A violent sexual predator in Idaho who completes his sentence is released to the community without supervision, though experts say he may well offend again. No law stops it.

Such a predator need only register with the state's sex-offender registry. A violent sexual predator must check in once every 90 days. It took Joseph Edward Duncan III far less time than that to leave his home in Fargo, N.D., and kidnap a girl and boy from a Coeur d'Alene home, according to police. Three people in the household were killed, and the boy is missing; human remains found in Montana might be his.

Duncan's freedom resulted from decisions made in other states, but it reveals holes in Idaho laws that leave Idahoans exposed to severe public-safety risks. The Legislature should require long-term — even lifelong — supervision of sexual predators who have completed their sentences but whom courts deem likely to reoffend.

Idahoans have had more than their fill of horror stories in recent weeks.

• Michael P. Bauer, a former youth soccer coach, was indicted May 24 by an Ada County grand jury on charges that he sexually abused Boise-area teenagers and possessed child pornography.

• On June 16, San Jose, Calif., police said Dean A. Schwartzmiller may have committed sex crimes against thousands of victims. He coached a youth football team in Mountain Home in the 1970s and was sentenced in Canyon County in 1981 for up to 30 years for lewd conduct with a minor. A jailhouse lawyer, he served six years in prison, had his conviction overturned in 1987, was retried and set free.

• Now we have Duncan, 42, who was 16 when he sexually assaulted a 14-year-old boy in Tacoma, Wash. Washington authorities released him when his sentence ended in 2000 after evaluators found no evidence of a behavioral pattern showing he was likely to reoffend. He spent the next five years in Fargo. In April, authorities in Minnesota charged him with molesting a 6-year-old boy, but a judge released him on bail and he skipped town. Nine-year-old Dylan Groene and his 8-year-old sister, Shasta, were found missing May 16, and three relatives were found murdered.

Idaho's sex-offender registry lists 30 violent sexual predators no longer in prison, including one in violation of the 90-day reporting requirement. Fourteen predators are still in prison. Violent sexual predators are a small subset of sex offenders, the worst of the bunch.

The Idaho Correction Department reports 1,200 sex offenders in prison and 950 on probation or parole. One in five prison inmates is a sex offender, Director Tom Beauclair said.

Most offenders commit what authorities call situational offending. They often are friends or family members of their victims. "As long as they're kept out of certain environments and certain situations, they're fairly controllable," Beauclair said.

Beauclair strongly advocates treatment for them, and his department has started a $54,000-a-year program to treat about 40 of Idaho's incarcerated sex offenders — all Beauclair says he can afford. Offenders on parole who are required to undergo treatment must pay for treatment.

"There's not a lot of support anywhere to provide treatment for sex offenders, politically," he said. "It's not a population anyone wants to deal with. Unfortunately, long-term they're going to be your neighbor and my neighbor at some point. Without treatment, we can't expect much change. Punishment alone is not going to work."

But violent sexual predators don't respond to treatment, experts say. Fixated on young boys or girls, they're so deeply deviant that they're compelled to reoffend. Studies show they reoffend more than other sex offenders.

That's where Idaho laws come up short. Knowing the danger convicted predators pose, authorities don't want to release them on parole, and many stay in prison until their terms are finished and parole is no longer possible. Once a sentence is finished, there's not even minimal parole supervision.

Violent sexual predators must register for life to have their names, pictures and addresses posted on the online registry, and their pictures are published in local newspapers each year. But registering is no substitute for supervision. Residents who check the registry learn about violent sexual predators and lesser sexual offenders in their neighborhoods, but cannot be expected to use the list to protect their children from predators from elsewhere.

More supervision is needed.

"We don't have a huge population of violent sexual predators, but ... their path of destruction causes much more harm than a lot of other felony crimes," said Jean Fisher, deputy Ada County prosecutor. "There needs to be more emphasis on supervision."

Parole officers regulate violent predators as long as they're on parole. Idaho parole rules prohibit violent sex offenders from living near schools or day-care centers. "They can have a schedule of what they're approved to do or not approved every hour of the day," Beauclair said. When parole ends, so do the restrictions. Lifetime parole would solve that problem.

Some states, like Colorado and Washington, have adopted it already. Since 2001, Washington has sentenced some sex offenders to life with the option for parole review every two years. Colorado in 1998 passed a law requiring certain offenders to meet treatment goals before being released on parole, and to stay on parole for life.

Beauclair said he and Sen. Denton Darrington, R-Declo, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee, are looking into lifetime parole for violent sexual predators and certain other offenders. Beauclair thinks as many as one in five sexual offenders would never get off parole.

The costs to taxpayers of lifetime parole supervision must be calculated. Parolees already contribute $50 a month toward supervision, and that would help.

Lifetime parole holds promise for reducing the risk from sexual predators whose incarceration has ended but whose abnormal compulsions haven't. It can make Idaho safer. The Legislature should enact it in the 2006 session.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050710/NEWS0501/507100343/1001/NEWS

Most offenders commit what authorities call situational offending. They often are friends or family members of their victims. "As long as they're kept out of certain environments and certain situations, they're fairly controllable," Beauclair said.

Beauclair strongly advocates treatment for them, and his department has started a $54,000-a-year program to treat about 40 of Idaho's incarcerated sex offenders — all Beauclair says he can afford. Offenders on parole who are required to undergo treatment must pay for treatment.

"There's not a lot of support anywhere to provide treatment for sex offenders, politically," he said. "It's not a population anyone wants to deal with. Unfortunately, long-term they're going to be your neighbor and my neighbor at some point. Without treatment, we can't expect much change. Punishment alone is not going to work."

But violent sexual predators don't respond to treatment, experts say. Fixated on young boys or girls, they're so deeply deviant that they're compelled to reoffend. Studies show they reoffend more than other sex offenders.


I think the first thing that needs to be done is educating society on the differance between SO. As this article says violent offenders cant be rehabilitated, but other SO with supervision and rehabilitation could be rehabilitated with treatment. The fact that they are going to be living in society means as a society we have to help make out community safer. If that means investing money into helping those offenders that can be helped then thats what we should do. If 50 offenders entered a program and even only 10 of those offenders gained from the program then thats still 10 less offenders we as a society have to worry about. Now the rate of rehabilitation with non violent offenders is pretty good so chances are out of that 50 more then 10 would actually gain from a program. In the end society as a whole will gain.

We have to face the fact that we cant lock them all up and throw away the key so what is the next best thing we can do.

I think the first thing that needs to be done is educating society on the differance between SO. As this article says violent offenders cant be rehabilitated, but other SO with supervision and rehabilitation could be rehabilitated with treatment. The fact that they are going to be living in society means as a society we have to help make out community safer. If that means investing money into helping those offenders that can be helped then thats what we should do. If 50 offenders entered a program and even only 10 of those offenders gained from the program then thats still 10 less offenders we as a society have to worry about. Now the rate of rehabilitation with non violent offenders is pretty good so chances are out of that 50 more then 10 would actually gain from a program. In the end society as a whole will gain.

We have to face the fact that we cant lock them all up and throw away the key so what is the next best thing we can do. Very well said, Tanya! I also think the first thing that needs to be done is educating people on different SO. While society stereotypes, they'll still think a guy who had sex with a 17 year old and a predator who kills their victims is the same thing. :(

"The Legislature should require long-term — even lifelong — supervision of sexual predators who have completed their sentences but whom courts deem likely to reoffend."

In all cases mentioned, the registry wasn't effective. So, I am very glad you didn't mention the registry. Now, would supervised release have been any more effective with a person with Duncan's track record? The 90 checkin mentioned is "supervised release"

Let's see how the tracking devices work. If everyone on a tracking device anklet either stays clean and sober or is caught before they offend, then a workable solution might have been found.

Remember, there are over 550,000 sex offenders on the registry. 99% are not a threat to strangers. We've got to start figuring out which are a threat. Because "registration" and "supervised release" are ineffective for the ones who are likely to reoffend and they are unfairly damaging to the innocent families of those who are not a threat.

We've got to start figuring out which are a threat. Because "registration" and "supervised release" are ineffective for the ones who are likely to reoffend and they are unfairly damaging to the innocent families of those who are not a threat.
Very well said