The dark figure of sexual recidivism

Nicholas Scurich; Richard S. John

doi:10.1002/bsl.2400

journal article Mar 01, 2019

The dark figure of sexual recidivism

Nicholas Scurich Richard S. John

Behavioral Sciences & the Law Vol. 37 No. 2 pp. 158-175 · Wiley

View at Publisher Save 10.1002/bsl.2400

Abstract

Empirical studies of sexual offender recidivism have proliferated in recent decades. Virtually all of the studies define recidivism as a new legal charge or conviction for a sexual crime, and these studies tend to find recidivism rates of the order of 5–15% after 5 years and 10–25% after 10+ years. It is uncontroversial that such a definition of recidivism underestimates the true rate of sexual recidivism because most sexual crime is not reported to legal authorities, a principle known as the “dark figure of crime.” To estimate the magnitude of the dark figure of sexual recidivism, this paper uses a probabilistic simulation approach in conjunction with the following: (i) victim self‐report survey data about the rate of reporting sexual crime to legal authorities; (ii) offender self‐report data about the number of victims per offender; and (iii) different assumptions about the chances of being convicted of a new sexual offense given that it is reported. Under any configuration of assumptions, the dark figure is substantial, and as a consequence the disparity between recidivism defined as a new legal charge or conviction for a sex crime and recidivism defined as actually committing a new sexual crime is large. These findings call into question the utility of recidivism studies that rely exclusively on official crime statistics to define sexual recidivism, and highlight the need for additional, long‐term studies that use a variety of different measures to assess whether or not sexual recidivism has occurred.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

58

[1]

10.1177/088626087002001001

[2]

10.1177/107906320001200204

[3]

Belleau v. Wall 811 F. 3d 929 Court of Appeals 7th Circuit(2016).

[4]

10.1177/000271626737400102

[5]

10.1080/13552600.2015.1100760

[6]

10.1080/13552600.2014.886729

[7]

10.1007/s10896-008-9219-y

[8]

10.1177/0306624x09334942

[9]

10.1037/law0000027

[10]

10.1111/jels.12184

[11]

Cucolo H. &Perlin M. L.(2018).The strings in the books ain't pulled and persuaded: How the use of improper statistics and unverified data corrupts the judicial process in sex offender cases. Retrieved fromhttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3223877 10.2139/ssrn.3223877

[12]

10.1086/653101

[13]

10.1177/1079063216667922

[14]

Ellman I. M. "Frightening and high: The Supreme Court's crucial mistake about sex crime statistics" Constitutional Commentary (2015)

[15]

Feige D. (2017).When junk science about sex offenders infects the Supreme Court. Retrieved fromhttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/opinion/when‐junk‐science‐about‐sex‐offenders‐infects‐the‐supreme‐court.html

[16]

10.1016/0145-2134(90)90077-7

[17]

10.1037/0022-006x.61.4.646

[18]

10.1016/s0145-2134(99)00028-9

[19]

10.1111/1467-8721.00071

[20]

10.1037/0022-006x.66.2.348

[21]

10.1037/tam0000014

[22]

10.1037/0022-006x.73.6.1154

[23]

Harris A. J. R. (2004)

[24]

10.1080/10439463.2016.1187146

[25]

Huffman M. K. "Moral panic and the politics of fear: The dubious logic underlying sex offender registration statutes and proposals for restoring measures of judicial discretion to sex offender management" Virginia Journal of Criminal Law (2016)

[26]

10.1177/0011128787033004005

[27]

10.1037/lhb0000079

[28]

Koehler J. J. "When do courts think base rate statistics are relevant?" Jurimetrics Journal (2002)

[29]

10.1037/0022-006x.53.3.422

[30]

Langan P. A. Schmitt E. L. &Durose M. R.(2003).Recidivism of sex offenders released from prison in 1994. US Department of Justice. Retrieved fromhttps://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf 10.1037/e532152006-001

[31]

10.3138/cjccj.48.1.107

[32]

10.3138/cjccj.46.5.531

[33]

10.1007/s11920-018-0884-0

[34]

Levenson J. S. "Public perceptions about sex offenders and community protection policies" Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (2007) 10.1111/j.1530-2415.2007.00119.x

[35]

10.1891/vivi.17.1.73.33638

[36]

10.1007/bf02354470

[37]

10.1016/0005-7967(88)90146-5

[38]

McKune v. Lile 536 U.S. 24 122 S. Ct. 2017 153 L. Ed. 2d 47(2002).

[39]

Monahan J. (2001) 10.1093/oso/9780195138825.001.0001

[40]

Montgomery J. E. "Fixing a non‐existent problem with an ineffective solution: Doe v. Snyder and Michigan's punitive sex‐offender registration and notification laws" Akron Law Review (2017)

[41]

Morse S. J. "The ethics of forensic practice: Reclaiming the wasteland" Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (2008)

[42]

10.1192/bjp.163.6.721

[43]

Planty M. Langton L. Krebs C. Berzofsky M. &Smiley‐McDonald H.(2013).Female victims of sexual violence 1994–2010. US Bureau of Justice Statistics NCJ 240655. Retrieved fromhttps://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf 10.1037/e528212013-001

[44]

10.1023/a:1024860714738

[45]

10.3138/cjccj.48.1.95

[46]

10.1007/s10979-006-9022-3

[47]

10.3200/jach.55.3.157-162

[48]

10.1002/bsl.2370130203

[49]

Scurich N. (2016)

[50]

10.1002/bsl.2382

Showing 50 of 58 references

Metrics

47

Citations

58

References

Details

Published: Mar 01, 2019
Vol/Issue: 37(2)
Pages: 158-175
License: View

Authors

N

Nicholas Scurich

University of California Irvine United States of America

R

Richard S. John

University of Southern California

Cite This Article

Nicholas Scurich, Richard S. John (2019). The dark figure of sexual recidivism. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 37(2), 158-175. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2400

The dark figure of sexual recidivism

You May Also Like