ABSTRACT
There has been some discussion in the literature regarding which outcome measure might be most appropriate in sexual offense recidivism research; i.e., violent (including sexual) recidivism vs. sexual re-offense on its own (Harris, Rice, Lang & Cormier, 2006; Babchishin, Hanson & Blais, 2016). Harris, Rice, Quinsey, and Cormier (2015) discuss the utility of the Sexual Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG), which is an assessment of risk for violence, including sexual recidivism. They present data that suggests this instrument is predictive of violent (including sexual) recidivism in offenders who have previous adjudications, both guilty findings and findings of Not Criminally Responsible due to Mental Disorder, for sexual recidivism on their criminal records. Harris et al. (e.g. Rice, Harris, Lang & Cormier, 2006) argue, based on analysis of the criminal records of offenders assessed at their forensic hospital between 1974 and 1994, that many sexual offenses are missed due to plea bargains, and that many sexual offenses appear on official criminal records as non-sexual offenses. They estimate that official sexual recidivism, as determined by charges or convictions which appear on criminal records, are underestimates by 25–33% (Harris, Rice, Quinsey & Cormier, 2015). They recommend using any violent re-offense as the outcome of choice for sexual offenders, even though they acknowledge that this is an over-inclusive option. However, these authors fail to acknowledge that their research examines historical offending, not re-offenses among already identified sexual offenders. As well, their review of records was limited to offenders assessed at their facility prior to 1994, and the charging and conviction practices employed in that period may not reflect those same practices more than 20 years later. For example, with a greater recognition of the seriousness of sexual offending, offenses which in the past may have been overlooked, would now result in charges/convictions.
