OP-ED | The Sense of Sentencing
by Susan Bigelow | Feb 17, 2012 11:12am
(22) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Opinion
It’s the start of another legislative session, and once again the death penalty is on the table. There’s the same talk about repealing it this year as last, but maybe this time the votes will be there. Now, as then, the repeal effort will likely be driven by the visceral, gut-wrenching horror people feel about the Petit murders, and because of that it’s hard to know what the chances are for repeal.
Why do we cling to the death penalty? Lots of people in Connecticut feel that we should have it, and did even before the Petit murders happened, but why? Is it a deterrent? Justice for victims and their families? Revenge? Something else? Whether the death penalty is actually a deterrent to crime has been a subject of intense debate and scholarly analysis for decades, but there’s never been a real consensus on the issue. Victims’ families are divided, as well; some feel it’s justice, some don’t. That doesn’t leave us with a lot to go on. Some states have abandoned the death penalty altogether, while others continue to execute their citizens through doubt and criticism alike. Connecticut isn’t part of either of those two categories yet, we do sentence people to death here but rarely execute them. Still, I can’t find the meaning it it, and maybe the legislature is finally about to agree.
In less sensational but far more important criminal justice news this week, a report released by the Office of Policy and Management’s Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division showed depressingly high recidivism rates for males released from prison since 2005: “By the 22nd month following their 2005 releases,” the report states, “50 percent of all members of either group [sex offenders and non-sex offenders] had been readmitted to prison for at least one night.” Nearly 80 percent were re-arrested following release, and just over half returned to prison with a new sentence. Interestingly, the report highlighted sex offender recidivism rates, and showed that “...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.” The report adds that “...these low re-offense rates appear to contradict conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates,” before challenging public agencies to determine how dangerous specific offenders are to the public.
All of this suggests a criminal justice system that is in desperate need of thoughtful scrutiny from lawmakers and state agencies. If the recidivism rates are so high, what does that say about the purpose of the system? Are we rehabilitating offenders, or simply punishing them? Does a prison sentence create conditions that lead to more prison sentences? How do we really address this vicious cycle that leads so many released offenders back to prison? This isn’t just a problem in Connecticut, re-arrest rates are this high all over the country. A national conversation about the purpose and effectiveness of our vast, expensive criminal justice and corrections system, which has given our country the highest incarceration rate in the world, is overdue.
Sadly, this kind of attention is probably not forthcoming. The specific data the report presents for sex offenders directly challenges widely-held perceptions about an offender group that has been the target of plenty of political scrutiny and posturing. But politics makes it unlikely that a serious re-evaluation of sentencing and treatment for the different types of offenders within this group will happen any time soon; no politician wants to be seen as soft on sex crime. As for other offenders? Their plight, and its ties to intersections of race, class and economics, isn’t even on our national or state radar.
Which brings us back to the death penalty. Here is a sentence that is rarely assigned and even more rarely carried out in Connecticut, but that’s where the heads of the legislature are at this year. Should the death penalty be repealed? Yes, if only so we can move on to other, better matters. When it comes to criminal justice, we focus on the lurid and the sensational while ignoring the mundane but far more vital questions about the way our system works, and if, in fact, it’s really working at all.
Susan Bigelow is the former owner of CTLocalPolitics and an author. She lives in Enfield with her wife and cats.
Tags: death penalty, sentencing, prison, Susan Bigelow
(22) Comments
posted by: ShanaRowan | February 17, 2012 2:31pm
The system is broken. I read the same study yesterday, and added to the list of recidivism studies on my website, all of which say the same thing: sex offenders have the lowest re-offense rates (for a new sex crime) than any other criminal offender except murderers - yet they are subject the harshest legislation, restrictions, and lifelong punishment post-release. We have this information at our fingertips, and have for some time - yet every day it seems there is a law that is targeting one of the least statistically dangerous group of people. It is mind-boggling and infuriating to see information ignored, simply because it’s not the popular belief.
posted by: dudleysharp | February 17, 2012 4:36pm
The primary reason folks want the death penalty, as with all sanctions, is justice.
In additon, it spares more innocent lives.
Of all human endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty? Unlikely.
1) “The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
http(COLON)//homicidesurvivors(DOT)com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx
2) Opponents in capital punishment have blood on their hands, Dennis Prager, 11/29/05, http(COLON)//townhall(DOT)com/columnists/DennisPrager/2005/11/29/opponents_in_capital_punishment_have_blood_on_their_hands
3) “A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection”, Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
www(DOT)tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | February 17, 2012 8:40pm
The growth of the Department of Corrections is unbelievable.
Formed in 1968 with about 1200 prisoners that exploded to 3800 by 1980 and then 5700 by 1985 and now hovers around 17,500.
I don’t feel safer. I missed the benefits of all this incarceration.
Every state reports the same story: alcohol and drugs.
The first states to actually enact a lower BAC (lower than 0.15%) after the 1964 Grand Rapids Study was New York and Nebraska, which did so in 1972 (.10%). Then MADD and Candy Lightner came along in 1980 and the Federal legislation was passed.
The War on Drugs is well documented.
Mandatory minimum sentences are common. Terms are longer. Records will live on forever on the internet.
Will technology create a police state?
Resistance is futile. Americans’ love their law and order and harsh punishment.
Work with the prison population some time. Ask them if they’d rather serve their 90 days and 3 years of probabation or face medieval or 3rd world punishment adn get caned as in Singapore?
Get out the canes. The lashes. The stocks. The pillories. Get it over in a weekend. And let them move on to the next city where they can start their lives over again.
Use wage garnishment, home arrests. Anything but the corrections system and its spiraling costs which are over 70% personnel costs.
Then there’s the legislation we pass. Jail for verbal hate crimes? Sure. Let’s fill those cells.
posted by: dudleysharp | February 18, 2012 6:29am
About 80% of folks support the death penalty for truly death eligible crimes. Why? Justice, the same foundation of support for all sanctions.
Based upon anecdotal evidence, 95% or greater of those who lost loved ones to murder support the death penalty.
posted by: Fisherman | February 18, 2012 11:04pm
Rehabilitating them?
Ms. Bigelow, have you lost your mind?
Why on earth would you think that it is the responsibility of Connecticut Taxpayers to rehabilitate criminals?
They are being incarcerated as a punishment… not as a re-training exersize.
posted by: Reasonable | February 19, 2012 5:18pm
ShanaRowan: If someone raped your daughter, sister, mother, cousin or niece—perhaps you might not be so remarkably
liberal and understanding and apparently soft, with the punishment a sex criminal should receive.
posted by: ShanaRowan | February 20, 2012 9:19am
@Reasonable: I am sorry if a loved one of yours experienced sexual assault. My goal is to prevent sex crimes, not allow them to go unpunished. I am sorry if you misinterpreted that. However, in order to be effective, we have to be willing to accept facts. Using our emotions as basis for legislation is a bad idea, and is one of the main reasons our current methods of responding to sex crime are so ineffective. Punishing a sex crime, like any other crime, is one thing; the lifelong punishments we inflict on sex offenders unlike any other criminal are another. Not only do they fail to achieve anything other than society’s desire for revenge and retribution, they skew our focus from PREVENTING these crimes in the first place, which should be our goal.
posted by: Reasonable | February 20, 2012 10:57am
ShanaRowan: If your goal is to prevent sex crimes -please address that topic, instead of trying to suggest, lessening the sex-crime punishment—for not really being a major crime?
posted by: dudleysharp | February 20, 2012 11:05am
ShanaRowan:
I think you misundersatand why we sanction.
We sanction based upon justice. For sex crimes isn’t life imprionment an appropriate sanction.
How low does recidivism have to be, for you to say:
“Ok, an additonal 10,000 repeat sex offenders/yr is acceptable.”
More importantly, recidivism rates are based upon re-arrest, not re-offending.
There is a huge difference between the two.
For example, pedophiles, on average, offended aginst 260 chidren during their lifetime and are very rarely arrested or caught per offense.
Even so, 90% are re-arrested.
http://yellodyno.com/Statistics/statistics_child_molester.html
WAKE UP!
posted by: dudleysharp | February 20, 2012 11:11am
From the same link:
• More than 1/2 of all convicted sex offenders are sent back to prison within a year. Within 2 years, 77.9% are back.
- California Department of Corrections
• Recidivism rates range from 18-45%. The more violent the crime the more likelihood of repeating.
- Studies by the state of Washington
• 3 in 10 child victimizers reported that they had committed their crimes against multiple victims: they were more likely than those who victimized adults to have had multiple victims.
- BJS Survey of State Prison Inmates, 1991
• Like rape, child molestation is one of the most underreported crimes: only 1-10% are ever disclosed.
- FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
• The behavior is highly repetitive, to the point of compulsion, rather than resulting from a lack of judgment.
- Dr. Ann Burges, Dr. Nicholas Groth, et al. in a study of imprisoned offenders
posted by: ShanaRowan | February 20, 2012 1:55pm
Dudley: You are correct that the re-offense rates for a diagnosed pedophile convicted of a sex crime against a child are higher than many other sex offenses. Forcible rape is another. However, the majority of sex offenders are not child molesters or rapists. Unfortunately, laws treat them as though they are, which results not only in disproportionate punishments but also in wasted resources. Wouldn’t you rather law enforcement be better equipped to monitor the truly dangerous predators we know about, AS WELL as become better equipped to prevent these crimes from happening in the first place? Since you like stats, here are some for you:
-a quarter of all registered sex offenders are children under 18. (US Dept of Justice)
-Children account for over a third of all “sex crimes” against other children. (US Dept of Justice)
-93-97% of children who are sexually abused are assaulted by people they know with no prior conviction for a sex crime. (US Dept of Justice)
Most major recidivism studies don’t differentiate between the type of offense, which means the higher re-offense rate of a pedophile disappears when averaged in with the very low rates of most other types of sex crimes. I have only been able to find a few studies that do differentiate, which is frustrating, because obviously there are vast differences between types of offenders. Treating them as though they are all the same is not just illogical, but very ineffective. Visit my website for links to all of these studies: www.endsexcrime.org/education.html#recidivism
Reasonable: Again, I am sorry for not communicating my stances very well. I do believe in just punishment for all types of crimes. I simply want to help people see that punishment is not the same as prevention and encourage legislation that includes preventative measures.
posted by: Susan Jane Bigelow | February 20, 2012 3:06pm
Dudleysharp, no one’s suggesting we shouldn’t treat child sex abusers harshly! Far from it. But the report makes clear that there are different kinds of sex offenders who ought to be looked at in different ways.
posted by: Reasonable | February 20, 2012 8:34pm
Susan Jane Bigelow: You are correct in the fact that different kinds of sex offenders ought to be looked at in different was way. The same can be said for different kinds of drug offenders, also.
posted by: dudleysharp | February 20, 2012 8:54pm
Ms. Bigelow:
I am not sure you understood.
Actual reoffense rates are much higher than rearrest or redidivism rates, which are also based upon rearrest or reconviction.
Yes, we should be informed and we should be smart, bit most of all, we need to protect from future harm from the se predators.
More data
http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/Soff_recid.pdf
posted by: ShanaRowan | February 21, 2012 10:02am
Dudley, please read my responses above. You seem to be missing the point. The overwhelming majority of sex offenses have very low re-offense rates. You may think this is a worthy price to pay for “protecting from future harm”, but in fact it severely waters down our ability to discern and manage the relatively few dangerous offenders. Until we are able to accept the massive profile differences between offenders, we will not be protecting anyone.
Recidivism studies: www.endsexcrime.org/education.html#recidivism
posted by: dudleysharp | February 21, 2012 11:41am
Shana:
I read all of your material, that is why I felt the need to inject some reality.
The reoffense rates are much, much higher than you are stating.
First, “Recidivism can be defined as a rearrest, a reconviction, or a return to prison.” (http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/op-ed_the_sense_of_sentencing/)
In other words, they are EXCLUDING the huge numbers of offences for which the sexual offenders are not arrested or convicted.
This is because the CRIMES ARE NOT REPORTED BY THE VICTIMS or the CRIMES FOR WHICH NO CASE CAN BE MADE - - - - - WHICH IS THE MAJORITY OF THE CASES.
SEE THE VERY HIGH RECIDIVISM RAYES BELOW, which EXCLUDES those two categories, which are the majority of the crimes.
Beck and Shipley (1989) estimated the rates of rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration (for
any felonies and serious misdemeanors) of more than 16,000 offenders released from prisons in
11 states in the United States in 1983. Within three years of release, the recidivism rates (for any
reoffense) for rapists were: rearrest = 52 percent, reconviction = 36 percent, and reincarceration
= 32 percent. Rapists were 10.5 times more likely than non-rapists to be rearrested for rape. The
recidivism rates for other (non-rape) sexual assault offenders were: rearrest = 48 percent,
reconviction = 33 percent, and reincarceration = 24 percent.
Broadhurst and Maller (1991) used survival analysis1 to estimate the probability of sex reoffense.
Their sample consisted of 560 male sex offenders (including rapists, child molesters, incest
offenders, and exhibitionists) released for the first time from Western Australian prisons between
1975 and 1987. Recidivism was defined as reincarceration for any new offense and the followup
time was up to 12 years. The recidivism rate was 44 percent for offenders with no prior
offenses, and 72 percent for offenders with one or more prior offenses. The study also found that
young or single offenders were more likely to reoffend than older or married offenders.
posted by: ShanaRowan | February 21, 2012 1:48pm
Alright, I’m going to say this one more time…I already acknowledged the high re-offense rates of pedophiles and rapists. It was one of my first sentences. What you can’t seem to understand is that most convicted sex offenders are neither. Other types of sex offenses have much lower re-offense rates - even the last article you quoted was only referring to rapists and child molesters. I agree these crimes are under-reported, which is precisely the reason we need to focus on prevention rather than lifelong punishment for people who won’t re-offend.
You must know that non-sex crimes have higher re-offense rates, so why aren’t you pushing for lifelong punishment for them as well?
posted by: Reasonable | February 21, 2012 8:14pm
Shana Rowan: Since you continue to agree to disagree—perhaps this subject should be left to the discretion of the judge and jury—where it belongs.
posted by: dudleysharp | February 22, 2012 11:10am
Reasonable:
No.
Shana is trying to make a good point, in that our laws may not be so smart in many circumstances.
We all know that, I believe.
My point was that sex crime reoffending is much, much more common than Shana is stating, because when looking at official recidivism rates, we are, most often, looking at re-arrest or re incarceration rates, WHICH ARE FAR BELOW THE ACTUAL RE-OFFENDING RATES, simply because most sex crimes are not reported.
In other words, true reoffense rates are a huge multiple higher than the official recidivism rates.
She’s definitely right in that we need to be smarter, but was also nee to be accurate and thorough.
posted by: Reasonable | February 22, 2012 2:27pm
dudleysharp: You state, No?—and you agree with Shana Rowan—“We need to be smarter, but also be accurate and thorough.”
Nice words, but you fail to disclose how you would accomplish this prospective scenario?
posted by: ShanaRowan | February 23, 2012 9:27am
Reasonable, it starts with separating our emotions from facts. In one of your above posts, you say I am agreeing to disagree. However, I haven’t disagreed with any of your sentiments about the need to punish crimes, including sex crimes. I am, however, presenting information (not an opinion) that shows us quite clearly that our methods do not work. The longer we allow emotions and anecdotes to govern our laws, the more ineffective they will be at accomplishing their goals.
It starts with changing public opinion, no easy task as demonstrated here. The public continues to fall for the myths presented by the media, law makers and law enforcement. We must raise awareness about the facts and demand lawmakers PAY ATTENTION!
Law reform is precisely what my website is about. There is a lot more information there than I could ever fit here, if you are open to learning. www.endsexcrime.org