Sex Offender Recidivism

2.4 Recidivism rates
For many years, societies have been in the notion that sexual offenders may relapse between 95 percent and 98 percent of the cases. Presently and according to Hal Arkowitz and Scott O. Lilienfeld, in their paper “Once a Sex Offender, Always a Sex Offender? Maybe Not” stated that a study found out that “the average member of the general public believes that 75 percent of sex offenders will relapse” meaning that the perception that sex offenders after complying with their incarceration time would still relapse is high within the society even though according to many researchers, recidivism rate levels usually dropped after incarceration. Many questions arise for individuals concerning sexual predators; can public authorities

Do they make sense public records of rapists? Should they be monitored for the rest of their days? To what extend should the state control them? Many Specialists and officials differ on various possible measures since levels of recidivism studies vary, however, contrary to the public believe, the level of recidivism apparently have been lower. According to Roger Przybylski in his article “The Effectiveness of Treatment for Adult Sexual Offenders”, a study made in Canada found out that treatment to sex offenders while in prison produced significant reductions in sexual recidivism. In addition, Przybylski states that another study (one of the extensive and largest up to date) made by Lösel and Schmucker in 2005, found out that compared to prisoners who do not get treatment, prisoners who underwent treatment during their prison time had an average sexual recidivism rate of 11.8 percent compared to the rate of untreated sexual predators which was 32.5 percent. Some researchers attribute that success to hard and strict legislations and programs while others to castration procedures. In England, for example, there is a permanent control through the satellite track for rapists that have been

He believes that the process is more ethical and morally acceptable that long-term sentence, which is usually attached to sex offenses. He also cited this method as more humane than surgical castration, which leads to permanent incapacitation. However, opponents of chemical castration including Miller (1998) have raised concern over the constitutionality of the practice. For example, it is argued that subjecting an individual to the procedure is a violation of one’s constitutional rights besides predisposing the individual to the associated side effects. Other researchers claim that both sides are valid provided that chemical castration is officially constituted and, made a voluntary procedure and carried out in the correct and recommended manner by qualified health professionals. It is recommended for counseling and awareness services are availed to the sex offenders before chemical castration is administered. This, for example, will help the offenders to make a voluntary choice of either serving a long-term sentence or undergoing the sterilization procedure (Furby et al.,