08-22-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of Minnesota actually have one. Second, and more important, there is no mention in the statute of either Level II offenders or restrictions about living within 1,500 feet of school zones. Instead, the statute, which was enacted in 1999, indicates that for offenders given a Level III assignment, the End of Confinement Review Committee (ECRC) “shall determine whether residency restrictions shall be included in the conditions of the offender’s release based on the offender’s pattern of offending behavior” (Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 244.052, subdivision 3, paragraph [k]). Of the 224 sex offender recidivists examined in this study, there were 22 who were released on or after July 1, 1999—the inception date for this statute. Of the 22, only 2 were eligible for this provision in that they were given a Level III assignment. The ECRC requested residency restrictions for 1 of the 2 offenders; however, on further review of this particular offender’s release plan, residency restrictions were not included in his conditions for release. As a result, not one of the offenders analyzed in this study was subject to residency restrictions on release from prison.1 The sex offenders examined here thus provide an ideal opportunity to assess the likelihood of whether residency restrictions might have been effective in preventing the occurrence of their sex reoffenses. This is accomplished by identifying whether these sexual recidivists did, in fact, target children who lived in close proximity to their own residences. In closely analyzing the spatial patterns of sexual reoffending among the 224 recidivists released from Minnesota correctional facilities between 1990 and 2002, this study focuses on several key questions. First, where did offenders initially establish contact with their victims, and where did they commit the offense? Second, what were the physical distances between an offender’s residence and both the offense and first contact locations? Finally, were other factors such as victim–offender relationship, supervision status, use of alcohol or drugs, and use of force associated with both residential proximity and the sexual reoffense? METHOD To address these questions, data were gathered on sex offenders who recidivated with a new sex offense. Between 1990 and 2002, there were a total of 3,166 sex offenders released from eight state correctional facilities in Minnesota.2 Of these offenders, 374 were rear- rested for a new sex offense, 304 were reconvicted for a new sex crime, and 224 were rein- carcerated for a new sex offense prior to January 1, 2006 (Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2007). As a result, there were 70 offenders who were rearrested, but were not reconvicted or reincarcerated, for a new sex offense, and 80 offenders who were reconvicted of a new sex crime but were not reincarcerated. Because of the greater availability of data on the offenders who returned to prison for a new sex crime, we did not examine the 70 rearrests and 80 reconvictions that did not result in reincarceration. Instead, we focused our analyses on the 224 sex offenders who were reincarcerated for a new sex offense. As a result, our sample represents what are likely the most serious cases of sexual recidivism that occurred in Minnesota between 1990 and 2005. MEASURES Several different sources of data were used to examine proximity: the criminal complaint for the sexual reoffense, the pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report, the Statewide 488 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from