Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Interesting article includes comments about PMIs "re-offending"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Interesting article includes comments about PMIs "re-offending"

    http://insidetime.org/download/resea...xOffenders.pdf
    Key points

    • The proportion reconvicted of another sexual offence during both follow-up periods was relatively low: less than 10%, even amongst those who could be followed up for six years. However, those who were reconvicted committed very serious crimes.

    • The proportion reconvicted varied according to the type of victim:

    • none of those imprisoned for an offence against children in their own family unit was reconvicted of a sexual or serious violent crime

    • just over a quarter of those imprisoned for a sexual crime against a child victim not in their family were reconvicted of another sexual offence, and nearly a third were imprisoned for a sexual or violent crime

    • of those imprisoned for an offence against an adult, one in 13 was reconvicted of a sexual offence, and one in seven was imprisoned for a sexual or violent offence within six years of release from prison.

    • All those subsequently convicted of a further sexual offence within the four-year follow-up period (and all but one followed-up for six years) had been identified as ‘dangerous’ or ‘high risk’ by at least one member of the Parole Board panel.

    • However, nine out of ten of those thought to pose a ‘high risk’ were not reconvicted of a sexual offence within four years of their release (three-quarters of those followed up for six years). They were ‘false positives’. Particularly prominent amongst them were:

    offenders against children within their own family
    • those who denied their offence: only one ‘high-risk’ ‘denier’ was reconvicted of a sexual crime.
    • Where no member of the Parole Board panel identified a sex offender as a ‘high risk’, only one was reconvicted of a sexual offence even after six years – the sole ‘false negative’.

    • An actuarial risk assessment instrument (Static-99) produced fewer ‘false positives’ but more ‘false negatives’ than Parole Board members’ assessments of ‘high risk’


    RF: That's because they didn't offend in the first place. For those with loved ones inside coming up to Parole maybe you can make use of this article - who to the probation officer who is assessing "risk".
    People Appealing Convictions of Sexual Offences ~http://www.pacso.co.uk

    PAFAA details ~ https://pacso.co.uk/pafaa-people-aga...ions-of-abuse/
Working...
X