An Analysis of Sex Offenders Under Federal Post-Conviction Supervision
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
September 2016 SEX OFFENDERS UNDER FEDERAL SUPERVISION 21 How Dangerous Are They? An Analysis of Sex Offenders Under Federal Post-Conviction Supervision Thomas H. Cohen* Michelle C. Spidell Probation and Pretrial Services Office Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts SEX OFFENSES ARE among the crimes that offenders, and especially Internet child por of sex offenders prosecuted, incarcerated, provoke serious public concern (Hanson & nographers, manifests through both increased and placed under federal post-conviction Morton-Bourgon, 2005, 2009). An especially resources directed at law enforcement efforts supervision has risen exponentially since acute concern involves the growing exploita and enhanced sentencing provisions (Faust & the mid-1990s. (Faust & Motivans, 2015; tion of children by online sex offenders who Motivans, 2015). Two primary federal legisla USSC, 2012). In an examination of major use the Internet and related digital technolo tive responses aimed at sex offenders are the trends, Faust and Motivans (2015) reported a gies to possess, distribute, or produce child Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to nearly 1,400 percent increase in the number pornography or contact children for sexual End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of sex offenders on post-conviction federal purposes (Seto, Hanson, & Babchishin, 2011). of 2003 (The PROTECT Act) and the Adam supervision, from 321 offenders in 1994 to Though accounting for a relatively small por Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 4,714 offenders in 2013, and much of this tion of all sex crimes against children, evidence 2006 (The Adam Walsh Act). The PROTECT increase can be attributed to the prosecution shows substantial increases in the number of Act primarily increased mandatory mini of offenders charged with possession, receipt, arrests involving online sexual offenses over mum penalties for child pornography and distribution, or production of child pornog the past ten years (Motivans & Kyckelhan, sexual abuse offenders and provided federal raphy.2 In addition, federal sex offenders are 2007; Wolak, Finkelhor, & Mitchell, 2005, judges with discretion to impose life supervi increasingly being sentenced to lengthy post- 2009). Societal concern over the online sexual sion terms on federal sex offenders (Faust & conviction supervision terms; for example, exploitation of children, along with evidence Motivans, 2015; U.S. Sentencing Commission the United States Sentencing Commission showing that many of these online offenders [USSC], 2012). The Adam Walsh Act gave the (USSC) reported that in fiscal year 2010, the have self-reported histories of contact sexual U.S. Attorney General authority to create a average terms of supervised release sentences offenses (Lam, Mitchell, & Seto, 2010; Seto national registry of convicted sex offenders, imposed ranged from 220 months for offend et al., 2011), has produced aggressive law authorized federal civil commitment for those ers convicted of child pornography possession enforcement responses aimed at targeting sex certified as sexually dangerous, and permitted to 323 months for offenders convicted of offenders at the state and federal levels. the imposition of search conditions for sex child pornography production (USSC, 2012). The federal response to the problem of sex offenders sentenced to federal probation or By contrast, the average term of supervised supervised release (Faust & Motivans, 2015; release imposed on federal offenders generally * Thomas H. Cohen, Social Science Analyst, and USSC, 2012).1 In addition to these legislative in 2010 was about 43 months (USSC, 2012). Michelle Spidell, Probation Administrator, Probation enactments, the U.S. Department of Justice As the number of sex offenders, par and Pretrial Services Office, Administrative Office has established numerous regional task forces ticularly online child pornographers, under of the United States Courts, Washington, DC. The authors would like to thank Laura Baber, Trent and funded specialized units within federal federal post-conviction supervision has Cornish, Christopher Lowenkamp, Stacy Merolla, law enforcement agencies to investigate and and Matthew Rowland for their helpful suggestions prosecute offenders engaging in Internet child 2 Faust and Motivans also noted substantial and comments. This publication benefited from sex crimes (Wolak et al., 2005). increases from the early 1990s in the number of the careful editing of Ellen Fielding. Direct cor As a result of these changes, the number offenders convicted of sexual abuse, sex trafficking, respondence to Thomas H. Cohen, Administrative and violation of the Adam Walsh Act sexual registry Office of the U.S. Courts, One Columbus Circle NE, 1 For additional details about the Walsh and mandates; however, by 2013, child pornography Washington, DC 20544 (email: Thomas_cohen@ PROTECT Acts, see 42 USC §16911 and 18 USC offenders accounted for the largest portion of sex ao.uscourts.gov). §2252. offenders incarcerated within federal prisons. 22 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 80 Number 2 increased, so too have concerns regarding Federal Policy on Supervising the intensity of supervision. The policies whether these offenders have histories of, or Sex Offenders specifically state that all sex offenders should are likely to engage in, offline contact sexual The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts begin their supervision terms being super behavior with children. A recent meta-study —Probation and Pretrial Services Office vised as high risk regardless of the PCRA’s of child pornography offenders conducted (AOUSC-PPSO) has responded to the grow classification. This provides officers with the by Seto et al. (2011) found that about 12 per ing number of sex offenders under federal time to conduct investigations into the extent cent of child pornography offenders had an post-conviction supervision and the concerns of an offender’s sexually deviant background, official arrest or conviction record of contact that many online child pornography offenders observe their responses to treatment, and sexual behavior, but 55 percent disclosed might be involved in offline contact sexual identify any protective factors, all while ensur through self-reporting conducted through offending by issuing guidance for federal offi ing that the offender is being supervised at treatment programs, background investiga cers charged with supervising these offenders. levels intensive enough to protect the com tions, or polygraphs that they had prior sexual Under current policy, the potential threat munity. The policies, however, guide officers contact with children.3 A study of federal child that sex offenders pose to the community to appropriately lower the supervision levels pornography offenders conducted by the U.S. requires them to begin supervision at the of sex offenders if, after this initial investiga Sentencing Commission showed about 33 “highest” levels until the officer has performed tion, the officer determines that less intensive percent of these offenders engaging in some a thorough assessment using all information supervision can address risk while maintain prior form of criminally sexually dangerous available. All offenders placed on supervised ing protection of the community. behavior (USSC, 2012). release after incarceration or sentenced to These studies indicating that many online straight probation4 have their risk to recidivate Prior Research on child pornography offenders are involved in for any offense assessed using the PCRA.5 The Federal Sex and Child contact offending, coupled with substantial PCRA is a dynamic actuarial risk assessment Pornography Offenders caseload growth, raise important questions instrument developed for federal proba Some recently published studies that exam about the overall characteristics of federal tion officers that classifies offenders into the ined recidivism of those convicted of child sex offenders. Key questions have only begun risk levels of low, low/moderate, moderate, pornography and contact sex offenses against to be explored, including what are the most or high (AOUSC, 2011).6 These categories children in the U.S. include studies by the common offense types (e.g., distribution of provide crucial information about an offend U.S. Sentencing Commission (2012) and online child pornography, sexual assault) er’s likelihood of committing any offense Faust et al. (2014). In 2012, the USSC pub under post-conviction supervision, how many or being revoked (AOUSC, 2011; Johnson, lished a report to the U.S. Congress on the have an official arrest or conviction record of Lowenkamp, VanBenschoten, & Robinson, prosecution, sentencing, incarceration, and offline contact sexual behavior, what are their 2011; Lowenkamp, Johnson, VanBenschoten, supervision of offenders convicted of federal general recidivism risk characteristics, and Robinson, & Holsinger, 2013). Importantly, non-production child pornography offenses. how frequently do these offenders reoffend however, the PCRA was not constructed to Part of this report examined the rearrest or get revoked (Bourke & Hernandez, 2009; specifically measure an offender’s sexual devi rates for 610 offenders sentenced to non- DeLisi et al., 2016; Faust, Bickart, Renaud, & ance or predict sexual recidivism (Lowenkamp production child pornography offenses in Camp, 2014; Faust & Motivans, 2015; USSC, et al., 2013). 1999 and 2000. These offenders were tracked 2012). Moreover, there have been no empirical The policies provide