Historical Studies of Adult Sexual Offenders: Sexual History Interviews

SMART Office Paper: Chapter 3

As noted above, very few studies focused on juveniles who commit sexual offenses were undertaken prior to the 1980s, and very little attention arguably was paid to this population by juvenile justice policymakers and practitioners. That all began to change, however, when a series of retrospective studies based on sexual history interviews with adult sex offenders was conducted in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

In these studies, adult sex offenders self-reported a significant, previously unidentified history of sexual offending, which included sexual offending as a juvenile. For example, 24 to 75 percent of the adult sex offenders reported committing sexual offenses that were unidentified by authorities and 24 to 36 percent reported sexual offending that began when the respondent was a juvenile. In one of the studies (Longo & Groth, 1983), adult sexual offenders reported a juvenile history of indecent exposure and voyeurism, suggesting that juveniles who commit less severe sex crimes can progress to committing more serious adult sex offenses.

Despite their limitations, these studies played a significant role in shifting policy and practice. Juveniles who commit sexual offenses began to be viewed as budding adult sex offenders, and efforts to intervene with this population began to be based on the assumption that they were fundamentally similar to adults who were engaged in sex offending behavior (see, for example, Groth, 1977; Groth, Longo, & McFadin, 1982; Longo & Groth, 1983; Marshall, Barbaree, & Eccles, 1991). ..Source: SMART Office Study..

---

(All Longo papers are here) ---- And see NY Times 2007 "How Can You Distinguish a Budding Pedophile From a Kid With Real Boundary Problems?"

---

Do tough sex offender restrictions really hurt women and children more than keeping them safe?

8-28-15 National:

The question in the title of this post is prompted by this lengthy new Al-Jazeera America article headlined "Collateral damage: Harsh sex offender laws may put whole families at risk: Research says that registries and residency bans leave children of sex offenders vulnerable to bullying, homelessness." Here are excerpts:

In 1996, Congress passed Megan’s Law, which allowed states to publicize the names of those convicted of sex offenses. A wave of federal and state laws followed that created online sex offender registries, broadened who is listed and restricted where registrants can live.

But today there’s a growing body of research and court opinions questioning those laws’ effectiveness and constitutionality. No studies have looked at what proportion of the country’s nearly 850,000 people on state registries are providing for families of their own. Activists say, however, that thousands of female partners and children are being hurt by laws that aim to protect kids....

Vicki Henry, who runs Women Against the Registry, a group trying to roll back registration and residency laws nationwide, [with] volunteers operate a hotline for family members of registrants seeking help in dealing with the consequences of those laws. They field about 100 calls a month, Henry says.

The only quantitative study to date suggests how serious those consequences may be. In the American Journal of Criminal Justice in January 2009, researchers Jill Levenson and Richard Tewksbury reported on their survey of nearly 600 immediate family members of registrants. More than 20 percent said they had to move out of a rental because their landlord found their relative’s name on the registry, and 40 percent said they found it hard to find an affordable place to live.

Respondents said that their kids didn’t fare well either. Two-thirds reported that their children felt left out of activities because of their parent’s status, more than three-quarters said their children were depressed, and almost half reported that their children were harassed....

Two new qualitative studies provide more backing for the 2009 study findings. From 2010 to 2012, a team of researchers from four universities surveyed almost 450 registrants about the consequences for their families of their being on the list. Their report on the study ran in the October 2014 Justice Policy Journal. Another by two University of Delaware researchers involved surveys last year of 36 family members and interviews with 16 of them; it’s still under review for publication. Both studies asked open-ended questions, so the researchers couldn’t crunch any numbers. But key themes run through the responses — children being shunned and harassed, families struggling to find a place to live, wives losing friends and jobs because a husband is on the list....

Those families may be the collateral damage in a war on sex crimes that’s been underway since passage of Megan’s Law. But it’s far from clear that the chief weapons politicians have employed — registries and residency bans — are helping to protect children or the public.

None of the six studies on sex offender registries conducted between 1995 and 2011 found that registries lowered recidivism, according to a meta-analysis of 20 years of research in the November 2012 Journal of Crime and Justice. “Over the last 15 years, sex offender registries have been established in all empirical forums not to reduce sexual offending behavior, violence, or the number of victims,” Kristen Zgoba, coauthor of that study, wrote in an email.

There’s an even broader consensus on residency restrictions. A U.S. Department of Justice brief released last month concluded that “research has demonstrated that residence restrictions do not decrease and are not a deterrent for sexual recidivism.” And a December 2013 study report in the journal Criminal Justice Policy Review noted that Florida’s residency laws likely play a “significant role” in homelessness and transience among sex offenders.

..Source.. by Sentencing Law and Policy

CSOM: Recidivism of Sex Offenders

May 2001:

Introduction:
The criminal justice system manages most convicted sex offenders with some combination of incarceration, community supervision, and specialized treatment (Knopp, Freeman-Longo, and Stevenson, 1992). While the likelihood and length of incarceration for sex offenders has increased in recent years,1 the majority are released at some point on probation or parole (either immediately following sentencing or after a period of incarceration in prison or jail). About 60 percent of all sex offenders managed by the U.S. correctional system are under some form of conditional supervision in the community (Greenfeld, 1997).

While any offender’s subsequent reoffending is of public concern, the prevention of sexual violence is particularly important, given the irrefutable harm that these offenses cause victims and the fear they generate in the community. With this in mind, practitioners making decisions about how to manage sex offenders must ask themselves the following questions:

• What is the likelihood that a specific offender will commit subsequent sex crimes?
• Under what circumstances is this offender least likely to reoffend?
• What can be done to reduce the likelihood of reoffense?

The study of recidivism—the commission of a subsequent offense—is important to the criminal justice response to sexual offending. If sex offenders commit a wide variety of offenses, responses from both a public policy and treatment perspective may be no different than is appropriate for the general criminal population (Quinsey, 1984). However, a more specialized response is appropriate if sex offenders tend to commit principally sex offenses.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the critical issues in defining recidivism and provide a synthesis of the current research on the reoffense rates of sex offenders. The following sections summarize and discuss research findings on sex offenders, factors and conditions that appear to be associated with reduced sexual offending, and the implications that these findings have for sex offender management. Although studies on juvenile sex offender response to treatment exist, the vast majority of research has concentrated on adult males. Thus, this paper focuses primarily on adult male sex offenders.

... ... ...

Referencing the Graphic above (Prentky Study) found on pg-6:

Conversely, Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce (1997) found that over a 25-year period, child molesters had higher rates of reoffense than rapists. In this study, recidivism was operationalized as a failure rate and calculated as the proportion of individuals who were rearrested using survival analysis (which takes into account the amount of time each offender has been at risk in the community). Results show that over longer periods of time, child molesters have a higher failure rate—thus, a higher rate of rearrest—than rapists (52 percent versus 39 percent over 25 years).

They fail to mention this study is of KNOWN recidivists
in a civil commitment center in Massachusetts.
..Source..PDF by CSOM

---

Note the following from a study "Sex offense recidivism, risk assessment, and the Adam Walsh Act" by Jill Levenson -in part- covering the Prentky study above:

pg-2-3: Sex crime policies are often driven by the belief that the overwhelming majority of sex offenders will reoffend. Sex offense recidivism statistics are frequently declared in legislative preambles without citing a source, and even when properly attributed, statistics are sometimes misinterpreted or misrepresented. For example, in the Alaska case of Smith v. Doe in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Megan’s Law, the opinion cited the reported findings of a study funded by the National Institute of Justice (Prentky, Knight, & Lee, 1997). While the 25-year recidivism rate of 115 predatory child molesters in that study was cited as 52%, it is important to note that this was a projected, not actual, recidivism rate.

As the authors explained on p. 11 of the article, the reported 52% recidivism rate describes the estimated probability that this particular sample of child molesters would “survive” in the community without being charged, convicted, or imprisoned for a sexual offense over a 25-year period. In actuality, 32% of the child molesters in the sample reoffended, and they did so relatively quickly – within 4 years. Ray Knight, one of the authors of the NIJ study, stated in a recent email correspondence to this writer: “There are several things about the ‘97 study that are important to mention. First, the sample is a civilly committed one. The recidivism rates for those referred to the Treatment Center for evaluation and released are significantly lower (see Knight & Thornton, 2007:) ..Source..

---

Who will the sex-offenders registry protect?

12-29-2004 Canada:

Society has always held a particular sense of revulsion toward sex offenders. Unfortunately, Canada's government, charged with the duty of protecting its people, is more ambivalent about sexual crimes and, until recently, had done little to diminish the risk sexual offenders pose to society once they are released from custody.

On Dec. 15 -- after more than a decade of lobbying by police officers, the provinces and victims' rights groups -- a national sex offender registration system finally became a reality.

A national database will allow police to track the whereabouts of convicted sex offenders once released from prison. Within 15 days of being released from jail, offenders will be required to provide local police with a current address, phone number, fingerprints, photographs and information on identifying body marks. This information, and their criminal records, will be registered and updated on an annual basis or when they move.

The good news is that this is a significant step forward in enabling police to rapidly locate likely suspects in a specific area when a sex crime has been committed or a child has been abducted. Locating potential offenders quickly is a critical factor when children go missing: It is estimated that 44% of children who are abducted for sexual assault and then killed are dead within one hour, 74% within three hours, and 91% within 24 hours.

The bad news is that the registry may be too little, too late. Because of some inherent flaws, it won't be able to reach its full potential as a tool for public protection.

How Likely Are Sex Offenders to Repeat Their Crimes?

1-24-2008 National:

In debates over laws monitoring released sex offenders, it’s common to hear claims that they’re sure to commit more sex crimes. “‘What we’re up against is the kind of criminal who, just as soon as he gets out of jail, will immediately commit this crime again at least 90 percent of the time,” a California legislator told the New York Times in 1996. (Other examples of such rhetoric are collected here.) Fox News — like the Wall Street Journal owned by News Corp. — said of child molesters in 2005, “Not only are they almost certain to continue sexually abusing children, but some eventually kill their young victims.”

But as my print column this week points out, the numbers don’t bear this out. Recidivism rates vary widely depending on which crimes are counted, the timeframe of the studies, and whether repeat offenses are defined by convictions, arrests, or self-reporting. But even the author of a widely published report suggesting a recidivism rate of 52%, Wisconsin psychologist Dennis Doren, told me of the notion that all sex criminals are likely to re-offend, “There is no research support for that view, period.” Dr. Doren, evaluation director at the Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center in Mauston, Wisc., added, “You’re not talking to a bleeding-heart kind of guy here.”

Undetected Recidivism among Rapists and Child Molesters

Crime & Delinquency July 1982:

Abstract:
Although recidivism among dangerous sexual offenders is generally reported to be low, clinical experience suggests otherwise. In order to assess the actual recidivism rate of offenders who commit sexual assaults, we administered to a sample of eighty-three convicted rapists and fifty-four convicted child molesters an anonymous questionnaire in which they were asked a series of questions pertaining to their history of sexual offenses. The results indicate that the majority of the offenders had been convicted more than once for a sexual assault. Furthermore, on average, they admitted to having committed two to five times as many sex crimes for which they were not apprehended. This study suggests that dangerous sex offenders usually commit their first sexual assault during adolescence, and that they persist in this criminal behavior, but that the offense has low visibility. For this reason recidivism, as judged by rearrests, is not a dependable measure of rehabilitation of the sexual offender.

---

Study Sample:
Our sample of offenders was drawn from two different populations: men who were convicted of sexual assault but were committed to a security treatment center for rehabilitation before sentencing, the North Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center in Gainesville; and men who were serving time for a sexual assault in a maximum security prison, the Connecticut Correctional Institution at Somers.

The subjects for this study not only come from different regions of the country, but also were in two different types of settings: one a mental health facility designed exclusively for sexual offenders, and the other a traditional correctional facility in which the sexual offenders were housed in the general population with other adult male felons.

Underreporting Clouds Attempt to Count Repeat Sex Offenders

January 2008:

Conventional wisdom says people released after serving time for sex crimes are likely to strike again. The numbers aren't as certain.

Among convicted criminals released from prison, sex offenders released from prison are less likely to be arrested for any new crime than most other offenders, with the notable exception of murderers, researchers say. Child molesters' rate of recidivism is at least as low as the group of sex offenders taken as a whole. Abusers of children within their own family have a lower rate still.

"The observed rate of sexual offenders' recidivism is much lower than commonly believed," says R. Karl Hanson, senior research officer at Public Safety Canada, who has studied the issue for decades. When he speaks to groups, including police officers or therapists, and asks them to estimate the observed rate of sex-crime re-offense, he typically hears numbers such as 70% to 90%. But his review of available research in Canada and the U.S. finds the typical rate is 25% to 30% over 20 years.

One reason for the numerical confusion may be that supporters of sex-offender registries who say sex offenders are more likely than not to re-offend are considering the rate of repeat sex offenses of sex criminals compared with the rate of sex offenses of prisoners released for other crimes. Sex criminals are less likely to be arrested for another crime of any type, but they commit more sex crimes than other groups of criminals. (In general, criminals are more likely to commit crimes in their category than are criminals from other categories.)

All these numbers need to be approached with some skepticism. There also are time limitations to many of the studies, which typically stop tracking the rate of repeat offenses after just three to five years. Pooling all sex crimes together also muddles the picture, as different types of criminals -- say, rapists, child molesters, exhibitionists -- show very different behavior after release from prison. And looming over all of this is the unknown of what proportion of sex crimes go unreported -- particularly within families, a major source of child sexual abuse.

Tracking outcomes for years after release is expensive and slow to show results. The Bureau of Justice Statistics has the most thorough recent U.S. study, covering more than 9,000 male sex offenders released in 15 states in 1994. The study found that sex criminals were less likely to be reconvicted over the following three years than the group of all released prisoners -- 24% compared with 47%. Child molesters had a lower rate, of 20.4%.

The study hasn't been updated, says co-author Matthew Durose, a statistician with the bureau, because "given the time required to collect criminal history information from offenders, it's not something that can be done on a more regular basis." As a result, there are little data measuring the effect of the past decade's spate of state measures, such as sex-offender registries and laws keeping convicted sex offenders a certain distance from schools.

Also, a short period of follow-up -- such as the three years of the U.S. government study -- is especially susceptible to unreported crimes, Dr. Hanson says.

Counting crimes that go unreported is, of course, paradoxical. One approach is to extrapolate a true crime rate from victimization surveys and compare that with reported crime, typically finding that roughly 90% of sex crimes go unreported. Some put the estimate even higher.

Lifetime Sex Offender Recidivism: A 25-Year Follow-Up Study

October 2004:

See criticism of this study by R. Hanson.

Abstract:
Recidivism risk is an important component of criminal justice and correctional planning, especially when it comes to sex offenders who may pose physical danger to others. The current study assessed the recidivism rate of 320 sex offenders and 31 violent non-sex offenders over a 25 year follow-up period.

Participants were sex offenders referred for psychiatric treatment by the court, police, probation services, defense lawyers, or mental health professionals between 1966 and 1974. The comparison group was comprised of the 31 violent non-sex offenders. Recidivism data were drawn in 1994 and 1999 from the RCMP database and from hospital records (Civil commitment patients. Accordingly, results not to be applied to all sex offenders. eAdvocate see other criticisms below]).

Results of statistical analyses indicated that approximately 3 out of 5 sex offenders were re-convicted of a sexual offense during the 25 year follow-up. When all offenses were considered, including non-sex offenses, four out of five sex offenders recidivated during the follow-up period.

Child sexual abusers and exhibitionists were most likely to re-offend, while incest offenders were the least likely to re-offend. The findings reveal that sex offense recidivism remains a problem over a significant part of a sex offender’s adult life.

Correctional planning for sex offenders should include actuarial measures of risk, although they should be used with caution until more long-term studies of recidivism risk among this population can be carried out. Tables, notes, references ..Source.. by Ron Langevin ; Suzanne Curnoe ; Paul Fedoroff ; Renee Bennett ; Mara Langevin ; Cheryl Peever ; Rick Pettica ; Shameen Sandhu ---- Full copy here

A sample of 320 sex offenders and 31 violent non-sex offenders, seen for psychiatric assessment between 1966 and 1974, were compared retrospectively on lifetime recidivism rates to 1999 over a minimum of 25 years.

A number of criteria and data sources were used; RCMP records and hospital records were the best sources, albeit the RCMP had records for only 54.1% of the cases. Approximately three in five offenders reoffended, using sex reoffence charges or convictions or court appearances as criteria, but this proportion increased to more than four in five when all offences and undetected sex crimes were included in the analysis.

Group differences in recidivism were noteworthy, with child sexual abusers and exhibitionists most likely to reoffend and incest offenders least likely. Time at large and time incarcerated played a relatively minor role overall in results, except in the case of offenders who were sexually aggressive against adult females, courtship disordered, or violent.

The typical known criminal career spanned almost two decades, indicating that sex offence recidivism remained a problem over a significant part of the offenders' adult lives.

---

---

---

Myth: Sex offenders have a 94 percent recidivism rate

Proponents of tough sanctions against sex offenders often cite a Canadian study published in 2004, “Lifetime Sex Offender Recidivism: A 25 year Follow-Up Study,” led by Canadian researcher Ron Langevin. The authors looked at 320 Canadian sex offenders referred to a single clinic for psychiatric evaluations between 1966 and 1974, when treatment programs for this group were uncommon. The report used an unusual definition of a recidivist as someone who had committed two or more sex crimes in their lifetime, even crimes they did before researchers began to follow them.

Langevin reported a 61.1 percent sex crime recidivism rate, including 51.1 percent for incest. The researchers also tabulated confessions the offenders made during counseling and new arrests that failed to bring convictions. Adding those presumed crimes to actual convictions increased the overall sexual recidivism rate to 88.3 percent, including 84.2 percent for incest. Measured this way, molesters of young children outside their own family had an even higher rate, 94.1 sex crime recidivism over 25 years. To this writer’s knowledge, that is the highest reported rate in any of the hundreds of existing recidivism studies. It underlies much of the widespread belief that all sex offenders are incurable and unrepentant.

Critics of Langevin claim his cohort was the worst of the worst offenders. Canadian researcher Karl Hanson has called it a nonrandom sample chosen for evaluations in connection with major prosecutions, civil commitment proceedings or insanity defense cases. This group also came under scrutiny in a different era when sex offender treatment programs were rare and experimental. The ensuing revolution in child protection and sex abuse prosecution over half a century has swollen American prison populations of sex offenders by fifty- and a hundred-fold. The group in prison now is arguably less prone to recidivism than members of the Langevin study.

Canadian researcher Cheryl Webster and colleagues have called the Langevin study so flawed it lacks any scientific integrity. In a rebuttal entitled “Results by Design: The Artefactual Construction of High Recidivism Rates for Sex Offenders,” Webster said more than half the individuals in the sample were already recidivists by Langevin’s definition at the time of their evaluations, thus ensuring at least a 50 percent recidivism rate. In the rest of the literature on criminology and in the popular press, recidivism generally means a new crime committed after release from prison.

Webster noted the Langevin sample was much larger at first. His team removed any people from the study whose criminal records had been lost or purged from the justice system after 15 years for lack of new crimes or charges. In effect, the scientists deleted most of the non-recidivists and thereby skewed the recidivism rate. In a reply to his critics, Langevin cautioned against making claims about all sex offenders based on this sample. He defended his definition of recidivism as one of many legitimate ways to measure it.

Those promoting tough sex offender laws rely as well on a 1997 study led by Robert Prentky. His group looked at 136 rapists and 115 child molesters released from the Bridgewater sex offender civil commitment center in Massachusetts between 1959 and 1986. The sexual recidivism rates based on new sexual charges were 32 percent for molesters and 25 percent for rapists. But the length of time the men were free in the community varied widely. If all had been at large the full 25 years covered in the study, the authors estimated the sexual recidivism rates would have been 52 percent for molesters and 39 percent for rapists.

This research dates from the same period as the Langevin findings and looked at a narrow sample of men already adjudicated to be an acute risk to reoffend. The average rapist had 2.5 sex crimes on his record before the crime that sent him to Bridgewater. The child molesters averaged 3.6 sex offenses prior to the crime that triggered civil commitment. Using Lengevin’s method, the recidivism rates for both groups would have been nearly 100 percent. The Prentky researchers concluded, “The obvious, marked heterogeneity of sexual offenders precludes automatic generalization of the rates reported here to other samples.” ..Source..

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions and Sex Offender Legislation: Evidence of Evidence-Based Policy

2013 National:

In the past two decades, the federal government and states have enacted a wide range of new laws that target sex offenders. A series of U.S. Supreme Court cases has addressed the constitutionality of such legislation and, in so doing, contributed to the current policy landscape.

The Court’s influence is noteworthy in part because of the calls during this same time period for evidence-based policy. Does the influence, however, reflect not only the legal considerations that necessarily attend to these cases but also an accurate and balanced assessment of social science theory and research?

We address this question by examining Supreme Court cases from 1991 to 2011 involving sex crime laws. The findings indicate that the Court demonstrates an awareness of scientific research by referencing it in almost all decisions involving sex offender legislation, yet the Court frequently overstates or misinterprets empirical findings. Implications for research and policy are discussed. ..Source.. by CHRISTINA MANCINI* & DANIEL P. MEARS**

Special Report: Misquoting of Prentky's 1997 Long Term Recidivism Study: Affecting a MAJOR US Supreme Court Decision.

This is a paper first published in 2005, on eAdvocate's now defunct "News & Noteworthy: Articles Concerning Sex Offender Issues" website, and now brought forward and adjusted for Blog format.

June 2005:
Misquoting and Misapplying Prentky Statistics
THE CLAIM: Many folks claim that after 25 years sex offenders' recidivism is 52% for child molesters and 39% for rapists, and they cite Prentky 1997.

THE PROBLEM: Many folks are misquoting and misapplying R.A. Prentky's 1997 long term recidivism study and its findings to ALL sex offenders when those recidivism rates should ONLY apply to folks released from Massachusetts' civil commitment center back when Prentky was Director of that civil commitment center.

THE CAUSE: Whn folks cite stats they fail to recognize who Prentky is [was], and who his study subjects were, and are unaware of the Prentky's caution about misapplying the study findings. Prentky himself failed to carry forward his own caution from one study to his next study, which affected and may have inadvertently mislead the US Supreme court in
Smith et al. v. Doe et al. 538 U.S. 84 (2003). The main sex offender case cited even today.

Who is R.A. Prentky? Dr. Prentky was Chief Psychologist and Director of Research at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons (MTC) from 1980 until 1993. (pg-45 footnote 45) ... In July, 1997, Dr. Prentky returned to the Massachusetts Treatment Center as Director of Assessment. MTC is the state's civil commitment center. All of Prentky's study subjects are persons who had already committed many sex offenses causing their commitment to MTC, and then were released. Prentky published four studies in 1997 based on MTC subjects.

(see below Prentky's 1997 Studies-A, B, C, and D).
(C and D is where the confusion occurred)

POINT-1: Confusion Caused by Study-C and Study-D:
When Prentky published Study-C he had just finished Study-D, but it was not yet published. See his comment in Study-C [excerpt p-11] where, in footnote 28, Prentky mentions Study-D.

POINT-2: Study-D Prentky Caution Missing from Study-C:
Now, notice Prentky's closing WARNING about the findings of Study-D: "We would like to conclude with two important caveats. The obvious, marked heterogeneity of sexual offenders precludes automatic generalization of the rates reported here to other samples." This comment was not included in Footnote 28 of Study-C.

Accordingly, anyone who reads Study-C will never know they SHOULD NOT apply its findings to anyone but sex offenders released from civil commitment centers. This has caused many to misquote the study and its statistics. See below for a shock as to who has misquoted these two studies.

US Supreme court in Smith et al. v. Doe et al. 538 U.S. 84 (2003): The court's opinion cited Study-C which is missing Prentky's WARNING:

"Empirical research on child molesters, for instance, has shown that, "[c]ontrary to conventional wisdom, most reoffenses do not occur within the first several years after release," but may occur "as late as 20 years following release." National Institute of Justice, R. Prentky, R. Knight, & A. Lee, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Child Sexual Molestation: Research Issues 14 (1997)."

Accordingly, the court, while speaking of ALL sex offenders in society, incorrectly applied recidivism statistics which Prentky's WARNING (only found in Study-D) said not to do!

In the Smith case, according to the court's docket, several amicus curiae briefs were filed for the court to consider. Now, while I could not find all of those briefs I did find two that are relevant: Brief filed by the US Solicitor Generals office and one by The State of California, Attorney Generals office (for Attorney Generals of 43 other states), links below.

Those two briefs represent the findings, after review of the evidence and studies quoted, of over 40 lawyers. They quote from Study-D which contains the Prentky WARNING: "We would like to conclude with two important caveats. The obvious, marked heterogeneity of sexual offenders precludes automatic generalization of the rates reported here to other samples.

It is shocking that so many would ignore Prentky's WARNING and infer that those statistics represent what ALL sex offenders in society are like. Remember, Prentky's words, WARNING that his statistics are not applicable to the overall class of sex offenders!

Sex Crime Statistics: What do we know about the alleged High Court's Crucial Mistake?

8-21-15 National:

Recently I've received e-mails about a new paper addressing 2003 Smith v Doe, one of two sex offender cases from 2003, and which did rely in part on 2002 McKune v Lile. Supposedly this new essay found a way to challenge 2002 McKune v Lile's belief that sex offenders have a high recidivism rate. If that were possible then 2003 Smith v Doe would be in trouble as well. i.e.,cut the roots and the tree will fall.

While I hadn't heard of essay authors before, but I am always open to new work and ideas. Given my past research on both cases above I was interested in reviewing this essay. I had high hopes this was the Golden Egg. So this is a review of their Essay:

The Supreme Court’s Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics

I recognized the paper because it was also on SSRN, but the version sent to me was different. So for clarity sake: paper on SSRN is Version-B ('Frightening and High': The Supreme Court’s Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics), version sent to me is Version-A (The Supreme Court’s Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics)(Links provided). Titles slightly different, inside looks different as well so my review is of Version-A only.

Sex offender recidivism is always an issue, it has been in the past and will continue to be in the future. Sex offender recidivism is high or low depends on the research paper one reviews; how it is measured can vastly effect percentages. Recidivism is a measurement of the success or failure of past social, rehabilitative and law enforcement programs.

Reading Version-A, I didn't get two paragraphs in and knew something was amiss. The authors haven't fact checked well, the pieces of information they found and complain of. Essay Authors say the claims of high recidivism in 2003 Smith v Doe came from its reliance on a case from a year earlier 2002 McKune v Lile. (Smith did cite McKune but..?) Further that, what appears to be support for McKune is not really authority. Then blame the 2002 Solicitor General for submitting, as authority for high recidivism a certain document containing a quote (estimating recidivism (up to 80%)) made by Freeman-Longo. Authors say, Freeman-Longo (source of comment) is not qualified to make such a comment. Further, that is the ONLY support in McKune for the premise of High Recidivism.

Using Version-A Essay authors provide a link to the document complained of "a 1988 Justice Department “Practitioner’s Manual", opening the document the real name is "A Practitioner's Guide To Treating the Incarcerated Male Sex Offender." (TPG) OK, we begin here:

Verbatim from Essay Version-A:

A "Statistic" With No Support
McKune provides just one citation for its much-quoted statement: a 1988 Justice Department “Practitioner’s Manual”. That reference likely came from the amicus brief supporting Kansas filed by the Solicitor General, then Ted Olson, which also cites it. This Practitioner’s Guide itself provides but one source for the claim, but it’s no scientific study. It’s a 1986 article from Psychology Today, a mass market magazine aimed at a lay audience, which had this sentence: “Most untreated sex offenders released from prison go on to commit more offenses–indeed, as many as 80% do.” Freeman-Longo, R., & Wall, R, Changing a lifetime of sexual crime, Psychology Today (1986).

That sentence is a bare assertion with no supporting reference. Nor did its author have the scientific credentials needed to qualify at trial as an expert on recidivism. He was a counselor, not a scholar, and the article containing the sentence isn’t about recidivism statistics. It’s about a counseling program for sex offenders he then ran in an Oregon prison. His unsupported assertion about the recidivism rate for untreated sex offenders was offered to contrast with his equally unsupported assertion about the lower recidivism rate for those who complete his program..

CORRECTION 8-26 9AM: Thanks to a reader.
The TPG did come from the Amicus Brief file by Solicitor General (see SG brief at link pg-3 note 2). However, although the TPG does point to a Psychology Today article on pgs-49 and 188. The full articles were never submitted as part of the case. Further that, the alleged wording of the comment shown by Essay Authors as coming from the Psychology Today article is different from what appears in the TPG. see TPG 44 and 219. The real source is found on pg-117 and 122 which cites a recidivism study authored by Freeman-Longo and two other folks.

Absent some form of skullduggery, I don't think it matters much who submitted any specific source, whats important is, did the Justices complain about sources? If not, and I'm sure they are very intelligent folks, they accepted, reviewed, and worked sources into their decision, or simply ignored sources; that is what I've seen reading cases over time.

Now, McKune was a case about in prison sex offender treatment, the Practitioner's Guide is about sex offender treatment and more, correct for McKune. Likely why Justices considered the Guide. I fail to see how the Guide could be considered inappropriate for McKune. Then I see the Freeman-Longo name, I recognize it, he is one of the oldest researchers of sex offender topics and recidivism, he has published dozens of papers over the years. ex: "Revisiting Megan's Law and Sex Offender Registration: Prevention or Problem" Robert E. Freeman-Longo, MRC, LPC for one of his many papers.

Moving on.

A Look INSIDE the 1988 Practitioners Guide:

We opened the link provided by Essay authors, inside we found:
"A Practitioner's Guide To Treating the Incarcerated Male Sex Offender." (TPG)."
Who created it: National Institute of Corrections, Raymond C. Brown, Director, John E. Moore, Project Manager.

In the Preface of the TPG we find this:
"Although there are a number of problems in using recidivism rates to measure program success in any area, the rate of recidivism of treated sex offenders is fairly consistently estimated to be around 15%. According to Robert Freeman-Longo, Clinical Director of the Oregon State Hospital Sex Offender Treatment Program, the recidivism rate of untreated offenders is around 80%. Even if both of these figures are exaggerated, there would still be a significant difference between treated and untreated individuals."

The (undated) comment the Essay Authors question.
However it is inserted by the creators of the TPG in 1988.

Next look at "About the Authors" page, nine folks are shown, most with PhDs. All credible folks and their backgrounds are explained, too much information to include here. see TPG.

Now very important from TPG page 117:

A measure of a treatment program's effectiveness is, of course, the reoffense rate of its graduates. The problems of detecting recidivism in sex offenders are frequently mentioned in the literature of the field and are well documented in a study by Groth, Longo, and McFadin (1982). In the few studies available, there is some evidence that the highest rate of known repeated offenses occurs within the first two years of release from a correctional facility (Christiansen, Elers-Nielson, Lamaire, & Sturup, 1965; Soothill & Gibbens, 1978).

Note: Groth, A.N., Longo, R.E., & McFadin, B. (1982) Undetected recidivism among rapists & child molesters. Crime and Delinquency, 28 (3), pp. 450-458. ( Groth reported that 60% to 80% of adult offenders admitted that they had begun their deviant sexual behaviors as adolescents. (Source: pg-179 of Offenders: Characteristics and Treatment by Judith V. Becker) -- ( A significant portion of sexual crimes are committed by juveniles; research indicates that as much as 80% of adult sexual offenders committed sexual crimes as juveniles. citing Groth et al, Undetected recidivism among rapists, and child molesters. Crime and Delinquency, 1982; 128: 450-458. [Source: Mandated Treatment Programs for Juvenile Sexual Offenders]) -- See also other Freeman-Longo papers

There is no doubt "A Practitioner's Guide To Treating the Incarcerated Male Sex Offender (TPG)" is about treatment, recidivism, aftercare and more! All necessary to issues of McKune. In fact, if we look at pages 7, 65, 117, 139, 220-224 we will see several recidivism papers w/authors and recidivism rates shown.

Now we see a problem, Essay authors say they found the 80% comment in a 1986 paper from Psychology Today (and it may be there ?), reality is, a 80% comment is in the TPG Preface /viii, 44, 219. Based on what we found, the creators of the TPG put an undated 80% comment in when they created the TPG, and their source (embedded in the TPG) is 1982 research authored by Freeman-Longo and two other folks. Is it possible that Essay authors failed to find this in the TPG?

The TPG Guide (loaded w/information related to treatment, recidivism and more, issues of McKune) is relevant to McKune Moving on..

---

Now the actual McKune decision (click link and scroll down to the following):

Sex offenders are a serious threat in this Nation. In 1995, an estimated 355,000 rapes and sexual assaults occurred nationwide. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sex Offenses and Offenders 1 (1997) (hereinafter Sex Offenses); U.S. Dept. of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States, 1999, Uniform Crime Reports 24 (2000). Between 1980 and 1994, the population of imprisoned sex offenders increased at a faster rate than for any other category of violent crime. See Sex Offenses 18. As in the present case, the victims of sexual assault are most often juveniles. In 1995, for instance, a majority of reported forcible sexual offenses were committed against persons under 18 years of age. University of New Hampshire, Crimes Against Children Research Center, Fact Sheet 5; Sex Offenses 24. Nearly 4 in 10 imprisoned violent *3333 sex offenders said their victims were 12 or younger. Id., at iii.

When convicted sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault. See id; at 27; U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983, p. 6 (1997). States thus have a vital interest in rehabilitating convicted sex offenders.

Therapists and correctional officers widely agree that clinical rehabilitative programs can enable sex offenders to manage their impulses and in this way reduce recidivism. See U.S. Dept. of Justice, Nat. Institute of Corrections, A Practitioner's Guide to Treating the Incarcerated Male Sex Offender xiii (1988) ("[T]he rate of recidivism of treated sex offenders is fairly consistently estimated to be around 15%," whereas the rate of recidivism of untreated offenders has been estimated to be as high as 80%. "Even if both of these figures are exaggerated, there would still be a significant difference between treated and untreated individuals").

Apparently the McKune Justices accepted for review several research papers by different authors (Depart of Justice, etc.) obviously relevant to the issues under consideration in McKune. True, the "Practitioner's Guide" is included, but, it is NOT the only authority the court relied on. There would be no point in even mentioning the other studies if they had nothing to do with recidivism of sex offenders and played no part in McKune's decision. Justices had no problem accepting them. So, did "McKune provides just one citation" as Essay authors suggest, or did McKune review other research shown as well? Essay authors fail to mention or address any of the other research. WHY?

Clearly the McKune court did not rely solely on the Practitioner's Guide.

---

What did Justice Kennedy actually say: What was his source for his strong language?

Verbatim cite from Essay Version-A:

"Frightening and High"
McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 33 (2002) rejected, 5-4, Robert Lile’s claim that Kansas violated his 5th Amendment rights by punishing him for refusing to complete a form detailing prior sexual activities that might constitute an uncharged criminal offense for which he could then be prosecuted. The form was required for participants in a prison therapy program; refusing to join the program meant permanent transfer to a higher security unit where he would live among the most dangerous inmates and lose significant privileges, including the right to earn the minimum wage for his prison work and send his earnings to his family. Justice Kennedy explained the treatment program helped identify the traits that caused “such a frightening and high risk of recidivism” among sex offenders—a rate he said “has been estimated to be as high as 80%.”

Verbatim from actual Kennedy Opinion:

"Therapists and correctional officers widely agree that clinical rehabilitative programs can enable sex offenders to manage their impulses and in this way reduce recidivism. See U.S. Dept. of Justice, Nat. Institute of Corrections, A Practitioner’s Guide to Treating the Incarcerated Male Sex Offender xiii (1988) (“[T]he rate of recidivism of treated sex offenders is fairly consistently estimated to be around 15%,” whereas the rate of recidivism of untreated offenders has been estimated to be as high as 80%."

When Kennedy used the phrase "frightening and high risk of recidivism" his source appears to be the Practitioner's Guide (underlined above) his comment follows where the opinion shows sources before the court. Had he read the TPG?

Remember, we now know the real source of the 80% comment, research study from 1982 by Freeman-Longo and two other researchers: Groth, A.N., Longo, R.E., & McFadin, B. (1982) Undetected recidivism among rapists & child molesters. Crime and Delinquency, 28 (3), pp. 450-458. Found when we opened the TPG.

---

Pre-Qualification of documents (and comments inserted in them) submitted in court cases:

Verbatim cite from Essay Version-A:

This Practitioner’s Guide itself provides but one source for the claim, but it’s no scientific study. It’s a 1986 article from Psychology Today, a mass market magazine aimed at a lay audience, which had this sentence: “Most untreated sex offenders released from prison go on to commit more offenses–indeed, as many as 80% do.” Freeman-Longo, R., & Wall, R, Changing a lifetime of sexual crime, Psychology Today (1986).

That sentence is a bare assertion with no supporting reference. Nor did its author have the scientific credentials needed to qualify at trial as an expert on recidivism. He was a counselor, not a scholar, and the article containing the sentence isn’t about recidivism statistics. It’s about a counseling program for sex offenders he then ran in an Oregon prison. His unsupported assertion about the recidivism rate for untreated sex offenders was offered to contrast with his equally unsupported assertion about the lower recidivism rate for those who complete his program.

Here Essay authors have missed a very important fact, while a Freeman-Longo comment may very well be in the 1986 Psychology Today article, that article was never submitted to the McKune court, nor is it mentioned in any of the Justices opinions.

The Freemand-Longo comment is actually in the Preface of "A Practitioner's Guide To Treating the Incarcerated Male Sex Offender" put there by NIC when they created the Guide. The comment comes from 1982 research by Freeman-Longo: Groth, A.N., Longo, R.E., & McFadin, B. (1982) Undetected recidivism among rapists & child molesters. Crime and Delinquency, 28 (3), pp. 450-458. NIC support is found on pg-117 of th TPG. See my earlier review of the contents of the TPG. Again, how did Essay authors miss this?.

Essay authors missed the real source of the 80% comment, 3 places in TPG, and who knows when Freeman-Longo said that to NIC, and even that is not important because the TPG Guide pg-117 shows the real source, a 1982 recidivism study authored by Freeman-Longo and two other researchers.

This is the strangest set of facts ever, pre-qualifying documents submitted for court consideration. Courts would shut down if they had to do this for everything submitted in a case. Every person mentioned or quoted (NIC quotes Freeman-Longo in their TPG), in a document submitted in a case, if what they said was relevant to the issue of the case, must be pre-qualified as a EXPERT on that issue, OR, the document cannot be submitted.

So EXPERTS testifying on some point, must have a job related to what the are testifying to, the day they testify. So people who are EXPERTS one day, if they change their job say to another field, can no longer testify as an EXPERT as they did in the past?

Freemam-Longo comment tucked into the TPG by the National Institute of Corrections, along with other valid studies cited and accepted in the McKune opinion, resulted in a LATER BELIEF -OR- CONSTRUCTION of McKune that sex offenders have a high recidivism rate when untreated? While McKune eludes to that belief, as do other courts, before and since, the question remains what is the source?

Other courts cite "High Recidivism of Sex Offenders" without the TPG document: See Doe v Pataki 120 F.3d 1263 (1997); Doe v Bredesen 507 F.3d 998 (2007); Simonson v Hepp 549 F.3d 1101 (2008); US v McLaurin 731 F.3d 258 (2013).

Now, two other resources appear in both McKune and Smith, which have been cited as sources for "High Recidivism of Sex Offenders" by other courts:
---Sex Offenses and Offenders 1997 and
---Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983,
See US v Dean 604 F.3d 1275 (2010); US v Beier 490 F.3d 572 (2007); Jones v Murray 962 F.2d 302 (1992). ("When convicted sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault").

Neither of these sources were even addressed by Essay authors, yet they were listed as resources in both McKune and Smith.

There is no way TODAY to say McKune relied on "A statistic with no support."

---

Finally: Along comes 2003 and TWO chances to change the lingering court's belief about high recidivism rates of sex offenders.

The TWO cases came up for decision in March of 2003; SMITH v. DOE (Brief OSG) and CONNECTICUT DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY v. DOE (Briefs OSG). Yes 2003 Smith v Doe diid cite McKune for the -still lingering belief/construction- that sex offenders have a high recidivism rate when untreated. Far too many folks forget McKune was about -in prison therapy- and not specifically recidivism; recidivism was merely part of the discussion of treated and untreated offender.

(Note: If 2003 Smith v Doe relied on a portion of McKune, that doesn't mean there is any problem with McKune. Whatever is appropriate for one may or may not be appropriate for the other.) And other things happened in 2003, in Smith, with respect to research about recidivism rates. That is covered in another 2005 paper.

Now, BEHIND the scenes in 2003 the Dep't of Justice was getting ready to publish NEWER sex offender statistics, new recidivism rates. Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994. One wonders what the Bureau of Justice process is when it is getting ready to publish a new study. Granted that study is the largest of its kind ever done, which included following all sex offender released in 1994, over 9,000 offenders for three years. When did the process actually begin and end? As best I can figure there was an overlap in the process and the 2003 cases coming up through the courts.

Unfortunately the DOJ didn't publish that study until November of 2003; too late for the high court to review and set the record straight. Is there any chance any of the lawyers -in 2003 cases- knew about this new recidivism study coming? We will never know.

When I heard about this new Essay I really had hopes someone did find an answer to overturn many of these laws, but as I point out above, there is much more work to get to, and holes to close. My hopes are still that someone will find a way, someday.

eAdvocate

The END!

---

Will the sex offender registry ever reach 20-30-40 millions names?

8-11-15 National:

Yes if lawmakers continue to criminalize juveniles!

Lawmakers spend more time trying to criminalize teenage sexual behaviors than they do trying to resolve issues related to known juvenile sexual behaviors. Why do lawmakers fail to cite the following statistics?

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) developed the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) to monitor six types of health-risk behaviors that contribute to the leading causes of death and disability among youth and adults, including—

• Behaviors that contribute to unintentional injuries and violence
• Sexual behaviors that contribute to unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV infection
• Alcohol and other drug use
• Tobacco use
• Unhealthy dietary behaviors
• Inadequate physical activity

Only the Sexual behaviors of high schoolers are relevant to our discussion. These are the questions they were asked, anonymously. 1) Ever had sexual intercourse (46.8%); 2) Had sexual intercourse before age 13 years (for the first time) (5.6%); 3) Had sexual intercourse with four or more persons (during their life) (15%) 4) Were currently sexually active (sexual intercourse with at least one person during the 3 months before the survey) (34%). See pic below:

Click on pic which, generated using CDC YRBSS data and you can do the
same by CLICKING HERE and selecting
the "High School Youth Online Results"
and setting for questions about "sex."

To see all the questions related to "sex" CLICK HERE and see Questions: 21,23 and 59-65. Easy to find by doing a page search for "sex" after you open the file.

So how many participated in the CDC report? A review of the CDC map show three states didn't, but honestly how much could they change the percentages, likely a fraction if at all. Today high school folks are the same nationwide. So we looked to National Center for Educational Statistics which shows "14.7 million will be in grades 9 through 12."

If 46.8% of High schoolers have had sexual intercourse, illegal by todays laws, that means todays registry is likely understated by 6,879,600 juvenile sex offenders, at a minimum.

How long has this been going on? CLICK Shocking? Now about 1/4 of those high schoolers graduate every year. Consider this, that means 1,719,900 could be added to todays' registries every year and there would still be over 6,000,000 in high school. Now after 10-15-20-25-30 years the numbers are mind blowing; over time millions reaching billions? Do the math. Would law enforcement be able to keep up home address checks or even in person check-in and updating? Where would these folks live given residency laws?

Shame on lawmakers who believe these juveniles belong on a Sex Offenders Registry for Life!

Does a Public Urination conviction require registration as a sex offender? And, if so, which states require registration?

August 2015 National:

In answer to the title question: Yes, No and Maybe. It depends on the state and the way it has constructed their laws.

After this research it is easy to see Lawmakers have many different ideas and they enact them in ways that makes one wonder about their sanity. Logic and consistency does not rule, and Prosecutors actually decide what the charge will be.

Prosecutors can be fair and keep one off the registry or they can be vindictive and charge so that the only outcome is the registry. This is where a lawyer can navigate and possibly work a deal (plea bargain) to keep a client off the registry; key point, get or at least consult with a lawyer.

We started this project with the 2007 Human Rights Watch Report: "No Easy Answers" and blended it with the 2014 Slate article "The Ridiculous Laws That Put People on the Sex Offender List" then added anything we learned along the way, later changes and enactments, new to the two earlier reports.

Our chart below is where we ended up, and wherever possible provided direct links to our sources, so folks can double check to see if laws change as they often do. Now if we found a lawyer explaining how their state laws work with "Public Urination" we opted for a link to that lawyer's explanation. We do not necessarily endorse them and there may be other lawyers in that state, readers need to make their own decisions about which is best for their case.

A few important points, while we focused on "Public Urination" convictions, some states do not have any specific statute for such, instead they construe that "act" into an "Indecent Exposure and Lewdness" statute. Now to make it even more confusing urinating isn't even mentioned in some but news reports show folks being convicted under Indecent Exposure or a Lewdness statute. Isn't law just fun.

Now if you look at Massachusetts there is a fellow who moved to Florida, and Florida has him on the registry showing an out of state conviction. This brings up a point, if one has a urination conviction in State-A and they do not require sex offender registration, that person must be mighty careful on moving to another state, the new state may very well put him on their registry should that be required of folks so convicted in their state. Be wise if moving, consult with a lawyer first.

Speculating now, along the way we noticed comments mentioning local ordinances that may prohibit public urination and a conviction may somehow be included in a state statute, we have not checked for that, so a lawyer is best to find out if one has an ordinance violation.

Update note: We wonder how many other states have trickery code embedded in laws like those we found that might cause one so convicted to end up on the registry. Well thats for another day.

You'll notice our chart ends with an article by Steven Yoder, "Life on the list" clearly worth reading.

Finally, we don't mind if our chart is copied, but please credit us as shown below, its the right thing to do. And our ears are open to corrections or suggestions to make this chart more informative for those who need it.

Sex Offender Research, All Rights Reserved! © 2015

	Public Urination: Crimes which COULD lead to sex offender registry requirements.
Human Rights Watch Report: No Easy Answers	At least 13 states require registration for public urination; of those, two limit registration to those who committed the act in view of a minor;109 (page-39) 109 Arizona, Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-3821 (if the individual has more than one previous conviction for public urination—two if exposed to a person under 15; three if exposed to a person over 15); California, Cal. Penal Code §314(1)-(2), 290; Connecticut, Conn. Gen. Stat. §53a-186, §54-250, §54-251 (if the victim was under 18); Georgia, O.C.G.A. §42-1-12, 16-6-8 (if done in view of a minor); Idaho, Idaho Code Ann. §18-4116, 8306, 8304; Kentucky, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §510.148, §17.520, 500, §510.150; Massachusetts, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272 §16, ALM GL ch. 6 §178G, 178C; Michigan, Mich. Comp. Laws §167(1)(f), §28.722, 723; New Hampshire, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §651-B:1, RSA 651-B:2, 645:1(II), (III); Oklahoma, 57 Okl.St. §582.21, §1021; South Carolina, S.C. Code Ann. §23-3-430; Utah, Utah Code Ann. §77-27-21.5, §76-9-702.5; Vermont, Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 13, §2601, §5407, 5401.
Slate Article	The Ridiculous Laws That Put People on the Sex Offender List and their maps
General Explanation by NOLO:	This explanation of "Public Urination Laws and Penalties" by NOLO (found on the Criminal Defense Lawyers website) is excellent and mentions a few laws of certain states. Also shows how some states use "urination laws" and others use "Indecent Exposure" laws, and only one requires sex offender registration. Weird, YES, but so are lawmakers. Well worth reviewing.
Arizona	13-3821. Persons required to register; procedure; identification card; assessment; definitions 15. A second or subsequent violation of indecent exposure to a person under fifteen years of age pursuant to section 13-1402. 16. A second or subsequent violation of public sexual indecency to a minor under the age of fifteen years pursuant to section 13-1403, subsection B. 17. A third or subsequent violation of indecent exposure pursuant to section 13-1402. 18. A third or subsequent violation of public sexual indecency pursuant to section 13-1403. 19. A violation of section 13-3822 or 13-3824. 20. Unlawful age misrepresentation.
California	Public Urination In California
Connecticut	Sec. 53a-186. Public indecency: Class B misdemeanor. (a) 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 (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. Sec. 54-250. Definitions. For the purposes of sections 54-102g and 54-250 to 54-258a, inclusive: (registration requirements too long to include) Sec. 54-251. Registration of person who has committed a criminal offense against a victim who is a minor or a nonviolent sexual offense.(too long to include)
Georgia	Urinating in Public Lawyer in Athens, Georgia
Idaho	Effective Indecent Exposure Defense in Idaho
Kentucky	"Public urination, streaking or mooning or if one fails to prevent his own teenage children from engaging in otherwise consensual sexual activity then the person is sex offender according to the rules of the Kentucky state's laws. In such cases that person need to register on publicly available online list. The term sexual predator is often used to describe severe or repeat sex offenders." Source Kentucky Registry
Massachusetts	"Juan Matamoros was arrested for public urination in Massachusetts in 1986. And that branded him a sex offender to this day in Florida, which lists his crime as “Sex Offense, Other State (Open and Gross Lewd & Lascivious Behavior—2 Counts).” In 2007, Matamoros had to move his family because he was not allowed to live within 2,500 feet of a city park, and his registry entry now lists him as “transient.”" ..Continued..
Michigan	"Michigan is particularly aggressive, ranking fourth in the nation with the number of offenders on the registry, following only California, Texas and Florida. It also ranks fourth per capita, with 417 registrants per 100,000 citizens. It is one of only 13 states that count public urination as a sex crime, although two convictions are required before registration." ..Continued.... See also: Michigan Indecent Exposure Laws
Nevada	Nevada Laws for "Urinating in Public" and "Defecating in Public" Explained by Las Vegas Criminal Defense Attorneys
New Hampshire	645:1 Indecent Exposure and Lewdness. – II. A person is guilty of a class B felony if: --(a) Such person purposely performs any act of sexual penetration or sexual contact on himself or herself or another in the presence of a child who is less than 16 years of age. --(b) Such person purposely transmits to a child who is less than 16 years of age, or an individual whom the actor reasonably believes is a child who is less than 16 years of age, an image of himself or herself fornicating, exposing his or her genitals, or performing any other act of gross lewdness. --(c) Having previously been convicted of an offense under paragraph I, or of an offense that includes the same conduct under any other jurisdiction, the person subsequently commits an offense under paragraph I. III. A person shall be guilty of a class A felony if having previously been convicted of 2 or more offenses under paragraph II, or a reasonably equivalent statute in another state, the person subsequently commits an offense under this section. 645:1-a Public Urination or Defecation. – A person is guilty of a violation if such person urinates or defecates in a public place, other than a public restroom, under circumstances where the person knew or should have known would likely cause affront or alarm to another. (NOTE: It doesn't appear to require registration as a sex offender Note 645-1-a vs 645-1 different statutes) REGISTRATION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS: 651-B:1 Definitions. V. "Sexual offense'' means ... Against Adult: or a second or subsequent offense within a 5-year period for indecent exposure and lewdness, RSA 645:1 Against a Minor: a second or subsequent offense within a 5-year period for indecent exposure and lewdness, RSA 645:1, I; indecent exposure and lewdness, RSA 645:1, II and RSA 645:1
Oklahoma	Oklahoma Indecent Exposure Defense Lawyers
South Carolina	Sex Crimes and Indecent Exposure Defense in South Carolina
Texas	Will Public Urination Lead to Being Charged As a Sex Offender?
Utah	76-9-702.3. Public urination. (1) A person is guilty of public urination if the person urinates or defecates: --(a) in a public place, other than a public rest room; and --(b) under circumstances which the person should know will likely cause affront or alarm to another Chapter 41 Sex and Kidnap Offender Registry 77-41-102. Definitions. (Public Urination does not require registration as a sex offender, note the absence of 76-9-702.3 from the list of crimes required to register. However a Lewdness conviction would require registration)
Vermont	Title 13: Crimes and Criminal Procedure Chapter 59: Lewdness And Prostitution Subchapter 1: Lewd And Indecent Conduct §2601. Lewd and lascivious conduct §2602. Lewd or lascivious conduct with child Subchapter 003 : Sex Offender Registration; §5401. Definitions (10) "Sex offender" means: --(A) A person who is convicted in any jurisdiction of the United States, including a state, territory, commonwealth, the District of Columbia, or military, federal, or tribal court of any of the following offenses: ------(iii) lewd and lascivious conduct as defined in 13 V.S.A. §2601; (Note: Online statutes do not show §2602 as requiring registration, but since it deals w/minors,I'd bet the online hasn't been updated to include §2602, so check w/lawyer.)
Steven Yoder	"Life on the List" a paper worth reviewing showing the many ways one COULD end up being required to register as a sex offender and ultimately be on the sex offender registry. Yes it includes public urination, the focus of this chart.
Ver. August 2015	Sex Offender Research, All Rights Reserved! © 2015

---