
DUI offenses 13 6.6% 20 10.3% 5 14.3%
Burglary offenses 8 4.1% 57 29.2% 6 17.1%
Robberies 5 2.6% 26 13.3% 0 0.0%
Violation of probation 68 34.7% 115 59.0% 28 80.0%
Court order violation* 4 2.0% 5 2.6% 2 5.7%
Offenders with sentence histories for
General criminality among offenders who were released in 2005
Slightly more than 5% of the 14,398 male
sentenced offenders who left Connecticut
prisons in 2005 had ever served a prison
sentence in the state for a sex-related
offense. Among the prisoners who left
prison in 2005, 49.4% had served at least
one sentence for violating the terms of their
probation. Forty-six percent (46%) of
offenders had served time in prison for a
drug charge. Nineteen percent (19%) of
offenders released in 2005 had served a prior sentence for driving under the influence of alcohol or
drugs. Among the 746 offenders who had ever served a sentence for a sex-related offense, 195 had
been convicted for Sexual Assault 1 or Rape. One hundred ninety-six (196) had been convicted for
Illegal sexual contact with a minor (Risk of Injury 53-021*).
The sentence histories of offenders that had ever been convicted for one of three specific sex crimes
(Sex Assault 1, Risk of Injury to a Minor (sexual), and Public Indecency) were analyzed to determine
whether significant differences could be detected in the general pattern of non-sexual criminal
activity between different sex offender types. Conviction for one of these offenses was used as a
proxy to distinguish rapists from child molesters and non-contact exhibitionists. The analysis did
identify significant differences in the overall pattern of criminality for different offender types.
Among the 35 offenders who had been convicted for public indecency (exhibitionists) the incidence
of drug- or alcohol-related offenses was much higher than for the other two groups. Exhibitionists
also had the highest rates of sentencing for Violations of Probation (80%). Among the 195 offenders
who had been convicted for Sex Assault 1 (rapists), 29.2% had also served a prison sentence for a
burglary-related crime; 13.3% had served a sentence for robbery. The high incidence of burglaries
and robberies
among this
group
indicates both
a heightened
willingness to
use force and
overstep
boundaries.
Among
offenders convicted for Risk of Injury to a Minor (sexual), only 4.1% had served sentences for
burglary and only 2.6% has been convicted of a robbery. Among the entire population of male
prisoners released in 2005, 16% had been convicted of burglary-related charges and less than 8%
had been convicted for a robbery.
38
Sex offenders, parole and special parole
In 2005, 1,776 offenders were released from prison to parole. Less than 10% of all offenders release
to parole had sex treatment scores higher than 1. The following table shows the remand rates for
offenders by their DOC Sex treatment scores.
Offenders
in group
Offenders
discharged
to special
parole in
2005
Sex offenders
discharged to
special parole
in 2005
Sex offenders
as a percent
of offenders
discharged to
special parole
Percentage of
sex offenders
discharged to
special parole
Prior arrest on a sex-related charge 1395 358 38 10.6% 2.7%
Prior conviction on a sex-related charge 896 358 31 8.7% 3.5%
Any prior sex-related sentence 746 358 31 8.7% 4.2%
Last sentence on a sex-related charge 423 358 15 4.2% 3.5%
Sex Treatment score 2 through 5 1229 358 43 12.0% 3.5%
Any Sex offender flag 1712 358 52 14.5% 3.0%
The use of special parole for sex offenders in 2005
First prison readmit
Released to
parole in 2005* S:1 S:2 S:3 S:4
S:2 through
S:4
Technical violation 413 370 5 34 4 43
Criminal violation 388 364 1 21 2 24
Readmit - pre-trial 359 324 3 24 8 35
Absconder returned 115 106 1 7 1 9
New prison sentence 47 45 1 1 2
No readmission w/in 5 years 424 384 1 29 10 40
All other retuns 30 27 0 2 1 3
Total 1776 1620 11 118 27 156
First prison readmit, %
Technical violation 23.3% 22.8% 45.5% 28.8% 14.8% 27.6%
Criminal violation 21.8% 22.5% 9.1% 17.8% 7.4% 15.4%
Readmit - pre-trial 20.2% 20.0% 27.3% 20.3% 29.6% 22.4%
Absconder returned 6.5% 6.5% 9.1% 5.9% 3.7% 5.8%
New prison sentence 2.6% 2.8% 0.0% 0.8% 3.7% 1.3%
No readmission w/in 5 years 23.9% 23.7% 9.1% 24.6% 37.0% 25.6%
All other retuns 1.7% 1.7% 0.0% 1.7% 3.7% 1.9%
Total, % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
* Two offenders released to parole had no sex treatment scores. Neither was readmitted.
DOC Sex treatment score
Parolee prison readmits by DOC Sex Treatment Score, first prison readmission
39
Age at first arrest for a sex crime
All prior arrest records for the entire 2005-release cohort was collected and analyzed to determine whether any relationship existed between the offender’s age and the crime type. The data was used to identify the first sex offense-related arrest in each offender’s criminal history. The data was then grouped comparing the age distribution of offenders by offense type.
Public Indecency was the only sexual offense where men under the age of 25 made up less that 45% of the offenders. Sixty-five percent of men accused of Sexual Assault 2 were under the age of 25. The data is based on the criminal arrest histories of the 1,395 offenders who had a prior arrest for a sex-related offense.
Among offenders arrested for Sexual Assault 1, the peak age group was between the ages of 20 to 24. Among offenders arrested for Sexual Assault 2, the peak age group was 15 to 19. The 15 to 19 age group was also the peak age group among offenders arrested for crimes against children. Among offenders arrested for public indecency – the peak age group was 30 to 34.
Age at first arrest for a sex crime, by arrest chargeAge at first sex crime arrestSex Assault 1Sex assault 2Sex Assault 4Ill. Sexual ContactSex crimes against minors, grouped*Public Indecency10 to 1471456015 to 19818078911491620 to 24906160561001825 to 2963233428532230 to 3466184131603335 to 3948173530521740 to 441982520391845 to 49441169650 to 545491017155 to 5920457160 to 6421248065 and older013352Total387218306289505134Under 2517814214215225534Under 25, %46%65%46%53%50%25%25 to 3917758110891657225 to 39, %46%27%36%31%33%54%Over 39321854488528Over 39, %8%8%18%17%17%21%* Includes illegal sexual contact, sex assault 1- minor, sex assault 2 - minor, sex assault 4 - minor, enticing a minor & promoting or employing a minor in an obscene performanceArrest charge
40
Age at first sex offense resulting in a prison sentence
and age at 2005 release, 746 sex offenders
Age at first
offense
Age at first
offense, %
Age at 2005
release
Age at 2005
release, %
10 to 14 9 1% 0 0%
15 to 19 182 24% 24 3%
20 to 24 164 22% 125 17%
25 to 29 106 14% 89 12%
30 to 34 106 14% 81 11%
35 to 39 77 10% 120 16%
40 to 44 47 6% 129 17%
45 to 49 23 3% 90 12%
50 to 54 12 2% 38 5%
55 to 59 9 1% 24 3%
60 to 64 4 1% 11 1%
65 and older 5 1% 15 2%
No data 2 0% 0%
746 100% 746 100%
Age at first sex offense resulting in a prison sentence
Seven hundred forty-six men (746) left prison in 2005 who had served at least one sentence for a
sex offense in their past. Almost half (47%) had committed the offense as young men under the age
of 25. Only 8% were over the age of 39 when they committed the crime that resulted in a prison
sentence.
While most sentenced sex-offenders were
sentenced to prison for their sex offenses as
young men, the sentenced sex offenders who left
prison in 2005 were significantly older. Only 20%
percent of sex offenders who left prison in 2005
were younger than 25. There are two reasons for
this disparity 1) men who commit serious sexual
crimes generally receive long sentences, and 2)
many offenders with a sex sentence history
continue to return to prison for new, non-sexual
crimes. Among the 746 offenders identified here,
only 423 were completing a sentence for a sex
crime when they were released in 2005.
9
182
164
106 106
77
47
23
12 9 4 5 2
0
50
100
150
200
10 to
14
15 to
19
20 to
24
25 to
29
30 to
34
35 to
39
40 to
44
45 to
49
50 to
54
55 to
59
60 to
64
65 and
older
No data
Age at first sex offense resulting in a prison sentence
746 offenders with a sex-related sentence history
0 24
125
89
81
120
129
90
38
24
11 15
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
10 to
14
15 to
19
20 to
24
25 to
29
30 to
34
35 to
39
40 to
44
45 to
49
50 to
54
55 to
59
60 to
64
65 and
older
No data
Age at 2005 release, 746 offenders with
a sex-related sentence history
41
The Connecticut Risk Assessment Board
Sec. 54-259a. Risk Assessment Board. Development and use of risk assessment scale. Report. (a) There is established a Risk Assessment Board consisting of the Commissioner of Correction, the Commissioner of Mental Health and Addiction Services, the Commissioner of Public Safety, the Chief State's Attorney, the Chief Public Defender, the chairperson of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, the executive director of the Court Support Services Division of the Judicial Department and the chairpersons and ranking members of the joint standing committees of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to the judiciary and public safety, or their designees, a victim advocate with experience working with sexual assault victims and sexual offenders appointed by the Governor, a forensic psychiatrist with experience in the treatment of sexual offenders appointed by the Governor and a person trained in the identification, assessment and treatment of sexual offenders appointed by the Governor. (b) The board shall develop a risk assessment scale that assigns weights to various risk factors including, but not limited to, the seriousness of the offense, the offender's prior offense history, the offender's characteristics, the availability of community supports, whether the offender has indicated or credible evidence in the record indicates that the offender will reoffend if released into the community and whether the offender demonstrates a physical condition that minimizes the risk of reoffending, and specifies the risk level to which offenders with various risk assessment scores shall be assigned. (c) The board shall use the risk assessment scale to assess the risk of reoffending of each person subject to registration under this chapter, including incarcerated offenders who are within one year of their estimated release date, and assign each such person a risk level of high, medium or low. (d) The board shall use the risk assessment scale to determine which offenders should be prohibited from residing within one thousand feet of the real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary school or a facility providing child day care services, as defined in section 19a-77. (e) Not later than October 1, 2007, the board shall submit a report to the joint standing committee of the General Assembly on the judiciary in accordance with section 11-4a setting forth its findings and recommendations concerning: (1) Whether information about sexual offenders assigned a risk level of high, medium or low should be made available to the public through the Internet; (2) the types of information about sexual offenders that should be made available to the public through the Internet which may include, but not be limited to, (A) the name, residential address, physical description and photograph of the registrant, (B) the offense or offenses of which the registrant was convicted or found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect that required registration under this chapter, (C) a brief description of the facts and circumstances of such offense or offenses, (D) the criminal record of the registrant with respect to any prior convictions or findings of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect for the commission of an offense requiring
42
registration under this chapter, and (E) the name of the registrant's supervising correctional, probation or parole officer, and contact information for such officer; (3) whether any of the persons assigned a high risk level by the board pursuant to subsection (c) of this section meets the criteria for civil commitment pursuant to section 17a-498; (4) whether additional restrictions should be placed on persons subject to registration under this chapter such as curfews and intensive monitoring on certain holidays; (5) whether persons convicted of a sexual offense who pose a high risk of reoffending should be required to register under this chapter regardless of when they were convicted or released into the community; and (6) whether persons determined to be guilty with adjudication withheld in any other state or jurisdiction of any crime the essential elements of which are substantially the same as any of the crimes specified in subdivisions (2), (5) and (11) of section 54-250 should be required to register under this chapter.
Special Management Unit – DOC Community Services Division
The Parole and Community Services Division’s Special Management Unit (SMU) is responsible for the statewide supervision of approximately 225 paroled sex offenders. The unit employs a comprehensive multidisciplinary approach to manage this population with a mission to protect the public and increase the likelihood of successful reintegration for offenders requiring specialized supervision and treatment for problem sexual behavior. Since 2005, the unit has experienced a doubling of its supervised sex offender population, primarily due to a steady increase in special parole cases. In response, the unit’s staffing levels were also doubled over the past five years from five parole officers to the current compliment of ten.
These specially trained parole officers collaborate closely with key stakeholders to form supervision teams to advance collective public safety goals. These stakeholders include sex offender treatment providers and polygraph examiners from The Connection Inc., Center for the Treatment of Problem Sexual Behavior; victim advocates from Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services; state police from the Connecticut State Police Sex Offender Registry Unit and Computer Crime Unit; and local law enforcement responsible for matters relating to registered sex offenders and sexual assault investigations.
The specialized techniques and interventions utilized by SMU include the use of validated sex offender risk assessments; individualized case management plans; offense specific cognitive-behavioral sex offender treatment; intensive supervision strategies including frequent compliance checks, search and seizure, GPS monitoring, and surveillance; toxicology testing; registration and notification; victim advocacy; computer monitoring and computer forensic examinations.
SMU officers routinely conduct compliance checks with local law enforcement in jurisdictions throughout the state to monitor adherence to sex offender registration requirements, parole conditions, and sex offender treatment restrictions. Parole officers and police visit sex offenders at
43
their residence and place of employment. During these compliance checks, SMU officers assess offenders for the presence or absence of dynamic risk factors related to sexual offending.
Cognitive-behavioral sex offender treatment is an empirically validated intervention required of the offenders supervised by SMU. This approach has been shown to produce favorable reductions in sexual and general recidivism when combined with parole supervision. Groups are held in numerous locations throughout the state including district parole offices in Hartford, New Haven, Waterbury, and Bridgeport.
SMU’s intensive supervision model includes monitoring an average of 90 sex offenders with Global Positioning System (GPS) technology. Active GPS units are used exclusively to enhance supervision and afford parole officers the ability locate offenders in a timely manner. GPS tracking information is routinely shared with law enforcement for investigations.
Stable housing is recognized by SMU as critical to the successful reintegration of sex offenders. Housing instability has been widely shown to increase general and sexual recidivism. While the placement of sex offenders remains a constant challenge for this unit, no sex offenders have been placed in homeless shelters in the past five years while under SMU supervision.
The Collaborative Model in Connecticut
Connecticut has become a national leader in developing and implementing a systemic, collaborative approach to the management and treatment sexual offenders in the community. This approach links state supervising agencies (CSSD’s Office of Adult Probation and DOC’s Office of Parole), victim advocates (CONNSACS) and a non-profit provider of sex offender treatment and programming (The Connection, Inc.) in the design and oversight of a supervision plan for each offender.
The primary parties in this collaborative approach include: the supervising officer, the evaluator/treatment provider, a polygraph examiner and a victim advocate. Each of the party brings unique expertise and perspective to the collaboration, which greatly helps enhance offender supervision and community safety.
Supervising Officers: Probation and Parole officers have special training and experience in supervising sexual offenders. Some of their roles include regular office and field visits, social support meetings, employment and residency approvals, monitoring compliance with sex offender registry and imposing of alternative sanctions when needed.
Evaluator/Therapist: The evaluators provide risk assessments using the most advanced risk assessment tools and protocols. This information is then used by the treatment providers to decide on the intervention that will address the risk factors specific to each client.
Polygraph Examiners: Polygraph examiners are trained in Post Conviction Sex Offender Testing (PCSOT). The typical sexual offender receives a minimum of one polygraph every six months in one of the three types of exams, which include: 1) Sexual Offense History; 2) Denial of convicted sexual crime; and 3) Compliance with supervision standards (called a Maintenance exam).
44
Victim Advocates: Victim Advocates provide beneficial information to the victim and victim’s family. Some examples include: notification and support services to victims when offenders are released onto parole and/or probation and appropriate referrals for services for victims and offender family members.
While it is the sole authority of the supervising officer to make decisions regarding housing placement, offender employment, appropriate social contacts, etc., each team member contributes information that contributes to the decision making process.
45
Glossary
CMHC – Correctional Managed Health Care, the CT DOC contracts with the University of Connecticut to provide health service for its prisoners. For over a decade CMHC has provided sex-offenders treatment and assessment services in Connecticut’s prisons.
The Connection – The Connection, Inc. is a Connecticut non-profit organization that provides a wide range of programs and services in the state. The agency provides assessments, treatment and programs for sex offenders under the supervision of the offices of adult probation and parole.
CONNSACS – Acronym for Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services, a statewide coalition of individual sexual assault crisis programs. In addition to providing victim assistance, community education and public policy advocacy, CONNSACS works closely with the offices of Parole and Probation to insure the voice of the victim is present in issues relating to sex offenders in the state.
Discharge from prison – Prisoners “discharge” from prison at the completion of their prison sentence. Prisoners who leave prison but remain under the supervision of Department of Correction, in a community program, are said to have been released.
EOS – Acronym for end-of-sentence. Prisoners who reach the end of their sentences are discharged.
Paraphilias – Conditions where an individual becomes sexually aroused or gratified by fantasizing about or engaging in behavior that is atypical or extreme. Common paraphilias include exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism and necrophilia. In the past paraphilias were referred to as perversions.
Parole – Parole is a discretionary release program available to most prisoners serving sentences greater than two years. Depending on the crime, parole-eligible offenders must serve at least 50% or, in the case of a violent offense, 85% of their sentence. Perspective parolee cases are considered by three-member panels conducted by the Board of Pardons and Parole. Offenders on parole are supervised by parole officers who have the authority remand them to prison for violating the conditions of their release.
Probation – Probation is a court-mandated and court-supervised form of community supervision for offenders. An offender may be sentenced to a term of probation in lieu of a prison sentence or the court may order a split-sentence, which involves a term of incarceration followed by a period of probation. Unlike parole officers, probation officers are required to return the offender to court before a probationer can be remanded to prison. Violation of Probation (53a-032) is the most common charge among prisoners incarcerated in the state’s prisons.
Public indecency (Sec. 53a-186: Class B misdemeanor) A person is guilty of public indecency when he performs any of the following acts in a public place:
1. An act of sexual intercourse as defined in subdivision (2) of section 53a-65; or
2. a lewd exposure of the body with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desire of the person; or
46
3. a lewd fondling or caress of the body of another person. For the purposes of this section, "public place" means any place where the conduct may reasonably be expected to be viewed by others.
Recidivism – for the purposes of this study, four general measures of recidivism will be considered: 1) new arrests 2) new convictions 3) any reincarceration, and 4) returns to prison with a new prison sentence. For arrests, convictions and new prison sentences, separate recidivism rates will be considered for any new offenses, VOP-related offenders, SOR-related offenses, and new sex offenses.
Release from prison – Prisoners who leave prison but remain under the supervision of Department of Correction, in a community program, are said to have been released. Prisoners who have completed their prison sentences are said to have discharged.
Remand – Offenders who are completing their prison sentences in the community, under the supervision of the DOC Parole Division, are required to abide by a variety of general and specific conditions governing their community release. Violation of these conditions can result in an immediate return to prison, potentially, until the end of the offender’s prison sentence. Offenders who are returned t prison in this way are said to be remanded.
Injury or risk of injury to, or impairing morals of, children. Sale of children ( Sec. 53-21.) Any person who
1. willfully or unlawfully causes or permits any child under the age of sixteen years to be placed in such a situation that the life or limb of such child is endangered, the health of such child is likely to be injured or the morals of such child are likely to be impaired, or does any act likely to impair the health or morals of any such child, or
2. has contact with the intimate parts, as defined in section 53a-65, of a child under the age of sixteen years or subjects a child under sixteen years of age to contact with the intimate parts of such person, in a sexual and indecent manner likely to impair the health or morals of such child, or
3. permanently transfers the legal or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years to another person for money or other valuable consideration or acquires or receives the legal or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years from another person upon payment of money or other valuable consideration to such other person or a third person, except in connection with an adoption proceeding that complies with the provisions of chapter 803, shall be guilty of a class C felony for a violation of subdivision (1) or (3) of this subsection and a class B felony for a violation of subdivision (2) of this subsection In the criminal justice system, the Risk of Injury charge has two parts: one (Subsection 2) contains a sexual criminal component. Persons convicted on for subsection 2 are required to register with the Sex Offender Registry. In DOC data systems, subsection 2 of this statute is coded as 53-021* - Injury or Risk of Injury to Minor.
Sexual assault in the first degree (Sec. 53a-70: Class B felony) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the first degree when such person
1. compels another person to engage in sexual intercourse by the use of force against such other person or a third person, or by the threat of use of force against such other person or
47
against a third person which reasonably causes such person to fear physical injury to such person or a third person, or
2. engages in sexual intercourse with another person and such other person is under 13 years of age and the actor is more than two years older than such person, or
3. commits sexual assault in the second degree as provided in section 53a-71 and in the commission of such offense is aided by two or more other persons actually present, or
4. engages in sexual intercourse with another person and such other person is mentally incapacitated to the extent that such other person is unable to consent to such sexual intercourse.
Sexual assault in the second degree (Sec. 53a-71: Class C felony) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the second degree when such person engages in sexual intercourse with another person and:
1. Such other person is thirteen years of age or older but under sixteen years of age and the actor is more than two years older than such person; or
2. such other person is mentally defective to the extent that such other person is unable to consent to such sexual intercourse; or
3. such other person is physically helpless; or
4. such other person is less than eighteen years old and the actor is such person's guardian or otherwise responsible for the general supervision of such person's welfare; or
5. such other person is in custody of law or detained in a hospital or other institution and the actor has supervisory or disciplinary authority over such other person; or
6. the actor is a psychotherapist and such other person is (A) a patient of the actor and the sexual intercourse occurs during the psychotherapy session, (B) a patient or former patient of the actor and such patient or former patient is emotionally dependent upon the actor, or (C) a patient or former patient of the actor and the sexual intercourse occurs by means of therapeutic deception; or
7. the actor accomplishes the sexual intercourse by means of false representation that the sexual intercourse is for a bona fide medical purpose by a health care professional; or
8. the actor is a school employee and such other person is a student enrolled in a school in which the actor works or a school under the jurisdiction of the local or regional board of education which employs the actor.
Sexual assault in the third degree (Sec. 53a-72a: Class D felony) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the third degree when such person
1. compels another person to submit to sexual contact (A) by the use of force against such other person or a third person, or (B) by the threat of use of force against such other person or against a third person, which reasonably causes such other person to fear physical injury to himself or herself or a third person, or
2. engages in sexual intercourse with another person whom the actor knows to be related to him or her within any of the degrees of kindred specified in section 46b-21.
Sexual assault in the fourth degree (Sec. 53a-73a.: Class A misdemeanor) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the fourth degree when:
1. Such person intentionally subjects another person to sexual contact who is (A) under fifteen years of age, or (B) mentally defective or mentally incapacitated to the extent that he is unable to consent to such sexual contact, or (C) physically helpless, or (D) less than eighteen years old and the actor is such person's guardian or otherwise responsible for the general
48
supervision of such person's welfare, or (E) in custody of law or detained in a hospital or other institution and the actor has supervisory or disciplinary authority over such other person; or
2. such person subjects another person to sexual contact without such other person's consent; or
3. such person engages in sexual contact with an animal or dead body; or
4. such person is a psychotherapist and subjects another person to sexual contact who is (A) a patient of the actor and the sexual contact occurs during the psychotherapy session, or (B) a patient or former patient of the actor and such patient or former patient is emotionally dependent upon the actor, or (C) a patient or former patient of the actor and the sexual contact occurs by means of therapeutic deception; or
5. such person subjects another person to sexual contact and accomplishes the sexual contact by means of false representation that the sexual contact is for a bona fide medical purpose by a health care professional; or such person is a school employee and subjects another person to sexual contact who is a student enrolled in a school in which the actor works or a school under the jurisdiction of the local or regional board of education which employs the actor.
Sex crimes statutes in CT – Descriptions of state criminal statutes and jury instructions for sex crimes are available on the Judicial Branch website at: http://jud.ct.gov/ji/Criminal/part7/Default.htm
SOR - Sex Offender Registry - The Department of Emergency Services & Public Protection maintains the internet-based registry. Offenders are required to register with the State Police if they have been convicted for offenses identified by the CT Legislature. More information on CT’s SOR is available on-line at: http://www.ct.gov/dps/cwp/view.asp?Q=471430&A=11
Sex Treatment Scores - The DOC assigns a sex treatment score to each sentenced prisoner in the system. Scores range from 1 to 5. Sex treatment scores were developed to assist the DOC in managing offenders while they are incarcerated. Scores are based on the offender’s sexual criminal history including conviction records, police reports, pre-sentence investigation reports and DOC sources. The scores are not intended for use as diagnostic scores. For a full explanation of DOC Sex treatment Scores can be viewed on page 35 of the DOC Classification Manual available on-line at the CT DOC website.
Sex Treatment Score: S1 – A sex treatment score of S1 means that the offender has no current conviction, pending charges or identified history of sexual offenses.
Sex Treatment Score: S2 – Offender has a current conviction, pending charges or a known history of non-contact sexual offenses. These behaviors may include: exhibitionism; use, sale or possession of child pornography; promoting the prostitution of a minor, obscene telephone calling, voyeurism, or other paraphilias.
Sex Treatment Score: S3 – Offender has a current conviction, pending charges or a known history of sexual offenses involving physical contact with the victim. Offenses may include coercion, manipulation and exploitation. An inmate who engages in predatory sexual behavior while incarcerated will be given a score of S3.
49
Sex Treatment Score: S4 – Offender has a current conviction, pending charges or a known history of two or more sexual offenses involving physical contact. This score is assigned to offenders who have perpetrated two or more assaults on two or more victims. Physical violence may or may not have played a role in the sexual assaults.
Sex Treatment Score: S5 – Offender has a current conviction, pending charges or a known history of a contact sexual offenses involving gratuitous or sadistic violence. An offender may also be classified with an S-5 score based on a clinical assessment using the HARE Psychopathy Scale.
SMU – Sex Offender Management Unit at the DOC Office of Parole and Community Services oversees the supervision of sex offenders who are released to parole in the state. SMU parole officers have reduced caseloads that allow for enhanced oversight.
Static-99 – is a 10-item actuarial assessment instrument that is widely used to assess risk among adult male sex-offenders. As a static assessment instrument offender scores do not change significantly over time. Dynamic assessment tools are critical in monitoring changes in the specific factors that may drive criminal behavior.
TS – An acronym for Transitional Supervision, a discretionary community supervision program for offenders serving sentences of two years or less. A TS-eligible offender can be released from prison after completing 50% of their sentence if they have an approved sponsor and an appropriate residence to return to.
VOP – Violation of probation (See Probation)