By MATT CHANDLER
mchandler@bizjournals.com | 716-541-1654

Ask the average person on the street to estimate the recidivism rate for sex offenders and the typical answer might be 60, 75, even 90 percent. It's a common belief that if set free, offenders re-commit in extraordinarily high numbers.

Want to know the truth? Data shows the true recidivism rate is more along the lines of 5 percent to 15 percent.

Charles Patrick Ewing is a forensic psychologist, attorney, SUNY Distinguished Law Professor and vice dean of law at the University at Buffalo Law School. He also has authored 10 books related to crime and the law. The latest, "Justice Perverted: Sex Offense Law, Psychology, and Public Policy," explores what he sees as an unbalanced sentencing system for people who commit certain types of sex-based crimes.

"I've worked with sex offenders on and off my entire career as a forensic psychologist. But it wasn't my major interest until a few years ago when New York passed Article 10 of the mental hygiene law," Ewing says, discussing the impetus for his latest book. "It is a law that allows for the civil commitment of sex offenders who have completely served their sentences, and it was an eye-opener for me and it really sparked my interest."

Unbalanced laws and sentencing

Drawn in by the civil commitment legislation, Ewing began to research related laws, including Kendra's Law, the sex offender registration and notification law and Internet enticement laws, whereby it is a federal crime to entice a child to have sex over the Internet.

"What I found in my research is that in all of those areas, the original intent behind the laws was to make things safer for the public, so there is good impulse behind all these laws," he says.

"But then I asked: How much money is being spent on these laws? Do they work? Are we getting our money's worth? What I found is that we are spending billions of dollars and getting almost nothing in return."

He points to some of the sentencing laws surrounding child enticement via the Internet.

The practice has earned worldwide attention, thanks in part to NBC, which aired a series on "Dateline" called "To Catch a Predator."

Sting operations would be set up and with the help of an outside agency, Perverted Justice, actors portray children online and engage in conversations with adults, ultimately agreeing to meet for sex. When they arrive for the encounter, they are met by the host of the program and, eventually, the police.

Though a show like this may feed into the public belief that tough laws are needed and no sentence is too harsh, Ewing says it only shows one part of a complex issue.

"I'm certainly not opposed to going after these people because I think they pollute the Internet, but it is also rare that they actually try to meet up with children or adolescents," he says.

According to Ewing, those types of offenses require a minimum sentence of 10 years in prison under current federal law.

"If you compare that sentence to a lot of other crimes, it is way higher," he says.

He probed deeper and concluded that people who are attempting to lure minors into having sex via the Internet are committing a form of attempted statutory rape.

"If you look at statutory rape, it isn't punished anywhere nearly as severely as this crime," he says.

"If you go up to a child in a park and try and convince them to have sex with you, you might go to jail for six months, a year. But if you ask a child the same question online, it's 10 years."

Ewing identified some things that he says have led to disproportionate sentencing related to these types of crimes.

"There is a hysteria about sex offenders that I think plays into this," he says.

Another contributing factor is that understandably there is no public support for the individuals who commit these crimes.

"These offenders are pariahs," he says. "There is no public sympathy for them. Quite honestly, I have no sympathy for them. And no one is going to stand up and say, ‘Let's repeal these laws.' "

Offenders in the community

As for the sentencing of what Ewing classifies as "hands-off offenders" (people who look at child pornography but don't physically molest children), not only does he think the lengthy prison terms are ineffective, he sees the sex offender registration requirements and restrictions as creating more of a problem by not protecting the public.

"They come out of prison and they are then stigmatized permanently as sex offenders," he says. "It is then hard to get a job, hard to live anywhere, hard to have normal relations with family and friends."

He says research shows that living under these intensely prohibitive rules often causes individuals to either be driven underground, or to reoffend.

Asked how a balance can be struck between giving those who have served their sentences a fair chance to move on and the public's right to know, he says the value of knowing the sex offender information is negligible to the general public.

"More of these guys recidivate because of these laws than would without the laws," he says. "That is then weighed against public safety and you are concerned about sex offenders living near you."

Though many people say they want to know the details of every sex offender in their communities, Ewing probes the issue and asks the question: "What are you going to do with that information once you have it?"

He says, "Are you going to show the picture to your young children and say, ‘If you ever see this man, run.' You probably aren't. If it is your neighbor, that is one thing, but most people aren't checking the Internet to see who these people are."

Public perception vs. reality

Ewing says another public misconception is that people who are viewing child pornography online or engaging in cyber-fantasies with people they believe to be children will eventually progress to committing crimes against children.

"It is easing up a bit, but when it comes to child pornography, 10- and 20-year sentences became the norm in these cases of possessing child pornography," he says.

"It's a scourge and a horrible, horrible aspect of our culture that we have such a thing as child pornography. But should people who possess child pornography be punished four, five, 10 times more severely than people who molest children?"

Ewing says the sentences in many of these cases are so disproportionate, they make a mockery of the sentences given to those who physically molest children. He also says that, especially considering there isn't evidence the sentences are effective, the cost to the taxpayers needs to be considered.

"At a minimum of $30,000-$35,000 per year to house these people in a federal prison, you are looking at a minimum of $300,000," he says.

"You have a lot of myths that have been perpetuated in this area by people who wanted the change the law. Congress was given misleading data regarding recidivism when they were voting on these laws, and they reacted to that. The actual recidivism rate is so much lower, but many people still believe those myths."

What can be done?

Ewing says that given the lack of support for offenders, coupled with legislators not willing to take a perceived risk and suggest more fair sentencing, he wonders if anything can be done.

One of the only ways change might come about is if individuals examine the financial burden and subsequently bring pressure on the lawmakers to enact change, according to Ewing.

"I think probably the best way to look at this issue is from a public policy point of view. Are we getting our money's worth and are there better ways to do this? I don't think we are getting our money's worth, and there are certainly better ways to approach this issue."

"Justice Perverted: Sex Offense Law, Psychology, and Public Policy" by Charles Patrick Ewing is available in hardcover and was published by Oxford University Press.