Lievore (2004, p. 25) indicated that recidivism can be defined repeated arresting, reconviction of a person for criminal behavior. Also, the author points out sexual offenders can recidivate in non-violent and non-sexual violent crimes as well as in sexual crimes.
Lievore also indicates that there are hidden and visible sex-offenders. Studies of recidivism for sex crimes are based on studying of visible sex-offenders. However, it is no clear if visible offenders reflect the whole population of individual committed sexual crimes.
Falshaw, Friendship, and Bates used unofficial combined sources to examine rates of recidivism among sexual offenders. The rate of recidivism for sex crimes obtained in the study of Falshaw et al. was between 2-5 times higher than rates obtained in other studies by using official sources (Lievore, 2004, p. 27).
One of the largest studies of rates of sex crimes recidivism was conducted by Langan, Schmitt, and Durose in 2003. Researchers examined recidivism of 9,691 male sex offenders. As results of the study demonstrated approximately 5 % of sexual offenders were re-arrested for sexual crimes during the 3 years period after their release from a prison. However, it was also found that 17.1% of sex offenders had been rearrested for violent non-sexual crimes and 43% of criminals had been arrested for crimes of different types (Przybylski, 2014).
One more important study conducted by Harris and Hanson showed that 14% of sexual offenders again commit sexual crimes during the 5 years of postrelease period, 20% of sex offenders commit crimes repeatedly during the following 10 years and 24% of this criminal population recidivates during the 15 years after the release from a prison (Przybylski, 2014).
Effectiveness of treatment
Marques and her colleagues examined three groups of sexual offenders to indicate if treatment influences decreasing of recidivism rates among sex offenders. One group of offenders received intensive treatment while two control groups did not have it. The difference between two groups was that participants of the one control group expressed a desire to receive treatment while offenders from the second control group did not want to be treated. Results of the study were surprising because a difference of rates of recidivism was insignificant for three groups (approximately 21%, 20 %, and19 %).
Hanson, Broom, and Stephenson also compared sexual offenders who received treatment and untreated sexual criminals. They also had not found a significant difference in recidivism rates among two groups.
The study of Nicholaichuk et al. conducted in 2000 showed more positive results: treated sexual offenders were more prone to stay out of prison in comparison to untreated sexual criminals. Also, the percentage of treated offenders was convicted for new sexual crimes more rarely (14%) in comparison to their counterparts who had not receive special treatment (approximately 33%) (Przybylski, 2014).
We can conclude that treatment can influence decreasing of recidivism rates among sexual offenders. However, different sexual offenders had different criminal history, and their behavior can be influenced by many factors. That is why a treatment is efficient for one criminal but useless for other offenders.
References
Lievore, D. (2004). Recidivism of sexual assault offenders: Rates, risk factors and treatment efficacy (Vol. 80). Canberra, Australian Capital Territory: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Przybylski, R. (2014) Adult Sex Offender Recidivism. Sex Offenders Management Assessment and Planning Initiative
