te of 14.7 percent. Even more interesting was the study did not supportthe idea that good treatment behavior, as in positive or appropriate behavior in group sessions,good homework assignments, and positive ratings of motivation, could be associated with a lessof a chance for recidivism. They gave two possible reasons for this finding. Sex offenders, by thevery nature of their criminal behavior, are masters of manipulation and exploitation. Theseindividuals can exhibit behavior that contributes to favorable assessments. The second possiblereason is these skills are learned, or enhanced, in the treatment setting. Data from a programevaluation by Quinsey et al in 1998 is consistent with this interpretation. They hypothesized thatit was due to exposure to sexually deviant material or by learning about others’ modi operandi. A more recent study, published in the same journal, by Looman et al in 2000 suggests theopposite. Of the released sex offenders they studied they found a 23.6 percent recidivism rate forthose treated while a 51.7 percent rate for the untreated group. They also conducted an analysisseparately on the outcome for men who had previous sexual convictions. Those with no previoussexual offense convictions had a 20.9 percent recidivism rate of the treated men compared to 42.9percent of the untreated men. Of the men with previous sexual offenses, 26.1 percent of thetreated group sexually reoffended compared to 73.1 percent of the untreated men. According tothis study, treatment is invaluable in minimizing the recidivism of sex offenders with previousoffenses. With such conflicting reports on the effectiveness of treatment it is easy to see why ourlegal system has taken other steps to keep sex offenders from continually victimizing.Registration of sex offenders began in 1994 with the Jacob Wetterling Crimes AgainstChildren and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act. It encouraged states, by threatening to...
