Coding Rules for Static-2002
Adobe Acrobat version (PDF 600Kb)
Amy Phenix, Dennis Doren, Leslie Helmus,
R. Karl Hanson, & David Thornton
Send questions or scoring queries to
R. Karl Hanson, Ph.D.
Corrections Research
Public Safety Canada
340 Laurier Ave., West
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0P8
613-991-2840
karl.hanson@ps-sp.gc.ca
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Lana Hollady for
formatting, and all the clinicians and researchers whose persistent
queries helped resolve scoring questions not addressed in previous versions
of this manual.
Coding Rules for Static-2002
Static-2002 is an actuarial
risk tool for evaluating the risk of sexual and violent recidivism among
adult male sexual offenders (Hanson & Thornton, 2003). Like Static-99,
Static-2002 can be used by a wide range of evaluators (e.g., psychologists,
probation officers, psychiatrists, therapists) using commonly available
criminal history information. Static-2002 predicts sexual, violent,
and any recidivism as well as other actuarial risk tools commonly used
with sexual offenders (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2009) and slightly
better than Static-99 (Hanson, Helmus, & Thornton, in press; Helmus,
2007).
One desirable feature of Static-2002
is that it is intended to assess some theoretically meaningful characteristics
presumed to be the cause of recidivism risk (persistence of sexual offending,
deviant sexual interests, general criminality).
The current document describes the scoring
rules for Static-2002. These rules were created from the rules used
in the development and validation studies; in addition, consensus opinion
was used to elaborate the rules to cases and legal jurisdictions different
from those previously encountered.
The extent to which readers of this document
will be able to appropriately use Static-2002 is unknown, and would
likely vary based on prior training in risk assessment and specific
competence in the use of actuarial risk tools. The chance of appropriate
use should increase given formal training as well as ongoing procedures
to limit rater drift (e.g., peer review, case meetings).
Target population
Static-2002 is designed to be used with
certain sexual offenders:
- Males who have been convicted
of a sexual offence (or received an equivalent sanction that qualifies
as a sentencing occasion in Item 2 of Static-2002, pages 15-17).
- Males who committed their
most recent sexual offence after their 18th birthday.
- With caution, males who committed
their most recent sexual offence between their 17th and 18th
birthday, provided that their release date is when they are at least
18. The release date is either the date of release from a closed custody
sentence (in Canada, closed custody is analogous to prison) or the date
of sentence for a community sentence or open custody sentence (in Canada,
open custody is analogous to a halfway house).
- The cautionary note for (c)
does not change even if the juvenile offender was "waived into adult
court," a procedure allowed in some jurisdictions on some occasions.
That legal procedure does not alter the applicability of Static-2002.
- Static-2002 is not recommended
for use with sexual offenders who committed all of their sexual offences
under the age of 17 no matter how old the offenders are at the time
of assessment.
- It is also not intended for
offenders who have been free from violent offences in the community
for a period of greater than 8 years since release from their latest
sexual offence. This is calculated using street time. (E.g., if it has
been 9 years since the offender’s release from his last sexual offence,
but he has spent 2 years in prison for a non-violent offence, Static-2002
can still be used. If he has been incarcerated for a few short periods
for non-violent offences but cumulatively spent 8 years or more in the
community, then Static-2002 is not appropriate for use).
- Static-2002 is not recommended
for use with individuals whose only sexual "crime" involves consenting
sexual activity with a similar age peer (e.g., Statutory Rape [a U.S.
charge]) where the ages of the perpetrator and the victim are close
and the sexual activity was consensual (see page 49 for specific rules
to make this determination).
- Static-2002 is not recommended
for offenders whose only sexual offences are Category "B" offences
(e.g., possession of child pornography, prostitution offences). See
pages 21-23 for further explanation.
- Static-2002 has been validated
with developmentally delayed offenders and is appropriate for use with
these populations. In data from the Dynamic Supervision Project (Hanson,
Harris, Scott, & Helmus, 2007), Static-2002 significantly predicted
sexual, violent, and any recidivism for developmentally delayed offenders,
with ROCs of .78, .81, and .71, respectively.
- Static-2002 has been validated
with offenders with severe mental health issues and is appropriate for
use with these populations. In data from the Dynamic Supervision Project
(Hanson et al., 2007), Static-2002 significantly predicted sexual, violent,
and any recidivism for offenders with severe mental health issues, with
ROCs of .74, .77, and .75, respectively.
- Static-2002 has been validated
with Canadian Aboriginal offenders and is appropriate for use with this
population. In data from the Dynamic Supervision Project (Hanson et
al., 2007), Static-2002 significantly predicted sexual, violent, and
any recidivism for Aboriginal offenders, with ROCs of .66, .65, and
.69, respectively. Static-2002 has not been validated with other non-Caucasian
ethnic groups. Given that race has not been found to be a significant
predictor of sexual offence recidivism, there is no reason to believe
Static-2002 is culturally specific.
For Users Familiar with Static-99
Although Static-2002 follows in the tradition
of Static-99, it should be considered a separate instrument. Future
research will determine whether the two instruments provide sufficient
incremental information to justify scoring both, or whether one of the
instruments can "replace" the other.
There are a number of differences in
the items from Static-99 and Static-2002:
- Static-2002 has 14 items while
Static-99 has only 10 items. Of the 14 items on Static-2002, some are
the same as in Static-99 (either with the same or modified coding rules)
and some are new items.
- The item "Young" on Static-2002
has four age categories rather than two (as was the case in Static-99),
reflecting sequentially reduced risk for older offenders.
- "Prior Sex Offences" was
measured by counting arrests and convictions on Static-99, and for Static-2002
sexual offences are measured by the number of sentencing occasions to
provide for consistency with other items measuring criminal offences.
- To constitute the index sex
offence on Static-2002, the person must have been convicted (or its
equivalent) of a charged offence. On Static-99, the index sex offence
could be a charge or certain rule violations without a formal conviction.
- In Static-99, "Prior Sentencing
Dates" was measured using two categories, whereas in Static-2002 there
are three categories to capture general criminal history with greater
sensitivity.
- "Prior Non-Sexual Violence"
was modified. That item is now called "Any Prior Non-Sexual Violence
Sentencing Occasions."
- On Static-99 some non-sexual
violence offences that occurred at the same time as a sex offence (i.e.,
kidnap, forcible confinement, assault) were scored as both a sex offence
and non-sexual violence. On Static-2002, if these non-sexual violence
offences occurred at the same time as a sexual offence they are coded
only as a sexual sentencing occasion.
- Additionally, in Static-99
a non-sexual violence conviction could count as both a prior sex offence
and non-sexual violence conviction if the name implied non-sexual violence
but the behaviour was sexually motivated. In Static-2002 a non-sexual
violence sentencing occasion can only count as non-sexual violence or
a sexual offence, but not both.
- The Static-99 item regarding
intimate relationships (never lived with a lover for two years) was
removed from Static-2002 because it was often difficult to score and
hard to validate in adversarial contexts. Offenders sometimes provided
unreliable self-reports regarding this item and the information was
not always contained in institutional records.
- Additionally, the Static-99
item for non-sexual violence conviction during the index offence was
also deleted because it was a source of counter-intuitive scoring. In
rare cases with Static-99 it was possible for an offender to be scored,
commit a new sexual offence and receive a lower score when scored again.
This could occur, for example, if the initial coding included a point
for index non-sexual violence, but his new index offence did not include
a point for non-sexual violence. As well, index non-sexual violence
did not add incremental information once prior non-sexual violence was
considered.
- New items in Static-2002
not included in Static-99 are "Any Juvenile Arrest for Sexual Offence,"
"Rate of Sexual Offending," "Young, Unrelated Victims," "Any
Community Supervision Violation," and "Years Free Prior to Index."
- Adjudications measured in
the Static-99 broadly included rules violations, charges, convictions,
and sentencing dates. In Static-2002, the criteria for prior sexual
offences is narrower. Rule violations (institutional rules violations,
probation, parole, and conditional release violations) are only counted
on "Sentencing Occasions for Sexual Offences" under restricted conditions.
Charges continue to be coded in the Static-2002 items "Any Juvenile
Arrest for a Sexual Offence" and "Any Prior Involvement with the
Criminal Justice System." However, for the sake of simplicity
and consistency in the operational definitions of the items, "Prior
Sexual Offences" on the Static-99 is now "Prior Sentencing Occasions
for Sexual Offences."
To better understand what is being measured,
Static-2002 items are grouped into five domains: Age, Persistence of
Sex Offending, Deviant Sexual Interests, Relationship to Victims, and
General Criminality. For example, the new items "Any Juvenile Arrest
for Sexual Offence" and "Rate of Sexual Offending" are grouped
under "Persistence of Sexual Offending"; "Young, Unrelated Victims"
is grouped under "Deviant Sexual Interests"; and "Any Community
Supervision Violation" and "Years Free Prior to Index" are grouped
under "General Criminality."
Scoring rules that have not changed from
Static-99 to Static-2002 include:
- In keeping with Static-99’s
"Prior Sex Offences" and "Prior Sentencing Dates," the index
sex offence is not counted in the Static-2002 items "Prior Sentencing
Occasions for Sexual Offences" or "Prior Sentencing Occasions for
Anything."
- The concepts of pseudo recidivism
and index cluster continue to apply in Static-2002 to items "Prior
Sentencing Occasions for Sexual Offences" and "Prior Sentencing
Occasions for Anything."
- Scoring of the victim items
(male, unrelated, and stranger) are the same on Static-99 and Static-2002.
Information Required to Score Static-2002
Three basic types of information are
required to score Static-2002: demographic information, the offender’s
official criminal record, and victim information.
Demographic Information
For the first item, "Age at Release,"
the offender’s date of birth is required in order to determine the
offender’s age at release or at time of exposure to risk in the community.
Official Criminal Record
In order to score Static-2002, the evaluator
must have access to an official criminal record as recorded by police
or other law enforcement agency, court, or correctional officials. This
official criminal record is used to score nine items on Static-2002
including: "Prior Sentencing Occasions for Sexual Offences," "Any
Juvenile Arrest for a Sexual Offence," "Rate of Sexual Offending,"
"Any Sentencing Occasions for Non-Contact Sex Offences," "Any
Prior Involvement with the Criminal Justice System," "Prior Sentencing
Occasions for Anything," "Any Community Supervision Violation,"
"Years Free Prior to Index," and "Any Prior Non-Sexual Violent
Sentencing Occasions."
Self-report is not acceptable to score
these nine items except in rare circumstances, such as cases involving
immigrants, refugees from third world countries, etc. In cases such
as these, self-report of crimes may be used if it is reasonable to assume
that no records exist or that existing records are truly irretrievable.
In addition, the evaluator must find the self-reported information credible.
For example, reports increase in credibility when it is consistent with
his current sexual misbehaviour.
Although self-report (and any additional
credible information) cannot be used to substitute official criminal
records, it can be used to supplement official records. Specifically,
official records are required to establish the existence of prior charges
and sentencing occasions, but any credible information can be used to
determine the nature of the offences (e.g., sexual motivation). For
example, if the offender has a prior conviction for Trespassing at Night
and the police report does not include any additional details, but the
offender confesses that he was engaging in voyeurism, this self-report
information can be used to classify the incident as a sexual offence.
The exception to this is that self-report information derived initially
from a polygraph is not counted, even if the offender repeats that information
later during treatment (see page 6 for further explanation).
In some cases, evaluators may have official
criminal records but they are incomplete and therefore not sufficient
to establish a sentencing occasion. This may occur if the record displays
a charge for an offence but is missing information on the outcome of
the charge (i.e., conviction/acquittal/dismissal) or if the record indicates
that there are youth convictions but does not specify what the convictions
are for. In other circumstances, events which may constitute a sentencing
occasion (e.g., for priests, military, etc.) may not necessarily appear
on the criminal record. In these situations, credible self-report or
additional information can be used to count these as sentencing occasions,
provided that the self-report information is sufficient to determine
that the events in question meet the definition of a sentencing occasion
based on Clear and Convincing Evidence (see page 7-8 for further explanation
of Clear and Convincing Evidence). Static-2002 should not be scored,
however, in the absence of an official criminal record.
Victim Information
The Static-2002 contains four items requiring
information on the victims: "Any Male Victim," "Young, Unrelated
Victims," "Any Unrelated Victim," and "Any Stranger Victim."
For each of the offender’s sexual offences the evaluator must know
the pre-offence degree of relationship between the victim and the offender.
To score these items evaluators may use any credible information at
their disposal (including self-report) except the polygraph interview
or the polygraph examination.
Polygraph Information
Information derived solely from polygraph
interviews or examinations (for example, information on victims or offence
motivation) is not used to score Static-2002 unless it can be corroborated
by outside sources or the offender provides sufficient information to
support a new criminal investigation. This includes all disclosures
made in preparation for a specific polygraph exam. For example, if the
offender completes a sexual history questionnaire that he knows he will
be specifically polygraphed about, or if he is being interrogated under
an explicit threat of being polygraphed, this information would be excluded.
Note that this applies to specific information and an impending polygraph
examination. Information from disclosures made in a treatment group
would not be excluded, even where there may be a polygraph on something
at some later point in time.
Information from polygraph interviews
is excluded even if the offender talks generally about the same "polygraph-based"
information during later conversations such as during treatment groups.
For instance, if a "male victim" is discovered solely during a polygraph
interview, and there is no independent source of that information to
be found, then this potential "male victim" does not count on Static-2002.
The reason that polygraph information
is excluded is that such information was not used in the development
and validation of Static-2002. Polygraph assisted disclosures typically
provide greater diversity of victim types than gleaned from other sources;
consequently, routinely including information from polygraph would inflate
the scores compared to the procedures used to score Static-2002 in the
development and validation samples.
Missing Information
It is possible to have some missing information
for some items and still be able to score the instrument. These items
are summarized below.
Item 3: "Any Juvenile Arrest for
a Sexual Offence and Convicted as an Adult for a Separate Sexual Offence"
Some
criminal history information may not include juvenile convictions. If this
information is unavailable, score the offender a "0" on this item.
Victim Items: Items 6-9 ("Any Male
Victim"; "Young, Unrelated Victims"; "Any Unrelated
Victim"; "Any Stranger Victim")
The
evaluator needs to know the pertinent victim characteristics (gender, relationship to offender, and approximate
age) for at least one victim to score these items. If there are additional
victims but their characteristics are unknown, the evaluator should
always make a note of this missing information when reporting the total
score. The evaluator should consider what the score would be with the
most probable characteristics of the other victims. In most cases, it
is plausible to assume that the characteristics of the other victims
are consistent with known victims. In some situations, however, alternate
characteristics are plausible. For example, if the known victim is related
(e.g., the offender’s daughter) and the offender has a previous sexual
offence from when he had no children or stepchildren, the victim from
this prior offence was probably unrelated. If the probable characteristics
of the other victims would result in a different total score, the evaluator
should report the total score both ways (with the missing information,
as well as with the plausible characteristics of other victims).
Item 10: "Any Prior Involvement
with the Criminal Justice System"
Some
criminal history information may only record convictions (not arrests or charges). If information on arrests
and charges is not available, this item can be scored on the basis of
convictions only.
Standards
of Proof and Coding the Static-2002
"Standard of proof" is a legal concept
that basically means "how sure are you" about something. Although
the use of the terms in this manual will not always match that used
by courts and related tribunals or administrative bodies, this terminology
is nonetheless useful in establishing some general coding principles.
Legal systems vary, but most Western jurisdictions have the following
three standards of proof:
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. This is the highest standard. It requires near certainty and is the standard
necessary for criminal convictions and other high-stakes decisions.
Balance of Probabilities (a.k.a., Preponderance of Evidence). This is
the lowest standard. It is common
in civil cases and basically means "more likely than not," or at
least 51% certainty.
Clear and Convincing Evidence (a.k.a.,
Clear and Convincing Proof). This less-common and infrequently
used standard has a higher threshold than Balance of Probabilities,
but it is not quite as stringent as Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
There are two general types of decisions
involved in scoring Static-2002. The first involves whether something
counts as a sentencing occasion (Items 2, [4], 5, 11, and 14). Generally,
a sentencing occasion requires a criminal conviction or its equivalent
(which is subject to the Beyond a Reasonable Doubt standard). Some "findings
of guilt" occur outside the criminal justice system (e.g., priests,
military) and special rules apply (see pages 29-36); minimally, the
Clear and Convincing Evidence standard should be met. Decisions based
on a Balance of Probabilities are generally insufficient to be counted
as a sentencing occasion.
Aside from the issue of whether something
"counts" as a sentencing occasion, all other coding decisions are
subject to the Balance of Probabilities standard (e.g., Is this victim
a stranger? Was this offence sexually motivated? Would this behavior
be subject to criminal sanction if the offender was not already on parole/probation?).
Scoring the Items
CATEGORY I: AGE (Score 0
– 3 points)
1. Age at Release
The Basic Principle: The rates
of almost all crimes decrease as people age (Hirschi & Gottfredson,
1983; Sampson & Laub, 2003). Sexual offending does not appear to
be an exception. Most studies have found that older sexual offenders
are lower risk to reoffend than younger sexual offenders (Barbaree &
Blanchard, 2008; Hanson, 2002, 2006). The effects of age, however, are
not found in every sample (Thornton & Knight, 2007), particularly
when other factors are taken into consideration (Doren, in press).
Information Required to Score This
Item: To complete this item the evaluator should confirm the
offender’s birth date from official records if possible or have other
knowledge of the offender’s age through collateral report or offender
self-report.
The Basic Rule:
Score 0 to 3 points depending on the age of the offender, referencing
the table below.
| Age |
Score |
| 18 to 24.9 |
3 |
| 25 to 34.9 |
2 |
| 35 to 49.9 |
1 |
| 50 or older | 0 |
The age thresholds for this item were
determined by finding where differences in age-related recidivism rates
appeared both perceptible and stable. The corresponding scores were
determined by ensuring that the total weight of the item was in keeping
with the relative contribution of age compared to the other scale items
in predicting sexual recidivism.
Under certain conditions, such as anticipated
release from custody, the evaluator may be interested in an estimate
of the offender’s risk at some specific time in the future. Static-2002
may be scored months before the offender’s release to the community
and the offender may advance an age scoring category by the time he
is released. For assessing risk in the future consider what his age
will be on the date of release. In this case, you calculate risk based
upon age at exposure to risk.
Sometimes the offender’s release date
may be uncertain. For example, he may be eligible for parole but does
not qualify for release due to an inadequate release plan. In these
cases it may be appropriate to use some form of conditional wording
indicating how his risk assessment would change with a delayed release
date.
CATEGORY II: PERSISTENCE OF SEXUAL
OFFENDING (Score 0 – 3 points)
The Basic Principle: This
category and the other items that relate to criminal history and the
measurement of persistence of criminal activity are based on a firm
foundation in the behavioural literature. As long ago as 1911 Thorndyke
stated that the "the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour."
Research has yet to establish whether the propensity to commit sexual
crimes is best considered a distinct construct or the emergent property
of other factors. Nevertheless, the link between prior sexual crime
and sexual recidivism is beyond dispute (Hanson & Bussière, 1998;
Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004).
This category includes three items:
- Prior Sentencing Occasions
for Sexual Offences (Score 0 – 3 points).
- Any Juvenile Arrest for a
Sexual Offence and Convicted as an Adult for a Separate Sexual Offence
(Score 0 - 1 point).
- Rate of Sexual Offending (Score
0 - 1 point).
To calculate the total score for the
"Persistence of Sexual Offending" subscale, score all three individual
items to get the raw score for each item. Sum the raw scores for the
three items. The summed raw scores are recoded according to the table
below to obtain the subscale score for the category "Persistence of
Sexual Offending":
| Raw Score |
Subscale Score |
| 0 |
0 |
| 1 |
1 |
| 2, 3 |
2 |
| 4, 5 |
3 |
See example on next page.
Example of coding "Persistence of Sexual
Offending":
Persistence of Sexual Offending
2.
Prior Sentencing Occasions for Sexual Offences:
No prior sentencing dates for sexual offences = 0
1 = 1
2, 3 = 2
4 or more = 3
|
2 |
|
3. Any Juvenile Arrest for a Sexual
Offence and Convicted as an Adult
for
a Separate Sexual Offence:
No arrest for a sexual offence prior to age 18 = 0
Arrest prior to age 18 and conviction after age 18 = 1 |
1 |
4. Rate of Sexual Offending:
Less than one sentencing occasion every 15 years = 0
One or more sentencing occasions every 15 years = 1 |
0 |
Persistence Raw Score
(subtotal of Sexual Offending)
0 = 0
1 = 1
2, 3 = 2
4, 5 = 3 | 3 |
|
Persistence of Sexual
Offending SUBSCORE |
| 2 |
In this example, summing the raw scores
adds up to 3 points. The summed raw score of 3 is recoded to obtain
a subscore of 2 for the category of "Persistence of Sexual Offending."
2. Prior Sentencing Occasions for Sexual
Offences
Background:
Sentencing occasions were selected as the measure of prior sexual offences
because it was consistently recorded on the criminal history records
and predicted sexual recidivism as well or better than the other indicators
considered (e.g., arrests, total number of convictions).
Information Required to Score this
Item: To score this item you must have access to an official
criminal record as compiled by police or other law enforcement agency,
court, or correctional authorities. Self-report of criminal convictions
may not be used to score this item except in specific rare situations
(see subsection "Official Criminal Record," page 5).
The Basic Rule: To be a
prior sentencing occasion for a sexual offence the offender must attend
court, admit to the offence or be found guilty, and receive some form
of sanction. The index sexual offence is excluded in this item. Count
the number of distinct occasions on which the offender was sentenced
for a sexual offence prior to the index sex offence. If the offender
has no prior sentencing occasions for sexual offences, score a "0."
If the offender’s criminal record indicates one prior sentencing occasion
for a sexual offence, the item score is "1." If the
offender’s criminal record indicates 2 or 3 prior sentencing occasions
for a sexual offence, the item score is "2." If the
offender’s criminal history indicates 4 or more prior sentencing occasions
for a sexual offence, the offender receives a score of "3."
This is reflected in the table below:
| Prior Sentencing
Occasions for Sexual Offences |
Item Score |
|---|
| 0 |
0 |
| 1 |
1 |
| 2, 3 |
2 |
| 4 or more |
3 |
Definition: Sentencing Occasion
A sentencing occasion is when the offender
attends court, admits to the offence or is found guilty, and receives
some form of sanction (fine, prison, conditional sentence). A determination
of disposition by a court following a finding of not criminally responsible
due to mental disorder (or its equivalent) also counts for a sentencing
occasion if that disposition involves either institutional and/or mandated
community sanction/care. Offenders may be convicted of more than one
offence at the same sentencing occasion. Count both adult and juvenile
sentencing occasions.
If a person commits a criminal offence
as a juvenile or as an adult and receives a diversionary adjudication
(i.e., an alternative sanction), this counts as a sentencing occasion
for a sexual offence. Examples include what has been termed restorative
justice, reparations, family group conferencing, community sentencing
circles (see page 31). In England, an official caution counts as a sentencing
occasion.
Offenders may go to court and receive
more than one sentence for a single crime spree. In this case, all convictions
related to the same crime spree count as one sentencing occasion. For
two sentencing occasions to be considered distinct, the offender must
have committed a crime and been sanctioned for it prior to committing
the second crime (and being sanctioned for it). When the offender is
convicted for a crime that was committed prior to his previous conviction,
the new conviction is considered pseudo-recidivism and is not counted
separately. (For further information on index clusters and pseudo-recidivism,
see pages 24-29.)
It is not uncommon for offenders to be
convicted on one date and be sentenced at a later date. In this case,
the earliest date of conviction for the offences in the sentencing date
cluster (index or prior) counts as the date of the sentencing occasion.
In such cases, crimes committed between the conviction date and the
sentencing date may count as a separate sentencing occasion in Static-2002
scoring (see pages 25-26).
Arrests, charges, and bail violations
do not count. Consider an offender who is arrested for an offence, then
released on bail and reoffends. He is subsequently convicted of the
two offences on a single sentencing date. In this case, count only one
sentencing occasion.
Do not count institutional rule violations
that do not result in convictions. Convictions for sexual offences that
are subsequently overturned on appeal or result in acquittal do not
count as the index sex offence or as prior sentencing occasions. Simple
questioning by police not leading to a conviction is insufficient to
be a sentencing occasion for a sexual offence. The number of charges/convictions
does not matter, only the number of sentencing occasions.
Sanctions for a sentencing occasion may
include the following:
- Alternative resolution agreements
- Community Supervision
- Conditional or Absolute Discharges
- Fines
- Imprisonment
Count as prior sentencing occasions
for sexual offences:
- Juvenile offences count (if
you know about them; see subsection "Official Criminal Record,"
page 5)
- Where applicable, "Probation
before judgement" counts as a sentencing occasion
- Where applicable, "Consent
Decree" counts as a sentencing occasion
- Suspended sentences count
as a sentencing occasion
Do not count as prior sentencing
occasions for sexual offences:
- Institutional disciplinary
actions/reports
- Acquittals or convictions
overturned on appeal
- Being "detected" by the
Children’s Aid society or other Child Protection services
- Stayed offences in which there
is no finding or admission of guilt and no associated sanction (formal
or informal)
Determining Whether Something is a Sentencing
Occasion
A sentencing occasion requires a) a court
or administrative tribunal using due process, resulting in b) an admission
or finding of guilt and c) a sanction. This threshold is fairly high;
arrests and charges (without convictions) do not count. The finding
of guilt should be Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. It is possible to use
a lesser criterion of Clear and Convincing Evidence for sanctions administered
outside of the criminal justice system (e.g., Canon law for priests,
military court marshal, civil commitment procedures for the mentally
ill). Institutional rule violations (e.g., prison misconducts), however,
are insufficient to meet the standard of Clear and Convincing Evidence.
Many of these special circumstances are addressed in subsections under
the rules for coding relevant items.
Most sentencing occasions are easy to
identify (there is a conviction for a criminal offence, accompanied
by a sanction). Sometimes an evaluator must make a decision about a
situation that does not clearly fall under one of the rules outlined
in the manual. In these circumstances, it is helpful to refer to the
essential features of sentencing occasions articulated above.
Within the criminal justice system, a
finding of guilt has a relatively clear meaning (something equivalent
to a conviction) and a specific due process associated with that finding,
such that our confidence in that finding is high. Establishing the equivalent
of a finding of guilt outside typical criminal courts requires a consideration
of the standard of proof and the due process involved in that finding
(keeping in mind that there will be variability in the terminology used
by many decision-making bodies). Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is a high
standard of proof (see page 7-8 for explanations of the various standards
of proof) and findings of guilt using this standard would generally
count, but this standard is rarely used outside criminal trials. However,
to count something as a sentencing occasion, you would want to see a
finding of guilt based on a standard that is higher than a Balance of
Probabilities. As such, decisions based on a standard equivalent to
or higher than Clear and Convincing Evidence could be considered sentencing
occasions. It is also helpful to consider the due process involved in
the finding of guilt. In criminal cases, accused parties have due process
rights, including the right to hear the evidence against them and to
have their side heard. Generally, to count something as a sentencing
occasion, you would want to see those basic elements of due process
present in some form (exact rules may vary).
Definition:
Index Sexual Offence
Generally, the index sex offence is the
most recent sex offence that results in a sentencing occasion. Sometimes
the index sex offence includes multiple counts, multiple victims, and
numerous crimes perpetrated at different times because of the timing
of when the offender was detected and apprehended. Some offenders are
apprehended after a spree of offending. If this results in a single
sentencing occasion (regardless of the number of convictions), all convictions
are considered part of the index sex offence.
The following rules apply when there
are significant events between the dates of the charge, conviction,
and sentence:
- If charged, but then charges
are dropped, this does not count as a sentencing occasion.
- If charged, then put on bail
conditions while awaiting further court action, then eventually convicted,
the conviction date counts as a sentencing occasion.
- If charged, and there is a
formal process that replaces further court action with alternative measures,
the formal process date counts as a sentencing occasion (under the concept
of an alternative sanction).
- If convicted but not (yet)
sentenced, with or without conditions attached, the conviction date
counts as a sentencing occasion.
- If convicted but sentenced
at a later date, the date of conviction counts as the sentencing date.
Specific examples to help identify and
distinguish between an index and a prior sexual sentencing occasion
are included on pages 24-29.
Special Coding Issues
The following definitions will provide
clarity in scoring "Prior Sentencing Occasions for Sexual Offences."
For the purposes of Static-2002 assessment, a sexual offence is an officially
recorded illegal sexual behaviour or criminal behaviour with sexual
intent.
An offence need not be called "sexual"
in its legal title or definition to be considered a sexual offence.
Sentencing occasions that are explicitly for sexual assaults or for
the sexual abuse of children are counted as sexual offences on Static-2002,
regardless of the offender’s motive. Offences that directly involve
illegal sexual behaviour are counted as sex offences even when the legal
process has led to a non-sexual charge or conviction. An example of
this would be where an offender is charged with or pleads guilty to
a Break and Enter when he was entering a residence to steal women’s
underwear to use for fetishistic purposes.
In addition, offences that involve non-sexual
behaviour are counted as sexual offences if they had a sexual motive.
For example, consider the case of a man who strangles a woman to death
as part of a sexual act but is only charged with manslaughter. In this
case the manslaughter charge would still be considered a sexual offence.
Similarly, if a man strangles a woman to gain sexual compliance and
is only charged with assault, this assault charge would still be considered
a sexual offence. Additional examples include convictions for murder
where there was a sexual component to the crime, such as a rape preceding
killing, kidnapping where the kidnapping took place but the planned
sexual assault was interrupted before it could occur, and assaults "pled
down" from sexual assaults. In Static-99 these offences that involved
sexual behaviour would also be coded as non-sexual violence. In Static-2002
they are only coded as a sexual offence.
In some cases, individuals have been
convicted after someone was injured or killed during consensual sex
involving bondage or asphyxiation. The conviction may be for assault,
manslaughter, murder, or negligence offences. These types of cases are
considered sexual offences.
Physical assaults, threats, and stalking
motivated by sexual jealousy do not count as sexual offences when scoring
the Static-2002.
Rule: If an offence is counted
as a sexual offence it cannot be counted as "Prior Non-Sexual Violence
Sentencing Occasions."
Violation of Probation and Parole
A violation of conditional release may
or may not count as a sentencing occasion in Static-2002. To be considered
a sentencing occasion, at least one aspect of the offending behaviour
must be an offence that would normally result in arrest and conviction
had the offender not already been under sanction (this will be discussed
further below). As well, there are additional criteria for probation
and parole violations.
A violation of a probation order counts
if there is a court hearing, finding of guilt, and a new sanction. The
name of the charge can be "Violation of Probation" as long
as the evaluator is reasonably certain at least one aspect of the underlying
behaviour was a crime, not just a technical violation.
A parole violation counts as a sentencing
occasion when a paroling authority functioning as a quasi-judicial body
determines that:
a) the offender has committed a criminal
offence that would normally result in arrest and conviction, and
b) the offender is required to remain
in custody after the determination of guilt (not just time served; time
served refers to time spent detained in custody prior to sentencing).
Simply having parole revoked without
a finding of guilt for new offending does not count as a sentencing
occasion.
In the absence of information on the
nature of any conditional release violation, the following rules apply:
(a) If the sanction for the violation
involved custodial time being ADDED to the offender’s pre-existing
sentence, the behaviour will be presumed to have been serious enough
to count as an offence (and therefore a sentencing occasion).
(b) If the offender was returned to custody
to serve all or part of the time remaining on the pre-existing sentence
but nothing more, then presume it was solely a technical violation.
(c) If the offender was on probation
and the sanction for the violation involved any time in custody (either
time served or a custodial sentence; time served refers to time spent
detained in custody prior to sentencing), the behaviour will be presumed
to be serious enough to count as an offence (and sentencing occasion).
Otherwise, assume it was solely a technical violation.
Convictions for parole or probation violations
can only count as a sexual sentencing occasion if the underlying behaviour
is a sexual offence that would normally result in arrest and conviction
had the offender not already been under sanction. Sentencing for "technical"
violations do not count as new sentencing occasions for a sexual offence.
For example, if an offender had a condition prohibiting being in the
presence of children, a breach (violation) of this condition would not
be counted as a new sentencing occasion.
There are rare circumstances when behaviour
resulting in a purely "technical" breach can be considered
a sentencing occasion if the behaviour was clearly an attempted sexual
offence. This can occur in either of two circumstances: (a) in
some jurisdictions the person may be charged with a new sexual offence,
but after his conditional release is revoked (breached) and he is sent
back to prison with a substantial remaining sentence, the charges are
dismissed by the prosecutor who decides there is little more to be gained
by pursuing the new conviction; or (b) very restricted, uncontroversial
cases where it is clear that an offence would have occurred had it not
been for the intervention of a third party or for the resistance of
the victim. For example, the offender is caught luring a child using
the same modus operandi of his previous offences, or the offender is
caught alone with a child and has a rape kit in his possession (see
definition of "Truly Imminent" on page 23 for further examples).
Note that merely being in the presence of children without supervision
could not be considered a sexual offence because it is not certain that
an offence would have occurred had there not been some form of intervention.
A real case in the Static-2002 research samples involved an offender
who was convicted for a technical violation for bringing a mattress
into a ladies’ washroom. Here, the intent was clearly to rape a woman,
but he was interrupted by security officials. Once again, note that
the threshold to consider a breach as a sexual sentencing occasion is
extremely high and the sexual offence must be imminent. Being in the
presence of children, failing to register, and the like are not considered
sexual sentencing occasions (although failing to register as a sex offender
can count as a non-sexual sentencing occasion; see page 82).
Category
"A" and Category "B" Offences
For the purposes of Static-2002, sexual
crimes are divided into two categories. Category "A" involves most
criminal sentencing occasions that we generally consider "sexual offences"
and that involve an identifiable child or non-consenting adult victim.
This category includes contact offences, exhibitionism, voyeurism, sex
with animals and dead bodies.
Category "B" offences are typically
identified by two main criteria: a) sexual behaviour that is illegal
but the parties are consenting or no specific victim is involved, and
b) indecency without a sexual motive. Category "B" offences include
consenting sex in public places, possession of pornography, and all
prostitution, pimping and related offences with the exception of paying
for the sexual services of an individual incapable of providing consent
(under age, mentally incompetent). Behaviours such as urinating in public
or public nudity associated with mental impairment are also considered
Category "B" offences.
Rule: If the offender has
any Category "A" offences on their record - all category "B"
offences should be counted as sex offences for the purpose of scoring
"Prior Sentencing Occasions for Sexual Offences" or identifying
the index sex offence. Category "B" offences do not count for the
purpose of scoring victim type items (with the exception of victims
from non-disclosure of HIV status). Static-2002 should not be used with
offenders who have only Category "B" offences.
Offence names and legalities differ from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction and a given sexual behaviour may be associated
with a different charge in a different jurisdiction. The following is
a list of offences that would typically be considered sexual. Other
offence names may qualify when they denote sexual intent or sexual misbehaviour.
Category "A" Offences
- Aggravated sexual assault
- Attempted sexual offences
(attempted rape, attempted sexual assault)
- Compelling the commission
of any sexual offences (bestiality, incest, or sexual assault) regardless
of whether it is compelled in person or via the internet
- Contributing to the delinquency
of a minor (where the offence had a sexual element)
- Distributing obscene materials
to minors (no economic motive)
- Exhibitionism
- Illicit sexual use of the
internet
- Incest
- Indecent exposure
- Internet luring
- Invitation to sexual touching
- Juvenile sex tourism (travelling
to another country in order to engage in sexual behaviour with juveniles
that is illegal in the country of origin)
- Lewd or lascivious acts with
a child under 14
- Manufacturing/Creating child
pornography where an identifiable child victim was used in the process
(The offender had to be present or participate in the creation of the
child pornography with a human child present. "Present" can include
via the internet, such as in cases where the offender is watching sexual
abuse occurring live on the internet.)
- Molest children
- Obscene telephone calls
- Oral copulation
- Penetration with a foreign
object
- Rape (includes in concert.
Rape in concert is rape with one or more co-offenders. The co-offender
can actually perpetrate a sexual crime or be involved to hold the victim
down.)
- Sexual assault
- Sexual assault causing bodily
harm
- Sexual battery
- Sexual homicide
- Sexual offences against animals
(Bestiality)
- Sexual offences involving
dead bodies (offering an indignity to a dead body)
- Sodomy (includes in concert
and with a person under 14 years of age)
- Unlawful sexual intercourse
with a minor
- Voyeuristic activity (trespass
by night)
Category "B" Offences
- Consenting sex with other
adults in public places
- Crimes relating to child pornography
(possession, selling, transporting, creating where only pre-existing
images are used by digital creation)
- Indecent behaviour without
a sexual motive (e.g., urinating in public)
- Not informing a sexual partner
of HIV positive status
- Offering prostitution services
- Pimping/pandering
- Seeking/hiring prostitutes
- Profiting from child prostitution
- Coercing others into sex trade
(economic motive)
- Solicitation of a prostitute
- Bigamy
- Selling sexually explicit
materials to minors (economic motive)
In regard to the Category "A" offence
of exhibitionism - this would not be a sexual offence if the crime description
indicated the offence was actually for an indecent act such as urinating
in an alley while intoxicated.
Certain sexual behaviours may be illegal
in some jurisdictions and legal in others (e.g., prostitution). Count
only those sexual misbehaviours that are illegal in the jurisdiction
in which the risk assessment takes place and in the jurisdiction where
the acts took place.
In regard to the Category "B" offence
of not informing a sexual partner of HIV positive status, in some jurisdictions
this offence is prosecuted as Aggravated Sexual Assault or as another
charge that is typically considered a Category "A" sexual offence.
Regardless of the name of the offence, the behaviour of not disclosing
HIV positive status to an otherwise consenting partner is a Category
"B" offence.
Prostitution and pimping offences are
considered Category "B" offences, with the exception of paying for
the sexual service of a minor, which is a Category "A" offence.
In contrast, profiting from the child prostitution is a Category "B"
offence.
Exclusions
The following offences would not normally
be considered sexual offences:
- Annoying children
- Consensual sexual activity
in prison (except if sufficiently indiscreet to meet criteria for gross
indecency)
- Failure to register as a sex
offender
- Being in the presence of children,
loitering at schools
- Possession of children’s
clothing, pictures, toys
- Stalking (unless sexual offence
appears imminent - see definition of "Truly Imminent" below)
- Reports to child protection
services (without charges)
Definition:
"Truly Imminent"
For an offence to be truly imminent,
it should be established beyond a reasonable doubt that a sex offence
would have occurred as part of the same behavioural sequence (minutes
to hours) but for detection and intervention from others. Examples of
this nature would include an individual with a history of child molesting
being discovered alone with a child and about to engage in a "naked
wrestling game." Another example would be an individual with
a long history of abducting teenage girls for sexual assault being apprehended
while attempting to lure teenage girls into his car. A sex offender
being in the presence of children, even against his conditions of community
release, is not considered "truly imminent" as the offender may
choose not to molest for an indefinite period of time.
Index Cluster
An offender may commit a number of sexual
offences in different jurisdictions, over a protracted period, or in
a spree of offending prior to being arrested and sanctioned. Even though
the offender may have a number of sentencing dates in different jurisdictions,
the subsequent sentencing dates would constitute an "index cluster."
These "spree" offences would group together – the early ones and
the last; they all become the "index cluster" with none considered
as "prior" to another. This is because the offender has not been
"caught" and sanctioned for the earlier offences and then "chosen"
to reoffend in spite of the sanction. Furthermore, historical offences
that are detected after the offender is convicted of a more recent sexual
offence would be considered part of the index sex offence (pseudo-recidivism)
and become part of the index cluster.
Rule: For two offences to
be considered separate sentencing occasions, the second offence must
have been committed after the offender was detected and sanctioned for
the previous offence.
For example, consider an offender who
is arrested for an offence, then released on bail and reoffends. He
is subsequently convicted of the two offences on a single sentencing
occasion. This does not qualify as two sentencing occasions. Instead,
both offences would be part of an index cluster.
An index cluster can occur in the following
three ways:
The first occurs when an offender
commits multiple offences and these offences are then subsequently dealt
with as a group by the police and the courts. An example of this occurs
when an offender goes on a crime "spree" – the offender repeatedly
offends over time, but is not detected or caught. Eventually, after
two or more crimes, the offender is detected, charged, and goes to a
single court with multiple charges, where he has not been independently
sanctioned between the multiple offences.
The second occurs when an index
sex offence has been identified for an offender and subsequently the
criminal justice system becomes aware of sex offences that occurred
earlier in time than the identified index sex offence but the offender
is first charged and/or convicted for these "older" offences after
the conviction for the identified index sex offence. These previous
offences come forward and become part of the most recent "index cluster."
This is also known as "pseudo-recidivism." It is important
to remember that these historical convictions or sentencing dates do
not count as "priors" because the offending behaviour was not sanctioned
before the offender committed the index offence. The issue is that the
offender has not been previously sanctioned for his behaviour and then
made the choice to reoffend.
The third situation arises when
an offender is charged with several offences that come to trial within
a short period of time (a month or so). When the criminal record is
reviewed it appears that a cluster of charges were laid at the end of
an investigation and that the court could not attend to all of these
charges in one sitting day. Also, the offences may have been a spree
of offending in different jurisdictions, requiring multiple trials.
When the evaluator sees groups of charges where it appears that a lot
of offending has finally "caught up" with an offender – this can
be considered a "cluster." If these sentencing dates happen
to be the last sentencing dates they become an index cluster. The evaluator
would not count the last court day as the "index sex offence" and
the earlier ones as "priors".
Examples for explanation: An offender
commits a rape, is apprehended, charged, convicted, and placed on probation.
Very shortly after his release, he commits another rape, is apprehended,
convicted, and sanctioned. Because the offender was apprehended and
sanctioned for a new sex offence this does not qualify as a crime "spree"
or "cluster" – these convictions would be considered separate
sentencing occasions. The second conviction would become the index sex
offence and the first conviction would become a prior sexual sentencing
occasion.
However, if an offender commits a rape
in January, another in March, another in May, and another in July and
is finally caught, convicted, and sentenced for all four in August,
this constitutes a crime "spree" because he was not sanctioned between
these crimes. As such, this spree of sexual offences, were they the
most recent sexual offences on the offender’s record, would be considered
an "index cluster" and all four rape offences would count as the
"index sex offence," not just the last one. This is true even if
the offender was ultimately convicted and sentenced in different jurisdictions
and on different dates for these different offences. If these four offences
(and their corresponding sanctions) occurred prior to the index sex
offence, they would count as a sentencing occasion cluster (and therefore
one prior sentencing occasion).
When Conviction Date is Different from Sentencing
Date
It is not uncommon for offenders to be
convicted on one date and be sentenced at a later date. In this case,
the earliest date of conviction for the offences in the sentencing date
cluster (index or prior) counts as the date of the sentencing occasion.
In such cases, crimes committed between the conviction date and the
sentencing date may count as a separate sentencing occasion in Static-2002
scoring.
Consider the following example:
Mr. Jones commits sexual offence A, gets
charged and convicted. While awaiting sentence on offence A, he commits
sexual offence B, and gets charged for it. He then gets sentenced for
offence A. Later, he gets convicted and sentenced for sexual offence
B.
In this example, sexual offence A would
count as a prior sexual offence because the date of conviction would
be the date of the first sentencing occasion, not the date of the eventual
sentence. (The point being that the offender reoffended after receiving
clear legal notice that he faced punishment for the previous offence.)
The date of conviction for sexual offence B would be the index offence.
Separating Index Clusters and Prior Offences
There are cases where it can be difficult
to distinguish index clusters from prior offences, particularly when
sexual offending occurs over a period of several years. Keep in mind
the general rule that to be a prior sexual sentencing occasion, the
offence and the first qualifying sanction must have occurred before
at least one of the index sexual offences. Some examples are provided
below.
Example No. 1
Joe Smith sexually offends against his
daughter between 2000 and 2005 and is sentenced in 2006. He commits
a sexual assault against another victim in 2001 and is sentenced in
2001. He commits a non-sexual assault in 2004 and is sentenced in 2004.
Both the 2001 and 2004 circumstances
count as prior sentencing occasions (although only the 2001 sentencing
occasion would be for prior sexual offending) because some of the index
sexual offence behaviour was committed after he was sanctioned for the
previous offences. The offender chose to keep offending after being
sanctioned in 2001, and again in 2004.
Example No. 2
John Johnson sexually offends against
his daughter between 2000 and 2004 and is sentenced in 2006. He commits
a sexual assault against another victim in 2001 and is sentenced in
2001. He commits a non-sexual assault in 2005 and is sentenced in 2005.
The 2001 sentencing occasion is a prior
sexual offence because he continued the index sexual behaviour after
being sanctioned for the 2001 offence. The non-sexual assault becomes
part of an index cluster because even though he was sanctioned for the
assault before being sanctioned for the index sexual offence, the assault
occurred after the index sexual offence was committed. So the offender
did not choose to commit the index sexual offence after being sanctioned
for the non-sexual assault.
Example No. 3
Richard Jones sexually offends between
1976 and 1979. He commits a sexual offence in 1988 and is sentenced
in 1989. He commits a sexual offence in 2002. Due to publicity for this
offence, his victims from the 1970s come forward and he is convicted
and sentenced for the 2002 offence as well as the historical offences
from the 1970s.
In this example, the offences from the
1970s are part of the index cluster. The sexual offence in 1988 is a
prior. Even though it occurred after the historical offences, it still
occurred and was sanctioned before the 2002 sexual offence that formed
part of the index cluster.
Example No. 4
James Smith sexually offends between
1976 and 1979. He commits a sexual offence in 1992 and is sentenced
in 1995. In 2002 he is convicted for the offences in the 1970s.
Even though the two sentencing dates
are almost a decade apart, they are considered an index cluster because
the offences for which the offender was sentenced in 2002 were not committed
after the offender was sanctioned in 1995.
Example No. 5
Peter Davidson is charged with incest
(offence A) and the charges are stayed pending attendance in community
treatment. Halfway through treatment, he commits a new sexual offence
(offence B). He is subsequently convicted for the original offence (offence
A) and sentenced. The second offence (offence B) does not result in
any separate charge or conviction but is implicitly used as a reason
for sentencing for offence A (inability to conform to the demands of
community treatment).
In this example, the date of the original
stayed charge (for offence A) counts as a sentence date under the alternative
sanction rule. The subsequent reinstatement of normal criminal justice
processes (conviction and sanction) does not count separately as a new
sentencing occasion for offenders who were originally given alternative
sanctions. The effect of the reinstatement of conviction and sentence
is not to move the index date, but potentially to result in one extra
point for "Any Community Supervision Violation." Note that
this example has two court dates for offence A: the date of alternative
sanction and the ultimate date of conviction and sentence (due to non-compliance
with alternative sanction). The combination of the alternative measure
and the same-crime sentencing is to be considered pseudo-recidivism,
representing only one sentencing occasion in total. In other words,
once a sentencing date is determined through an alternative sanction,
further court action stemming solely from that same charge cannot count
as a distinct sentencing event. Likewise, the date of a sentencing occasion
for a crime does not change based on court procedures solely related
to that same criminal act and no new sexual offence.
Consider the same example, but this time
Peter was also charged and convicted for the second sexual offence (B).
In such a case, the date of sentencing for the second sexual crime becomes
the new index date. Offence A then counts as a prior sexual offence
for all scoring purposes. This is true even if the date of sentencing
for offence A was the same date he was sentenced for offence B, because
the original (i.e., the first) date that he was given the alternative
sanction for offence A would still be counted as the relevant date for
that sentencing occasion.
Pseudo-recidivism
Pseudo-recidivism occurs when offenders
who have been or are currently involved in the criminal justice process
are charged and convicted for old offences for which they have never
before been convicted. This occurs most commonly with sexual offenders
when public notoriety or media publicity surrounding their trial or
release leads other victims of past offences to come forward and lay
new charges. Because the offenders have not been charged and sanctioned
for these misbehaviours previously, they have not experienced a legal
sanction and then chosen to re-offend.
Example: Mr. Jones was convicted
in 1998 of three sexual assaults of children. These sexual assaults
took place in the 1970’s. As a result of the publicity surrounding
Mr. Jones’s possible release in 2002, two more victims, now adults,
come forward which results in new charges in 2002. These offences also
took place in the 1970’s but these victims did not come forward until
2002. Because Mr. Jones had never been sanctioned for these offences
they were not on his record when he was convicted in 1998. Historical
charges of this nature represent pseudo-recidivism and are not counted
as "priors."
Another example: Mr. Johnson was convicted
in 2000 for a sexual assault that was committed in 1998. He serves a
prison sentence and is released into the community. In 2002, he is convicted
of sexual assault for offences he committed in the 1980s and is sentenced
to another term of imprisonment. This sentencing occasion cannot be
considered as a new index sex offence because the offences occurred
prior to the offences resulting in his 2000 conviction. The sentencing
occasion cannot be counted as a prior sexual sentencing occasion because
he was not sanctioned for those offences prior to committing the offences
resulting in the 2000 conviction. In this case, the 2002 conviction
is "pseudo-recidivism" and both sentencing occasions would be considered
part of an index cluster.
The basic concept is that the offender
has to be sanctioned for previous sexual offences and then "choose"
to ignore that sanction and reoffend anyway. If he chooses to sexually
reoffend after a sanction, then he creates a new sex offence and this
offence is considered part of the criminal record, usually a new index
sex offence. If historical offences come to light for which the offender
has never been sanctioned while the offender is in the system for another
sexual offence, these offences join the more typically identified index
sex offence to form an "index cluster."
Post-Index Offences
Offences that occur after the index sex
offence do not count for Static-2002 purposes. Of course, post-index
sexual offence sentencing occasions create a new index offence. On the
other hand, post-index charges for sexual offending and charges and
convictions for general or violent criminal behaviour should be considered
"external" risk factors and would be included separately in any
report about the offender’s behaviour.
Example: Post-Index Sexual Charge:
Consider a case where an offender was convicted of rape in 2000. He
is charged with rape and false imprisonment in 2004 but the charges
are dismissed. In this case the index sex offence is the conviction/sentencing
date in 2000 and the dismissed charges in 2004 must be considered separately
as a risk factor outside the context of the Static-2002 assessment.
Example: Post-Index Violent Offence:
Consider a case where an offender in prison on a sexual offence commits
and is convicted of a serious violent offence. This violent offence
would not be scored on either Item 11, "Prior Sentencing Occasion
for Anything" or Item 14, "Any Prior Non-Sexual Violence Sentencing
Occasions" but would be considered separately, as a risk factor outside
the context of the Static-2002 assessment.
Additional Coding Issues
Adjudication Withheld
In some jurisdictions it is possible
to have a disposition of "Adjudication Withheld," in which case
the offender receives a probation-like period of supervision. This is
counted as a sentencing occasion because a sentence (a consequence representing
a loss of freedom and/or some other cost) was given.
Appeal
Convictions overturned on appeal do not
count as a sentencing occasion for a sexual offence.
Child Protection Services
Being "detected" by the Children’s
Aid Society or other child protection services does not count as a sentencing
occasion for a sexual offence, even if the child protection service
applies a sanction (e.g., the children are taken away from the offender,
or the offender is asked to leave the home).
Clergy
For members of religious groups (clergy),
some movement within their own organization can count as a sentencing
occasion for a sexual offence. The offender has to receive some form
of official sanction in order for it to count as a sentencing occasion
for a sexual offence. An example of this would be the "de-frocking"
of a priest or minister or being publicly denounced. Another example
would be where an offender is transferred within the organization and
the receiving institution knows they are receiving a sex offender and
considers it part of their mandate to help him with his problem or provide
treatment for the individual. This would function as equivalent to being
sent to a correctional institution and would count as a sentencing occasion
for a sexual offence.
For clergy, being transferred to a new
parish with no formal sanction does not count as a sentencing occasion
for a sexual offence.
For information on other professions
that involve a position of authority, see page 35.
Conditional Discharges
Where an offender has been charged with
a sexual offence and receives a conditional discharge, for the purposes
of Static-2002 a conditional discharge counts as a sentencing occasion
for a sexual offence. (A "conditional discharge" can occur in Canada
when a person is found guilty of an offence but is given conditions
for release into the community that, if followed, result in the conviction
being removed from their record.)
Consent Decree
Consent Decree counts as a sentencing
occasion for a sexual offence.
Court Supervision
In some states it is possible to receive
a sentence of court supervision, where the court provides some degree
of minimal supervision for a period (one year). This is similar to probation
and counts as a sentencing occasion for a sexual offence.
Diversionary Adjudication
If a person commits a criminal offence
as a juvenile or as an adult and receives a diversionary adjudication,
this counts as a sentencing occasion for a sexual offence. Examples
include what has been termed restorative justice, reparations, family
group conferencing, and community sentencing circles.
It is not uncommon for an alternative
sanction to be determined and for formal criminal justice processing
to be deferred to a later date. For example, an offender may be required
to attend treatment, and, if successful, would expect to receive a lenient
sentence at a later date (or the charges would be dropped). In such
cases, the date of the imposition of the alternative measure counts
as the date of the sentencing occasion (not the date of a subsequent
formal conviction and/or sentencing).
Extension of Sentence by a Parole Board (or
similar)
If an offender is assigned extra time
added to his sentence by a parole board for a sexual offence this counts
as an additional sentencing occasion for a sex offence if the new time
extended the total sentence.
This would not count as a sentencing
occasion for a sex offence if the additional time was to be served concurrently
or if it only changed the parole eligibility date. This situation is
presently not possible in Canada. The only exception to this rule is
for "Lifers," Dangerous Offenders, and others with indeterminate
sentences. For offenders with indeterminate sentences, if their parole
is revoked and they are returned to prison for a sex offence, this counts
as a sentencing occasion. The rationale for this difference is that
in general, the standard of proof necessary to return an offender to
prison without adding additional time to their sentence is insufficient
to meet the standards that typically define a sentencing occasion (e.g.,
a conviction). However, for offenders with an indeterminate sentence,
even when there is enough evidence to obtain a conviction, it is rare
to charge the offender with the new offence.
Failure to Appear
If an offender fails to appear for sentencing
for a sex offence, this is not counted as a sentencing occasion. Only
the final sentencing (or the date of conviction) for the charge for
which the offender missed his court date is counted as a sentencing
occasion.
Failure to Register as a Sexual Offender
Failure to register as a sexual offender
is not counted as a sentencing occasion for a sexual offence, but can
count as a non-sexual sentencing occasion (see page 82).
Juvenile Extension of Detention
In some states it is possible for a juvenile
to be sentenced to a detention/treatment facility for a sexual offence.
At the end of that term of incarceration it is possible to extend the
period of detention. Even though a judge and a prosecutor are present
at the proceedings, because there has been no new crime or charges/convictions,
the extension of the original order is not considered a sentencing occasion
for a sexual offence.
Juvenile Offences
Both adult and juvenile sentencing occasions
for a sexual offence count in this item.
In some jurisdictions, it is possible
for juvenile offenders to get convicted of a sexual offence whereas
in other jurisdictions the juvenile has a "petition sustained,"
is "adjudicated delinquent," or other phrase essentially of the
same meaning. For the purposes of scoring Static-2002, these are
equivalent to an adult conviction because there are generally liberty-restricting
consequences. Any jurisdictional dispositions meaning a juvenile is
convicted would count as a sentencing occasion for a sexual offence.
There have been cases where a juvenile
has been removed from his home by judicial action under a "Person
In Need of Supervision" (PINS) petition due to sexual aggression.
This counts as a sentencing occasion for a sexual offence.
In contrast, placement as a juvenile
in a state sanctioned "home" for sexual crimes does not count as
a sentencing occasion, nor would moves from one facility to a more secure
facility. Such actions, however, can count as charges (see next item
regarding prior juvenile arrest for a sexual offence).
Mentally Disordered and Developmentally Delayed
Offenders
Some offenders suffer from sufficient
mental impairment (major mental illness, developmental delays) that
criminal justice intervention is unlikely. Informal hearings and sanctions,
such as placement in treatment facilities and residential moves as a
result of their illegal sexual behaviour, do not count as a sentencing
occasion for a sexual offence. Such actions, however, can count as arrests
on the items "Prior Juvenile Arrest for a Sexual Offence"
and "Any Prior Involvement in the Criminal Justice System."
Military
If an offender is given a sanction (military
brig, lowered rank, or similar) for a sexual offence this counts as
a sentencing occasion for a sexual offence. If an "undesirable discharge"
is given to a member of the military as the direct result of sexual
criminal behaviour (something that would have attracted a criminal charge
were the offender not in the military), this counts as a sentencing
occasion for a sexual offence. However, if the member left the military
when he normally would have and the "undesirable discharge" is equivalent
to a bad job reference then the sexual criminal behaviour would not
count as a sentencing occasion for a sexual offence. For members
of the military, being transferred to a new post or retraining as a
result of sexual misbehaviour does not count as a sentencing occasion
for a sexual offence. Pure military offences (conduct unbecoming, insubordination,
not following a lawful order, dereliction of duty, etc.) do not count
when scoring Static-2002.
Not Criminally Responsible due to Mental Disorder
Being found "not criminally responsible
due to mental disorder" (or its equivalent) is counted as a sentencing
occasion if the court-determined disposition from the finding involved
institutional and/or mandated community sanction/care.
Not Guilty
Being found "not guilty" is not counted
as a sentencing occasion for a sexual offence.
Noxious Substance
The conviction for giving a noxious substance
(or its equivalent, drugs, alcohol, or other stupefacient) can count
as a sentencing occasion for a sexual offence if the substance was given
with the intention of making it easier to commit a sexual offence. If
there was evidence that the substance was given to the victim just prior
to a sexual assault, this would count as a sexual offence. If there
was no evidence about what went on, or the temporal sequence of events,
the "giving of noxious substance" sentencing occasion would not
count as a sexual offence.
Official Cautions
– United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, an official caution
for a sex offence should be treated as equivalent to a sentencing occasion
for a sex offence.
Pardons
Offences for which an offender later
receives a pardon would count as sentencing occasions (note that convictions
overturned on appeal or stayed due to new evidence that the offender
may not be guilty do not count as sentencing occasions).
Peace Bonds, Judicial Restraint Orders, and
"810" Orders
In some instances a Peace Bond/Judicial
Restraint Order/810 Orders are placed on an offender when sexual charges
are dropped or dismissed or when an offender leaves jail or prison.
An order of this nature, primarily preventative, is not counted
as a sentencing occasion for a sexual offence for the purposes of scoring
Static-2002. There are some occasions when these orders are used reactively
as a sanction for criminal behaviour (e.g., after a domestic violence
incident, the offender enters a peace bond in exchange for dropping
the charges). Even when used as a sanction, these orders are not considered
sentencing occasions because there has to be a conviction or determination
of guilt preceding the sanction, which is not the case with these orders.
"PINS" Petition (Person in need of supervision)
There have been cases where a juvenile
has been removed from his home by judicial action under a "PINS"
petition due to sexual aggression. This counts as a sentencing occasion
for a sexual offence.
Prison Misconducts
An adult prison misconduct report for
sexual misbehaviour does not count as a sentencing occasion for a sexual
offence. A juvenile prison misconduct report with determination of "guilty"
for a sexual misbehaviour coupled with an institutional consequence
is not counted as a sentencing occasion for a sexual offence, but is
counted as "charge" (see next item regarding prior juvenile arrests
for sexual offences).
Probation before Judgement
Probation before judgement counts as
a sentencing occasion for a sexual offence.
Revocation of Conditional Release for
"Lifers," Dangerous Offenders, and Others with Indeterminate Sentences
If a "lifer," Dangerous Offender,
or other offender with an already imposed indeterminate sentence is
simply revoked (returned to prison from conditional release in the community
without trial) for criminal sexual behaviour that is of sufficient gravity
that a person not already involved with the criminal justice system
would most likely be convicted of a criminal offence, this revocation
of conditional release counts as a sentencing occasion for a sexual
offence. Note: the evaluator should be confident that were this offender
not already under sanction that a criminal charge would have been laid
by police and that a conviction would have been highly likely.
Sanctions by Professional
Organizations
For members of professional organizations
that involve a position of trust (e.g., teachers, doctors, clergy),
some movement within their own organization can count as a sentencing
occasion for a sexual offence. The offender has to receive some form
of official sanction in order for it to count as a sentencing occasion
for a sexual offence. An example of this would be revoking a doctor’s
licence to practice or being publicly denounced. Another example would
be where an offender is transferred within the organization and the
receiving institution knows they are receiving a sex offender and considers
it part of their mandate to help him with his problem or provide treatment
for the individual. This would function as equivalent to being sent
to a correctional institution and would count as a sentencing occasion
for a sexual offence.
For clergy, being transferred to a new
parish or school with no formal sanction or being sent to graduate school
for re-training does not count as a sentencing occasion for a sexual
offence.
For further information on clergy, see
page 30.
Similar Fact Crimes
Sometimes a sex offence may not have
been completed but based on his pattern of offending in the past it
can be counted as a sentencing occasion for a sex offence. Take an offender
who assaults three different women on three different occasions. On
the first two occasions he grabs the woman as she is walking past a
wooded area, drags her into the bushes and rapes her. For this he is
convicted twice of sexual assault (rape). In the third case he grabs
the woman, starts to drag her into the bushes but she is so resistant
that he beats her severely and leaves her. In this case he is convicted
of aggravated assault. For the conviction to be counted as a sentencing
occasion for a sexual offence, it must have a sexual motivation. In
a case like this it is reasonable to assume that the aggravated assault
had a sexual motivation because it resembles the other sexual offences
so closely. In the absence of any other indication to the contrary this
aggravated assault would count as a sentencing occasion for a sexual
offence. Note: If considered a sexual offence, the aggravated
assault could not be counted as a conviction for "Non-sexual Violence"
in Static-2002.
Stayed Charges/Sentences
Stayed charges/sentences take different
forms in different jurisdictions. If there is a sanction associated
with the stay of proceedings (e.g., stayed pending attendance in community
treatment), stayed charges would count as a sentencing occasion, similar
to other forms of alternative measures. They should not be considered
sentencing occasions if there is no finding or admission of guilt, and
no associated sanction (formal or informal).
Suspended Sentences
In Canada, a suspended sentence for a
sexual offence counts as a sentencing occasion for a sexual offence.
Unfit to Stand Trial
Being found unfit to stand trial does
not count as a sentencing occasion for a sexual offence, even if the
offender is detained for treatment. A declaration of unfit to stand
trial essentially halts criminal proceedings. If the offender subsequently
receives a finding of guilt (e.g., a conviction or its equivalent),
then the subsequent sanction would be counted.
3. Any Juvenile Arrest for a Sexual Offence
and Convicted as an Adult for a Separate Sexual Offence
Background: In general,
the earlier the onset of crime, the greater the probability of persistent
criminal behaviour. The same is true for sexual offending (Hanson &
Bussière, 1998). The criteria of "arrest" was used because juveniles
are less likely than adults to be processed by the formal criminal justice
system given that there are other methods of controlling problematic
behaviour of youth.
Information Required to Score this
Item: To score this item the evaluator should have access
to an official criminal record as compiled by police or other law enforcement
agency, court, or correctional authorities. Self-report of criminal
convictions can be used in some circumstances as described below as
well as in the subsection "Official Criminal Record" (page 5).
The Basic Rule: If the offender
has an arrest for a sex offence prior to age 18 and a conviction for
a different sex offence at age 18 or older, the offender receives a
score of "1." If the offender has never been arrested for
a sexual offence prior to age 18, the score received is a "0" on
this item.
This item is only scored for offenders
who have a conviction for a sexual offence as an adult. It is not scored
for juvenile offenders who are released after age 18 and have only a
juvenile sex offence conviction but are now adults. In other words,
if Static-2002 is used with an offender whose sole sexual offence record
was as a juvenile, the score for this item would be "0" no matter
how old the offender is when released. The adult sexual offence conviction
must be for a different incident than that which led to the arrest as
a juvenile.
The arrest for a sexual offence as a
juvenile must occur prior to the age of 18. If the offender committed
a sexual offence at age 17 and is arrested for these offences at age
22, then he would not get a point for a juvenile arrest. If he is arrested
at age 17 but is not convicted until age 22, then he would get the point
for a juvenile arrest. If a juvenile offender is adjudicated as an adult
(e.g., is sentenced as an adult), the arrest is still counted if it
occurred prior to the age of 18.
Arrest is a low threshold. Anything that
satisfies the definition of a sentencing occasion (see item "Prior
Sentencing Occasions for Sexual Offences") will meet the criteria
for this item (keeping in mind the rules regarding index clusters and
pseudo-recidivism), although the reverse is not always true. Even so,
an arrest is the minimum criteria. If the police question the offender
but do not make an arrest, this would not count as prior arrest.
Instances in which juveniles (ages 12-15)
are placed into residential care for sexual aggression would count as
an arrest for a sexual offence. In jurisdictions where 16- and 17-year-old
sexual offenders remain in the juvenile justice system and are not tried
as adults but where it is possible to be sent to a "camp," "home,"
or "placement" as a result of sexual misbehaviour, this counts as
an arrest for a sexual offence. For juveniles moved from a residential
(locked or unlocked) or secure facility to a more secure facility as
a result of sexual misbehaviour the move to a more secure facility counts
as an arrest. Any juvenile "prison misconduct" for sexual misbehaviour
is counted as an arrest. When a juvenile has been removed from his home
by judicial action under a "Person in Need of Supervision" petition
due to sexual aggression, this counts as an arrest (and as a sentencing
occasion for a sexual offence – see previous item).
Missing Information
Some criminal history information may
not include juvenile convictions. If this information is unavailable, score
the offender a "0" on this item.
Self-Report Information for this Item
Juvenile sexual offences should be based
on official criminal histories. If the official criminal history is
unavailable then the information can be gleaned from collateral records
in some instances. For example, the offender’s juvenile criminal history
may be sealed or unavailable, but psychological evaluations completed
when he was a juvenile describe the juvenile offence and list the charges.
This would be sufficient information to code the arrest for a juvenile
sexual offence.
It is possible to count self-reported
juvenile sexual offence arrests under certain conditions. The reports
have to have sufficient detail to be credible and potentially traceable
(e.g., location, approximate date, and the specific charges laid). Detail
is required because it would be easy for a juvenile to confuse being
questioned for an offence and being arrested.
4. Rate of Sexual Offending
Background: This item is
designed to capture the density of previous sexual offending. Research
shows that offenders who commit sexual offences more often (approximately
every 15 years is a useful break point) are at greater risk for recidivism
(Hanson & Thornton, 2003).
Information Required to Score this
Item: To score this item the evaluator must have access to the official
criminal record as compiled by police or other law enforcement agency,
court, or correctional authorities, and the age of the offender. Self-report
of criminal convictions may not be used to score this item except in
specific rare situations (see subsection "Official Criminal Record,"
page 5).
The Basic Rule:
On average, if the offender has less than one sexual sentencing occasion
every 15 years of their life, the offender receives a score of "0."
If the offender has one or more sentencing occasion every 15 years,
the offender receives a score of "1."
This is calculated by dividing the offender’s
age at release by the summed total of all sentencing occasions for sexual
offences, including the index sex offence.
When identifying the number of separate
sentencing occasions, remember the rules for pseudo-recidivism and sentencing
occasion clusters (see pages 24-29).
The offender’s age is always described
by the whole number. In other words, an offender’s age for this item
can be 49 or 50 but cannot be 49.5. An offender two weeks away from
their 50th birthday would still be considered 49 years old.
Example: If the offender
is 29 years old and has one prior sexual offence sentencing occasion
besides the index offence, his rate of sexual offending would be 29/(1+1)
= 14.5. This means that on average, the offender has a sexual sentencing
occasion every 14.5 years. The offender would receive a score of "1"
for "high rate" of sexual offending because the ratio is below 15.
If the offender was 55 years old and
had two prior sexual offence sentencing occasions, his rate of sexual
offending would be 55/(2+1) = 18.33, meaning that on average the offender
has a sexual sentencing occasion every 18 years. The offender would
receive a score of "0" because the ratio is above 15.
Please note that when computing the score
using the ratio described above, the index sex offence is included.
Rather than computing the ratio, evaluators
can also use the following table:
| Number Of Sentencing
Occasions For Sexual Offences |
Age at Release (Assessment Age) | Rate Score |
|---|
| Index only |
Any |
0 |
| Index + 1 |
< 30 | 1 |
| |
31+ |
0 |
| Index + 2 |
<45 |
1 |
| |
46+ |
0 |
| Index + 3 |
<60 |
1 |
| | 61+ |
0 |
CATEGORY III: DEVIANT SEXUAL INTERESTS
(Score 0 – 3 Points)
The Basic Principle: Deviant
sexual interest is one of the main factors associated with the risk
of sexual recidivism (Hanson & Bussière, 1998; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon,
2005). The deviant sexual interests addressed by Static-2002 are illegal
paraphilias, such as exhibitionism, voyeurism, and pedophilia. Although
full assessment of deviant sexual interests is aided by self-report
and specialized testing, valuable information about deviant sexual interests
can be established based on offence history only (Freund & Watson,
1991; Seto & Lalumière, 2001). Most of the individuals who score
high on this subscale would be expected to be identified as having deviant
sexual interests through other assessment procedures.
This category contains three items:
- Any Sentencing Occasion for
Non-contact Sexual Offence (Score 0-1 point).
- Any Male Victim (Score 0-1
point).
- Young, Unrelated Victims (Score
0-1 point).
The score of these three items are summed
to make a total score for this category that ranges from 0 to 3.
5. Any Sentencing Occasion for Non-contact
Sex Offence
Background: This item was
intended as a behavioural indicator of illegal paraphilic interests
such as exhibitionism, voyeurism, and some forms of fetishism (e.g.,
stealing underwear). Offenders with illegal paraphilic interests are
at increased risk for sexual recidivism (Hanson & Bussière, 1998).
As well, convictions for non-contact sexual offences have been consistently
related to increased recidivism risk (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004).
Information Required to Score this
Item: To score this item you must have access to an official
criminal record as compiled by police or other law enforcement agency,
court, or correctional authorities. Self-report of criminal convictions
may not be used to score this item except in specific rare situations
(see subsection "Official Criminal Record," page 5).
The Basic Rule: If the offender’s
criminal record indicates a sentencing occasion that includes a conviction
for a non-contact sexual offence, the offender is scored a "1" on
this item. If the offender’s criminal record does not show a conviction
for a non-contact sexual offence, the offender is scored a "0" on
this item.
The general definition of a non-contact
sexual offence is the following:
Any illegal sexual act where the offender
did not physically touch the victim, or any physical touching that occurred
was incidental to the offending; and either
(a) The victim is actively coerced into
nothing beyond perceiving (i.e., seeing, listening to) sexually offensive
materials (e.g., seeing the offender masturbate, listening to an obscene
phone call, viewing pornographic email attachments)
or
(b) No attempt was made by the offender
to make the victim aware of being victimized at the time. This latter
category includes actions such as possession of child pornography and
most voyeuristic behaviours including both live "peeping" and/or
surreptitiously recording individuals in settings where privacy would
normally be expected (e.g., audiotaping women urinating in public restrooms,
hiding cameras in toilets).
By this rule, compelling the commission
of a sexual offence counts as contact. Similarly, restraining and forcing
a boyfriend to watch his girlfriend being sexually assaulted represents
contact because the boyfriend is being physically restrained or positioned
in some way. Sending the boyfriend a videotape of his girlfriend being
sexually assaulted represents non-contact. Blackmailing a teenager to
undress represents contact, whether or not the offender was present
at the time, because the victim is coerced into participating in a sexual
activity (not just perceiving it) and the offender deliberately made
the victim aware of the victimization.
This category requires a sentencing occasion
for a non-contact sexual offence such as:
- Exposure to others
- Possessing obscene material
(child pornography)
- Obscene telephone calls
- Secretive peeping or watching
others for sexual purposes
- Illicit sexual use of the
Internet for unwanted sexual chat
- Sexual harassment (Unwanted
sexual talk)
- Breaking into a house and
stealing fetish items (women’s or children’s underwear)
- In certain jurisdictions "criminal
trespass" or "trespass by night" may be used as a charge for voyeurism
– these would also count
The offender must be convicted for a
non-contact sexual offence. Institutional rules violations, charges,
and arrests do not count, nor do self-reported offences. The index offence(s)
may include a conviction for a non-contact sexual offence and this offence
can count in this category.
The definition of "non-contact" is
based on the behaviour. For example, an offender convicted of "trespassing"
for peeping would get the point. When the offence details are unknown,
it is possible to score this item based on the names of the offences
(e.g., Exhibitionism). When the offence details are unknown and the
offence name does not exclusively restrict its scope to non-contact
sex offences, the offender would receive a score of 1 if the offence
name is usually used for non-contact sexual offences (e.g., Gross Indecency
was commonly used for exhibitionism in Ontario during the 1980s). In
the case of "criminal trespass" or "trespass by night," the offence may be related to either voyeurism or break and enter. In
these ambiguous circumstances, consider the nature of the case. For
example, if the offender has numerous break and enter convictions (which
were not sexually motivated) and denies a sexual motivation in the trespassing,
you may choose not to count it. However, if the offender has a lengthy
sexual offending record or has a history of or interest in voyeurism,
the trespass can be presumed sexual.
If the offender is convicted in the same
sentencing occasion of a contact sex offence such as lewd and lascivious
behaviour with a child and a non-contact sex offence such as using an
underage person for obscene matters then the item is scored 1 since
the offender committed a non-contact offence. Another example may occur
if, during an investigation of child molestation, police seize the offender’s
computer and find images of child pornography downloaded from the Internet.
The offender is subsequently convicted of sexual interference (the Canadian
term for a sexual offence involving a victim under 16 years old) and
possession of child pornography. A non-contact sexual conviction would
be coded here for the pornography.
Attempted Contact Offences
Sexual offences in which the offender
intended to make contact with the victim (but did not succeed) would
be considered attempted contact offences and are coded as contact offences
because of their intention (e.g., invitation to sexual touching, attempted
rape, internet luring when no meeting occurred).
Internet Crimes
None of the Static-2002 samples had enough
internet-only offenders to provide for meaningful analysis. As a result,
determining how to score internet crimes on the Static-2002 requires
interpretation beyond the available data.
Internet crimes can be divided into two
distinct groups because internet crimes seem to include elements of
either contact or non-contact offences. For example, some offenders
engage in sexual chat with minors on the internet without attempts to
lure the minor into meeting them. We consider communicating with children
over the internet for sexual purposes to be an inappropriate and socially
harmful act in itself and, therefore, classify these acts with their
historical precursors, such as indecent/obscene telephone calls, in
the category of non-contact sexual offences.
Other internet offenders will engage
in sexual chat with minor victims and attempt to meet them for the purpose
of engaging in illegal sexual activities. If the offender suggests or
attempts to meet the victim then we consider that internet offence to
be more similar to contact offences like rape and child molestation.
If the offender attempts to meet a (potential) victim then it should
not be scored as a sentencing occasion for a non-contact sex offence.
Keeping in mind the general rules distinguishing
contact and non-contact offences, viewing child pornography online is
considered non-contact. However, paying to view a child being abused
live or paying to have specific child pornography created counts as
a contact offence even though the offender is not physically present
when the child is abused.
Pimping and Prostitution Related Offences
Pimping and other prostitution related
offences (soliciting a prostitute, promoting prostitution, soliciting
for the purposes of prostitution) do not count as non-contact sentencing
occasions.
Plea Bargains
Contact sexual behaviour that was pled
down to a non-contact charge does not count as a non-contact sexual
offence sentencing occasion. Situations such as this may appear
in the criminal record where charges for a contact offence are dropped
and the non-contact charges appear simultaneously with a guilty plea.
In this case the offence would not be a sentencing occasion for a non-contact
sex offence.
If a "lifer," Dangerous Offender,
or other offender with an already imposed indeterminate sentence is
simply revoked (returned to prison from conditional release in the community
without trial) for a non-contact sexual offence that is of sufficient
gravity that a person not already involved with the criminal justice
system would most likely be charged with a non-contact sexual offence,
this revocation of conditional release would count as a sentencing occasion
for a non-contact sexual offence. Note:
the evaluator should be confident that were this offender not already
under sanction that it is highly likely that a non-contact sexual offence
charge would be laid by police and a conviction would be likely.
Special Coding Issues for the Victim Items
(ITEMS 6 – 9)
The following four items concern victim
characteristics: "Any Male Victim" (Item 6); "Young,
Unrelated Victims" (Item 7); "Any Unrelated Victim" (Item
8); and "Any Stranger Victim" (Item 9). "Any Male Victim" and "Young, Unrelated Victims" are coded under the category
"Deviant Sexual Interests" while "Any Unrelated Victim"
and "Any Stranger Victim" are coded under the category "Relationship
to Victims." For these four items the scoring is based on all
available credible information, including self-report, (alleged) victim
accounts, and collateral contacts.
The items concerning victim characteristics,
however, only apply to sex offences in which the victims were children
or non-consenting adults (Category "A" sex offences). For these
four items, do not score victim information from non-sexual offences
or from sex offences related to prostitution/pandering, possession of
child pornography, and public sex with consenting adults (Category "B"
sex offences). The only exception is that victims of not disclosing
HIV-positive status (a category "B" offence) can also be counted.
Do not score victim information on sexual offences against animals (bestiality
and similar charges).
In addition to all of the more common
sexual offences (sexual assault, rape, invitation to sexual touching,
buggery) you also score victim information on the following charges:
- Illegal use of a minor in
nudity-oriented material/performance
- Importuning (soliciting for
immoral purposes)
- Indecent exposure (when a
specific victim has been identified)
- Sexually harassing telephone
calls
- Voyeurism (when a specific
victim has been identified)
You do not score victim information on
the following charges:
- Compelling acceptance of objectionable
material
- Deception to obtain matter
harmful to juveniles
- Disseminating/displaying matter
harmful to juveniles
- Offences against animals
- Pandering obscenity
- Pandering obscenity involving
a minor
- Pandering sexually-oriented
material involving a minor
- Prostitution related offences
"Accidental Victims"
Occasionally there are "accidental
victims" to a sexual offence. An example of this occurred when an
offender was raping a woman in her living room. The noise awoke the
victim’s four-year-old son. The son wandered into the living room
and observed the rape in progress. The victim instructed her son to
return to his bedroom and he complied at once. The perpetrator was subsequently
charged and convicted of "lewd and lascivious act on a minor" in
addition to the rape. In court the offender pleaded guilty to both charges.
In this case, the four-year-old boy would not count as a victim as there
was no intention to commit a sexual offence against him. He would not
count in any of the four victim items, regardless of the conviction
in court.
When the offender actively restrains
another individual such that the individual is forced to witness a sexual
crime, the individual is only counted in the victim items if there is
evidence that forcing the individual to witness the sexual crime was
sexually motivated. For example, an offender who forces a boyfriend
to watch the sexual assault of his girlfriend due to expediency or macho
dominance would not counted as a victim of a sexual offence (see item
"Any Male Victim" on page 55 for further clarification).
A common example of an accidental victim
occurs when a person in the course of his/her daily life or profession
happens across a sexual offence. Examples include police officers,
park wardens, and janitors who observe a sexual offence in the course
of their duties. If a male officer were to observe an exhibitionist
exposing himself to a female, the offender would not be given the point
for "Male Victim" as there was no intention to expose before the
male officer. The evaluator would not give the offender a point for
"Any Male Victim" unless the offender specifically chose a male
towards whom to expose himself. In the same vein, a janitor who observes
an offender masturbating while looking at a customer in a store would
not be counted as a "Stranger Victim" or an "Unrelated Victim."
In short there has to be some intention to offend against that person
for that person to be a victim. Merely stumbling upon a crime scene
does not make the observer a victim regardless of how repugnant the
observer finds the behaviour.
Child Pornography
Victims portrayed in child pornography
are not scored as victims for the purposes of Static-2002. They do not
count as Young & Unrelated, Stranger, or Male Victims. Only real,
live, human victims count. If the offender is a child pornography maker
and a real live child was used to create pornography by your offender
or your offender was present when pornography was created with a real
live child (either in person or via a webcam or similar technology),
this child is a victim and should be scored as such on Static-2002 victim
questions. Manipulating pre-existing images to make child pornography,
either digitally or photographically is insufficient to score the victim
items. Making child pornography with a real child victim counts as a
"Category A" offence and, hence, with even a single conviction of
this nature, Static-2002 is appropriate to use.
The evaluator may, of course, in another
section of the report make reference to the apparent preferences demonstrated
in the pornography belonging to the offender.
Conviction, but no Victim
For the purposes of Static-2002, "consensual"
sexual behaviour of individuals deemed capable of providing consent
(e.g., adults, normal cognitive abilities) that is prohibited by statute
does not create victims. This is the thinking behind Category "B"
offences. Examples of this are prostitution offences and public toileting.
(Please see "Category "A" and Category "B" offences" in
Item 2, "Prior Sentencing Occasions for Sexual Offences" for a further
discussion of this issue.) Under some circumstances it is possible
that in spite of a conviction for a sexual offence the evaluator may
conclude that there were no real victims. An example of this could be
where a boy (age 16 years) is convicted of statutory rape of his 15-year-old
boyfriend. (Assume age of consent in this jurisdiction to be 16 years
of age). The younger boy tells the police that the sexual contact was
consensual and the police report informs the evaluator that outraged
parents were the complainants in the case. In a scenario like this,
the younger boy would not be scored as a victim, the conviction notwithstanding.
The criteria for deciding there was no
victim for scoring purposes underlying a conviction for a sexual offence
are as follows:
- The "alleged victim" states
the sexual interaction was cooperative and has never claimed otherwise;
- The offender had no pre-existing
power relationship over the "alleged victim" (e.g., swim instructor,
therapist); AND
- If the "victim" was younger
than the age of consent and of correspondingly approximately equal cognitive
development to the offender, the offender was less than 3 years older
than the person. If the "victim" was younger than the age of consent
and the offender is obviously of lesser cognitive developmental capacity
than the victim, the offender is less than 5 years older than the person.
Credible Information
Credible sources of information include,
but are not limited to, police reports, child welfare reports, victim
impact statements or discussions with victims, collateral contacts,
and offender self-report. If the information is credible (children’s
protective association, victim impact statements, police reports) you
should use this information to code the four victim questions, even
if the offender has never been arrested or charged for those offences.
An example of a collateral source that may be deemed not credible would
include an ex-spouse with whom the offender is currently involved in
heated divorce proceedings and whose motivation is clearly to disparage
the offender.
If there is a source of relevant information
for which the degree of credibility is not clear, the evaluator’s
report should generally include both a score with the contentious victim
information included and a score without this victim information included,
in this way showing how the information affects the risk assessment
both ways.
Dismissed Charges, Acquitted, or Found Not
Guilty
The criteria for coding victim information
is "all credible information." Coding victim information calls
for the evaluator to determine the credibility of the documents or self-report
regarding victims. If the evaluator finds that in weighing the evidence
in both directions the weight is in favour of the alleged offence having
occurred then the victim item should be coded "1." Of
course, judgement is required to make this assessment. If the evaluator
is uncertain about the veracity of the documents or self-report then
it is appropriate to count the item both ways, showing how the information
affects the risk assessment both ways.
In coding Static-2002 it may be necessary
to review the cases in which the offender was acquitted or found not
guilty and make an independent determination of whether there were actual
victims. If, in the evaluator’s opinion, after weighing the evidence
in both directions, there was no sexual offence, the evaluator would
not count the victim information.
This decision to score acquittals and
verdicts of not guilty in this manner is buttressed by a research study
in England that found that men acquitted of rape are more likely to
be convicted of sexual offences in the follow-up period than men who
had been found guilty (with equal times at risk; Soothill, Way, &
Gibbens, 1980).
Exposing
In cases of exposing, the four victim
items may be scored if there was a targeted victim and the intended
victim can be known with confidence by the evaluator. If the offender
exhibits before a mixed group, males and females, do not score "Any
Male Victim" unless there is reason to believe that the offender was
exposing specifically to at least one of the males in the group. Assume
only female victims unless you have evidence to suggest that the offender
was targeting males.
Example: If a man exposed to a school
bus of children he had never seen before (both genders), the evaluator
would score this offender one risk point for "Any Unrelated Victim,"
one risk point for "Any Stranger Victim," but would not score
a risk point for "Any Male Victim" unless there was evidence
the offender was specifically targeting the boys on the bus.
In cases where there is no sexual context
(i.e., the psychotic street person who takes a shower in the town fountain),
there are no victims regardless of how offended the bystanders might
be or how many people witnessed the event.
Internet Victims and Intention
If an offender provides pornographic
material over the internet, the intent of the communication is important.
In reality a police officer may be on the other end of the net in a
"sting" operation. If the offender thought he was providing pornography
to a child, even though he sent it to a police officer, the victim information
is counted as if a child received it. In addition, when offenders attempt
to contact face-to-face a "boy" or "girl" they have contacted
over the internet, the victim information counts as the intended victim,
even if they only "met" a police officer.
Intention is important. In a case where
a child was pretending to be an adult and an adult "shared" pornography
with that person in the honest belief that the (legal) sharing was with
another adult, there would not be a victim.
Juvenile Offences
Victims of juvenile offences count for
all four victim items.
Missing Information
The evaluator needs to know the pertinent
victim characteristics (gender,
relationship to offender, and approximate
age) for at least one victim to score these items. If there are additional
victims but their characteristics are unknown, the evaluator should
always make a note of this missing information when reporting the total
score. The evaluator should consider what the score would be with the
most probable characteristics of the other victims. In most cases, it
is plausible to assume that the characteristics of the other victims
are consistent with known victims. In some situations, however, alternate
characteristics are plausible. For example, if the known victim is related
(e.g., the offender’s daughter) and the offender has a previous sexual
offence from when he had no children or stepchildren, the victim from
this prior offence was probably unrelated. If the probable characteristics
of the other victims would result in a different total score, the evaluator
should report the total score both ways (with the missing information,
as well as with the plausible characteristics of other victims).
Polygraph Information
Information derived solely from polygraph
interviews or examinations (for example, information on victims or offence
motivation) is not used to score Static-2002 unless it can be corroborated
by outside sources or the offender provides sufficient information to
support a new criminal investigation. This includes all disclosures
made in preparation for a specific polygraph exam. For example, if the
offender completes a sexual history questionnaire that he knows he will
be specifically polygraphed about, or if he is being interrogated under
an explicit threat of being polygraphed, this information would be excluded.
Note that this applies to specific information and an impending polygraph
examination. Information from disclosures made in a treatment group
would not be excluded, even where there may be a polygraph on something
at some later point in time.
Information from polygraph interviews
is excluded even if the offender talks generally about the same "polygraph-based"
information during later conversations such as during treatment groups.
For instance, if a "male victim" is discovered solely during a polygraph
interview, and there is no independent source of that information to
be found, then this potential "male victim" does not count on Static-2002.
Prowl by Night - Voyeurism
For these types of offences the evaluator
should score specific identifiable victims. However, assume only female
victims unless you have evidence to suggest that the offender was targeting
males.
Sexual Offences against Animals
While the sexual assault of animals counts
as a sexual offence, animals do not count as victims. This category
is restricted to human victims. It makes no difference whether the animal
was a member of the family or whether it was a male animal or a stranger
animal.
Sex with Dead Bodies
If an offender has sexual contact with
dead bodies these people do count as victims. The evaluator should score
the four victim questions based upon the degree of pre-death relationship
between the perpetrator and the victim.
Stayed Charges
Victim information obtained from stayed
charges should be counted.
Victims Not at Home
If an offender breaks into houses (regardless
of whether or not the victims are there to witness the offence) to commit
a sexual offence, such as masturbating on or stealing their undergarments
or does some other sexual offence – victims of this nature are considered
victims for the purposes of Static-2002. Do not count all household
occupants as victims. Include only individuals who appeared to be the
offender’s target victims. Assume adult female stranger victims unless
there is evidence that the offender was targeting another victim group.
Count the offender’s intended victim as opposed to the actual victim.
For example, if the offender masturbated with clothing that would presumably
belong to an adult female (such as a thong) but in actual fact it belonged
to an 11-year old child or a man, the victim would still be considered
an adult female unless there was evidence indicating that the offender
knew the item belonged to a male or a child.
6. Any Male Victim
Background: Having male
victims is correlated with measures of sexual deviance (Freund &
Watson, 1991; Seto & Lalumière, 2001) and is empirically associated
with increased risk of sexual recidivism (Hanson & Bussière, 1998).
Information Required to Score this
Item: To score this item use all available credible information.
"Credible Information" includes but is not limited to police reports,
child welfare reports, victim impact statements or discussions with
victims, collateral contacts, and offender self-report.
This item is scored based on all available
credible information except that specifically derived from a polygraph
interview. The offender need not have been criminally charged for victims
to be counted for this item.
The Basic Rule: If the offender
has any male victim of a sexual offence (child or non-consenting adult
victim), score the offender a "1" on this item. If all of the offender’s
victims of sexual offences are female, score the offender a "0"
on this item.
Included in this category are all sexual
offences involving a male victim. Possession of child pornography involving
boys, however, does not count. Exposing to a mixed group of children
(girls and boys) does not count unless there was clear evidence the
offender was targeting at least one boy. Contacting a male victim over
the internet does count.
If an offender sexually assaults a transvestite
in the mistaken belief that the victim is a female (may be wearing female
clothing), do not score the transvestite as a male victim. If it is
essentially certain the offender knew he was assaulting a male before
the assault, score a male victim.
In some cases a sexual offender may beat-up
or contain (lock in a car trunk, tie to a chair, etc) another male in
order to sexually assault the male’s date (wife, etc.). If the perpetrator
simply assaults the male (non-sexual) in order to access the female
you do not count him as a male victim on Static-2002. In order for the
male to count as a victim of a sexual offence, there must be evidence
that the assault/restraint of the male was sexually motivated. For example,
if the perpetrator involves the male in the sexual offence by tying
him up and making him watch a rape (forced witness), there would need
to be additional signs of sexual motivation for the male victim to count,
such as self-admitted fantasies, preparing for forced witnesses as part
of offence planning, or statements made to the forced witness during
the offence that suggested a sexual motivation in the presence of the
male witness.
7. Young, Unrelated Victims
Background:
This item is a proxy for sexual interest in children, which is a well-established
predictor of sexual recidivism (Hanson & Bussière, 1998; Hanson
& Morton-Bourgon, 2004, 2005).
Information Required to Score this
Item: To score this item use all available credible information.
"Credible Information" includes but is not limited to police reports,
child welfare reports, victim impact statements or discussions with
victims, collateral contacts, and offender self-report.
This item is scored based on all available
credible information except that specifically derived from a polygraph
interview. The offender need not have been criminally charged for victims
to be counted for this item.
The Basic Rule: To score "1,"
the offender must have two or more victims (male and/or female) less
than age 12, and one of them must be unrelated. If the offender does
not have victims under the age of 12, or has only one victim under the
age of 12, score a "0." If the offender has two or more victims
under the age of 12 but they are all related to the offender, score
a "0."
The age of a victim is determined by
the initial age at which actual sexual offending began against that
victim, with the threshold being the victim’s 12th birthday.
Preliminary grooming (offender procedures to obtain access to the victim
and/or to make the victim compliant with his eventual sexual offending)
does not count in determining the victim’s age for this item. If a
victim was younger than 12 when sexual offending began and the offending
continued against the same victim across her/his 12th birthday,
that victim counts for this item, even if all charged offending concerning
this victim pertains to events after the victim’s 12th birthday.
For this item, victims of both juvenile
and adult offences count. Count unrelated victims under the age of 12
even if the offender is young himself. For example, if a 13-year-old
sexually assaulted an 11-year-old schoolmate, the 11-year-old victim
would count. Do not count juvenile mutually cooperative sexual activity
that came to the attention of authorities because it occurred under
the age of consent (see page 49 for the criteria in making this determination).
The offender need not be charged with an offence, but the behaviour
must show non-consenting sexual behaviour or intent.
To make a determination as to whether
the victim is unrelated see coding rules for the next item, "Any Unrelated
Victim."
CATEGORY IV: RELATIONSHIP TO
VICTIMS (Score 0 – 2 points)
The Basic Principle: The items concerning relationship to victims were included purely on
an empirical basis. We had initially hypothesized that these items were
related to the size of the potential victim pool or "range of available
victims," but this hypothesis was not supported in the analyses used
to develop Static-2002 (Hanson & Thornton, 2003). Consequently,
further research is needed to clarify the reason for the association
of these items with recidivism among sexual offenders.
This category contains two items:
- Any Unrelated Victim (Score
0-1 point).
- Any Stranger Victim (Score
0-1 point).
The score of these two items are summed
to make a total score for this category that ranges from 0 to 2.
8. Any Unrelated Victim
Background: Research indicates
that offenders who offend only against family members reoffend at a
lower rate compared to those who have victims outside of their immediate
family (Hanson & Bussière, 1998; Harris & Hanson, 2004).
Information Required to Score this
Item: To score this item use all available credible information.
"Credible Information" includes but is not limited to police reports,
child welfare reports, victim impact statements or discussions with
victims, collateral contacts, and offender self-report.
This item is scored based on all available
credible information except that specifically derived from a polygraph
interview. The offender need not have been criminally charged for victims
to be counted for this item.
The Basic Rule: If the offender
has any victim of a sexual offence outside the offender’s immediate
family, score the offender a "1" on this item. If the offender’s
victims of sexual offences are all within the immediate family score
the offender a "0" on this item.
In general, a related victim is one where
the relationship is sufficiently close that marriage would normally
be prohibited, such as parent, brother, sister, uncle, grandparent,
stepbrother, and stepsister.
A potential difficulty in scoring this
item is that the law concerning who can marry differs across jurisdictions
and across time periods within jurisdictions. For example, prior to
1998, in Ontario, there were 17 relations a man could not marry, including
such oddities as "nephew’s wife" and "wife’s grandmother."
In 1998 the Ontario law changed leaving only 5 categories of people
that a man cannot marry: grandmother, mother, daughter, sister, and
granddaughter (full, half, and adopted). Hence, if a man assaulted his
niece in 1997 he would not have an unrelated victim but if he committed
the same crime in 1998 he would technically be assaulting an unrelated
victim. There is little reason to believe that this type of change in
law would affect a man’s choice of victim and his resulting risk of
re-offence. As a result the following rules have been adopted to avoid
these jurisdictional issues.
People who are Seen as Related for the Purposes
of Scoring Static-2002
- Legally married spouses
- Any live-in lovers of over
two (essentially consecutive) year’s duration (Girlfriends/Boyfriends
become related once they have lived with the offender as a lover for
two consecutive years prior to the beginning of the sexual offending,
with "essentially consecutive" meaning there was no interruption
in their daily living together for those two years beyond business trips
and other work requirements; separate vacations and/or family trips;
brief jail stays; brief hospitalizations of any type; separations measured
in days and weeks rather than months; mandated military service of any
duration; voluntary community service of any duration involving work
such as "The Peace Corps," "Doctors Without Borders," and helping
victims of natural disasters such as a hurricane)
- Anyone too closely related
to marry (by jurisdiction of residence of the perpetrator)
- The following relations whether
or not marriage is permitted in the jurisdiction of residence of the
perpetrator (these are listed below for female victims, though meant
to imply all male counterparts as well, such as brother instead of sister,
father instead of mother, etc.):
- Aunt
- Brother’s wife
- Common-law wife/Ex common-law
wife (lived together for 2 essentially consecutive years prior to the
offending)
- Daughter
- Father’s wife/stepmother
- First cousins
- Granddaughter
- Grandfather’s wife
- Grandmother
- Grandson’s wife
- Mother
- Niece
- Sister
- Son’s wife
- Stepdaughter (Must have more
than two years living together before abuse begins. Adult stepchildren
are considered related if they lived at least two years in a child-parent
relationship with the offender.)
- Step-great granddaughter
- Wife and ex-wife
- Wife’s daughter/Stepdaughter
- Wife’s granddaughter
- Wife’s grandmother
- Wife’s mother
Any of the listed relationships can be
full, half, adopted, or common-law (at least two years living in these
family relationships).
When considering whether step-relations
are related or not for this item, consider the nature and the length
of the pre-existing relationship between the offender and the victim
before the offending started. Step-relationships lasting less than two
years when the offending began are considered unrelated.
People who are seen as unrelated
for the purposes of scoring Static-2002 (these are listed below for
female victims, though meant to imply all male counterparts as well,
such as wife’s uncle instead of wife’s aunt, wife’s brother instead
of wife’s sister, etc.):
- Any step-relations where the
relationship lasted less than two essentially consecutive years
- Daughter of live-in girlfriend/boyfriend
(less than two essentially consecutive years living together before
abuse begins)
- Nephew’s wife
- Second cousins
- First cousins once removed
- Wife’s aunt
- Wife’s sister
- Wife’s cousin
- Wife’s niece
Decisions about borderline cases (e.g.,
step-brother’s wife who lives in another town) should be guided by
a consideration of the psychological relationship existing prior to
the sexual assault. If an offender has been living with the victim in
a family/paternal/fraternal role for two essentially consecutive years
prior to the onset of abuse, the victim and the offender would be considered
related.
Becoming
"Unrelated"
If an offender was given up for adoption
(removed, etc.) at birth (mother and child having no contact since birth
or shortly after) offends against the mother (sister, brother etc.)
and she was a complete stranger that the offender could not recognize
(facial recognition) as family, these biological family members could
count as "Unrelated Victims." This would only happen if the
offender did not know the victim was a family member.
9. Any Stranger Victim
Background: Research shows
that having a stranger victim is related to increased risk of sexual
recidivism (Hanson & Bussière,1998, Table 1 – Item "Victim
Stranger (versus acquaintance)").
Information Required to Score this
Item: To score this item use all available credible information.
"Credible Information" includes but is not limited to police reports,
child welfare reports, victim impact statements or discussions with
victims, collateral contacts, and offender self-report.
This item is scored based on all available
credible information except that specifically derived from a polygraph
interview. The offender need not have been criminally charged for victims
to be counted for this item.
The Basic Rule: If the offender
has at least one victim of a sexual offence who was a stranger at the
time of the offence, score the offender a "1" on this item. If the
offender was known to all victims for at least 24 hours prior to their
victimization, score the offender a "0" on this item. If the offender
has a stranger victim then "Any Unrelated Victim" is always scored
as well.
A victim is considered a stranger if
either the victim did not know the offender at least 24 hours before
the initial offence and/or the offender did not know the victim for
at least 24 hours before the initial offence. Victims contacted over
the internet are not normally considered strangers unless a meeting
was planned for a time less than 24 hours after initial communication.
The criteria for being a stranger are
very high. Even a slight degree of knowing is enough for a victim not
to be a stranger. If the victim knows the offender at all for more than
24 hours, the victim is not a stranger. For example, if the victim was
a convenience store clerk and recognized the perpetrator as someone
who had been in on several occasions to buy cigarettes, the victim would
no longer be a stranger victim. If a child victim can say she/he recognizes
the offender from around the neighbourhood and the perpetrator has said
"Hi" on occasion, the child is no longer a stranger victim. The
evaluator must determine whether the victim "knew" the offender
twenty-four hours (24 hours) before the assault took place.
The criteria for "know/knew" is quite
low but does involve some level of interaction. They need not know each
other’s names or addresses. However, simply knowing of someone but
never having verbally interacted with them would not be enough for the
victim to count as "known." Similarly, an individual with whom the
offender "danced with" at a night club (without speaking) would
still be a stranger.
For "Stranger Victim," the offender
can either not know the victim or it can be the victim not knowing the
offender. In the first case, where the offender does not know the victim
(the most common case), the offender chooses someone who will likely
not be able to identify the offender (or the offender just does not
care) and offends against a stranger. However, there have been examples
where the offender "should" have known the victim but just did not
recognize the person. This occurred in one case where the perpetrator
and the victim had gone to school together but the perpetrator did not
recognize the victim as someone he knew. In cases like this, the victim
would still be a stranger victim as the offender’s intention was to
attack a stranger.
The Reverse Case
In cases of "stalking" or stalking-like
behaviours the offender may know a great deal about the victim and the
victim’s habits. However, if the victim does not know the offender
when the attack occurs, this still qualifies as a stranger victim.
The "24 hour" rule also works in
reverse – there have been cases where a famous person assaulted a
fan the first time they met. In this case, the victim (the fan) had
"known of" the performer for years, and they may have even previously
interacted in a semi-anonymous manner (e.g., autograph in a crowd).
The relationship, however, is considered one of strangers because the
performer (the perpetrator) has no memory of the fan and they had not
been interacting for 24 hours prior to the offence.
Internet, E-mail, and Telephone
Sometimes offenders attempt to access
or lure victims over the internet. This is a special case and the threshold
for being a stranger victim is still quite high. If the offender and
the victim have communicated over the internet (e-mail, or telephone)
for more than twenty-four hours (24 hours) before the initial face-to-face
meeting, the victim (child or adult) is not a stranger victim. To be
clear, this means that if an offender contacts, for the first time,
a victim at 8:00 p.m. on a Wednesday night, their first face-to-face
meeting must start before 8:00 p.m. on Thursday night. If this meeting
starts before 8:00 p.m., and they remain in direct contact, the sexual
assault might not start until midnight, but as long as the sexual assault
is still within the first face-to-face meeting, this midnight sexual
assault would still count as a stranger assault. If they chat back and
forth for longer than 24 hours, the victim can no longer be considered
a stranger victim for the purposes of scoring the Static-2002.
It is possible in certain jurisdictions
to perpetrate a sexual offence over the internet, by telephone, or e-mail
and never be in physical proximity to the victim. If the offender transmits
sexually explicit/objectionable materials over the internet within 24
hours of first contact, this can count as a stranger victim; once again
the "24 hour rule" applies. However, if the perpetrator and the
victim have been in communication for more than 24 hours prior to the
sending of the indecent material or the starting of indecent talk on
the telephone then the victim can no longer be considered a stranger.
Becoming a
"Stranger" Again
It is possible for someone who the offender
had met briefly before to become a stranger again. The offender may
have met a victim but then forgotten the victim completely (for example,
over a period of years). If the offender believed he was assaulting
a stranger, the victim can be counted as a stranger victim. This occurred
when an offender returned after many years absence to his small hometown
and assaulted a female he thought he did not know, not realizing that
they had gone to the same school.
CATEGORY V: GENERAL CRIMINALITY
(Score 0 – 6 Points)
The Basic Principle:
General criminality is one of the two main factors that have been established
as risk predictors for sexual recidivism (the other being sexual deviance
– Hanson & Bussière, 1998; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005).
Offenders vary on the density and variety of criminal behaviour, and
those with an extensive criminal history are at increased risk for all
forms of recidivism (sexual, violent, non-violent).
This category contains five items:
- Any Prior Involvement with
the Criminal Justice System (Score 0-1 point).
- Prior Sentencing Occasions
for Anything (Score 0-2 points).
- Any Community Supervision
Violation (Score 0-1 point).
- Years Free Prior to Index
Sex Offence (Score 0-1 point).
- Any Prior Non-Sexual Violence
Sentencing Occasion (Score 0-1 point).
To calculate the total score for the
"General Criminality" subscale, score all five individual items
to get the raw score for each item. Sum the raw scores for the five
items. The summed raw scores are recoded according to the table below
to obtain the subscale score for the category "General Criminality":
| Raw Score |
Subscale Score |
| 0 |
0 |
| 1, 2 |
1 |
| 3, 4 |
2 |
| 5, 6 |
3 |
See example on the next page.
Example of coding "General Criminality"
General Criminality
10. Any Prior Involvement with
the Criminal Justice System
No = 0
Yes = 1
| 1 |
|
11. Prior Sentencing Occasions For
Anything:
0-2 prior sentencing occasions for anything = 0
3-13 prior sentencing occasions = 1
14 or more prior sentencing occasions = 2 |
2 |
12. Any Community Supervision Violation:
No = 0
Yes = 1 |
1 |
13. Years Free Prior to Index Sex
Offence:
- More than 36 months free prior
to committing the sexual offence that resulted in the index conviction
AND more than 48 months free prior to index conviction = 0
- Less than 36 months free prior
to committing the sexual offence that resulted in
the index conviction OR less than 48 months free prior to conviction
for index sex offence = 1
|
1 |
14. Any Prior Non-sexual Violence
Sentencing Occasion:
No = 0
Yes = 1 |
0 |
General Criminality
raw score (subtotal General Criminality items)
0 = 0
1, 2 = 1
3, 4 = 2
5, 6 = 3 |
5 |
|
|
General Criminality SUBSCORE |
3 |
In this example, summing the raw scores
adds up to 5 points. The summed raw score of 5 is recoded to obtain
a subscore of 3 for the category of "General Criminality."
10. Any Prior Involvement with the Criminal
Justice System
Background: This item marks
the low end of criminal involvement – namely the distinction between
no prior involvement and any prior involvement.
Information Required to Score this
Item: To score this item you must have access to an official
criminal record as compiled by police, court, or correctional authorities.
Self-report of criminal convictions may not be used to score this item
except in specific rare situations (see subsection "Official
Criminal Record," page 5).
The Basic Rule: If the offender
has had no prior involvement with the criminal justice system the score
is "0." If the offender has had any involvement with the criminal
justice system the score for this item is "1." Do not count
the index offence.
Involvement with the criminal justice
system is defined as an arrest, a charge, or a conviction. Note that
this is a low threshold. Anything that satisfies the definition of a
sentencing occasion in the other items (see items "Prior Sentencing
Occasions for Sexual Offences" and "Prior Sentencing Occasions for
Anything") will meet the criteria for this item (keeping in mind the
rules regarding index clusters and pseudo-recidivism). However, an arrest
is the minimum criteria for prior involvement. If the police question
the offender but do not make an arrest, this would not count as prior
involvement with the law.
Do not count very minor offences for
which it would be impossible to go to jail or to receive a community
sentence (e.g., drinking under age, speeding). In Canada, all criminal
code offences would be deemed serious enough to count; in contrast,
most municipal by-laws would be of insufficient seriousness to count
(e.g., parking, zoning infractions, keeping animals in the city). Graduated
penalty offences (see section in "Special Coding Issues" below)
are counted if it is at all possible to receive a custodial sentence,
even if not on the first offence.
Special Coding Issues
Child Protection Services
Being "detected" by the Children’s
Aid Society or other child protection services does not count as involvement
with the criminal justice system, even if the child protection service
applies a sanction (e.g., the children are taken away from the offender,
or the offender is asked to leave the home).
There is an exception to this general
rule. In the case where a juvenile (age 12-15) is placed into residential
care for sexual aggression this counts as prior involvement with the
criminal justice system. In jurisdictions where 16- and 17-year-old
sexual offenders remain in the juvenile justice system and are not tried
as adults but where it is possible to be sent to a "camp," "home,"
or "placement" as a result of sexual misbehaviour, this counts as
prior involvement with the criminal justice system. For juveniles moved
from a residential facility to a more secure facility as a result of
sexual misbehaviour, the move to a more secure facility is counted as
prior involvement with the criminal justice system.
Dismissals
Being charged with an offence but subsequently
having the charge dismissed counts as prior involvement in the criminal
justice system.
Failure to Appear
If an offender fails to appear for sentencing
for their index sex offence, this is not counted as prior involvement
with the law because it occurred after the commission of the index offence.
Graduated Penalty Offences
In some jurisdictions, an offence committed
once is not punishable by jail or a community sentence, but can only
be punished by a fine. Further offending of the same type, however,
can lead to a jail sentence. For example, a first offence of driving
while intoxicated (or under the influence) may maximally lead to a fine,
but subsequent adjudications of guilty for driving while intoxicated
(or under the influence) can each result in a jail sentence. If a behaviour
can eventually lead to jail and/or community supervision, it counts
as prior involvement with the criminal justice system, even on the first
offence.
Index Clusters and Pseudo-Recidivism
The rules regarding index clusters and
pseudo-recidivism do not change but they may lead to different conclusions
in this item because the threshold is an arrest as opposed to a sentencing
occasion. For example, if an offender committed a theft, was arrested,
and then committed the index sex offence while on bail and was later
convicted for both offences on the same occasion, these offences would
not count as two separate sentencing occasions (because the offender
had not been sanctioned for the theft prior to committing the index
offence) and would be considered an index cluster. In this item, the
theft can count as a prior involvement in the criminal justice system
because the offender was arrested for a previous offence before committing
the index sex offence (which meets the threshold for this item but does
not meet the threshold for a separate sentencing occasion).
Juvenile Offences
Both adult and juvenile arrests and charges
count for prior involvement with the criminal justice system.
Arrests count, but children must be at
the age of criminal responsibility. For example, in a jurisdiction where
the age of criminal responsibility is 12, if a 10-year old child is
caught breaking into a residence and is apprehended by the police and
taken to the police station, this would not count as prior involvement
with the criminal justice system because it is not legally possible
to charge the child with an offence.
Missing Information
Some criminal history information may
only record convictions (not arrests
or charges). If information on arrests
and charges is not available, this item can be scored on the basis of
convictions only.
Not Criminally Responsible due to Mental Disorder
Being charged with an offence and found
"Not Criminally Responsible due to Mental Disorder" (or any equivalent,
such as Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity or Guilty But Insane) counts
as prior involvement in the criminal justice system.
Not Guilty
Being charged with an offence and found
"Not Guilty" counts as prior involvement in the criminal justice
system (note that it does not count as a sentencing occasion).
Peace Bonds, Judicial Restraint Orders, and
"810" Orders
In some instances a Peace Bond/Judicial
Restraint Order/810 Orders are placed on an offender when sexual charges
are dropped or dismissed or when an offender leaves jail or prison.
These orders are typically preventative in nature and are placed on
offenders who have been previously involved in the criminal justice
system. However, there are some occasions when these orders can be used
reactively as a sanction for criminal behaviour (e.g., after a domestic
violence incident, the offender enters a peace bond in exchange for
dropping the charges). The use of these orders as a sanction for criminal
behaviour counts as prior involvement in the criminal justice system
(note that it does not count as a sentencing occasion).
Post-Index Offences
Offences that occur after the index sex
offence do not count for Static-2002 purposes. Post-index sexual offence
sentencing occasions create a new index offence. Post-index charges
for sexual offending and charges and convictions for general or violent
criminal behaviour should be considered "external" risk factors
and should be included separately in any report about the offender’s
behaviour.
Unfit to Stand Trial
Being found unfit to stand trial can
count as prior involvement with the criminal justice system, as long
as the charge that preceded this finding occurred prior to the index
sex offence. (Note that being found unfit to stand trial does not count
as a sentencing occasion.)
11. Prior Sentencing Occasions for Anything
The Basic Principle: Sentencing
occasions were selected as the criteria for the number of prior offences
because they were more consistently recorded than other potential indicators,
such as the number of charges or convictions. The cut-points were determined
empirically (Hanson & Thornton, 2003).
Information Required to Score this
Item: To score this item you must have access to an official
criminal record as compiled by police, court, or correctional authorities.
Self-report of criminal convictions may not be used to score this item
except in specific rare situations (see subsection "Official Criminal
Record," page 5).
The Basic Rule:
Count the number of distinct occasions on which the offender was sentenced
for criminal offences prior to the index offence(s). The index sentencing
occasion (which is the index sex offence) is not included when counting
up the sentencing occasions. If the offender’s criminal record indicates
zero to 2 prior sentencing occasions for anything, score a "0."
If the offender’s criminal record shows 3 to 13 prior sentencing occasions
for anything, score a "1." If the offender’s criminal record
shows 14 or more prior sentencing occasions for anything, score a "2."
This is summarized below:
| Prior Sentencing
Occasions for Anything |
Item Score |
|---|
| 0-2 |
0 |
| 3-13 |
1 |
| 14 or more |
2 |
Any prior sentencing occasion that was counted
for the item "Prior Sentencing Occasions for Sexual Offences" or
"Any Prior Non-sexual Violence Sentencing Occasion" should be counted
in this item as a prior sentencing occasion for anything.
Definition: Sentencing
Occasion
A sentencing occasion is when the offender
attends court, admits to the offence or is found guilty, and receives
some form of sanction (fine, prison, conditional sentence). A determination
of disposition by a court following a finding of not criminally responsible
due to mental disorder (or its equivalent) also counts for a sentencing
occasion if that disposition involves either institutional and/or mandated
community sanction/care. Offenders may be convicted of more than one
offence at the same sentencing occasion. Count both adult and juvenile
sentencing occasions.
If a person commits a criminal offence
as a juvenile or as an adult and receives a diversionary adjudication
(i.e., an alternative sanction), this counts as a sentencing occasion.
Examples include what has been termed restorative justice, reparations,
family group conferencing, community sentencing circles (see page 31).
In England, an official caution counts as a sentencing occasion.
Offenders may go to court and receive
more than one sentence for a single crime spree. In this case, the convictions
related to the same crime spree count as one sentencing occasion. For
two sentencing occasions to be considered distinct, the offender must
have committed a crime and been sanctioned for it prior to committing
the second crime (and being sanctioned for it). When the offender is
convicted for a crime that was committed prior to his previous conviction,
the new conviction is considered pseudo-recidivism and is not counted
separately.
It is not uncommon for offenders to be
convicted on one date and be sentenced at a later date. In this case,
the earliest date of conviction for the offences in the sentencing date
cluster (index or prior) count as the date of the sentencing occasion.
In such cases, crimes committed between the conviction date and the
sentencing date may count as a separate sentencing occasion in Static-2002
scoring (see pages 25-26).
Arrests, charges, and bail violations
do not count. Consider an offender who is arrested for an offence, then
released on bail and reoffends. He is subsequently convicted of the
two offences on a single sentencing date. In this case, count only one
sentencing occasion.
Do not count institutional rule violations
that do not result in convictions. Convictions that are subsequently
overturned on appeal or result in acquittal do not count as the index
sex offence or as prior sentencing occasions. Simple questioning by
police not leading to a conviction is insufficient to be a sentencing
occasion. The number of charges/convictions does not matter, only the
number of sentencing occasions.
The offences must be of a minimum level
of seriousness. The offences need not result in a serious sanction (the
offender may have instead been fined), but the offence must be serious
enough to have permitted a sentence of community supervision or custody/incarceration
(as a juvenile or adult). Driving offences generally do not count, unless
they are associated with serious penalties, such as driving while intoxicated
or reckless driving causing death or injury. Do not count very minor
offences for which it would be impossible to go to jail or to receive
a community sentence (e.g., drinking under age, speeding). In Canada,
all criminal code offences would be deemed serious enough to count;
in contrast, most municipal by-laws would be of insufficient seriousness
to count (e.g., parking, zoning infractions, keeping animals in the
city). Graduated penalty offences (see section in "Special Coding
Issues" below) are counted if it is at all possible to receive
a custodial sentence, even if not on the first offence.
Sentences for historical offences received
while the offender is incarcerated for a more recent offence (pseudo-recidivism),
are not counted. For two offences to be considered separate offences,
the second offence must have been committed after the offender was convicted
for the first offence.
Offence convictions occurring after the
index sex offence cannot be counted on this item. Criminal history accumulated
after the index sex offence should be considered outside the actuarial
instrument in the overall risk assessment.
Sanctions for a sentencing occasion may
include the following:
- Alternative resolution agreements
- Community Supervision
- Conditional or Absolute Discharges
- Fines
- Imprisonment
Count as prior sentencing occasions:
- Juvenile offences count (if
you know about them; see subsection "Official Criminal Record,"
page 5)
- Where applicable, "Probation
before judgement" counts as a sentencing occasion
- Where applicable, "Consent
Decree" counts as a sentencing occasion
- Suspended sentences count
as a sentencing occasion
Do not count as prior sentencing
occasions:
- Institutional disciplinary
actions/reports
- Acquittals or convictions
overturned on appeal
- Being "detected" by the
Children’s Aid society or other Child Protection services
- Stayed offences in which there
is no finding or admission of guilt and no associated sanction (formal
or informal)
Determining Whether Something is a Sentencing
Occasion
A sentencing occasion requires a) a court
or administrative tribunal using due process, resulting in b) an admission
or finding of guilt and c) a sanction. This threshold is fairly high;
arrests and charges (without convictions) do not count. The finding
of guilt should be Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. It is possible to use
a lesser criteria of Clear and Convincing Evidence for sanctions administered
outside of the criminal justice system (e.g., Canon law for priests,
military court marshal, civil commitment procedures for the mentally
ill). Institutional rule violations (e.g., prison misconducts), however,
are insufficient to meet the standard of Clear and Convincing Evidence.
Many of these special circumstances are addressed in subsections under
the rules for coding relevant items.
Most sentencing occasions are easy to
identify (there is a conviction for a criminal offence, accompanied
by a sanction). Sometimes an evaluator must make a decision about a
situation that does not clearly fall under one of the rules outlined
in the manual. In these circumstances, it is helpful to refer to the
essential features of sentencing occasions articulated above.
Within the criminal justice system, a
finding of guilt has a relatively clear meaning (something equivalent
to a conviction) and a specific due process associated with that finding,
such that our confidence in that finding is high. Establishing the equivalent
of a finding of guilt outside typical criminal courts requires a consideration
of the standard of proof and the due process involved in that finding
(keeping in mind that there will be variability in the terminology used
by many decision-making bodies). Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is a high
standard of proof (see page 7-8 for explanations of the various standards
of proof) and findings of guilt using this standard would generally
count, but this standard is rarely used outside criminal trials. However,
to count something as a sentencing occasion, you would want to see a
finding of guilt based on a standard that is higher than a Balance of
Probabilities. As such, decisions based on a standard equivalent to
or higher than Clear and Convincing Evidence could be considered sentencing
occasions. It is also helpful to consider the due process involved in
the finding of guilt. In criminal cases, accused parties have due process
rights, including the right to hear the evidence against them and to
have their side heard. Generally, to count something as a sentencing
occasion, you would want to see those basic elements of due process
present in some form (exact rules may vary).
Violations of Probation
and Parole
A violation of conditional release may
or may not count as a sentencing occasion in Static-2002. The minimal
characteristic to be considered a sentencing occasion is that at least
one aspect of the offending behaviour must be an offence that would
normally result in arrest and conviction had the offender not already
been under sanction. As well, there are additional criteria for probation
and parole violations.
A violation of probation order counts
if there is a court hearing, finding of guilt and a new sanction. The
name of the charge can be "Violation of probation" as long
as the evaluator is reasonably certain at least one aspect of the underlying
behaviour was a crime, not just a technical violation.
A parole violation counts as a sentencing
occasion when a paroling authority functioning as a quasi-judicial body
determines that:
a) the offender has committed a criminal
offence that would normally result in arrest and conviction, and
b) the offender is required to remain
in custody after the determination of guilt (not just time served; time
served refers to time spent detained in custody prior to sentencing).
Simply having parole revoked without
a finding of guilt for new offending does not count as a sentencing
occasion.
In the absence of information on the
nature of any conditional release violation, the following rules apply:
(a) If the sanction for the violation
involved custodial time being ADDED to the offender’s pre-existing
sentence, the behaviour will be presumed to have been serious enough
to count as an offence (and therefore a sentencing occasion).
(b) If the offender was returned to custody
to serve all or part of the time remaining on the pre-existing sentence
but nothing more, then presume it was solely a technical violation.
(c) If the offender was on probation
and the sanction for the violation involved any time in custody (either
time served or a custodial sentence; time served refers to time spent
detained in custody prior to sentencing), the behaviour will be presumed
to be serious enough to count as an offence (and sentencing occasion).
Otherwise, assume it was solely a technical violation.
For example, if the offender was caught
with illegal drugs and was convicted for a technical violation without
being charged with possession of an illegal substance, this should be
counted as a sentencing occasion because the behaviour could have resulted
in a criminal conviction if the offender were not already under criminal
justice sanction. In contrast, if an offender had a condition prohibiting
drinking alcohol, a breach for this would not be counted as a new sentencing
occasion.
Sex offender registration laws are separate
from community supervision orders and therefore failing to register
counts as a sentencing occasion (but not a sentencing occasion for a
sexual offence) if a formal legal sanction is applied.
Separating Index Clusters and Prior Offences
There are cases where it can be difficult
to distinguish index clusters from prior offences, particularly when
the index sexual offending occurs over a period of several years. Keep
in mind the general rule that to be a prior sentencing occasion, the
offence and the conviction must have occurred before at least one of
the index sexual offences. Some examples are provided below. If necessary,
review additional examples on pages 24-29, under the item "Prior
Sentencing Occasions for Sexual Offences."
Example No. 1
Joe Smith sexually offends against his
daughter between 2000 and 2005 and is sentenced in 2006 (the index sexual
offence). He commits an assault in 2001 and is sentenced in 2001. He
commits an assault in 2004 and is sentenced in 2004.
Both assaults count as prior sentencing
occasions because some of the index sexual offence behaviour was committed
in 2005, after he was sanctioned for the previous offences. The offender
chose to keep offending with the index offence after being sanctioned
in 2001, and again in 2004.
Example No. 2
John Johnson sexually offends against
his daughter between 2000 and 2004 and is convicted and sentenced in
2006. He commits an assault in 2001 and is sentenced in 2001. He commits
an assault in 2005 and is sentenced in 2005.
The 2001 sentencing occasion is a prior
offence because he continued the index sexual behaviour after being
sanctioned for the 2001 offence. The 2005 assault becomes part of an
index cluster because even though he was sanctioned for the assault
before being sanctioned for the index sexual offence, the assault occurred
after the index sexual offence was committed. So the offender did not
choose to commit the index sexual offence after being sanctioned for
the assault.
Example No. 3
Richard Jones sexually offends between
1976 and 1979. He commits a theft in 1988 and is sentenced in 1989.
He commits a sexual offence in 2002. Due to publicity for this offence,
his victims from the 1970s come forward and he is convicted and sentenced
for the 2002 offence as well as the historical offences from the 1970s.
In this example, the sex offences from
the 1970s are part of the index cluster. The theft in 1988 is a prior.
Even though the theft occurred after the historical offences, it still
occurred and was sanctioned before the 2002 offences that formed part
of the index cluster.
Example No. 4
James Smith sexually offends between
1976 and 1979. He commits a theft in 1992 and is sentenced in 1995.
In 2002 he is convicted for the offences in the 1970s.
Even though the two sentencing dates
are almost a decade apart, they are considered an index cluster because
the offences for which the offender was sentenced in 2002 were not committed
after the offender was sanctioned in 1995.
Special Coding Issues
Adjudication Withheld
In some jurisdictions it is possible
to have a disposition of "Adjudication Withheld," in which case
the offender receives a probation-like period of supervision. This is
counted as a sentencing occasion because a sentence (a consequence representing
a loss of freedom and/or some other cost) was given.
Appeal
Convictions overturned on appeal do not
count as a sentencing occasion for a sexual offence.
Conditional Discharges
Where an offender has been charged with
an offence and receives a conditional discharge, for the purposes of
Static-2002 a conditional discharge counts as a conviction and a sentencing
occasion. (A "conditional discharge" can occur in Canada when a
person is found guilty of an offence but is given conditions for release
into the community that, if followed, result in the conviction being
removed from their record.)
Consent Decree
Consent Decree counts as a sentencing
occasion.
Court Supervision
In some states it is possible to receive
a sentence of court supervision, where the court provides some degree
of minimal supervision for a period (one year). This is similar to probation
and counts as a sentencing occasion.
Diversionary Adjudication
If a person commits a criminal offence
as a juvenile or as an adult and receives a diversionary adjudication
(restorative justice, reparations, family group conferencing, community
sentencing circles), this counts as a sentencing occasion.
Extension of Sentence by a Parole Board (or
similar)
If a parole board assigns extra time
to an offender’s sentence for a criminal offence this counts as an
additional sentencing occasion if the new time extended the total sentence.
It does not count as a sentencing occasion
if the additional time was designated to be served concurrently or if
it only changed the parole eligibility date. This situation is presently
not possible in Canada. The only exception to this rule is for "Lifers,"
Dangerous Offenders, and others with indeterminate sentences. For offenders
with indeterminate sentences, if their parole was revoked and they were
returned to prison for a new offence, this counts as a sentencing occasion.
The rationale for this difference is that in general, the standard of
proof necessary to return an offender to prison without adding additional
time to their sentence is insufficient to meet the standards that typically
define a sentencing occasion (e.g., a conviction). However, for offenders
with an indeterminate sentence, even when there is enough evidence to
obtain a conviction, it is rare to charge the offender with the new
offence.
Failure to Appear
If an offender fails to appear for sentencing,
this is not counted as a sentencing occasion. Only the final sentencing
for the charge for which the offender missed the sentencing occasion
is counted as a sentencing occasion.
Failure to Register as a Sexual Offender
If an offender receives a formal legal
sanction, having been convicted of failing to register as a sexual offender,
this conviction counts as a sentencing occasion. It should be noted,
however, that charges and convictions for failure to register as a sexual
offender are not counted as sentencing occasions for sexual offences.
Graduated Penalty Offences
In some jurisdictions, an offence committed
once is not punishable by jail or a community sentence, but can only
be punished by a fine. Further offending of the same type, however,
can lead to a jail sentence. For example, a first offence of driving
while intoxicated (or under the influence) may maximally lead to a fine,
but subsequent adjudications of guilty for driving while intoxicated
(or under the influence) can each result in a jail sentence. If a behaviour
can eventually lead to jail and/or community supervision, it counts
as prior involvement with the criminal justice system or a prior sentencing
occasion, even on the first offence.
Juvenile Extension of Detention
In some states it is possible for a juvenile
to be sentenced to a Detention/ Treatment facility. At the end of that
term of incarceration it is possible to extend the period of detention.
Even though a judge and a prosecutor are present at the proceedings,
because there has been no new crime or charges/convictions, the extension
of the original order is not considered a sentencing occasion.
Juvenile Offences
Both adult and juvenile sentencing occasions
count in this item. In some jurisdictions, it is possible for juvenile
offenders to get convicted of an offence whereas in other jurisdictions
the juvenile has a "petition sustained," is "adjudicated delinquent,"
or other phrase essentially of the same meaning. For the purposes
of scoring Static-2002, these are equivalent to an adult conviction
because there are generally liberty-restricting consequences. Any jurisdictional
dispositions meaning a juvenile is convicted would count as a sentencing
occasion.
There have been cases where a juvenile
has been removed from his home by judicial action under a "Person
In Need of Supervision" (PINS) petition due to offending behaviour.
This counts as a sentencing occasion.
In contrast, placement as a juvenile
in a state sanctioned "home" for committing offences does not count
as a sentencing occasion, nor would moves from one facility to a more
secure facility. Such actions, however, can count as charges for the
items "Any Juvenile Arrest for a Sexual Offence" and "Any
Prior Involvement in the Criminal Justice System."
Mentally Disordered and Developmentally Delayed
Offenders
Some offenders suffer from sufficient
mental impairment (major mental illness, developmental delays) that
criminal justice intervention is unlikely. Informal hearings and sanctions,
such as placement in treatment facilities and residential moves as a
result of their criminal behaviour, do not count as a sentencing occasion.
Such actions, however, can count as arrests for the item "Any Prior
Involvement in the Criminal Justice System."
Military
If an "undesirable discharge" is
given to a member of the military as the direct result of criminal behaviour
(something that would have attracted a criminal charge were the offender
not in the military), this would count as a sentencing occasion. However,
if the member left the military when he normally would have and the
"undesirable discharge" is equivalent to a bad job reference then
the criminal behaviour does not count as a sentencing occasion.
If an offender is given a sanction (military
brig or its equivalent) for a criminal offence rather than a purely
military offence (e.g., failure of duty) this counts as a sentencing
occasion. Pure military offences (insubordination, not following a lawful
order, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, etc.) do not count as
sentencing occasions.
Not Criminally Responsible due to Mental Disorder
Being found "not criminally responsible
due to mental disorder" (or its equivalent) is counted as a sentencing
occasion if the court-determined disposition from the finding involved
institutional and/or mandated community sanction/care.
Not Guilty
Being found "not guilty" is not counted
as a sentencing occasion.
Official Cautions
– United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, an official caution
should be treated as equivalent to a sentencing occasion.
Pardons
Offences for which an offender later
receives a pardon would count as sentencing occasions (note that convictions
overturned on appeal or stayed due to new evidence that the offender
may not be guilty do not count as sentencing occasions).
Post-Index Offences
Post-index offences are not counted as
sentencing occasions.
Peace Bonds, Judicial Restraint Orders, and
"810" Orders
In some instances a Peace Bond/Judicial
Restraint Order/810 Orders are placed on an offender when charges are
dropped or dismissed or when an offender leaves jail or prison. An order
of this nature, primarily preventative, is not counted as a sentencing
occasion for the purposes of scoring Static-2002. There are some occasions
when these orders are used reactively as a sanction for criminal behaviour
(e.g., after a domestic violence incident, the offender enters a peace
bond in exchange for dropping the charges). Even when used as a sanction,
these orders are not considered sentencing occasions because there has
to be a conviction or determination of guilt preceding the sanction,
which is not the case with these orders. Note that a peace bond used
reactively (i.e., in exchange for dropping the charges) does count for
the item "Any Prior Involvement in the Criminal Justice System."
Probation before Judgement
Probation before judgement counts as
a sentencing occasion.
Revocation of Conditional Release for
"Lifers," Dangerous Offenders, and Others with Indeterminate Sentences
If a "lifer," Dangerous Offender,
or other offender with an already imposed indeterminate sentence is
simply revoked (returned to prison from conditional release in the community
without trial) for criminal behaviour that is of sufficient gravity
that a person not already involved with the criminal justice system
would most likely be convicted of a criminal offence, this revocation
of conditional release counts as a "Prior Sentencing Occasion."
Note: the evaluator should be confident that were this offender
not already under sanction that a criminal charge would be laid by police
and that a conviction would be highly likely. Revocations for violations
of conditional release conditions, so called "technicals" (drinking
violations, failure to report, being in the presence of minors), are
insufficient to stand as a sentencing occasion.
Stayed Charges/Sentences
Stayed charges/sentences take different
forms in different jurisdictions. If there is a sanction associated
with the stay of proceedings (e.g., stayed pending attendance in community
treatment), stayed charges would count as a sentencing occasion, similar
to other forms of alternative measures. They should not be considered
sentencing occasions if there is no finding or admission of guilt, and
no associated sanction (formal or informal).
Suspended Sentences
A suspended sentence in Canada counts
as a sentencing occasion.
Unfit To Stand Trial
Being found unfit to stand trial does
not count as a sentencing occasion, even if the offender is detained
for treatment. A declaration of unfit to stand trial essentially halts
criminal proceedings. If the offender subsequently receives a finding
of guilt (e.g., a conviction or its equivalent), then the subsequent
sanction would be counted.
12. Any Community Supervision Violation
Background: A history of
failing to conform to the demands of community supervision is a well-established
predictor of sexual, violent, and any recidivism (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon,
2004). Violation of conditional release is an item found on other risk
scales commonly used with sexual offenders, such as the Sexual Offender
Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG; Quinsey, Rice, Harris, & Cormier, 2006),
and the SVR-20 (Boer, Hart, Kropp, & Webster, 1997). As well, it
is an item on Hare’s (1991) Psychopathy Checklist - Revised.
Information Required to Score this
Item: To score this item you must have access to an official
criminal record as compiled by police or other law enforcement agency,
court, or correctional authorities. Self-report of criminal convictions
may not be used to score this item except in specific rare situations
(see subsection "Official Criminal Record," page 5).
The Basic Rule: If the offender’s
criminal record indicates any violation of conditional release the offender
is scored a "1" on this item. If the offender’s criminal record
indicates no violation of conditional release, the offender is scored
a "0" on this item.
For scoring this item a violation of
conditional release is defined as a violation or breach of any of the
following:
- Violation of bail
- Supervised release violation
- Work release violation
- Violation of a restraining
order
- Failure to comply with probation
(formal or informal)
- Failure to comply with parole
resulting in a parole revocation (with or without new charges)
- Failure to appear in court
- Disobeying a court order
- Statutory release revocation
(with or without new charges)
- Failure to comply with recognizance
or undertaking
A violation that is part of the index
sentencing occasion can count. For example, if the offender is charged
for the index offence, misses a court date, and is subsequently convicted
on the same date for the index offence and the Fail to Appear, this
can count. It is therefore possible for an offender to score a point
on this item while also having no prior involvement with the criminal
justice system (Item 10). This can occur if the offender has no prior
sentencing occasions but the index sentencing occasion includes a conviction
for failing to appear in court or for violating bail conditions. Do
not count a violation from a sentencing occasion that is separate from
and after the sentencing occasion for the index offence.
Offenders on community supervision sometimes
violate conditions of release but are continued on parole and not returned
to custody. For example an offender may test positive for the use of
cocaine and the supervision agent only adds additional substance abuse
treatment as a condition of release. Similarly, an offender may miss
an appointment but call two days later and reschedule, and the supervising
officer may decide not to report the breach. The standard of violation
necessary to be coded for this item can be considered similar to a charge.
If there is a violation hearing though the offender is not returned
to custody, this situation counts as a violation of community supervision.
If the supervising officer makes a note in a report that the offender
did not satisfy all conditions (e.g., was late or missed an appointment),
this is not counted as a violation unless the offender was charged with
breaching, returned to custody, or there was some sort of hearing. There
must be an official record of the violation (e.g., the offender self-reporting
that he returned home late from curfew one night does not count).
If an offender fails to comply with probation
and the offender’s probation is violated or revoked this would be
scored as "1". It is also scored as "1" if the offender is convicted
for a new offence that was committed while on any of the community supervision
orders listed above, even if the conviction does not include a community
supervision violation. If the offender is charged for a new offence
while on community supervision and there is no conviction for the offence,
the evaluator must make a reasonable determination of whether the offence
occurred (if so, the offender is scored for violating community supervision).
13. Years Free Prior to Index Sex Offence
Background:
This item was intended as a measure of criminal persistence. The cut-point
for the conviction date was developed empirically. The cut-point for
the date of the offence was extrapolated from knowledge of sexual offence
cases processed in the Canadian criminal justice system.
Information Required to Score this
Item: To score this item you must have access to an official
criminal record as compiled by police, court, or correctional authorities.
Self-report of criminal convictions may not be used to score this item
except in specific rare situations (see subsection "Official Criminal
Record," page 5).
The Basic Rule: If the offender
has less than 36 months "free" (in the community) prior to committing
the index sexual offence, OR less than 48 months free prior to the conviction date for the index
sex offence, the offender receives a score of "1." If the
offender had more than 48 months free prior to index conviction
AND more than 36 months free prior to committing the index sexual
offence, the score received is "0." This is summarized below.
SCORE of 0
More than 36 months free prior to
committing the sexual offence that resulted in the index sex offence,
AND
More
than 48 months free prior to index sex offence conviction
SCORE of 1
Less than 36 months free prior to
committing the sexual offence that resulted in the index sex offence,
OR
Less than 48 months free prior to
conviction date for index sex offence
The two dates necessary for scoring this
item are:
1. The date the offender was released
from some form of involvement with the criminal justice system prior
to committing the index offence
2. Either the date the index sex
offence occurred, or the date of conviction for the index sex offence.
(Knowing both dates is preferable, but either one on its own is sufficient.)
For the index offence conviction, the
earliest date of conviction for the offences in a sentencing occasion cluster
counts as the date of the sentencing occasion. For offences subject
to alternative measures, the date of the imposition of the alternative
measure counts as the date of the sentencing occasion.
The 48 months until the conviction date
for the sexual offence is based on "real" (i.e., calendar) time,
not street time. Consider the following example: An offender commits
the index sex offence 37 months after his release from a prior offence.
He is immediately arrested, denied bail, and held in remand custody
until his conviction, which occurs 49 months after his release from
the prior offence. In this case, the offender scores a zero on this
item, because more than 36 months passed before the index was committed,
and more than 48 months passed before he was convicted of the index.
For the time until conviction, it does not matter that he was in remand
custody for the index offence and that the 49 months was not all time
spent on the street.
"Release" means from court, jail,
prison, psychiatric hospital, or the like. "Release" does not include
from any form of community supervision such as parole or probation.
The offender is considered "free" (in the community) when placed
on parole, probation, or other types of community supervision, or released
without any conditions from any institution into the community. If the
previous involvement was a conviction with a non-custodial sentence
(e.g., probation), then the conviction date would count as the "release"
and the beginning of the time free.
"Years free" is defined as the time
spent living in the general community under any of the following circumstances:
- Without any mandated supervision
of any kind
- Under parole conditions
- Under probation conditions
- Under supervised release
- Under conditional release
- Under GPS (Global Positioning
System) monitoring
- While on bail
- While under court order to
return to court on certain date (e.g., released under own recognizance)
- While living in a psychiatric
facility or chemical dependency treatment facility on a voluntary basis
(i.e., for treatment)
"Years free" is not counted for time
under any of the following circumstances:
- Living in an institution but
with work release (e.g., day time release to work)
- While on escape or elopement
status no matter where the offender is living
- While living in a treatment
facility on an involuntary basis (i.e., based on a court determination
of relevant dangerousness and/or in lieu of further criminal proceedings
and/or to obtain a postponement of legal proceedings concerning one
or more criminal charges)
- While living in the community
under severe restrictions such that the opportunities to offend would
be similar to those in institutional settings (e.g., house arrest, some
forms of community supervision)
Previous involvement with the law need
not be a conviction. It can include arrests, charges, or a community
supervision violation. Both adult and juvenile offences count. For offenders
with custodial sentences, use the most recent release date from jail,
prison, a forensic hospital, secure group home, or other secure facility.
For offenders with community supervision violations who are in custody,
count the time between release from custody to the community and the
index offence.
Note that "years free" is calculated
from the previous involvement with the criminal justice system, as opposed
to the previous sentencing occasion. For example, if an offender is
arrested, then released on bail and then reoffends sexually (this would
be the index sex offence), count the time between the date of release
on bail and the index sex offence, even though they are not two separate
sentencing occasions.
If information is missing on the exact
date of release from custody, then the date of release is estimated
based on the sentence length and the appropriate laws in the jurisdiction
(e.g., in Canada, assume that the offender was released at 2/3 of their
sentence, i.e., on the Statutory Release Date).
The concept of pseudo-recidivism applies
to years free prior to the index offence. Pseudo-recidivism occurs when
an offender currently involved in the criminal justice process is charged
with old offences for which the offender had never before been charged.
The offender has not experienced a legal consequence and then chosen
to reoffend again. Therefore the offence is termed pseudo-recidivism.
To count years free prior to the index offence the offender must commit
the index offence after being released from a previous offence. For example,
if the offender committed the index offence in the early 1980s and was
convicted for the offence in 2007, but has convictions in 2005 and 2006
for other offences, he would not get a point for this item.
Some examples of calculating Years Free
Prior to Index that involve pseudo-recidivism are discussed below
Example No. 1
| Criminal
Record for Joe Smith |
|---|
| Date |
Charge |
Disposition |
|---|
| 1998 |
Sexual Assault |
Victim absconds and charges are dropped |
| 2000 | Theft |
Sentenced to 1 year jail time and released |
| 2003 |
Sexual Assault |
Convicted of the 1998 sexual offence |
If
this offender had no criminal record prior to the date he committed
the index sex offence, he would not get a point for Time Free because
he did not sexually reoffend after being caught for a previous crime. |
Example No. 2
| Criminal
Record for Joe Smith |
|---|
| Date | Charge |
Disposition |
|---|
| 1996 |
Released from prison |
|
| 1997 |
Sexual Assault | |
| 1998 |
Theft |
Sentenced to 1 year jail and released |
| 2003 |
Sexual Assault |
Convicted of the 1997 sexual offence |
In
this case, the offender would get a point for Time Free because the
new sexual offence (the index sexual offence) was committed less than
three years after being released from prison.
|
14. Any Prior Non-sexual Violence Sentencing
Occasion
Background: A history of
violence predicts sexual and violent recidivism (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon,
2004). In English data, convictions for prior non-sexual violence were
specifically predictive of rape (forced sexual penetration) rather than
all kinds of sexual offences (Thornton & Travers, 1991). In some
English datasets this item has also been predictive of reconviction
for any sex offence. Sub-analyses of additional data sets confirm the
relation of prior non-sexual violence and sexual recidivism (Hanson & Thornton, 2003).
Information Required to Score this
Item: To score this item you must have access to an official
criminal record as compiled by police or any other law enforcement agency,
court, or correctional authorities. Self-report of criminal convictions
may not be used to score this item except in specific rare situations
(see subsection "Official Criminal Record," page 5).
The Basic Rule: If the offender’s
criminal record shows a separate sentencing occasion for a non-sexual
violent offence prior to the index sex offence, you score the offender
a "1" on this item. If the offender’s criminal record does not
show a separate sentencing occasion for a non-sexual violent offence
prior to their index sex offence, you score the offender a "0" on
this item.
This item refers to convictions for non-sexual
violence (by name of charge and underlying behaviour) that are dealt
with on a sentencing occasion that pre-dates the index sex offence sentencing
occasion and is separate from any other sentencing occasion that included
a sexual offence. A separate non-sexual violence sentencing occasion
is required to score this item. These sentencing occasions can involve
the same victim as the index sex offence or they can involve a different
victim, but the offender must have a sentencing occasion for this non-sexual
violence offence before the sentencing occasion for the index sex offence.
All non-sexual violence sentencing occasions are included, providing
they were dealt with on a sentencing occasion prior to the index sex
offence and separate from any other sexual sentencing occasions.
Both juvenile sentencing occasions and
adult sentencing occasions count in this section. In cases where a juvenile
is not charged with a violent offence but is moved to a secure or more
secure residential placement as the result of a non-sexually violent
incident, this does not count as a sentencing occasion for non-sexual
violence.
A determination of a disposition by a
court following the finding of not guilty by reason of insanity counts
for this item if the charged offence was non-sexual violence and if
the disposition includes either institutional and/or mandated community
supervision sanction/care.
Rule: In Static-2002 there are
no situations where the same sentencing occasion can count as both a
prior sexual sentencing occasion and a prior non-sexual violence sentencing
occasion. If the sentencing occasion was for a violent offence by name
such as "battery" or "assault" and the evaluator knows that
there was a sexual component or intent to the offence, this sentencing
occasion counts as sexually related and not as a non-sexual violence
sentencing occasion. This can occur in cases where a sexual charge was
pled down to a violent charge. Similarly, sometimes it is difficult
to prove the sexual component of an offence (particularly for offenders
who have assaulted prostitutes) and the offender may only be charged
with a violent offence. Any time the evaluator concludes that the offence
was sexually motivated, it is counted as a prior sexual offence and
cannot be scored as a prior non-sexual violence sentencing occasion.
Separating Index Clusters and Prior Offences
There are cases where it can be difficult
to distinguish index clusters from prior offences, particularly when
sexual offending occurs over a period of several years. Keep in mind
the general rule that to be a prior sexual sentencing occasion, the
offence and the conviction must have occurred before at least one of
the index sexual offences. Some examples are provided on pages 24-29
and pages 79-80.
Non-sexual Violence Offences
The following offences are considered
non-sexual violence provided there is no underlying sexual motivation:
- Aggravated assault
- Arson
- Assault
- Assault causing bodily harm
- Assault peace/police officer
- Attempted abduction
- Attempted child stealing
- Attempted robbery
- Compelling the commission
of an offence
- Criminal Harassment
- Cruelty to animals
- False imprisonment
- Felonious assault
- Forcible confinement
- Give noxious substance (alcohol.
narcotics, or other stupefacient in order to impair a victim)
- Grand theft person ("Grand
theft person" is a variation on robbery and may be counted as non-sexual
violence)
- Juvenile non-sexual violence
sentencing occasions count on this item
- Kidnapping
- Manslaughter
- Murder
- "PINS" Petition (Person
in need of supervision). There have been cases where a juvenile has
been removed from his home by judicial action under a "PINS" petition
due to violent actions. This would count as a sentencing occasion for
non-sexual violence.
- Robbery
- Threatening
- Using/pointing a weapon/firearm
in the commission of an offence
- Violation of a domestic violence
order (restraining order; a conviction for)
- Wounding
For this item, the final conviction must
be for a violent offence (as opposed to behaviour that may have been
motivated by violence). In cases where there is uncertainty, an offence
is considered violent if the Criminal Code (or other relevant statute)
definition of the offence includes a mandatory component involving some
sort of force, touching, threats, and/or the behaviour directly leads
to concern for one’s safety (except in the cases of dangerous driving
or negligence).
Excluded are:
- Arrest/charges
- Convictions overturned on
appeal or resulting in complete acquittal
- Non-sexual violence that occurs
after the index sex offence
- Institutional rules violations
- Driving accidents or sentencing
occasions for negligence causing death or injury.
- Offences that included elements
of violent behaviour but did not result in a sentencing occasion for
a violent offence by name.
- "Unfit to stand trial"
Special Coding Issues
Convictions Coded Only as Sentencing Occasions
for Sexual Offences
- Sexual assault, sexual assault
with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, and sexual assault causing
bodily harm are not coded separately as Non-sexual Violence – these
convictions are simply coded as sexual sentencing occasions.
- Assault with intent to commit
rape (U.S. Charge) – A conviction under this charge is scored only
as a sexual sentencing occasion – Do not code as Non-sexual Violence.
- Convictions for sexual battery
(U.S. Charge) – A conviction under this charge is scored only as a
sexual sentencing occasion – Do not code as Non-sexual Violence.
In Static-2002, a sentencing occasion
is either a Sexual Sentencing Occasion or a Non-sexual Violence Sentencing
Occasion (not both). Alternately, a sentencing occasion could be neither
sexual nor violent (e.g., theft). Any offence that indicates non-sexual
violence by name but the behaviours or intent indicate a sexual offence
should be coded as a "Prior Sentencing Occasion for a Sexual Offence"
and not non-sexual violence.
Homicide
– With a Sexual Component
A sexual homicide offender who solely
gets convicted of murder does not receive a risk point for "Non-Sexual
Violence." This murder only counts as a sexual sentencing occasion.
Military
If an "undesirable discharge" is
given to a member of the military as the direct result of a violent
offence (i.e., striking an officer) this counts as a "Non-Sexual Violence"
sentencing occasion and as an "Prior Sentencing Occasion for Anything."
However, if the member left the military when he normally would have
and the "undesirable discharge" is equivalent to a bad job reference,
this offence does not count as "Non-sexual Violence" or as a "Prior
Sentencing Occasion for Anything."
Resisting Arrest
Resisting Arrest does not count as non-sexual
violence. In Canadian and United States law this charge can apply to
individuals who run from an officer or who hold onto a lamppost to delay
arrest. If an offender fights back he will generally be charged with
"assault to a peace/police officer" which counts as non-sexual violence.
Alternately, "assault with intent to resist arrest" would
also count as non-sexual violence.
Revocation of Conditional Release for
"Lifers," Dangerous Offenders,
and Others with Indeterminate Sentences
If a "lifer," Dangerous Offender,
or other offender with an already imposed indeterminate sentence has
been revoked (returned to prison from conditional release in the community
without trial) for a non-sexual violent offence that happened prior
to the index sexual offence (or at least one of the offences within
an index cluster) this revocation stands as a conviction for non-sexual
violence if that non-sexually violent act were sufficient that it would
generally attract a separate
criminal conviction for a violent offence. Note: The evaluator
should be confident that were this offender not already under sanction
that it is highly likely that a violent offence charge would be laid
by police and a conviction would be highly likely.
Weapons Offences
Weapons offences do not count unless
the weapon was used in the commission of an offence. For example, an
offender might be charged with an offence and then in a search of the
offender’s home the police discover a loaded firearm. As a result,
the offender is convicted, in addition to the original offence, of unsafe
weapons storage. This does not count as a sentencing occasion for non-sexual
violence as the weapons were not used in the commission of an offence.
A sentencing occasion for Possession
of a firearm or Possession of a firearm without a license
generally does not count as a non-sexual violent offence. A conviction
for Pointing a firearm generally does count as non-sexual violence
as long as the weapon was used to threaten or gain victim compliance.
Intent to harm or menace the victim with the weapon must be present
in order to score a point on this item.
References
Barbaree, H. E., & Blanchard,
R. (2008). Sexual deviance over the lifespan: Reductions in deviant
sexual behaviour in the aging sex offender. In D. R. Laws & W. T.
O’Donohue (Eds.), Sexual deviance: Theory, assessment, and treatment,
2nd ed. (pp. 37-60). New York: Guilford.
Boer, D. P., Hart, S. D., Kropp,
P. R., & Webster, C. D. (1997). Manual for the Sexual Violence
Risk – 20: Professional guidelines for assessing risk of sexual
violence. Vancouver, B.C.: The British Columbia Institute Against
Family Violence.
Doren, D. M. (in press). Determining
the effect aging has on sexual recidivism risk. In A. Schlank (Ed.).
The sexual predator (Vol. IV). Kingston, NJ: Civic
Research Institute.
Freund, K., & Watson, R. (1991).
Assessment of the sensitivity and specificity of a phallometric test:
An update of phallometric diagnosis of pedophilia. Psychological
Assessment, 3, 254-260.
Hanson, R. K. (2002). Recidivism
and age: Follow-up data on 4,673 sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 17, 1046-1062.
Hanson, R. K. (2006). Does Static-99
predict recidivism among older sexual offenders? Sexual Abuse: A
Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 343-355.
Hanson, R. K., & Bussière, M.
T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism
studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348-362.
Hanson, R. K., Harris, A. J. R.,
Scott, T.-L., & Helmus, L. (2007). [Recidivism data for Aboriginal
and special needs offenders from Assessing the risk of sexual offenders
on community supervision: The Dynamic Supervision Project (User
Report No. 2007-05). Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada]. Unpublished
raw data.
Hanson, R. K., Helmus, L., &
Thornton, D. (in press). Predicting recidivism among sexual offenders:
A multi-site study of Static-2002. Law and Human Behavior.
Hanson, R. K., Lloyd, C. D., Helmus,
L., & Thornton, D. (2008). Using multiple samples to estimate
percentile ranks and relative risk ratios for actuarial risk tools:
A Canadian example using Static-99 and
Static-2002. Unpublished manuscript.
Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon,
K. (2004). Predictors of sexual recidivism: An
updated meta-analysis (User Report No. 2004-02). Ottawa, ON: Public
Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.
Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon,
K. E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A
meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1154-1163.
Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon,
K. E. (2009). The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual
offenders: A meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychological
Assessment, 21, 1-21.
Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D.
(2003). Notes on the development of the Static-2002 (User Report
No. 2003-01). Ottawa, ON: Solicitor General Canada.
Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy
Checklist – Revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Harris, A. J. R., & Hanson, R.
K. (2004). Sex offender recidivism: A simple question (User Report
2004-03). Ottawa, ON: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.
Helmus, L. M. D. (2007). A multi-site
comparison of the validity and utility of the Static-99 and Static-2002
for risk assessment with sexual offenders. Unpublished B.A. thesis,
Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M.
R. (1983). Age and the explanation of crime. American Journal of
Sociology, 89, 552-584.
Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice,
M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (2006). Violent offenders: Appraising
and managing risk (2nd Ed.). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H.
(2003). Life-course desisters? Trajectories of crime among delinquent
boys followed to age 70. Criminology, 41, 555-592.
Seto, M. C., & Lalumière, M.
L. (2001). A brief screening scale to identify pedophilic interests
among child molesters. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment,
13, 15-25.
Soothill, K. L., Way, C., & Gibenns,
T. C. N. (1980). Rape acquittals. Modern Law Review, 43, 159-172.
Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal
intelligence. New York: MacMillan.
Thornton, D., & Knight, R. (2007,
March). Do sexual offenders age out of risk? Presentation at
the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA.
Thornton, D. & Travers, R. (1991,
October). A Longitudinal study of the criminal behaviour of convicted
sexual offenders. Proceedings of the Prison Psychologist's Conference
in Scarborough (pp. 13-22). London, UK: Her Majesty’s Prison Service.
Appendix
I
Static-2002
Coding Form
STATIC-2002
CODING |
|
|
ITEMS |
Raw Score |
Subscore |
AGE
1. Age at Release
50 or older = 0
35 to 49.9 = 1
25 to 34.9 = 2
18 to 24.9 = 3 |
|
|
PERSISTENCE
OF SEXUAL OFFENDING
2. Prior Sentencing Occasions for
Sexual Offences:
No prior sentencing dates for sexual offences = 0
1 = 1
2, 3 = 2
4 or more = 3
|
|
|
3. Any Juvenile Arrest for a Sexual
Offence and Convicted as an Adultfor
a Separate Sexual Offence:
No arrest for a sexual offence prior to age 18 = 0
Arrest prior to age 18 and conviction after age 18 = 1 |
|
4. Rate of Sexual Offending:
Less than one sentencing occasion every 15 years = 0
One or more sentencing occasions every 15 years = 1 |
|
Persistence Raw Score
(subtotal of Sexual Offending)
0 = 0
1 = 1
2, 3 = 2
4, 5 = 3 |
|
|
Persistence of Sexual
Offending SUBSCORE |
|
|
DEVIANT
SEXUAL INTERESTS
5. Any Sentencing Occasion For Non-contact
Sex Offences:
No = 0
Yes = 1
|
|
|
6. Any Male Victim:
No = 0
Yes = 1 |
|
7. Young, Unrelated Victims:
Does not have two or more victims < 12, one of them unrelated
= 0
Does have two or more victims < 12 years, one must be unrelated =
1 |
|
Deviant Sexual Interest SUBSCORE |
|
|
RELATIONSHIP
TO VICTIMS
8. Any Unrelated Victim:
No = 0
Yes = 1
|
|
|
9. Any Stranger Victim:
No = 0
Yes = 1 |
|
Relationship to Victims
SUBSCORE |
|
|
GENERAL
CRIMINALITY
10. Any Prior Involvement with the
Criminal Justice System
No = 0
Yes = 1
|
|
|
11. Prior Sentencing Occasions For
Anything:
0-2 prior sentencing occasions for anything = 0
3-13 prior sentencing occasions = 1
14 or more prior sentencing occasions = 2 |
|
12. Any Community Supervision Violation:
No = 0
Yes = 1 |
|
13. Years Free Prior to Index Sex
Offence:
- More than 36 months free prior
to committing the sexual offence that resulted in the index conviction
AND more than 48 months free prior to index conviction = 0
- Less than 36 months free prior
to committing the sexual offence that resulted in
the index conviction OR less than 48 months free prior to conviction
for index sex offence = 1
|
|
14. Any Prior Non-sexual Violence
Sentencing Occasion:
No = 0
Yes = 1 |
|
General Criminality
raw score (subtotal General Criminality items)
0 = 0
1, 2 = 1
3, 4 = 2
5, 6 = 3 |
|
|
|
General Criminality SUBSCORE |
|
TOTAL
0-14 |
|
Translating Static-2002 scores
into risk categories
0-2 = low risk
3-4 = low-moderate risk
5-6 = moderate risk
7-8 = moderate-high risk
9+ = high risk
Appendix II
Frequencies and Percentile Ranks
Frequency Distribution and Percentile
Ranks on Static-2002 for the Canadian Non-Custodial, Provincial, and
Federal Samples.
| Static-2002
Score | |
Non-Custodial |
|
Provincial |
|
Federal |
|---|
| |
Frequency |
|
Percentile |
|
Frequency | |
Percentile |
|
Frequency |
|
Percentile |
|---|
| |
n |
303 |
|
|
|
254 |
|
|
|
1,841 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0 |
|
17 |
|
5.6 |
|
9 |
|
3.5 |
|
62 |
|
3.4 |
| 1 |
|
39 |
|
18.5 |
|
22 |
|
12.2 |
|
125 |
|
10.2 |
| 2 |
|
54 |
|
36.3 |
|
32 |
|
24.8 |
|
189 |
|
20.4 |
| 3 |
|
57 |
|
55.1 |
|
40 |
|
40.6 |
|
247 |
|
33.8 |
| 4 |
|
56 |
|
73.6 |
|
43 |
|
57.5 |
|
261 |
|
48.0 |
| 5 |
|
36 |
|
85.5 |
|
47 |
|
76.0 |
|
290 |
|
63.8 |
| 6 |
|
19 |
|
91.7 |
|
29 |
|
87.4 |
|
258 |
|
77.8 |
| 7 |
|
13 |
|
96.0 |
|
9 |
|
90.9 |
|
173 |
|
87.2 |
| 8 |
|
10 |
|
99.3 |
|
7 |
|
93.7 |
|
128 |
|
94.1 |
| 9 |
|
1 |
|
99.7 |
|
10 |
|
97.6 |
|
57 |
|
97.2 |
| 10 |
|
1 |
|
100.0 |
|
6 |
|
100.0 |
|
34 |
|
99.1 |
| 11 |
|
- |
|
- |
|
- |
|
- |
|
14 |
|
99.8 |
| 12 |
|
- |
|
- |
|
- |
|
- |
|
3 |
|
100.0 |
In Canada, sentences of less than two
years are served in provincial jails, while sentences of two or more
years are served in federal prisons.
Source: Hanson et al. (2008)
For further information, contact Karl
Hanson at karl.hanson@ps.gc.ca
Estimated Percentiles for Static-2002
Scores for Adjudicated Canadian Sexual Offenders.
| Static-2002
Score |
|
Cumulative % Starting with
Lowest Score |
| Cumulative % Starting with
Highest Score |
|---|
| |
Percentile |
|
95% CI of Percentile |
| Percentile |
|
95% CI of Percentile |
|---|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| 0 |
|
0 – 4.6 |
|
0 – 6.1 |
| 95.4 – 100.0 |
|
93.9 – 100.0 |
| 1 |
|
4.6 – 15.2 | |
3.0 – 17.9 |
|
84.8 – 95.4 |
|
82.1 – 97.0 |
| 2 |
|
15.2 – 30.2 |
|
12.6 – 33.6 |
| 69.8 – 84.8 |
|
66.4 – 87.4 |
| 3 |
|
30.2 – 47.3 | |
26.8 – 50.9 |
|
52.7 – 69.8 |
|
49.1 – 73.2 |
| 4 |
|
47.3 – 64.7 |
|
43.6 – 68.1 |
| 35.3 – 52.7 |
|
31.9 – 56.4 |
| 5 |
|
64.7 – 79.5 | |
61.2 – 82.3 |
|
20.5 – 35.3 |
|
17.7 – 38.8 |
| 6 |
|
79.5 – 88.5 |
|
76.7 – 90.7 |
| 11.5 – 20.5 |
|
9.3 – 23.3 |
| 7 |
|
88.5 – 93.1 | |
86.4 – 94.8 |
|
6.9 – 11.5 |
|
5.2 – 13.6 |
| 8 |
|
93.1 – 94.1 |
|
91.5 – 95.2 |
| 5.9 – 6.9 |
|
4.8 – 8.5 |
| 9 |
|
94.1 – 98.6 | |
93.0 – 99.4 |
|
1.4 – 5.9 |
|
0.6 – 7.0 |
| 10 |
|
98.6 – 99.90 |
|
97.9 – 99.95 |
| 0.1 – 1.4 |
|
0.05 – 2.1 |
| 11 |
|
99.90 – 99.98 | |
99.85 – 100.0 |
|
0.02 – 0.1 |
|
0 – 0.15 |
| 12+ |
|
99.98 – 100.0 |
|
99.96 – 100.0 |
| 0 – 0.02 |
|
0 – 0.04 |
Interpretation Example:
For a score of 6: Compared to other adult
male sexual offenders in Canada, Mr. ____’s score falls into the 79.5
to 88.5 percentile. Factoring in the 95% confidence interval, this range
could be as wide as the 76.7 to 90.7 percentile. This percentile range
means that 76.7 to 90.7% of sex offenders in Canada scored at or below
Mr. ______’s score. Conversely, 9.3 to 23.3% of sex offenders in Canada
scored higher.
Source: Hanson et al. (2008)
For further information, contact Karl
Hanson at karl.hanson@ps.gc.ca
Appendix
III
Recidivism Rate Table (Generated from Logistic
Regression)*
| |
5 Year Sexual
Recidivism (%)
|
|
10 Year Sexual
Recidivism (%) |
|---|
Static-2002
Score |
Routine CSC Samples
|
Preselected High Risk Samples |
|
Routine CSC Samples |
Preselected High Risk Samples |
|---|
| 0
|
1.3 |
6.7 |
|
1.3 |
11.3 |
| 1
|
1.8 | 8.2 |
|
1.8 |
13.3 |
| 2
|
2.4 | 9.9 |
|
2.6 |
15.6 |
| 3
|
3.3 | 12.0 |
|
3.6 |
18.2 |
| 4
|
4.6 | 14.4 |
|
5.1 |
21.2 |
| 5
|
6.2 | 17.3 |
|
7.1 |
24.5 |
| 6
|
8.4 | 20.5 |
|
9.7 |
28.1 |
| 7
|
11.3 | 24.2 |
|
13.3 |
32.1 |
| 8
|
15.0 | 28.4 |
|
17.9 |
36.3 |
| 9
|
19.7 | 32.9 |
|
23.6 |
40.8 |
| 10
|
25.4 | 37.8 |
|
30.5 |
45.4 |
| 11
|
32.1 | 43.0 |
|
38.4 |
50.1 |
| 12+
|
39.6 | 48.2 |
|
46.9 |
54.8 |
Total N**
|
734 |
960 |
|
342 |
661 |
Note: CSC = Correctional Service of Canada
(CSC administers all sentences of two or more years)
*For further information on the analyses
used to generate these tables and the rationale for reporting risk as
a range bounded by the CSC and preselected high risk sample types, see
Hanson et al. (in press).
**N is the total sample size used in
the logistic regression analysis to generate predicted recidivism values.
It is not the sample size with a particular Static-2002 score. This
is because logistic regression uses information on the relationship
between Static-2002 and recidivism in the complete dataset to generate
predicted values.
Appendix
IV
Relative Risk Table
Converting Static-2002 Scores to Relative
Risk (Risk Ratios) compared to the "Typical" Sex Offender
(Static-2002 score of 4)
| |
Logistic Regression
Estimates (10 year sexual recidivism)
|
|
|
|---|
Score |
Predicted Recidivism Rate |
95% C. I.
|
|
Risk Ratios |
|---|
0 |
5.5 |
3.7 |
8.0 |
|
.4 |
| 1
|
7.0 |
5.1 |
9.6 | |
.5 |
| 2
|
8.9 |
6.8 |
11.6 | |
.6 |
| 3
|
11.3 |
9.1 |
14.0 | |
.8 |
| 4
|
14.2 |
11.9 |
16.8 | |
1.0 |
| 5
|
17.7 |
15.4 |
20.3 | |
1.2 |
| 6
|
21.8 |
19.4 |
24.5 | |
1.5 |
| 7
|
26.6 |
23.7 |
29.7 | |
1.9 |
| 8
|
32.0 |
28.3 |
36.0 | |
2.2 |
| 9
|
38.0 |
33.0 |
43.1 | |
2.7 |
| 10
|
44.3 |
38.0 |
50.8 | |
3.1 |
| 11
|
50.8 |
43.1 |
58.5 | |
3.6 |
| 12
|
57.3 |
48.3 |
65.8 | |
4.0 |
Note: Although the relative risk rankings
(risk ratios) are relatively constant, the predicted recidivism rates
vary across jurisdictions, settings and samples. For more information
on absolute recidivism rates, see Hanson, Helmus, and Thornton (in press).
Appendix V
Standard Paragraph for Reporting Static-2002
in Applied Evaluations
Static-2002 is an instrument designed
to assist in the prediction of sexual and violent recidivism for sex
offenders. Hanson and Thornton (2003) developed this risk assessment
instrument based on follow-up studies from Canada, the United States,
and the United Kingdom with a total sample size of 2,169 sexual offenders.
Using eight replication samples from four countries (Canada, UK, US,
Denmark; n = 3,034), Static-2002 demonstrated moderate to large accuracy
in the prediction of sexual, violent, and general recidivism (Hanson,
Helmus, & Thornton, in press). Static-2002 consists of 14 items
and produces estimates of relative risk based upon the number of risk
factors present in any one individual. The risk factors included in
the risk assessment instrument are grouped into five domains: age, persistence
of sex offending, deviant sexual interests, relationship to victims,
and general criminality.
Normative data for Static-2002 scores
were based on a sample of Canadian sexual offenders (n = 2,398)
that was re-weighted according to type of sentence (federal prison,
provincial prison, and non-custodial) to approximate the real distribution
of Canadian sex offenders (Hanson, Lloyd, Helmus, & Thornton, 2008).
The norms are presented as percentile ranges, reflecting the estimated
percentage of offenders scoring at or below a specified score. In other
words percentiles provide a relative ranking. Relative rankings are
thought to be most useful in situations were the allocation of limited
resources must be made, such as for treatment, community supervision,
etc. Absolute degrees of recidivism risk cannot be directly inferred
from these relative rankings. The appropriateness of applying the estimated
Canadian distribution of Static-2002 scores to sexual offenders in other
countries is not yet known.
On Static-2002, an offender can be placed
in one of five risk categories based on their total score (ranging from
0-14): low (0 – 2), low-moderate (3, 4), moderate (5, 6), moderate-high
(7, 8) and high (9+). Mr. X scored [number] on the Static-2002. This
score places Mr. X in the XXXX risk category. Compared to other adult
male sexual offenders in Canada, his score falls into the xxxxx to xxxxx
percentile. Factoring in the 95% confidence interval, this range
could be as wide as the aa-bb percentile. This percentile range means
that cc-dd percent of sex offenders in Canada scored at or below Mr.
X’s score. Conversely, ee-ff of sex offenders in Canada scored higher.
The recidivism rate of offenders with
the same score as Mr. X would be expected to be (one quarter/one third/half/two-thirds/four-fifths)
of the (FOR SCORES LOWER THAN 4), the same as (FOR
SCORES OF 4), X.X times higher than (FOR SCORES GREATER THAN
4) the recidivism rate of the typical sexual offender (defined as
a median score of 4).
There have been several studies examining
the sexual recidivism rates associated with Static-2002 scores. Hanson,
Helmus, and Thornton (in press) summarized the results of 8 samples of sexual offenders (N =
3,034) drawn from Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Denmark. In these samples, recidivism was defined as charges in half
of the samples and as convictions in the other half.1
These recent studies found that there
is meaningful variation in the sexual recidivism rates based on factors
not measured by Static-2002. Samples that were preselected to be high
risk (3 samples) show the highest recidivism rates, and routine samples
from the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC; 3 samples) show recidivism
rates substantially lower than the original developmental samples. Consequently,
in order to evaluate the recidivism risk of Mr. XXX, we need to consider
the extent to which he resembles the typical member of the preselected
high risk samples or the typical member of the CSC samples. The exact
differences between the preselected high risk and CSC samples are not
fully known; nevertheless, the following features are worth considering.
The CSC Samples
The Correctional Service of Canada administers
sentences of two years or more. The typical member of the CSC samples
would have graduated from both specialized sexual offender treatment
programs as well as programs addressing other criminogenic needs. During
the 1990s, when the offenders in the CSC samples were incarcerated,
CSC treatment programs were based on principles that are known to be
effective in reducing criminal recidivism (Risk/Need/Responsivity; Andrews
& Bonta, 2006). As well, the typical member of the CSC samples would
have been supported through a gradual re-integration into the community
by parole supervision and human service programming.
The Preselected High Risk Samples
In contrast, most members of the preselected
high risk samples included offenders who had been judged by a court
or administrative tribunal to be of sufficiently high recidivism risk
to warrant exceptional measures (e.g., preventive or indefinite detention,
treatment orders, denial of statutory release). The factors considered
in making these determinations are not fully known and would vary across
samples; however, it would be expected that factors external to Static-2002
were considered (e.g., recent antisocial behaviour, self reported sexual
deviancy, resistance to treatment, dynamic risk factors) along with
factors already included in Static-2002 (e.g., number of prior sexual
offence convictions).
The risk estimates for Static-2002 are
determined by logistic regression. This is because logistic regression
takes into account the recidivism rate associated with a single score
in the context of the overall relationship between Static-2002 and recidivism.
This reduces the impact of unreliable, random variations in the observed
recidivism rates that are due to fewer subjects within a given subgroup.
The logistic regression estimates of
sexual recidivism are "bounded" by the lower rates of recidivism
found in the CSC samples and the higher rates found in the preselected
high risk samples.
For sexual recidivism, the range of risk
for a score of XXXX on Static-2002 is XXXX to XXXX in five years and
XXXX to XXXX in ten years.
These recidivism rates, derived from
the routine CSC and preselected high risk samples, are empirically based
actuarial estimates. Given that the differences between samples are
not fully known, evaluators need to use their professional judgement
in order to make statements about where in this range the risk of a
particular offender is situated.
This judgement should be based on a careful
consideration of the features that Mr. XXXX shares with the routine
CSC samples and the preselected high risk samples. Determining an offender’s
risk within the empirically derived ranges is a separate task from the
explicit and empirically derived actuarial estimates presented above.
References
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2006).
The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Cincinnati,
OH: LexisNexis.
Hanson, R. K., Helmus, L., &
Thornton, D. (in press). Predicting recidivism among sexual offenders:
A multi-site study of Static-2002. Law and Human Behavior.
Hanson, R. K., Lloyd, C. D., Helmus,
L., & Thornton, D. (2008). Using multiple samples to estimate
percentile ranks and relative risk ratios for actuarial risk tools:
A Canadian example using Static-99 and Static-2002. Unpublished
manuscript.
Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D.
(2003). Notes on the development of the Static-2002 (User Report
No. 2003-01). Ottawa, ON: Solicitor General Canada.
Appendix
VI
Standard
Paragraph for Reporting Static-2002 in Applied Evaluations:
Examples
To be read in conjunction
with "Standard paragraph for reporting Static-2002 in applied evaluations"
Note: This example is a shortened
version of the full paragraph. Evaluators are encouraged to
modify the standard paragraph according to their needs.
Static-2002 is an instrument designed
to assist in the prediction of sexual and violent recidivism for sex
offenders. Hanson and Thornton (2003) developed this risk assessment
instrument based on follow-up studies from Canada, the United States,
and the United Kingdom with a total sample size of 2,169 sexual offenders.
Using eight replication samples from four countries (Canada, UK, US,
Denmark; n = 3,034), Static-2002 demonstrated moderate to large accuracy
in the prediction of sexual, violent, and general recidivism (Hanson,
Helmus, & Thornton, in press). Static-2002 consists of 14 items
and produces estimates of relative risk based upon the number of risk
factors present in any one individual. The risk factors included in
the risk assessment instrument are grouped into five domains: age, persistence
of sex offending, deviant sexual interests, relationship to victims,
and general criminality.
Normative data for Static-2002 scores
were based on a sample of Canadian sexual offenders (n = 2,398)
that was re-weighted according to type of sentence (federal prison,
provincial prison, and non-custodial) to approximate the real distribution
of Canadian sex offenders (Hanson, Lloyd, Helmus, & Thornton, 2008).
The norms are presented as percentile ranges, reflecting the estimated
percentage of offenders scoring at or below a specified score. In other
words percentiles provide a relative ranking. Relative rankings are
thought to be most useful in situations were the allocation of limited
resources must be made, such as for treatment, community supervision,
etc. Absolute degrees of recidivism risk cannot be directly inferred
from these relative rankings. The appropriateness of applying the estimated
Canadian distribution of Static-2002 scores to sexual offenders in other
countries is not yet known.
EXAMPLE
– Mr. Hanson with a score of 9
On Static-2002, an offender can be
placed in one of five risk categories based on their total score (ranging
from 0-14): low (0 – 2), low-moderate (3, 4), moderate (5, 6), moderate-high
(7, 8) and high (9+). Mr. Hanson scored 9 on the Static-2002. This score
places Mr. Hanson in the high risk category.
Compared to other adult male sexual offenders in Canada, his score falls
into the 94.1 to 98.6 percentile. Factoring in the
95% confidence interval, this range could be as wide as the 93.0 to
99.4 percentile. This percentile range means that 93.0 to 99.4 percent
of sex offenders in Canada scored at or below Mr. Hanson’s score.
Conversely, 0.6 to 7.0 percent of sex offenders in
Canada scored higher.
The recidivism rate of sex offenders
with the same score as Mr. Hanson would be expected to be 2.7 times
higher than the recidivism rate of the typical sexual offender (defined
as a median score of 4).
EXAMPLE
– Mr. Thornton with a score of 0
On Static-2002, an offender can be
placed in one of five risk categories based on their total score (ranging
from 0-14): low (0 – 2), low-moderate (3, 4), moderate (5, 6), moderate-high
(7, 8) and high (9+). Mr. Thornton scored 0 on the Static-2002. This
score places Mr. Thornton in the low risk category.
Compared to other adult male sexual offenders in Canada, his score falls
into the lowest percentile (zero). Factoring in the 95% confidence
interval, this range could be as wide as the zero
to 6.1 percentile. This percentile range means that zero to 6.1 percent
of sex offenders in Canada scored at or below Mr. Thornton’s score.
Conversely, 93.9 to 100 percent of sex offenders in Canada scored higher.
The recidivism rate of sex offenders
with the same score as Mr. Thornton would be expected to be two-fifths
of the recidivism rate of the typical sexual offender (defined as a
median score of 4).
There have been several studies examining
the sexual recidivism rates associated with Static-2002 scores. Hanson,
Helmus, and Thornton (in press)
summarized the results of 8 samples of sexual offenders (N =
3,034) drawn from Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Denmark. In these samples, recidivism was defined as charges in half
of the samples and as convictions in the other half.2
These recent studies found that there
is meaningful variation in the sexual recidivism rates based on factors
not measured by Static-2002. Samples that were preselected to be high
risk (3 samples) show the highest recidivism rates, and routine samples
from the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC; 3 samples) show recidivism
rates substantially lower than the original developmental samples. Consequently,
in order to evaluate the recidivism risk of Mr. XXX, we need to consider
the extent to which he resembles the typical member of the preselected
high risk samples or the typical member of the CSC samples.
The logistic regression estimates of
sexual recidivism are "bounded" by the lower rates of recidivism
found in the CSC samples and the higher rates found in the preselected
high risk samples.
EXAMPLE
– Mr. Hanson with a score of 9
For sexual recidivism, the range of
risk for a score of 9 on Static-2002 is 19.7% to 32.9% in five years
and 23.6% to 40.8% in ten years.
EXAMPLE
– Mr. Thornton with a score of 0
For sexual recidivism the range of
risk for a score of 9 on Static-2002 is 1.3% to 6.7% in five years and
1.3% to 11.3% in ten years.
These recidivism rates, derived from
the routine CSC and preselected high risk samples, are empirically based
actuarial estimates. Given that the differences between samples are
not fully known, evaluators need to use their professional judgement
in order to make statements about where in this range the risk of a
particular offender is situated.
This judgement should be based on a careful
consideration of the features that Mr. XXXX shares with the routine
CSC samples and the preselected high risk samples. Determining an offender’s
risk within the empirically derived ranges is a separate task from the
explicit and empirically derived actuarial estimates presented above.
EXAMPLE
– Mr. Hanson with a score of 9
Mr. Hanson has some features similar
to the preselected high risk samples and some features similar to the
routine CSC samples. Mr. Hanson has already been determined to meet
the criteria for civil commitment, which means that at the time of the
determination, if valid, he had more risk factors external to Static-2002
than the typical sexual offender. On the other hand, he has participated
well in a range of programs that are consistent with contemporary standards
(i.e., likely to be effective), and there is no evidence of recent antisocial
behavior. Consequently, I believe that Mr. Hanson’s recidivism risk
at this time should be closer to the rates for the routine CSC samples
than the preselected high risk samples.
EXAMPLE
– Mr. Thornton with a score of 0
Mr. Thornton is currently serving
a federal sentence in the Correctional Service of Canada. Consequently,
I believe that Mr. Thornton’s recidivism risk at this time should
be closer to the rates for the routine CSC samples than the preselected
high risk samples. However, should Mr. Thornton display sufficient negative
behaviour in the institution (e.g., refusing or resisting treatment,
antisocial or aggressive behaviour) or be deemed sufficiently high risk
on other factors external to Static-2002 (e.g., dynamic risk factors)
that a Detention Order is pursued, then his recidivism risk may be closer
to the rates of the preselected high risk samples than the routine CSC
samples.
References
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2006).
The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Cincinnati,
OH: LexisNexis.
Hanson, R. K., Helmus, L., &
Thornton, D. (in press). Predicting recidivism among sexual offenders:
A multi-site study of Static-2002. Law and Human Behavior.
Hanson, R. K., Lloyd, C. D., Helmus,
L., & Thornton, D. (2008). Using multiple samples to estimate
percentile ranks and relative risk ratios for actuarial risk tools:
A Canadian example using Static-99 and Static-2002. Unpublished
manuscript.
Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D.
(2003). iNotes on the development of the Static-2002 (User Report
No. 2003-01). Ottawa, ON: Solicitor General Canada.